Most studies fit inside simplified acquisition
A program office that needs an evaluation of a pilot, a cost analysis, a literature and data review, or a one-year analytic study usually needs it for less than the simplified acquisition threshold. That puts the purchase under FAR Part 13, where the contracting officer has wide latitude over how quotes are requested, evaluated and awarded. Used well, that latitude turns a six-month procurement into a two-month one without cutting any corner that matters.
The trouble is that many offices buy a $180,000 study as if it were a $4 million contract. They write a formal evaluation plan, ask for a forty-page technical volume, schedule rounds of discussions, and then wonder why only two firms responded and the study started a quarter late. Part 13 does not ask for any of that. It asks for a clear requirement, a stated basis for award, a fair and reasonable price, and a responsible vendor.
This piece walks through the decisions in the order a program office and a contracting officer make them, with notes for the firm on the other side of the table at each step.
The two thresholds and what each one changes
Two numbers frame the whole process. Since October 1, 2025, the micro-purchase threshold is $15,000 and the simplified acquisition threshold is $350,000. Both were raised in the periodic inflation adjustment that took effect that day, from $10,000 and $250,000.
At or below $15,000, a purchase can usually be made without soliciting competing quotes, as long as the buyer judges the price reasonable. Small literature scans, a single expert review, or a short data cleaning task can live here, often on a purchase card.
Above $15,000 and up to $350,000, simplified procedures apply in full. The contracting officer must promote competition to the maximum extent practicable, which in practice means a posted request or quotes from several sources, and must tell quoters how award will be decided. Formal source selection machinery is not required.
The estimate that places a buy in a band is the total value, options included. A study with a base year and a one-year option is measured on both years together. And a requirement that naturally exceeds the threshold cannot be split into smaller orders to stay under it. Contracting officers watch for that, and so do auditors.
Part 13 also contains a separate authority that lets agencies use simplified procedures for commercial products and commercial services well above $350,000. Many research and analysis services qualify as commercial services, because firms sell the same kind of work to other customers at market prices. If your study estimate lands above the threshold, ask the contracting officer whether that authority fits before assuming a full Part 15 competition.
RFQ or RFP: know what you are asking for
Under simplified procedures, the normal instrument is a request for quotations. The distinction matters more than its name suggests. A quotation is not an offer. The government's order is the offer, and a contract forms when the vendor accepts it, in writing or by performing the work. Until then, either side can walk away, and a firm can revise or withdraw its quote.
That structure is why simplified buys move quickly. There is no formal competitive range, no requirement to hold discussions with everyone, and no obligation to score anything numerically. The contracting officer can ask one quoter a clarifying question about a resume without opening negotiations with every firm.
Some offices issue a request for proposals even inside the simplified band, usually out of habit or because a template was handy. Doing so does not, by itself, pull the buy into Part 15, but the language in the request starts to shape expectations. If the request talks about a competitive range, discussions and final proposal revisions, the agency may have committed itself to steps it did not need. Use the language of quotes, and keep the request as short as the decision allows.
For the program office: a good RFQ for a study runs to a few pages plus the statement of work. It names the instructions for the quote, the basis for award, the price schedule, and the due date. Ask for what you will actually read.
For the responding firm: read the instructions as the evaluation rules. If the RFQ asks for a five-page technical approach, the evaluator is reading five pages against the stated criteria, not a capability brochure. Answer what was asked, in the order it was asked.
State the basis for award before anyone writes a quote
The single most important sentence in a simplified acquisition is the one that tells quoters how the award will be decided. The contracting officer must state it, and then must evaluate the way it was stated. Everything else in the request follows from it.
Part 13 offers a wider menu here than many people realize. The evaluation does not have to be a scored technical volume. It can be as light as price alone, or a comparison of quotes against each other with no formal factor weights at all. The table below compares the approaches most often used for studies.
