SAM.gov, the federal government’s System for Award Management, tracks billions of dollars in contracts and subcontracts, the companies and organizations that receive them, and entities barred or suspended from doing business with the government.
But the system, which incorporates several retired databases on government procurement, can be daunting to use — even for journalists who have some familiarity with it.
That’s why last week The Journalist’s Resource convened a hands-on demo, which I moderated, with David Zvenyach. He’s a software developer, lawyer and product strategist who has held executive roles in three presidential administrations, including as Executive Director of 18F and Director of the Government Services Administration’s Technology Transformation Services.
Understanding how to access data in SAM.gov is the first step for any public interest journalist who wants to know how federal dollars flow to business interests in the U.S., both locally and nationally.
More than 150 of you attended, and Zvenyach answered many of your questions.
The full video below is well worth the hour. But if you don’t have time, read on for three quick takeaways.
1. Follow the codes
You’ll find several numerical codes when working with data from SAM.gov, but there are two in particular that will help you understand what the government is buying.
North American Industry Classification System codes — NAICS codes — identify the industry that a business selling something to the government is in. It’s a standardized system across federal government purchasing.
Look up individual NAICS codes via the Census Bureau.
Code 334511, for example, includes firms that make search, detection, navigation, guidance, aeronautical and nautical systems and instruments.
The other code type to know is product and service codes. Those are especially useful for understanding what the government is buying, Zvenyach said.
Find individual product and service codes in the product and service code manual, which includes specifics on the types of goods, services, research or development the government bought under that code.
Code 1410, for example, includes “complete drones, initially designed as missiles, but converted to drone use,” according to the manual.
2. Keep an eye out for errors in the data.
While data accessed from SAM.gov contains rich and specific information on government purchasing, there may be errors.
Which begs the question: Can the data really be trusted?
“I’m the sort of person that lives and eats and breathes this data every day,” Zvenyach said. “The short answer is kind of — but kind of not.”
During the webinar he showed a subcontract that was entered into SAM.gov as beginning in 2106. An unlikely start year, being 90 years in the future. The real year was probably intended to be 2016, Zvenyach noted. Errors don’t mean journalists shouldn’t use the data, but journalists — or anyone working with it — need to know that errors are lurking.
“That’s part of this process, is just knowing that the data is imperfect,” Zvenyach said. “It’s manually entered a lot of the time.”
See more examples of errors within SAM.gov on Zvyenyach’s Gov422 blog.
3. Use SAM.gov and USAspending in tandem.
SAM.gov is good for initially identifying contracts, while USAspending is good for digging deeper into those contracts, Zvenyach said. With USAspending, you can see outlays — which is how much the government has actually spent under a contract.
USAspending also allows for searching for contracts by geography and by various codes, including NAICS and product and service codes. You can find how much a company has received in government contracts over time, as well as recent executive compensation figures in certain cases. And there’s information on grant awards that government agencies have given.
“One of the questions that people ask is, how can you kind of get a sense of how much the government is spending, and which agencies, and who’s winning?” Zvenyach said. “USAspending is a really good source for that sort of aggregate information.”
Expert Commentary
Facts Only
SAM.gov is the federal government’s System for Award Management, tracking contracts, subcontracts, and entities involved in government procurement.
The system incorporates data from several retired government procurement databases.
A hands-on demo was conducted by The Journalist’s Resource, moderated by an unnamed author, featuring David Zvenyach.
David Zvenyach is a software developer, lawyer, and former government official, having served as Executive Director of 18F and Director of the GSA’s Technology Transformation Services.
The demo aimed to help journalists understand how to access and interpret data in SAM.gov.
Over 150 people attended the session.
NAICS codes identify the industry of businesses selling to the government.
Product and service codes specify the types of goods, services, or research the government purchases.
SAM.gov data may contain errors, such as incorrect dates or manual entry mistakes.
Zvenyach noted an example of a subcontract incorrectly dated to 2106 instead of 2016.
USAspending.gov is recommended for deeper analysis of contracts, including outlays and geographic distribution.
USAspending allows searches by NAICS codes, product/service codes, and provides data on executive compensation and grant awards.
Executive Summary
SAM.gov is the federal government’s System for Award Management, tracking contracts, subcontracts, and entities involved in government procurement. While it consolidates data from retired databases, navigating it can be challenging, even for experienced users. A recent hands-on demo led by David Zvenyach, a former government official and expert in federal procurement data, highlighted key strategies for journalists and researchers. Zvenyach emphasized the importance of understanding NAICS codes and product/service codes to decipher government spending patterns. However, he also cautioned that SAM.gov’s data may contain errors, such as incorrect dates or manual entry mistakes, requiring users to verify information carefully. Additionally, he recommended using SAM.gov alongside USAspending.gov, which provides deeper insights into contract outlays, geographic distribution, and executive compensation. The session underscored the value of these tools for tracking federal spending but also the need for critical scrutiny of the data.
The discussion revealed both the utility and limitations of government procurement databases. While SAM.gov offers granular details on contracts, its reliability is compromised by human error and inconsistent data entry. USAspending complements this by aggregating spending trends, though users must still cross-reference sources to ensure accuracy. Zvenyach’s expertise, drawn from roles in multiple administrations, provided practical guidance for journalists seeking to investigate federal expenditures. The takeaway is clear: these tools are indispensable for transparency but require diligence to use effectively.
Full Take
The strongest version of this narrative is that SAM.gov and USAspending are powerful but imperfect tools for tracking federal spending, requiring users to navigate complexities like coding systems and data errors. The expertise of figures like Zvenyach adds credibility, framing these databases as essential for transparency despite their flaws. However, the emphasis on errors and manual entry risks undermining confidence in the data without sufficient context—are these errors systemic or isolated? The piece avoids emotional exploitation or distortion, focusing on practical guidance rather than sensationalism.
Patterns detected: none.
The paradigm here is one of institutional transparency versus operational friction. The unstated assumption is that journalists and researchers can overcome data limitations with sufficient effort, but what about those without technical expertise? Historically, this echoes the tension between open government initiatives and the bureaucratic realities that complicate access. For human agency, the implications are mixed: while these tools empower investigative work, their flaws may disproportionately affect smaller organizations or less-resourced journalists. Second-order consequences could include reduced trust in government data or over-reliance on a handful of experts to interpret it.
Bridge questions: How might the frequency and nature of data errors in SAM.gov be systematically studied? What safeguards could improve data accuracy without overburdening agencies? If these tools are primarily used by specialists, how does that shape public understanding of federal spending?
Counterstrike scan: A bad actor seeking to discredit government transparency might amplify stories of data errors to argue these systems are unreliable, discouraging their use. However, this piece does not align with that playbook—it acknowledges flaws while advocating for informed usage, a healthy balance.
Sentinel — Human
The text displays clear human authorship, characterized by an instructional tone, conversational phrasing, and specific integration of expert experience regarding complex government data systems.