A crash course in selling “green” to the government
June 16, 2010 by cs
Driven by the need to reduce our dependency on fossil fuels, improve the economy and national security, create green jobs and reduce environmental impact, the federal government is taking the lead on green purchasing in a number of markets and sectors.
All agencies are directed to acquire recycled content, energy efficient, renewable, bio-based and environmentally preferable products and services towards achieving certain goals. Under the Energy Independence and Security Act, all federal managers are required to cut their fossil fuel use at new and renovated government facilities to 55 percent by the end of 2010 and 100 percent by 2030.
There are many “Buy Bio” and “Buy Green First” programs throughout the government, and the Department of Defense requires that green products and services must be considered as the first choice in all procurements. The government’s premier purchasing agency, the General Services Administration (GSA), has implemented Go Green Initiatives giving preference to products and services that meet green purchasing criteria. These policies are not limited to products. The environmental services and green or LEED construction management sector are also in high demand.
Green procurement does not intend to rewrite the book on buying, but merely adds an environmental dimension to the decision-making process. The standard purchasing criteria of price, quality, and availability remain paramount. The environmental impacts can be seen as part of the quality criterion.
First and foremost, you must understand the basics on how to do business with the government and then you can use these attributes as part of your marketing strategy. The bottom line when dealing with the government is to make it easier for them to do business with you over others. Here are some tips:
1) Question yourself. Is this something you really want to do? It will take a focused effort up front to unravel the red tape and figure out the game. Are you willing to make the investment of time and resources to penetrate the market? Once you’re in, your business can grow at warp speed — the challenge is just in getting there.
2) Getting started with the administrative steps. There are five places you should register right off the bat:
- Obtain a Dun & Bradstreet # (DUNS) at DNB.com
- Register at the Central Contractor Registration (CCR), and figure out your business NAICS codes at SBA.gov
- Register at the Department of Veterans Affairs if applicable.
- Register with the Small Business Administration (SBA).
- Register at the Online Representations and Certifications Application (ORCA).
If you’re so inclined consider visiting the local SBA and Procurement Technical Assistance Center (PTAC). There are a number of good online resources for more guidance on getting over the bureaucratic hurdles.
3) Stay informed. Sign up to receive emails about federal opportunities at the Central Federal Business Opportunities site.
4) Implement an aggressive federal sales program. You’ll need to create or augment your business plan and simultaneously work towards obtaining a GSA Schedule contract or a long-term fixed price contract with the government.
For a number of reasons, getting a Schedule contract is the only practical way a business can realistically compete. It reduces award time to 14 days from 248 days on average, minimizes the federal buyer’s risk and increases transparency, and a fixed-price contract is used most often throughout the government.
Although a Schedule contract is really just something that gives you the “right” to sell to the government, they’re difficult to get and often buried under layers of government speak. But if you persevere, you’ll face significantly less competition, federal buyers will reach out to you rather than you going after business, and such contracts can be extremely profitable and a main source of revenue for your business.
5) Sell in your own backyard. There’s no need to head to Washington to sell to the government — unless that’s your backyard. You can find information about local government offices in any number of locations, including USA.gov, federal telephone directories and the Federal Citizen Information Center, local blue pages, and installation guides on military.com. There are also tools to locate federally funded research and development centers, Department of Veterans Affairs facilities, and a federal contracts database at FedSpending.org.
And then as with any type of business, get out in the market — go to trade shows and events, meet people and develop your network. The personal connection goes a long way, even when dealing with the government.
6) Get familiar with regulation. The place to start here is the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR), online at www.ARNet.gov/FAR.
7) Market your company effectively. To develop marketing materials that speak to a federal buyer, you’ll want to do the following:
- Create a simple brochure;
- Augment your business card, since that is the most important thing you can leave behind after a meeting;
- Add a “government” tab to your web site;
- Understand how to use Sole Source and Blanket Purchase Agreements;
- Develop a separate email address for government contacts to allow for quick response;
- Have a one-page briefing sheet for your reference; and
- Design and distribute an authorized contract list if on GSA.
When you’re marketing your business, emphasize key points like the warranties you may offer, your experience, your core competencies and capacity, the ROI or pay-back period of your products or services, and the ease of maintenance for your products and quality assurance certifications you’ve received.