| Approach | How it works | Fits a study when | What the quoter should send |
|---|---|---|---|
| Lowest price | Award to the lowest priced quote that meets the requirement and comes from a responsible firm | The method is fully specified and any qualified firm would produce the same result | A clean price schedule and a short statement that every requirement is met |
| Lowest price technically acceptable | Each quote is judged pass or fail against stated criteria; the lowest priced acceptable quote wins | The office can write criteria that define a competent study, and better than competent adds little value | A response mapped to each criterion, with nothing a reader has to infer |
| Price and past performance | Quotes are compared on price and on the record of similar work, with past performance given stated relative weight | The method is standard and the risk is whether the firm finishes on time | References for comparable studies, with contact details that actually answer |
| Comparative evaluation | Quotes are compared side by side, and the agency picks the one that offers the best overall value, without scoring | Several credible approaches exist and the office wants to choose among them quickly | A short approach that makes the differences visible, and a price that reflects them |
| Best value tradeoff | Non-price factors and price are weighed, and a higher price can win if the agency documents why it is worth it | Method quality or key people truly change the usefulness of the result | Named senior people, a specific method, and an argument for any premium |
For most research studies, the right answer sits in the bottom three rows. Price alone works for a narrowly specified task such as running a defined survey instrument through a defined sample. Studies that require judgment about method usually deserve a basis that can see the difference between a careful approach and a thin one.
One sentence that settles most arguments later
Name the factors, say how they relate to price, and say what happens when quotes are close. For example: "Award will be made to the quoter whose quote represents the best value to the government, considering technical approach, key personnel and price. Technical approach and key personnel, combined, are more important than price." A sentence like that tells every quoter what to invest in, and it gives the contracting officer a defensible record when an unsuccessful firm asks why it lost.
Price lines: fixed price, hours with a ceiling, and travel on its own line
The price schedule is where a well-run study is decided, and where many go wrong. The choice of contract type follows from how well the work can be defined in advance.
Firm-fixed-price fits when deliverables, data access and scope are clear. A program evaluation with a defined question, a known data set and a set of reports is a good candidate. The firm carries the cost risk and the office gets a predictable bill. Fixed-price lines are often tied to deliverables, so payment follows accepted work.
Labor-hour or time-and-materials lines fit when the work is real but its size is not knowable yet, for example an analysis where the data quality will not be known until the files arrive. These lines need a written determination by the contracting officer that no other contract type is suitable, and they need a ceiling price. The ceiling is a not-to-exceed amount the firm crosses at its own risk. The office pays for hours actually worked, at the quoted rates, up to that ceiling.
A mixed schedule often works best. Put the defined parts, such as the design memo and the final report, on fixed-price lines, and put the uncertain part, such as data preparation, on a labor-hour line with a ceiling. That keeps the risk where the uncertainty actually is.
Travel goes on its own line. If the study involves site visits, field interviews or an in-person briefing, set up a separate cost-reimbursable travel line with its own not-to-exceed amount. Travel is typically reimbursed at actual cost within Federal Travel Regulation limits, with no profit added. Keeping it separate means a firm does not have to bury trip guesses inside its labor rates, and the office does not pay for trips that never happen.
For the responding firm: price every line the way it was structured, and say what assumptions sit under each number. If the hours line assumes the agency delivers data within three weeks of award, write that down. An assumption stated in the quote is a conversation later. An assumption kept in your head is a loss.
Deliverables and acceptance a contracting officer can enforce
A study is only as good as its deliverables, and a deliverable is only enforceable if the contract says what acceptable looks like. "Final report" is a title. It is not a requirement.
Each deliverable in the statement of work should carry its format, its due date or trigger, the review period on the government side, and the acceptance criteria. Acceptance criteria for a study are not the same as agreeing with the findings. They describe completeness and quality: the report answers each research question listed, states the data sources and limitations, includes the code and a data list so the analysis can be rerun, and meets accessibility requirements for federal documents.
Build in a draft and a final. The draft gets a fixed government review window, for example ten business days, and one set of consolidated comments. The final addresses each comment or explains in writing why it did not. This one rule removes most disputes about endless revision cycles, because both sides know how many turns the deliverable gets.
That line is worth saying out loud at kickoff. Acceptance means the study did what the contract described, not that the program office liked what it found. A firm that softens a finding to get a report accepted has produced something the agency cannot defend later. An office that withholds acceptance over an unwelcome result has created a contract dispute about a methods question.
The small-business default
Purchases above the micro-purchase threshold and up to the simplified acquisition threshold are reserved for small businesses by default. The contracting officer sets the buy aside unless market research shows no reasonable expectation of quotes from two or more responsible small businesses that are competitive on market price, quality and delivery.
For research and analysis work, that expectation is almost always met. The market includes many small firms with statisticians, economists, evaluators, data engineers and policy researchers. A program office that wants a specific large firm for a $200,000 study usually has to show why the small-business market could not do it, and that showing is hard to make for analytic work.
