Does 18F have a public price list for its services?

No, 18F does not have a public price list because it operates as an internal U.S. government agency, not a commercial vendor. Its services are funded through inter-agency agreements rather than commercial sales.

How do government agencies pay for 18F's services?

Government agencies fund 18F's services through inter-agency agreements and transfers of appropriations. This covers the direct costs of personnel and resources allocated to a specific project.

Are there any free resources available from 18F?

Yes, 18F provides extensive free resources, including guides, playbooks, open-source tools and codebases, blog posts, and webinars, all publicly accessible to promote best practices in government technology.

What factors determine the cost of an 18F engagement?

The 'cost' of an 18F engagement is determined by factors such as the project's scope and complexity, the number of 18F personnel involved (e.g., developers, designers, product managers), and the duration of the engagement.

Can private companies or individuals hire 18F?

No, 18F is specifically chartered to serve other U.S. government agencies (federal, state, and local). It does not provide services to private companies or individuals.

How does 18F's funding model compare to commercial consulting firms?

Unlike commercial consulting firms that charge market rates with profit margins, 18F's funding model covers direct operational costs without profit. This often makes it a more cost-effective option for government agencies seeking digital transformation expertise.

Is 18F involved in procurement of commercial software?

18F can provide guidance and expertise on modern procurement practices, including how to effectively acquire commercial software. However, their primary service is often building custom solutions or modernizing existing systems, rather than selling commercial software licenses.

18F Pricing: Cost Model and Engagement (2026)

Pricing overview

18F, a part of the U.S. General Services Administration (GSA), operates distinctively from commercial tech providers. It functions as an internal consulting and development team for other government agencies, rather than offering services for public purchase. Consequently, 18F does not publish a commercial pricing sheet or provide subscription plans. Its services are funded through a variety of mechanisms inherent to government operations, primarily inter-agency agreements and government appropriations. This model means that the "cost" of engaging 18F for an external government agency is not a purchase price in the commercial sense, but rather a transfer of funds or allocation of resources to support a specific project, reflecting staff time, operational overhead, and technology expenses. The objective of 18F is to modernize government technology and improve citizen services, often by demonstrating agile development practices and promoting open source solutions as detailed in their official 18F guides.

The funding model for 18F projects typically involves a partner agency requesting 18F's assistance for a particular initiative. The scope of work, duration, and required resources are then jointly defined, leading to an inter-agency agreement. This agreement specifies the financial commitment from the partner agency, which covers the direct and indirect costs associated with 18F personnel and resources dedicated to that project. This approach aligns with the federal government's efforts to enhance digital capabilities across various departments and agencies, as outlined by the U.S. Federal Government compliance standards for technology adoption.

For agencies considering a partnership with 18F, the process involves an initial consultation to assess project suitability and alignment with 18F's mission. The resulting financial commitment is determined on a project-by-project basis, focusing on the actual effort and resources required. This contrasts sharply with commercial software or service providers that offer standardized pricing tiers or pay-per-use models. 18F's goal is to transfer knowledge and build internal capacity within government, ensuring long-term sustainability of the digital products and services they help create.

Plans and tiers

As an internal government service provider, 18F does not offer commercial "plans" or "tiers" in the way a private company would. There are no published subscription levels, feature matrices, or volume discounts. Instead, engagement with 18F is project-based, tailored to the specific needs and goals of the requesting government agency. Each engagement constitutes a unique "plan" defined by a Statement of Work (SOW) and an Inter-Agency Agreement (IAA).

Engagement Model

Discovery & Consultation: Initial phase to understand agency needs, project goals, and potential scope. This often involves workshops and strategic planning sessions.
Project Execution: Collaborative development, design, and implementation of digital products or services. This can range from building new applications to modernizing legacy systems or providing expert guidance on procurement and agile methodologies.
Capacity Building: Emphasis on training and transferring knowledge to the partner agency's staff to ensure they can maintain and evolve the solution independently after 18F's engagement concludes.