You’ll also want to list any trademarks or patents you’ve earned, your GSA contract number, and if you have any socioeconomic factors that might meet procurement guidelines for small businesses, list your business size and classification as identified by the SBA or NAICS coding.
When discussing environmental or social benefits, list any certifications or awards you’ve received. Can you quantify the benefits? How much carbon are you keeping out of the atmosphere — compare yourself to a conventional product or service. Are you contributing to workforce development — are you a U.S. manufacturer or service provider? How much electricity can you keep from being consumed — are you sending anything back to the grid that serves the community due to increased demand? If you think along these lines, you can differentiate yourself from others.
If you are a suppler trying to tap into the federal marketplace, being green is a major differentiator and competitive advantage. Get your facts straight, develop a strategy, and market your products and services effectively. The new green in government can mean big green for your business.
________________________
- Greener World Media – GreenBiz.com
Non-Schedule items on a Schedule procurement must be kept “micro”
June 3, 2010 by cs
Over the years, contracting officers have exhibited a promiscuous tendency to include non-Schedule items in GSA Schedule purchases.
The many GSA Schedule procurements seeking $10,000 in Schedule items and $50,000 in non-Schedule “incidental” items did not go unnoticed by the OIG. The primary concern being that those $50,000 items should be properly competed – something that many agencies sought to avoid through their use of the Schedules program.
The practice also did not escape the notice of the Courts or the GAO.
And in two quite notable cases – ATA Defense Industries, Inc. v. U.S., 38 Fed. Cl. 489 (1997) and Pyxis Corp., B-282469 et al., July 15, 1999, 99-2 CPD ¶ 18 – the Court and the GAO respectively ruled that included non-Schedule items in a Schedule purchase was a no-no (a time-honored legal phrase).
More technically, the Court and the GAO ruled that the non-Schedule portion of a GSA Schedule order had to meet the same competition requirements that would have applied had the purchase been made outside of the Schedule context. In other words, if the Government wanted to add non-Schedule items to its Schedule purchase, it had to hold a competition – unless the non-Schedule items were below the micro-purchase (since there are no competition requirements for such purchases).
Since the time of ATA and Pyxis, the GAO has been a vigilant guardian of this Schedule/non-Schedule rule, sustaining protests time and again wherever it finds an agency trying to procure non-Schedule products through a Schedule procurement. See, e.g., T-L-C Sys., B-285687.2, Sept. 29, 2000, 2000 CPD ¶ 166, Symplicity Corp., B-291902, Apr. 29, 2003, 2003 CPD ¶ 89, Armed Forces Merchandise Outlet, Inc., B‑294281, Oct. 12, 2004, 2004 CPD ¶ 218.
In March of this year, we learned that the GAO’s vigilance continues apace. On March 15, 2010, the GAO issued its decision in Rapiscan Systems, Inc., B-401773.2, the latest in this long line of Schedule/non-Schedule cases. The case re-enforces the GAO’s view that the GSA Schedules program was not intended to shield the purchase of non-Schedule items from the FAR’s competition requirements.
But Rapiscan went one step further than prior cases in that it provides significant insight into how the GAO views the micro-purchase threshold (currently set at $3,000) – that is, the dollar value at which the Government’s competition rules fully kick in. Rapiscan involved a GSA Schedule procurement conducted by the Department of State for the purchase of gamma ray vehicle and cargo inspection systems. The solicitation (a Request for Quotations, or “RFQ”) limited participation to GSA Schedule vendors. Following award, Rapiscan Systems, Inc. (which did not win, obviously) challenged the award decision before the GAO. Rapiscan contended that the DOS improperly issued the purchase order to a contractor that did not offer every one of its items on its GSA Schedule.
Specifically, Rapiscan argued that the awardee did not offer freight on its Schedule Contract. In response to the protest, the Agency argued that the purchase of freight in this instance was permissible because it fell under the micro-purchase threshold.
The facts at this point, however, get a bit complicated – and very relevant. In its initial quotation, the awardee showed freight as an “open market” item, with a line item price of $6,832 – a sum above the micro-purchase threshold, obviously. In its revised quotation, however, the awardee discounted the freight charge by 100% – to $0. Accordingly, the Agency contended that the purchase of freight was permissible through a GSA Schedule procurement. The awardee, however, also had stated in its revised quotation that the price for freight was “included in the unit price of” the primary Schedule item being purchased – a quite common turn of phrase among Government contractors.
