FEMA Procurement Under Grants: What the Evaluation File Needs to Show

When a state monitor asks how the contractor was chosen

A county emergency management coordinator is three weeks into a debris-removal contract funded through a FEMA Public Assistance award. A state monitor has asked a plain question: show me how you chose this contractor, and show me what you expected to pay before the proposals came in. The scoresheets are in one folder, the cost estimate is in an email, and the committee's reasoning lives in a few people's memories.

Nothing in that scenario means the procurement was wrong. It means the file may not be able to show that it was right, in the order it happened. Subrecipients spending FEMA funds are held to the federal procurement standards in 2 CFR Part 200, and reviewers read the file rather than the intentions behind it.

This guide maps those standards to the records a competitive-proposal evaluation should leave, so you can show your method, your competition, your estimate and your selection.

Why FEMA procurement under grants runs through 2 CFR 200

Grant-funded procurement by a local government or nonprofit is governed by the Uniform Guidance, 2 CFR Part 200, which the awarding agency applies to its awards. The federal agency's own program guidance explains how it reads those standards. This article does not paraphrase FEMA's positions. Confirm the current edition of FEMA's Procurement Under Grants guidance directly with FEMA, and with your state recipient, which may add its own requirements.

The standards sit in 2 CFR 200.317 through 200.327. Under 200.317, a State or Indian Tribe follows the same policies and procedures it uses for procurements with non-federal funds, plus certain listed sections. All other recipients and subrecipients, including subrecipients of a State, "must follow the procurement standards in §§ 200.318 through 200.327." Counties, cities, districts and nonprofits fall in that second group.

The 2024 revision of the Uniform Guidance took effect October 1, 2024 (89 FR 30046, April 22, 2024). Agencies could choose to apply it to awards made earlier but were not required to, so check which version your award terms incorporate. A file that does not record the rule it followed cannot show which rule it followed at the time.

On May 29, 2026, OMB published a proposed rule that would revise the federal financial assistance guidance again (91 FR 32198). As of October 2026 it is proposed, not final. Confirm current status with your awarding agency or pass-through entity.

Why does this matter for a file? Federal oversight has found procurement to be a recurring weak point. DHS OIG audits questioned $352.3 million in FEMA Public Assistance grant costs over the six years ended September 30, 2014, because subgrantees did not follow federal procurement rules (OIG-16-126-D, 2016). A later review questioned more than $256 million in ineligible contract costs from fiscal year 2015 through June 2017 for the same reason (OIG-18-29, 2017). These figures describe FEMA Public Assistance subrecipients over those periods only.

Selecting the method and recording why

The first entry in the file is the method. 2 CFR 200.320 sets out three types of procurement: informal (micro-purchases and simplified acquisitions), formal (sealed bids or proposals) and noncompetitive. Our guide to procurement methods under 2 CFR 200.320 walks through each.

Thresholds move, so record the value you relied on and its date. The micro-purchase threshold rose from $10,000 to $15,000, and the simplified acquisition threshold (SAT) from $250,000 to $350,000, effective October 1, 2025 (FAR Case 2024-001, 90 FR 41872). If your award was made before that date, ask which figure applies to it. Your own policy may set a lower threshold. An entity's SAT may be lower than the FAR figure but must not exceed it. When local, state and federal rules all apply, follow the stricter one, and confirm how a change applies to your award with the awarding agency or pass-through entity.

Disaster work raises one question in particular. Under 2 CFR 200.320(c), noncompetitive procurement is allowed only in five circumstances: micro-purchase, single source, a public exigency or emergency that will not permit the delay of public notice, written approval from the awarding agency or pass-through entity in response to a written request, and competition determined inadequate after soliciting several sources. An emergency basis is a documented finding, not a label. If you rely on it, the file should state the facts that supported it, and our piece on sole-source justification under a federal grant covers what that record contains.

Under 2 CFR 200.318(i), the file must show the rationale for the procurement method, the contract type selection, the contractor selection or rejection, and the basis for the contract price. Those four elements are the spine of everything below. See what 2 CFR 200.318 asks procurement records to hold.

