A list of rates is not yet a price comparison. A useful comparison explains what each number buys and why it is relevant. GSA lists official research resources including eLibrary and its buying tools. Use the underlying contract information and available context instead of treating a search result's number as a complete pricing record. GSA buying and selling tools.
Create a comparison record
Capture the source URL, retrieval date, contract or offering identifier, item description, unit, qualifications or specifications, worksite assumptions, and relevant terms. Distinguish an awarded ceiling rate, a catalog listing, a quote, and an actual transaction when the source allows you to do so. If the source does not establish which type it is, record the uncertainty.
Start with a narrow offering definition. “Project support” may include entry-level administration, technical analysis, or senior management. A low rate for one cannot establish the right price for another without an explanation. The objective of your internal comparison is to understand the market evidence, not to collect enough rows to create a persuasive-looking average.
A fictional three-record example
Aspen Analytics researches a proposed senior data analyst role. Record A shows $95 per hour for an on-site junior analyst. Record B shows $135 for a remote senior role with similar responsibilities. Record C shows $150 but includes a specialized credential and different support commitments. All three records are fictional.
The team initially averages the three and gets about $126.67. On review, it rejects that average as misleading because the offerings differ. It keeps B as the closest descriptive comparison, uses C as a conditional reference for the specialized variant, and labels A unsuitable for a direct rate comparison. It records those judgments alongside the source information rather than silently deleting inconvenient data.
Explain adjustments or decline to make them
If you adjust a reference price for quantity, date, scope, or terms, document the method and evidence. Do not add an arbitrary “inflation factor” just because a record is old. Sometimes the honest conclusion is that the data is too different to support a numeric adjustment. You can still preserve the record as background while seeking better evidence.
- Are the units identical?
- Do duties, specifications, and qualifications align?
- Are delivery and support commitments comparable?
- Is the date relevant to the current market?
- Does the source identify a ceiling, listing, quote, or paid price?
- Can another reviewer reproduce the selection and exclusions?
Present a short interpretation after the table. State the closest comparisons, material differences, limitations, and what the evidence can reasonably support. A graph without those explanations can imply a degree of precision the records do not contain.
Use the current solicitation and contracting officer's requests to determine the evidence required for the actual offer. Your market comparison is a preparation tool, not the government's determination that a price is fair and reasonable. Keep your cost model separate so the team can see both market context and delivery economics. Current MAS solicitation.
Official sources & further reading
Sources checked for this edition: October 26, 2026. Recheck the current source and applicable contract before acting.
Keep the next step concrete
Use the working tool to capture your assumptions, supporting sources, and the decision that still needs review.