America.co emblemAmerica.co
Federal Award Evidence · Transaction history

A negative contract transaction is a reduction, not automatically a scandal.

The short answer

Keep negative obligations in the calculation and investigate their context. NASA’s ISS deorbit contract reports +$132,474,874.08 on July 2, 2025 and −$132,474,874.08 on July 7, 2025. Those two entries net to zero. The amounts alone do not tell us why the adjustment happened, establish misconduct, or prove the entire contract was canceled.

Record essentials

Contract
80JSC024CA002
Verify this field ↗
Modification P00011
July 2, 2025: +$132,474,874.08
Verify this field ↗
Modification P00012
July 7, 2025: −$132,474,874.08
Verify this field ↗
Reported action type for both
FUNDING ONLY ACTION
Verify this field ↗
Net of this selected pair, calculated
$0.00
Verify this field ↗
Cumulative award obligations
$425,568,844.14
Verify this field ↗

Do the net arithmetic before interpreting the story

The two selected modifications have equal magnitudes and opposite signs. Counting only P00011 would add $132,474,874.08 to the apparent activity while ignoring the reversing entry five days later. Counting both gives zero for this pair, not zero for the entire contract.

The complete retrieved transaction list has 23 rows. Its signed sum matches the $425,568,844.14 cumulative obligation figure. For FY2025 alone, 11 rows sum to $400,351,633.10. These checks show why one selected row is an unreliable spending headline.

Selected-field source snapshot ↓ · Primary source 2 ↗

Keep three layers separate

Observation: the record contains a positive funding-only action followed by an equal negative funding-only action. Calculation: their net amount is zero. Explanation: the reason for that sequence is not established by these two fields.

USAspending describes de-obligations as decreases to previous obligations, which can reflect corrections or new information. That general definition does not identify the cause of this particular pair. A matching amount is not permission to invent an explanation.

Selected-field source snapshot ↓ · Primary source 2 ↗

Ask for the missing record, not a confession

If the reason matters, identify the award, modification numbers and action dates in a focused request to the responsible agency. Ask for the releasable modification documents or an explanation of the recorded funding change. Do not accuse a contractor or agency based only on a negative number.

A reduction is not necessarily cash recovered, a repayment, a project cancellation or money that can legally fund something else. Those conclusions require different records.

Primary source 1 ↗

Reproduce the public-data calculation.

These dated source snapshots preserve the selected award fields, exact POST request bodies, pagination, and transaction rows used for the worked examples. They are public records, not a live national database. For readability, the transaction extract maps federal_action_obligation to obligation, action_date to actionDate, and modification_number to modificationNumber. Request and pagination metadata remain attached.

What you can do next

  1. Preserve the sign, modification number and action date of every row.
  2. Inspect adjacent changes and the complete award history.
  3. Compute both the selected pair and the full signed total.
  4. Separate observation, arithmetic and unverified explanation.
  5. Request the specific modification documents when the reason is important.

This page does not submit a comment, register you to vote, allocate money, or contact an official on your behalf.

Keep this boundary in view

This is an accounting-reading example, not a finding of fraud, waste, cancellation or repayment. We did not inspect the underlying modification documents and do not claim to know why this pair occurred.

Selected federal prime-award examples. This is not every federal dollar, a complete recipient portfolio, or a finding of fraud. Snapshot figures can change with later transactions.

Primary sources

Read the method and update limitations →

Questions worth resolving

Does a negative obligation prove the project was canceled?

No. It identifies a reduction in reported obligations. Cancellation needs separate evidence.

Should I drop negative rows when adding transactions?

No. Keep their signs when calculating net obligations; otherwise the total can be overstated.

Keep your own evidence notes.

Use this space to record a source, an unresolved question, or a next step. Nothing is uploaded or saved by America.co. Avoid entering sensitive personal information.

Local to this page. Not automatically saved.