Competition and 2 CFR 200.319

Under 2 CFR 200.319(a), all procurement transactions under the federal award must provide full and open competition. The geographic-preference prohibition that 200.319 carried before the 2024 revision is not in the current text, but program rules, award terms and state law may still restrict local preferences, so check before using one.

One provision catches organizations that sought help early. Under 200.319(b), "contractors that develop or draft specifications, requirements, statements of work, or invitations for bids must be excluded from competing on those procurements." If a consultant helped write your scope of work, record who wrote it, and decide before release whether that firm may propose.

Competition also shows in the solicitation itself. Under 200.320(b)(2)(i), RFPs require public notice and must identify every evaluation factor and its relative importance. Proposals must be solicited from multiple qualified entities. Your file should keep the notice, the list of sources solicited, and the factors with their weights exactly as published.

Evaluation procedures, conflicts and the award basis

Under 200.320(b)(2)(ii), an entity using the proposals method must have written procedures for conducting technical evaluations and making selections. Under 200.318(a), the entity needs documented procurement procedures generally. Writing the scoring rules down before proposals arrive is the practical way to meet both.

A defensible scoring record usually includes:

• weights that total 100, matching the published factors;
• rating definitions fixed before anyone scores;
• scores entered independently, before any group discussion;
• a written rationale for each final consensus score;
• a tie rule chosen in advance.

Conflicts of interest need their own entry. Under 200.318(c), no employee, officer, agent or board member with a real or apparent conflict may take part in the selection, award or administration of a contract supported by the federal award. Have each evaluator attest in writing before scoring begins, and keep the attestations dated.

Under 200.320(b)(2)(iii), the award goes to the responsible offeror whose proposal is most advantageous to the recipient or subrecipient, considering price and other factors. Price is excluded as a selection factor only for architectural and engineering services under 200.320(b)(2)(iv), where the entity evaluates qualifications, selects the most qualified firm and then negotiates fair and reasonable compensation. State QBS laws vary, so check yours.

The independent estimate before receiving bids

Above the SAT, 2 CFR 200.324(a) requires a cost or price analysis for every procurement transaction, including contract modifications, and independent estimates must be made before receiving bids or proposals. The timing is the point. An estimate dated after the proposals arrive cannot show what you expected to pay.

Independent does not mean third party: the rule places the estimate on the recipient or subrecipient itself. It is most useful when no one with a financial stake in the award influenced it and it does not rest only on prospective vendors' pricing. Record the preparer, the date, the sources and the method. Our guide to the independent cost estimate under 2 CFR 200.324 covers the mechanics.

Price scoring should be documented too. As a worked example with round inputs: with 30 price points and the lowest-price formula (lowest evaluated price ÷ this offer's evaluated price × maximum points), offers of $80,000, $100,000 and $125,000 earn 30, 24 and 19.2 points. Whatever formula you choose, state it before proposals open, and keep alternates and options out of the evaluated price unless the solicitation says otherwise.

Assembling the file before the monitor asks

Under 200.318(k), the recipient or subrecipient settles source evaluation, protests, disputes and claims, so your own record is your account of events. Keep the file at least as long as 2 CFR 200.334 requires, generally three years from the date the final financial report is submitted, longer if litigation, a claim or an audit starts before then. Local public-records rules or your state recipient may require longer.

A short pre-award check helps. Confirm the following are in one place and dated in sequence:

1. the method rationale and the threshold values relied on;
2. the published solicitation with factors and weights;
3. the independent estimate, dated before proposals;
4. conflict attestations;
5. independent scores, consensus rationale and the tie rule;
6. responsiveness and responsibility findings;
7. the award decision and the basis for the price.

RFPManagement is being built to hold this record for the evaluation stage, with a method selector built to show the rule in force with its citation and effective date. Scoring is human-only. Our Procurement Method Selector workbook is designed to record the method choice and its rationale. It is available now in the store, and you can join the waitlist for updates on the evaluation workspace or see plans.

RFPManagement records and computes. It does not give legal or procurement advice. The award decision stays with your organization.