For the program office: do the market research early and write it down. A quick search of SAM.gov and the SBA small business search, plus a short sources sought notice if the field is unclear, gives the contracting officer what the file needs in a few days.
For the responding firm: check the NAICS code on the request against your size under that code, not under the code you usually use. Research work is often coded under consulting, social science research or scientific research codes, and each has its own size standard.
A realistic timeline from requirement to award
Offices tend to underestimate the front end and overestimate the back end. The weeks that actually slip are the ones spent writing the requirement and getting funds committed, not the evaluation. The shape below is illustrative, for a competitive study in the $50,000 to $350,000 range with a contracting office of ordinary workload.
Requirement to Award, Illustrative
Illustrative durations. Funding approvals, security reviews and holiday periods stretch them.
Seven to twelve weeks is a reasonable expectation for that kind of buy, and most of the variance sits in step one. If the study must start by a fixed date, such as before a program year opens or before a field season, count backward from that date and start the statement of work first.
What the program office should hand the contracting officer
Contracting officers move fastest when the package arrives complete. A request that comes over in pieces waits in the queue every time a piece is missing.
- The decision the study informs, written in two sentences, so everyone agrees on what the money is for
- A statement of work with research questions, tasks, deliverables, formats and acceptance criteria
- An independent cost estimate built from hours by role, not a single number someone remembered
- Committed funds on the purchase request, with the fiscal year the money expires
- Market research notes: who can do this work and how you found them
- The proposed basis for award and the people who will read the quotes
- Data access facts: what data exists, who owns it, and what approvals the vendor will need
- Any survey, interview or human-subjects element, flagged early because clearances take longer than the procurement
The last two items cause most of the delays that show up after award. A study that needs a data use agreement or an information collection approval should name that dependency in the statement of work and put realistic time around it, so the schedule does not fail in the first month.
What the responding firm should do differently
Firms that win simplified buys for studies tend to do a few unglamorous things consistently.
Answer within the stated limits. If the request caps the technical response at five pages, the strongest quote uses five pages well. Restating the statement of work back to the evaluator spends pages and earns nothing.
Name the people who will do the work. A study is mostly the judgment of two or three people. A quote that names them, says what each will do, and shows hours by person reads as a plan. A quote that lists labor categories reads as a staffing estimate.
Show the method in specifics. Say which data, which comparison, which model or test, and what the result will look like. If there is a known weakness in the data, name it and say how you will handle it. Evaluators trust a firm that sees the problem.
Price exactly the schedule they gave you. Do not invent new line items, change the units, or add terms in a cover letter. An exception to the terms of the request can make a quote unacceptable, and it almost always slows the award.
Have your registration in order. An active SAM.gov registration, the right NAICS code in your profile, and current representations and certifications are part of being able to receive the order. Fixing them after selection costs days you do not get back.
After award: the explanation and the first month
Simplified acquisitions do not carry the formal debriefing process of a large source selection. When an award was based on factors other than price alone, an unsuccessful quoter that asks is entitled to a brief explanation of the basis for the decision. Contracting officers who keep a short written record of how each quote was judged can answer that request in an afternoon.
For the responding firm: ask for the explanation every time you lose, politely and in writing. It is the cheapest market research you will get, and the next quote you write to that office will be better for it.
For the program office: the first month decides whether the study lands on time. Hold the kickoff within two weeks of award, deliver the data on the dates the statement of work promised, and approve the design memo quickly. A study that loses its first month to access paperwork rarely recovers it, whatever the quality of the firm.
Frequently asked questions
Since October 1, 2025, the simplified acquisition threshold is $350,000 and the micro-purchase threshold is $15,000. The estimate that decides which band a purchase falls in is the total value, including options. Agencies also have a separate authority to use simplified procedures for certain commercial products and services above $350,000.
No. Under simplified procedures, the contracting officer is not required to use formal evaluation plans, a competitive range, discussions or numerical scoring. The request must state the basis for award, and the evaluation must follow that stated basis. A short written record of how each quote was judged is what the file needs.
Yes, when the contracting officer determines in writing that no other contract type is suitable, and the line carries a ceiling price. Many offices use a mix: fixed-price lines for defined deliverables, a labor-hour line with a ceiling for uncertain work such as data preparation, and a separate travel line with its own not-to-exceed amount.
For a competitive study under the threshold, seven to twelve weeks from the start of the statement of work to award is a realistic planning range, though it varies by office. Most of the variance sits in writing the requirement and committing funds. The quote period and evaluation are usually the predictable part.