The "cost" associated with these engagements is a reflection of the human capital and operational resources dedicated to the project. This includes the salaries of 18F's designers, developers, product managers, and strategists, as well as any associated infrastructure or tool costs. The funding mechanism is typically a reimbursable agreement, where the requesting agency transfers funds to GSA to cover 18F's expenses. This is a common practice within the federal government for shared services.

Below is a conceptual breakdown of how a commercial "plan" might map to 18F's project-based engagements, highlighting that these are not fixed offerings but rather illustrative of service types:

Engagement Type (Commercial Analogue)	Funding Model (Commercial Analogue)	Key Characteristics / Limits	Best For
Strategic Consulting & Discovery (e.g., "Starter Plan")	Reimbursable agreement (fixed scope)	Short-term engagements (weeks to a few months); focus on problem definition, user research, technology assessment. Limited development work.	Agencies needing help defining a digital strategy, validating a concept, or understanding user needs before a major investment.
Pilot Project & MVP Development (e.g., "Standard Plan")	Reimbursable agreement (project-based)	Medium-term engagements (3-12 months); focus on building a Minimum Viable Product (MVP), iterative development, and user testing. Dedicated 18F team.	Agencies looking to quickly deliver a functional product, modernize a specific service, or test a new approach with a manageable scope.
Major System Modernization & Platform Build (e.g., "Enterprise Plan")	Reimbursable agreement (multi-year potential)	Long-term engagements (1+ years); comprehensive design, development, and deployment of complex systems or platforms. Significant resource allocation and knowledge transfer.	Agencies undertaking large-scale digital transformation, replacing critical legacy infrastructure, or building new public-facing services.

Free tier and limits

While 18F does not offer a "free tier" for direct services in the commercial sense, it provides extensive resources and tools that are freely accessible to the public, particularly beneficial for government agencies and those interested in public sector innovation. These resources represent a significant contribution to the open-source community and are designed to promote best practices in government technology. There are no limits on accessing or utilizing these publicly available materials.

Available Free Resources:

Guides and Playbooks: 18F publishes numerous guides on topics such as agile development, cloud adoption, user-centered design, procurement, and more. These are comprehensive resources for agencies looking to improve their digital capabilities. Examples include the 18F Guides, which cover topics from API design to user research.
Open Source Tools and Codebases: Many of the projects 18F works on are open source, meaning their codebases are publicly available for inspection, use, and adaptation. This allows other agencies or developers to leverage existing solutions and contribute to public code. Their GitHub repositories host a variety of projects.
Blog Posts and Case Studies: 18F regularly shares insights into its work, lessons learned, and success stories through its blog and case studies, offering valuable perspectives on government modernization challenges and solutions.
Webinars and Public Events: 18F often participates in or hosts public events and webinars focused on digital government topics, providing free access to expert knowledge and networking opportunities.

These resources effectively serve as a "free tier" for knowledge and inspiration, enabling agencies to learn from 18F's experience without a direct financial commitment. They are crucial for fostering a culture of innovation and transparency within government, aligning with principles of open government data and public access to information, as supported by initiatives like the W3C's Web of Data standards.

Real-world cost examples

Since 18F's engagements are entirely project-specific and non-commercial, providing exact "cost examples" in dollar figures is not feasible or publicly disclosed. However, we can illustrate the types of scenarios that would incur a financial commitment from a partner agency and the factors that influence that commitment.

Scenario 1: Digital Strategy & Discovery for a New Service

Project Goal: An agency wants to explore building a new digital service for citizens but needs help defining user needs, assessing technological feasibility, and developing a strategic roadmap.
18F Engagement: A small team (e.g., 1 product manager, 1 designer, 1 technologist) works with the agency for approximately 3-4 months.
Factors Influencing Commitment: The number of 18F personnel involved, the duration of their engagement, and any specialized research tools or travel required. The commitment would cover the salaries and overhead for this dedicated 18F team for the specified period.

