Kansas vs Virginia on USAspending: two IT-led files, one $110.8B stack

Same broad sector, a $2.9B vs $110.8B outcome

These totals are USAspending.gov obligations, not Treasury outlays. Kansas’s $2.9B and Virginia’s $110.8B can both be described as IT-tinged at the top of the industry list. That description would mislead anyone who stopped at the labels. Virginia’s file is about 38 times Kansas’s in dollars.

Award counts: 71,423 in Kansas and 1,116,647 in Virginia. Kansas has a real professional-services award stream. It does not have Virginia’s concentration of federal IT work around the National Capital region. Shared vocabulary (“computer”) is not shared scale.

Sixty-seven dollars per person vs $1,344

Kansas’s $67.40 per capita is among the lower rates in this comparison set. Virginia’s $1,344.24 is not. Census populations of 2,970,606 and 8,811,195 explain only a slice of the $2.9B versus $110.8B gap. After dividing by people, Kansas still looks like a low-intensity federal-award state in this pair.

A systems-design lead industry can exist in a state that does not otherwise resemble Northern Virginia. The per-capita column is the check against assuming that an IT label means a Virginia-like obligation load.

Computer systems design vs other computer related services

Kansas’s top industry is computer systems design services. Virginia’s is other computer related services. Those NAICS-style labels are neighbors, not twins. Systems design often means custom software and integration; “other computer related services” is a broader residual services bucket that, in Virginia, sits on $110.8B in obligations.

Readers should not collapse the two labels into “both do IT, so they should be close.” The 71,423 vs 1,116,647 award counts and the $2.9B vs $110.8B totals are the evidence that they are not close.

FY2026: $200.2M vs $11.8B

FY2026 obligations are $200.2M in Kansas and $11.8B in Virginia. Kansas’s latest year is a modest slice of $2.9B; Virginia’s $11.8B is one year of a $110.8B stock. Recency belongs in FY2026. The stacked total answers how large the USAspending.gov file is across the years in this aggregate.

Kansas’s $200.2M in FY2026 is a modest slice of $2.9B, which means most of the stacked file sits outside the latest year in this aggregate. Virginia’s $11.8B inside $110.8B is a larger current layer. Computer systems design services can be obligated as task orders that do not repeat at the same dollar level every fiscal year. Do not divide $200.2M by Kansas’s 71,423 all-years awards. Per capita remains $67.40 on 2,970,606 residents versus $1,344.24 on 8,811,195. The unit is USAspending.gov obligations in both time cuts.

What an IT-to-IT comparison still cannot claim

This page does not rank software quality, cybersecurity value, or contractor performance. It reports obligations. Outlays can follow on a different schedule. Open the Kansas and Virginia state hubs for agencies and recipients, and treat $2.9B vs $110.8B as an obligations scoreboard. Kansas’s $2.9B IT-tinged file is not a miniature Virginia. Virginia’s $110.8B is not Kansas with more people. Census counts of 2,970,606 and 8,811,195 do not scale the dollars. The table is the evidence; the shared computer vocabulary is not.

Adjacent computer-industry labels are the hazard in this pair. Kansas’s $2.9B and Virginia’s $110.8B do not become similar because both top industries mention computers. Award counts of 71,423 versus 1,116,647 and per-capita rates of $67.40 versus $1,344.24 are the scale facts. Treasury outlays are not in this table. Use the Kansas and Virginia hubs for agencies and recipients behind those labels.

How to keep Kansas’s IT label from implying Virginia scale

Read the labels second. Read $2.9B versus $110.8B, $67.40 versus $1,344.24, and 71,423 versus 1,116,647 first. Computer systems design services and other computer related services are adjacent industry names. Adjacent names on unlike dollar stocks are a common source of bad comparisons.

FY2026 ($200.2M vs $11.8B) keeps Virginia far ahead on recency as well as on the stack. Populations of 2,970,606 and 8,811,195 belong in the per-capita arithmetic, not in a claim that Kansas should look like Virginia if it does more software work. USAspending.gov obligations are the unit, not Treasury outlays.

Questions

How do Kansas and Virginia compare on USAspending?

Kansas has $2.9B in obligations and 71,423 awards; Virginia has $110.8B and 1,116,647 awards. Spending per capita is $67.40 versus $1,344.24 on Census populations of 2,970,606 and 8,811,195. FY2026 obligations are $200.2M and $11.8B. Figures are USAspending.gov obligations, not Treasury outlays. Those figures remain USAspending.gov obligations by place of performance, not Treasury outlays and not a score of which state deserves more work.

Do Kansas and Virginia have the same top federal contracting industry?

They are adjacent, not identical. Kansas’s top industry is computer systems design services. Virginia’s is other computer related services. Both are computer-related, but they sit on $2.9B versus $110.8B in obligations. Shared sector language does not imply similar award scale. Those figures remain USAspending.gov obligations by place of performance, not Treasury outlays and not a score of which state deserves more work.

What is Kansas’s federal spending per capita vs Virginia’s?

Kansas is at $67.40 per person; Virginia is at $1,344.24. Those rates use $2.9B and $110.8B in obligations and populations of 2,970,606 and 8,811,195. The per-capita gap remains large after population is divided out. Those figures remain USAspending.gov obligations by place of performance, not Treasury outlays and not a score of which state deserves more work.

Are the Kansas vs Virginia totals outlays?

No. They are obligations from USAspending.gov. Treasury outlays are cash disbursements and can lag. The $2.9B and $110.8B stacked totals and the FY2026 amounts of $200.2M and $11.8B measure legal commitments on awards, not payments already made. Those figures remain USAspending.gov obligations by place of performance, not Treasury outlays and not a score of which state deserves more work.