This language, however, coupled with the fact that the awardee had a price for freight in its initial proposal that was above $3,000, clearly concerned the GAO. Indeed, it led the GAO to conclude that the awardee’s $0 price for freight was “illusory.” In GAO’s view, it was no more than the “shifting of the initially quoted price” between line items. Having found the “real” price of freight to exceed the micro-purchase threshold, it was not a far leap to sustain the protest. According to the GAO, the “micro-purchase exception is a narrow one and was not intended as a means for vendors to provide non-FSS items as micro-purchase items . . . .”
Interestingly, there is much in the decision to suggest that the GAO would have come down differently had the awardee not stated that it “included the price” of freight elsewhere in its proposal. Finding evidence of a greater-than-$3,000 price for the non-Schedule item, however, the GAO was boxed in by its prior case law. The GAO’s Rapiscan decision obviously supports the long-standing general rule that non-Schedule products may not be procured through GSA Schedule procedures. But it also demonstrates how the GAO will read between the lines (or line items, in this case) when assessing the price of a non-Schedule item.
The lesson here? We offer two. First, when offering a non-Schedule item in a Schedule procurement, keep it “micro.” Second, to paraphrase an ancient Buddhist proverb, “whatever words we utter, should be chosen with care.”
– Authored by: Jonathan S. Aronie - jaronie@sheppardmullin.com and Christopher Noon – cnoon@sheppardmullin.com – May 12, 2010
GAO: Multiple Award Schedules program suffers from dearth of data
June 2, 2010 by cs
The General Services Administration needs better data collection methods to improve the pricing and performance of its Multiple Award Schedules program, according to an oversight audit.
The Government Accountability Office report released on Monday found that limitations with GSA’s two electronic procurement tools, e-Buy and GSA Advantage, hinder the agency’s ability to collect data about purchases under the schedules program. For example, GSA Advantage is used to procure goods but not services. E-Buy can be used for requests for proposals of any size but cannot process orders greater than $3,000. In addition, because agencies can place orders directly with multiple award schedule vendors, GSA Advantage accounted for only 1.5 percent of sales in 2008.
In comments on the report, GSA said because of the tools’ limitations, customer agencies and vendors control purchase information, making it difficult for GSA to aggregate and evaluate trends.
The Multiple Award Schedules program — government’s largest interagency contracting initiative — recently has come under fire for not meeting customers’ needs. The Multiple Award Schedules Advisory Panel, comprised of representatives from both government and industry, in March published a list of 20 recommendations to improve the program.
According to Alan Chvotkin, a panel member and executive vice president and counsel at the Professional Services Council, a contractor trade association, the schedules program has evolved from offering commodities to providing solutions and services, and the pricing methodologies might not suit what agencies are buying today. The panel recommended GSA remove from supply and services contracts the price reduction clause, which states if a vendor lowers prices for its target customer, then it also must do so for government. Solutions contracts already are free of this clause and should remain that way, the panel said.
But the GAO audit suggested GSA proceed with caution on the advisory panel’s assertions. For example, GAO found GSA lacks data to support the panel’s assessment that the price reduction clause rarely is used. Without good information, GSA cannot determine how the Multiple Award Schedule program serves customers’ needs, evaluate program performance or negotiate best prices, the report found.
“Our prior work has highlighted the importance of having comprehensive spend data as part of a successful approach to procurement, noting that the use of procurement data to determine how much is being spent for goods and services and to identify buyers and suppliers can identify opportunities to leverage buying, save money and improve performance,” GAO wrote. The audit recommended GSA expand its use of electronic purchasing tools or launch a pilot data collection program.
GSA in fiscal 2011 plans to upgrade GSA Advantage with Web 2.0 features, better search capabilities and links to other contracting vehicles to streamline customers’ experiences with electronic purchasing.
Lawmakers on Monday expressed concern over GAO’s findings.
“To improve the system, the [Obama] administration must collect better data on these contracts and use it to ensure the mission requirements of federal agencies are met in a timely, cost-effective manner,” said Sen. Susan Collins, R-Maine, in a statement. “The Office of Federal Procurement Policy and the General Services Administration must take aggressive and coordinated action to address GAO’s recommendations and help ensure that taxpayer dollars are used wisely.”