Scenario 2: Modernizing a Legacy Application

Project Goal: An agency has an outdated application critical to its operations and needs assistance in re-platforming it to a modern cloud environment and improving its user experience.
18F Engagement: A cross-functional team (e.g., 1 product manager, 1 designer, 3-4 engineers, 1 DevOps specialist) works on the project for 9-18 months.
Factors Influencing Commitment: The size and complexity of the legacy system, the number of 18F team members, the adoption of new technologies (e.g., cloud services), and the duration. The commitment would reflect the sustained effort of a larger 18F team over a longer period, including potential costs for cloud infrastructure during development.

Scenario 3: Building an Open Source API Platform

Project Goal: An agency aims to expose its data and services via a modern API to foster innovation and interoperability with other government entities and external developers.
18F Engagement: A technical team (e.g., 1 product manager, 2-3 API engineers, 1 technical writer) collaborates with the agency for 6-12 months to design, develop, and document the API platform.
Factors Influencing Commitment: The scope of the API (number of endpoints, data complexity), the security requirements, the technical expertise required, and the engagement duration. This commitment would cover the specialized technical staff and potentially tools for API management and documentation, reflecting the effort to build a robust and secure API.

In all these examples, the "cost" is not a fixed price list item but rather a calculated estimate of the resources required to achieve the project's objectives, funded through an inter-agency transfer. Agencies interested in engaging 18F are encouraged to initiate a discussion directly with 18F to scope their project and understand the potential resource commitment.

How the pricing compares

Comparing 18F's "pricing" to commercial alternatives requires understanding their fundamental differences in operational models and objectives. 18F is not a for-profit entity; its mission is to serve government agencies and improve public services, rather than generate revenue. This core distinction shapes how its costs are incurred and managed.

Comparison with Commercial Consultancies:

Commercial Consultancies (e.g., Deloitte, Accenture): These firms operate on a for-profit model, charging market rates for their services, which can include high hourly or project-based fees that incorporate profit margins, sales, and marketing overhead. Their pricing often reflects brand premium, global capabilities, and specialized expertise. Agencies engaging these firms are making a direct commercial purchase.
18F: The "cost" to a partner agency primarily covers the direct expenses of 18F personnel (salaries, benefits, operational support) dedicated to the project, without a profit margin. The primary goal is to deliver public value and build internal government capacity. This often results in a more cost-effective solution for government agencies when comparing the direct resource allocation to equivalent commercial rates, especially for projects focused on open source and knowledge transfer.

Comparison with Commercial Software Vendors:

Commercial Software Vendors (e.g., Salesforce, Microsoft): These companies sell licenses for proprietary software, often with recurring subscription fees, tiered features, and per-user pricing. They provide off-the-shelf solutions that may require customization.
18F: 18F typically focuses on custom-built solutions, open-source adoption, or integrating existing government systems. While they might recommend or help integrate commercial off-the-shelf (COTS) products, their primary "service" is the human capital and expertise in building, modernizing, and supporting digital services. The "cost" is for this service, not for software licenses. This approach can be more flexible and tailored than adopting a standardized commercial product, particularly for unique government requirements.

Comparison with Internal Government IT Departments:

Internal IT Departments: Agencies have their own IT staff and resources. However, these departments might face challenges with staffing, skill gaps (especially in modern agile and cloud-native development), or capacity limitations for large-scale digital transformation projects.
18F: 18F acts as an accelerator and knowledge transfer agent, augmenting internal IT capabilities. By bringing specialized skills in agile development, user experience design, and modern engineering practices, 18F helps agencies overcome internal limitations. The "cost" of engaging 18F can be seen as an investment in rapidly acquiring modern capabilities and upskilling internal teams, potentially saving long-term costs associated with inefficient legacy systems or protracted development cycles.

In essence, 18F offers a unique value proposition: highly skilled digital expertise at a cost structure designed for public service, with a strong emphasis on open source, knowledge sharing, and building sustainable internal capacity. This distinguishes it significantly from the profit-driven models of the commercial sector. For more details on their operational framework, the 18F Agile Delivery Handbook provides insight into their methodology.