Pricing is where most new federal contractors lose money — either by bidding too high and losing, or by bidding too low and winning a contract that bleeds cash for years. The antidote is past award data: the prices the government has actually paid for similar work, published for free in FPDS and USAspending.gov. A bidder who knows the historical price range can price with confidence; a bidder who guesses is gambling with their firm’s survival.
Where the Price Data Lives
Every federal contract action is recorded in FPDS with its value, and USAspending.gov republishes that data in a searchable form. For any requirement, you can find what the incumbent was paid, what similar work cost at other agencies, and how prices have moved over time. Start with the techniques in our guides to FPDS and USAspending.gov: search by agency, NAICS code, and product or service code to find awards that genuinely resemble the work you are pricing.
Collect a sample, not a single data point. One award tells you what one agency paid one firm once; ten comparable awards tell you the market range. Aim for five to ten awards of similar scope, size, and period, preferably from the last three years. Note each award’s total value including options, its period of performance, and its competition type — a sole-source award tells you less about competitive pricing than a fully competed one, and a small business set-aside award may price differently from an unrestricted one.
Normalising the Numbers
Raw award values are not directly comparable until you normalise them. Divide the total value by the years of performance to get an annual rate. Divide by the number of locations, staff, or units delivered if the scope supports it. A $2.4 million contract over four years at three sites is $200,000 per site per year — a figure you can compare with a $600,000 single-site, single-year award. Without normalisation, you are comparing totals that describe different things, and your price will be wrong in ways you cannot see.
Adjust for scope differences explicitly. If the historical awards included services you will not provide, subtract their estimated share; if your scope adds something the historical awards lacked, add it. Document every adjustment in your pricing notes, because the same logic will be needed when you defend your price to the contracting officer — or to your own leadership — after award. The goal is a defensible price built from evidence, not a number copied from a single award.
Reading the Range, Not the Average
Past award data gives you a range, and the range matters more than the average. The low end of the range usually reflects the most efficient or most desperate bidder; the high end reflects premium positioning, incumbency, or a broader scope. Where you price within that range should reflect your strategy: price near the low end only if your costs genuinely support it and you can deliver the full scope at that level; price near the high end only if you can demonstrate added value the agency will recognise in evaluation.
Watch for outliers and understand them before you include or exclude them. An award far below the range may be a partially funded increment, a bridge contract, or a firm buying its way into a market — none of which is a realistic target for your price. An award far above the range may include option years that were never exercised, or a scope that was much larger than the description suggests. FPDS modification records and the original solicitation on SAM.gov help you explain outliers; if you cannot explain one, exclude it and note why.
The Underpricing Trap
The most dangerous pricing mistake in federal contracting is winning too cheap. A price below your true cost does not just lose money — it can trigger a price realism review, where the agency questions whether you understand the work at all, and it can lock your firm into years of losses with no easy exit. Past award data protects you from this: if the historical range for your scope is $800,000 to $1.1 million a year and your cost model says $650,000, either your cost model is missing something or your scope understanding is wrong. Investigate before you bid, not after you win.
Use the incumbent’s price as a reality check, not a target. If you plan to bid well below the incumbent, be able to explain why — lower overhead, a leaner approach, technology the incumbent lacks — and make sure that explanation appears in your proposal. If you plan to bid above the incumbent, explain the added value just as clearly. An unexplained price difference in either direction invites the evaluators to doubt you.
Combining Award Data With Your Own Costs
Historical prices tell you what the market pays; your cost model tells you what you must charge. Build your price from your costs first — labour, overhead, subcontractors, materials, and a margin that keeps the firm healthy — then compare the result with the historical range. If your cost-based price sits inside the range, you have a credible bid. If it sits above the range, you need either a leaner approach or a different opportunity. If it sits far below the range, check your scope understanding and your cost assumptions before celebrating.
That comparison is also the core of your pricing narrative. Government evaluators expect to see that your price is both reasonable and realistic: reasonable against what the government has paid before, realistic against what the work actually costs. A proposal that cites comparable awards and shows its workings earns trust; a proposal that presents a bare number invites questions. Keep your award-data research in the proposal file so the pricing story can be told clearly if the agency asks.
Common Mistakes
The most common mistake is pricing from a single award — one incumbent’s price, treated as the market. Another is ignoring option years: comparing a base-year-only value with a full five-year value produces nonsense. A third is forgetting that obligated amounts in a single fiscal year are not the contract’s total value; always use the total value including options from the award detail. And a fourth is using old data without adjustment: prices from five years ago, in a different labour market, need escalation before they can guide today’s bid.
Price from evidence, not from hope. Past award data is free, public, and specific to your exact market — there is no reason to guess. The firms that price well are not the ones with the cleverest spreadsheets; they are the ones that know what the government has actually paid, and build their price on that ground.
Related Guides
Past Award Data: Build a Pricing Evidence File
The fastest way to make past award data work for you is to keep a pricing evidence file for every opportunity. Save the five to ten comparable awards that past award data turns up, and note the agency, the annualised value, and the period of performance. When a similar requirement appears, past award data lets you answer the price question in minutes instead of days.
When past award data and your cost model agree, your price has a story an evaluator believes: the market paid this much, and your costs support it. Check the figures against the official FPDS records, and follow the full method in our guide on how to price a government contract bid. Past award data cannot set your price for you, but it stops you bidding blind.
5 Responses