– By Emily Long – NetGov.com – 05/25/2010
Total number of interagency/enterprisewide contracts is anyone’s guess
June 1, 2010 by cs
Federal agencies spend about $60 billion a year on interagency and enterprisewide contracts, but there is limited evidence that they are being effectively used and managed, according to a new report from the Government Accountability Office.
Agencies use multiple-award schedule contracts, multiagency contracts, governmentwide acquisition contracts and enterprisewide contracts to buy a wide range of goods and services. The bill for such contracts was estimated at $60 billion in fiscal 2008, but the total was unknown because the total number of contract was unknown, GAO said in the report dated May 24.
“The total number of multiple-award contracts and enterprisewide contracts currently in use by agencies is unknown because the federal government’s official procurement database, [the] Federal Procurement Data System-Next Generation, is not sufficiently reliable for identifying these contracts,” the GAO report stated. “This has been a longstanding problem.”
Furthermore, there is limited data to show the effectiveness of these types of contracting, GAO added. And without greater coordination and oversight, it is unclear whether the interagency and enterprisewide contracts are effective in leveraging buying power, and the proliferation of such contracts suggests there may be fewer efficiencies and less cost savings than expected in their use, GAO added.
There are concerns about duplication, lack of information, pricing and management. “Data are lacking and there is limited governmentwide policy to effectively leverage, manage, and oversee these contracts,” the GAO wrote.
Duplication of products and services offered on multiple acquisition vehicles has created uncertainty about best pricing. For example, with the General Services Administration’s multiple-award schedule program, there are tools and controls to obtain best prices, but it is not clear whether those tools are achieving that goal, GAO continued.
“A lack of data, decentralized management, and limitations in assessment tools create challenges for GSA in managing the multiple-award-schedule program,” the report said.
GAO makes recommendations to the Office of Management and Budget to strengthen policy, improve data and better coordinate agencies’ awards of multiple-award contracts and enterprisewide contracts. It also recommended to GSA to improve pricing and management of the multiple-award schedule program. Both agencies agreed with the recommendations.
– Published May 25, 2010 – About the Author: Alice Lipowicz is a staff writer for Federal Computer Week.
The Price Was Wrong: GSA Rates Set the Ceiling for GSA Orders
May 17, 2010 by cs
GSA sought bids from contractors holding Federal Supply Schedule (FSS) Schedule 70 contracts for certain professional services. At the time it submitted its proposal, Perot was in the process of negotiating a five-year extension of its Schedule 70 contract. Perot had proposed new labor rates for the five-year extension, but those rates had not yet been approved by the GSA contracting officer. In its proposal, Perot use its proposed, but unapproved labor rates. The contracting officer excluded Perot’s proposal from consideration because the labor rates included in the proposal did not match Perot’s current Schedule 70 contract labor rates.
Approved GSA Prices Are A “Cap” On Prices
Perot raised several arguments as to why its new, but unapproved, rates were fair and reasonable. First, Perot argued that the RFQ required that a contractor’s approved rates be “derived from” its GSA Schedule rates, and its proposed rates were, in fact, “derived from” its GSA Schedule rates. Second, Perot argued that even though a few of its proposed rates had increased slightly, the majority of its rates were lower. Finally, Perot argued that its rates were fair and reasonable because its overall price was lower than the awardee’s price. GAO rejected each of these arguments. Relying on FAR 8.404(d), GAO found that even if the lower rates proposed by Perot could be considered a discount from its current rates, the categories for which higher rates were proposed were improper. Thus, the contracting officer correctly eliminated Perot’s proposal as unacceptable.
Lesson Learned
Approved GSA schedule rates are a ceiling when bidding on task orders issued under FSS contracts. Contractors should take care to make sure that prices offered are approved GSA Schedule prices or lower. Not only may proposing prices higher than those approved by GSA result in rejection of a bid, it also could result in allegations of overcharging in the event of a later audit by the GSA Inspector General. Thus, GSA contractors should make sure that federal sales personnel and any authorized dealers permitted to sell under the contractor’s GSA contract are adequately trained in this subject.
Is a GSA Schedule Contract Right for You?
