Public ceiling rates for testing labour: the GSA CALC data

Most buyers never see another organisation's rate card. The US federal government is an exception. Its General Services Administration (GSA) publishes the hourly labour rates awarded on its Multiple Award Schedule (MAS) contracts through a tool called CALC+ (Contract-Awarded Labor Category). Its ceiling rate data is publicly searchable, and it includes testing roles. This post explains what the data is, what a search for software testers returned on the day this was written, and why the numbers are a research input rather than a price you should expect to pay.

What CALC+ contains

The CALC+ user guide (version 2.0, June 2026) describes the data as awarded not-to-exceed (NTE) ceiling rates from MAS contracts that GSA has determined fair and reasonable at the schedule level. They are designed to accommodate various order types, sizes, complexities and geographic locations. Pricing data is uploaded automatically from GSA's catalogue platform at award and whenever prices are modified.

GSA's OASIS+ buyer's guide describes the same tool as a way to review fully burdened not-to-exceed ceiling rates. A fully burdened rate is an all-in hourly price to the buyer, not the wage the worker receives. Each record also states the worksite (customer facility, contractor facility or virtual), the minimum education level and the minimum years of experience for the category.

What a search for software testers returned

A keyword search of the CALC+ ceiling rates API for "software tester", retrieved on 24 September 2026 from the data index dated that day, returned 152 awarded labour categories. The titles vary widely: "Software Tester", "Software Tester II", "Senior Software Tester", numbered levels, and variants such as accessibility or cloud testers.

From those 152 records:

• The current-year hourly ceiling rates ranged from $38.79 to $248.46.
• The median was about $104.46 per hour (our calculation from the returned records).
• 81 records were priced for a contractor facility, 65 for a customer facility and 6 as virtual. In this sample the median for customer-facility work (about $106.51) was slightly higher than for contractor-facility work (about $100.46). The user guide says contractor-site rates are usually higher because of overhead, so a single keyword search should not be read as a pattern.
• 127 of the records required a bachelor's degree.

These numbers will change as contracts are awarded and modified. Rerun the search yourself before you use them, and record the retrieval date.

What a ceiling rate does not tell you

It is not a market rate. A ceiling is the most a supplier may charge under that schedule. GSA's buyer's guide notes separately that CALC+ also holds prices-paid data, which is actual invoiced labour rates on federal time-and-materials and labour-hour orders. The two are different measures and should not be confused.

It is not proof of a fair price. GSA states plainly that results from CALC+ searches cannot be relied upon exclusively to demonstrate that prices are fair and reasonable in accordance with FAR 15.4, and that federal acquisition professionals need additional analysis techniques to make that determination. If federal contracting officers cannot rely on it alone, a private buyer should not either.

Titles are not scopes. A "Software Tester II" at one supplier may match a "Senior Software Tester" at another. The user guide itself warns users to narrow searches to avoid non-comparable titles. Compare the experience, education and duties behind a title, not the title.

The context is federal. Schedule rates reflect US federal contracting, security and compliance requirements, and US locations. They are not a benchmark for nearshore or offshore delivery, and they do not include your own tooling, environments or management costs.

How federal buyers use the data

GSA positions CALC+ as a tool for market research, price analysis and independent government cost estimates. In practice that means using the spread of ceiling rates to check whether an estimate or a proposal sits in a plausible range, then applying other techniques before deciding a price is reasonable: comparing competing proposals on the same scope, examining the labour mix, and checking what the price includes. That sequence works for a private buyer too.

What this means for your selection

Use public ceiling rates to frame an estimate, never to anchor a negotiation or to call a quote high or low. Build your own estimate in the cost model from your scope and your staffing assumptions. In the RFP, ask each vendor to price named roles with the experience, education and worksite you expect, so the rates are comparable, and ask what each rate includes. Then score transparency and value in the scorecard. The guides on QA pricing models, rate cards and what they hide and fixed price vs time and materials explain how to compare the answers.