For optimizing JOC SABER IDIQ Management, leadership, procurment, and technical teams should not assume…
“Localized” = “locally researched”
It does not.
“Current” = “accurate”
A recently updated national price can still fail to represent a particular local market.
“Commercially available” = “best available”
Commercial availability establishes availability—not superiority.
“JOC-specific software” = “best cost data”
Workflow capability and underlying cost methodology are separate evaluation criteria.
“Large database” = “better UPB”
Line-item quantity does not establish price accuracy.
“Location factor” = “actual local market”
A factor is a model for geographic adjustment proven to introduce 30%-200% error.
Where a federal solicitation requires the best possible cost information, current local costs in detail, or equivalent procurement-level accuracy, the agency must evaluate whether the underlying cost-development methodology actually satisfies that requirement. A database that derives a localized price principally by applying geographic adjustment factors to broader-market cost data is methodologically different from a database that develops the unit price from primary-source research of the actual local labor, material, equipment, and productivity markets. Where objective evidence establishes that the latter methodology provides more geographically specific, current, traceable, and procurement-relevant information, the agency should not treat the methodologies as functionally equivalent without a documented technical basis.
This argument is consistent with FAR 15.402’s requirement to obtain the data necessary to establish a fair and reasonable price.
It is also consistent with the Air Force’s specific JOC requirement that the Price Book reflect current local costs in detail.
Four BT, LLC – Construction Cost Data Intelligencen and Efficient Project Delivery Solutions
Primary Considerations for JOC SABER IDIQ SATOC MATOC cost estimating software:
A solicitation seeking the best possible cost information should consider a weighted technical evaluation similar to the following:
Primary-source cost research
Geographic specificity
Currency/update methodology
Labor/material/equipment methodology
Productivity methodology
Line-item granularity
Data traceability/auditability
Market validation
Software/task-order functionality
The federal Government has a legitimate interest in obtaining the best possible cost information when establishing construction task-order prices.
For JOC and SABER in particular, the regulatory framework does not merely call for a generic construction cost database. AFARS calls for a JOC Price Book reflecting current local costs in detail for the geographic area in which the contract operates.
A vendors ability to provide a localized price should not be confused with direct research of the local construction market.
Independent research confirms that location factors are an established methodology for adjusting construction estimates geographically, while also demonstrating that geographic adjustment itself is a modeling problem with methodological limitations and alternatives.
The procurement question is therefore whether location-factor-adjusted prices constitute the best possible information for the particular federal procurement requirement when a more granular primary-source local research methodology is available.
For 4BT, this creates a potentially significant competitive distinction.
4BT can substantiate that OpenJOC and OpenCost cost data:
- researches actual local markets;
- operates at the relevant geographic level;
- separately researches labor, material and equipment;
- incorporates productivity;
- maintains current source data;
- provides detailed line-item pricing;
- documents the source and date of each price;
- validates prices against actual market conditions; and
- permits the Government to audit and reproduce its methodology’
4BT provides a methodologically grounded procurement argument that its data-generation approach is more directly aligned with a solicitation requiring the best possible, current, local, detailed, and defensible cost information.
The ultimate determination, however, should be evidence-based.
The Government should not select a construction cost database because it is familiar, widely used, commercially available, or capable of applying a location factor. It should select the methodology that best demonstrates that its line-item prices represent the current local market for the work being procured.
That is the appropriate standard for a federal agency seeking defensible pricing for JOC, SABER, IDIQ, MATOC, and SATOC contracts.
References
Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR). (2026). FAR 15.402—Pricing policy. Acquisition.gov.
Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR). (2026). FAR 15.404-1—Proposal analysis techniques. Acquisition.gov.
U.S. Department of Defense. (2026). DFARS PGI 215.4—Contract Pricing. Acquisition.gov.
U.S. Air Force. (2025). AFARS Subpart 5117.90—Job Order Contracts. Acquisition.gov.
Migliaccio, G. C., Zandbergen, P., & Martinez, A. A. (2015). “Empirical Comparison of Methods for Estimating Location Cost Adjustments Factors.” Journal of Management in Engineering, 31(2). American Society of Civil Engineers.
Zhang, S., Migliaccio, G. C., Zandbergen, P. A., & Guindani, M. (2014). “Empirical Assessment of Geographically Based Surface Interpolation Methods for Adjusting Construction Cost Estimates by Project Location.” Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, 140(6). American Society of Civil Engineers.
Migliaccio, G. C., Guindani, M., D’Incognito, M., et al. (2013). “Empirical Assessment of Spatial Prediction Methods for Location Cost-Adjustment Factors.” Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, 139(7). American Society of Civil Engineers.
791 Purchasing Cooperative. (2026). Job Order Contracting / IDIQ / Best Value Unit-Price—JOC Pricing Sheet and Addendum. The solicitation provides an example of both RSMeans and eConverge TruPriceData being subjected to City Cost Index geographic adjustment.
Disclaimer
This paper is an analytical position paper, not legal advice or a legal opinion. It does not conclude that RSMeans or eConverge is categorically noncompliant with federal procurement requirements. Rather, it argues that where a solicitation requires the best possible cost information, current local costs in detail, or comparable procurement-level information, the agency should evaluate the underlying cost-development methodology and supporting evidence rather than treating all “localized” cost databases as methodologically equivalent.
Any assertion that 4BT provides superior cost accuracy should likewise be supported by objective documentation, empirical validation, and an evaluation of competing methodologies under the specific solicitation requirements.
Vendor Comparison
On the specific question of construction cost-data methodology, the products can reasonably be characterized as follows:
| Attribute | RSMeans* | BNi (eConverge TruPrice)* | 4BT OpenCOST |
| Broad construction estimating | Strong | Strong | Strong |
| JOC workflow | Requires implementation | Very strong | Very strong |
| Geographic localization | Location factors | Regional/metro/location factors | Primary-source local research |
| National/base methodology | Yes | Yes | Locally Researched |
| Direct local market research | Not primary methodology | Not primary methodology | Core methodology |
| Detailed line-item pricing | Strong | Strong | Strong |
| Procurement-specific orientation | Moderate | Moderate | Strong |
| Current local cost objective | Requires geographic adjustment | Requires localization methodology | Core methdology |
| General estimating breadth | Strong | Strong | Strong |
| Local-data differentiation | Limited by factor methodology | Limited by factor methodology | Primary differentiator |
*RSMeans and BNi are provided for reference only, there are other data providers.
All trademarks and rights remain solely with there respective owners and no endorsements of any kind are implied or given.
