Cost proposal software for federal bids
What the price volume actually has to contain, why the build-up matters more than the number, and where small teams lose the bid.
The cost volume of a federal proposal is not a price — it is a build-up the government can audit. Direct labor by category and hours, escalated across the period of performance, carried through fringe, overhead, G&A and fee, with other direct costs and travel supported separately. FAR 15.408 Table 15-2 sets out the format when certified cost or pricing data is required, and evaluators look for a price that is realistic as well as reasonable: a bid priced below what the work costs can be found unrealistic and downgraded rather than rewarded. Cost proposal software builds that volume alongside the technical volume, so the staffing in the management plan and the hours in the price agree. VETR Proposal models labor, ODCs and travel with a full indirect build-up and benchmarks rates against federal award data.
What to look for in cost proposal software.
Written to be useful even if you end up buying something else.
A real indirect build-up, not a single price field
Direct labor through fringe, overhead, G&A and fee, with escalation across each option year. If the tool holds one number per line item, you are still building the volume in a spreadsheet and the tool is storage.
The cost volume and the technical volume agree
The most common finding in a cost realism evaluation is staffing in the management plan that does not match hours in the price. Pricing built in the same system as the narrative is how that gets caught before submission rather than in a clarification request.
Rates can be defended against something external
Price reasonableness is a judgement someone else makes. Being able to show what similar work has actually been awarded for — by NAICS and contract size — is the difference between asserting your rates are fair and evidencing it.
It knows realism and reasonableness are different tests
Reasonableness asks whether the price is too high; realism asks whether it is too low for the proposed approach. Small businesses lose more often on realism, by pricing to win and being judged not to understand the work.
VETR against those criteria.
Every capability below is shipped and in use — not roadmap.
A full build-up aligned to FAR 15.408 Table 15-2
Labor, ODCs and travel with direct costs carried through fringe, overhead, G&A and fee, in the format the regulation sets out when certified cost or pricing data is required.
Rate benchmarking from federal award data
Rates can be compared against comparable awards by NAICS and contract size, so a price-to-win position rests on what the government has actually paid rather than on internal assumption.
Priced in the same workspace as the narrative
The cost volume sits beside the technical and management volumes in one proposal, which is what makes the staffing-versus-hours check possible at all.
It feeds the subcontracting-limit check
Because the priced volume exists in the system, the 13 CFR 125.6 limitations-on-subcontracting test runs against real amounts rather than against a planned percentage.
The claims above are documented in more detail on the security and in-boundary AI page, with downloadable evidence in the trust center. The scoring methodology is published in full as the VETR Framework, and the capability list lives on the features page.
Building a federal cost volume
From the parsed requirement to a price you can defend.
Take the staffing from the technical approach
Labor categories and hours come from the approach you are actually proposing. Pricing a different team from the one in the management plan is the classic realism finding.
Build up the indirects
Carry direct labor through fringe, overhead, G&A and fee, with escalation across the base and option periods.
Benchmark the rates
Compare against comparable federal awards in the same NAICS and size band, so the price has external support.
Re-run the compliance checks
Test the subcontracting limit against the priced volume, and confirm the cost narrative matches the technical one before Gold team.
Questions buyers actually ask.
What is FAR 15.408 Table 15-2?
It is the instructions for submitting certified cost or pricing data, setting out how a contractor presents the elements of cost — materials, direct labor, indirect costs, other direct costs, royalties, facilities capital cost of money and profit or fee — with supporting information. It applies when certified cost or pricing data is required; even where it is not, its structure is what a contracting officer expects a cost volume to look like.
What is the difference between price reasonableness and price realism?
Reasonableness asks whether a price is too high — whether a prudent buyer would pay it. Realism asks whether the price is too low for the technical approach proposed, which would suggest the offeror does not understand the requirement or cannot perform at that price. Small businesses more often lose on realism, by pricing aggressively and being judged not to have understood the work.
Why should the cost volume be built in the same system as the technical volume?
Because the two have to agree. If the management plan proposes a senior engineer and the price carries a junior rate, a cost realism evaluation finds it. Building both in one workspace makes the mismatch visible while it is still editable, rather than in a clarification request after submission.
Does VETR support certified cost or pricing data submissions?
VETR builds the cost volume in the FAR 15.408 Table 15-2 structure, with the labor, indirect, ODC and travel elements broken out. Whether certified cost or pricing data is required for a given bid, and the certification itself, remains the contractor's responsibility.
Keep reading.
See it on your own solicitation.
Upload an RFP and watch VETR build the compliance matrix. Fourteen days, no card up front.