The Army modification
Federal contract records dated October 27 show the Department of the Army awarding The Boeing Co. a $499,760,655 modification for Apache AH-64 engineering services and technical support. The record identifies the action as modification P00006 to contract W58RGZ21D0077. It lists Boeing as the recipient and carries the ticker BA. This is a modification to an existing contract, not a description of a newly created program or a separate aircraft purchase.
The value makes the Apache action the largest of the three recent Boeing or Boeing-linked Department of Defense contract rows in SecBot's data for October 16 and October 27. Two Navy awards dated October 16 provide useful context: Boeing received an $80,000,000 not-to-exceed contract for system improvements and configuration development, while a $90,826,949 Navy order went to Bell Boeing Joint Project Office. That order is mapped to BA and TXT. The records describe different contract actions, so their amounts should not be treated as interchangeable measures of booked Boeing sales.
| Contract record | Date | Listed amount |
|---|---|---|
| Army Apache AH-64 modification, P00006 | October 27 | $499,760,655 |
| Navy Boeing contract, N0001927D1006 | October 16 | $80,000,000 |
| Navy Bell Boeing order, N0001927F1025 | October 16 | $90,826,949 |
SecBot classifies the Army amount as an announced value. The row does not label it as an action obligation. That distinction matters: a stated contract value is not, by itself, evidence that the full amount was newly obligated on the award date. The record also does not break out a delivery timetable, annual funding, margin, or the portion of work that might be recognized as revenue in any particular reporting period. The announcement establishes the contract action and its listed value, not those financial outcomes.
What the contract record says
The award is described as a firm-fixed-price modification. Its stated purpose is engineering services and technical support for the Apache AH-64. The Army is the contracting agency; the named recipient is The Boeing Co. The record includes the contract identifier and modification number, which allow the event to be distinguished from other federal actions associated with Boeing. It does not include a count of aircraft, hours of support, work locations, or an end date. Those details should not be inferred from the dollar figure.
The distinction between the named contractor and a ticker mapping also deserves care. In this row, the contracting recipient is Boeing itself, and BA is the affected ticker. In the October 16 Navy order, the recipient is the Bell Boeing Joint Project Office, and the record associates the action with BA and TXT. That mapping is useful for discovering related company exposure, but it does not say how the order's value is divided between the companies. The contract records do not provide an allocation.
These details make the October 27 entry more specific than a generic headline about a large defense award. It names the Army, the aircraft program, the service scope, the contract number, the modification number, and the listed amount. At the same time, the reported amount should not be confused with cash received, earnings contribution, or remaining work on the underlying contract. The row provides none of those figures.
Recent Boeing contract context
The two Navy entries from October 16 show that the Army modification was not the only recent defense contract action mapped to Boeing. The $80,000,000 Navy award is described as not-to-exceed and covers system improvements plus configuration development. The Bell Boeing order is a cost-plus-incentive-fee order against a previously issued basic ordering agreement. Its listed amount is $90,826,949. These contract terms describe different structures, and the cited award values alone do not show the cost ultimately incurred or the amount paid.
The difference in scale is plain in the records: the Army action is close to half a billion dollars as stated, while the two Navy entries are smaller individual actions. No combined total is needed to establish that point, and adding these values would obscure their different recipients and contract structures. The three rows are a snapshot of locally ingested federal contract actions, not a complete inventory of Boeing's government work. Absence from this short set should not be read as evidence that no other award exists.
The wider company backdrop in SecBot's recent SEC filing records is mixed. Boeing filed a quarterly report and an earnings release on October 27. The local analysis of the earnings release reported quarterly revenue of $24,188,000,000 and a core loss per share of ($0.34). It also reported Defense, Space & Security revenue of $7,935,000,000, up 15% year over year. Those figures provide operating context, but they do not identify the Apache modification's contribution. The earnings material does not attribute those reported segment results to this contract.
Share price and reporting context
BA closed at $188.31 on October 26 and $168.18 on October 27 in the historical price data. That is a decline of 10.69% from the earlier close. The price move occurred on the same calendar date as the stored contract action and Boeing's quarterly filing. These records establish dates and values, but they do not establish that the contract announcement caused the share-price move. The data here does not provide an event study or isolate the effects of other news and trading activity.
The quarterly filing record includes a 10-Q accepted on October 27. A separate 8-K filing on that date carries the earnings-release classification in SecBot's index. The report attached to the earnings release characterized the quarter's adjusted earnings per share as below its listed consensus estimate and noted higher costs in the commercial airplane business. That financial context is important because one government contract action cannot stand in for the company's overall performance. A contract's announced value is not equivalent to profit, and the quarterly results cover a much broader business period.
Readers can review the company record at Boeing's SecBot stock page and the filing index at SecBot's SEC filings page. The available records do not answer whether the October modification adds funding to the contract's total ceiling or how the work is scheduled. They also do not disclose a contract-specific profit estimate. Those limits should stay attached to any comparison between the award and Boeing's quarterly financial results.
What to watch in the record
The next useful public detail would be a later contract action that states a new obligation, a revised value, or a performance period for W58RGZ21D0077. Such a record could clarify whether the listed modification amount becomes funded in stages. SecBot's present entry reports no such schedule, so it cannot supply one. Boeing's next relevant SEC filing could provide additional segment information, but the current filing summary does not connect the Apache work to a particular revenue line or margin.
The company's accessible filing history and contract feed also make it possible to keep unlike figures separate. A later modification reported as an obligation should be compared with other obligations, rather than casually set against this row's announced value. Similarly, the October 16 Navy award's not-to-exceed amount describes a ceiling, while the Bell Boeing record names a joint project office as recipient. Each source row has a different accounting meaning.
The latest Army action in this set is dated October 27, and its listed amount is $499,760,655. For ongoing SecBot coverage of contract records and related company filings, create an account.