May 11, 2010 by cs
Business people frequently ask Counselors with the Georgia Tech Procurement Assistance Center (GTPAC) how they can figure out whether it’s worth their while to go after a GSA Schedule. Here are a few pointers to guide your decision-making.
First of all, it’s important to understand what a GSA Schedule is … and is not.
A GSA Schedule is a contract awarded by a federal agency, the General Services Administration, to firms with established track-records of selling products or services. A Schedule contract is long-term (a base term of 5 years, with renewal options to a maximum of 20 years). Schedule contracts cover a wide array of products and services. Contract awards are based on “most favored customer pricing.” While issued by the GSA, a Schedule contract can be used by any federal agency and, in some cases, by units of state and local governments. Since everything is pre-negotiated, government agencies benefit from using Schedule contracts because acquisition lead-times are shorter, administrative costs are lower, and administrative steps are fewer.
From a business point-of-view it’s very important to remember that a Schedule contract is not an order. In other words, once you are awarded a Schedule contract, you must be prepared to actively market yourself to government buyers. For this reason, it’s not uncommon for a Schedule contract to be referred to as “a license to hunt.”
Your initial step in pursuing one of these contracts should be to examine the entire list of 39 Schedules, including nine Schedules administered by the Veterans Administration. You can search for details inside particular Schedules by conducting a key word search at http://www.gsaelibrary.gsa.gov/ElibMain/scheduleList.do. Look for the Schedule that most closely fits your line of business. Subcategories within each Schedule are called SINs — Special Item Numbers. Remember, there is not a Schedule for everything. You eventually may conclude that there is not a Schedule that’s a good fit for your business.
If and when you find a relevant Schedule, GTPAC recommends you look at spending reports on individual Schedules at http://ssq.gsa.gov. This will give you some ideas about what kind of money is being spent on individual Schedules and who the prominent, winning Schedule contractors are.
You should do further market research on your potential competitors. Use the GSA eLibrary at http://www.gsaelibrary.gsa.gov to identify existing Schedule contractors, their contract terms and conditions, their product and service offerings, and their pricing. Remember, too, that today’s competitors may be tomorrow’s business partners; GSA Schedule contractors are allowed to team-up with one another to execute government contracts.
Once you’re ready to proceed, use the link in the GSA eLibrary for the Schedule you’ve identified to go to FedBizOpps — the central repository of virtually all government bid and proposal solicitation documents — so you can download the Schedule solicitation. Look for the link in the eLibrary that reads: “Click here to view the current solicitation on FedBizOpps.” An alternate way to find a solicitation is by using the links from this page: www.gsa.gov/schedulesolicitations.
The solicitation will consist of several different documents, so be sure to download them all. Collectively, we’re talking about hundreds of pages here, so the real work now begins – you must read, and re-read, everything. Only you can make a serious and accurate assessment of the impact of GSA’s terms and conditions on your business. Particularly pay attention to the instructions in the solicitation — you will need to follow these “to the letter” to ensure that GSA accepts your proposal.
Note, too, that many Schedules solicitations allow you to submit your proposal in an electronic format rather than on paper. These Schedules are designated as “eOffers.”
Does all this sound too daunting for you at this point? Take heart! After all, there are lots of ways to do business with the government, not just through a Schedule contract. In fact, GSA itself contracts extensively with vendors outside of the Schedule process. You can take a look at a forecast of GSA’s acquisition needs at www.gsa.gov/smbusforecast. This forecast can help you plan your approach. And don’t neglect to consider possible subcontracting opportunities with GSA contractors; you can find the major ones listed at www.gsa.gov/subdirectory. Your GTPAC Procurement Counselor can help you find many other government contracting opportunities at the federal, state and local levels.
Oh, and one more thing. If you do decide to to pursue a GSA Schedule contract, be sure to register for and attend GTPAC’s class entitled “Understanding the GSA Schedule Process.” Just click on the TRAINING tab on our website to identify the dates and locations of this class.
© 2010 Georgia Tech Procurement Assistance Center – All Rights Reserved.
NIH prepares to fight for contract authority
April 9, 2010 by cs
The National Institutes of Health is confident it can survive the scrutiny of the Office of Federal Procurement Policy as OFPP reviews the agency’s governmentwide contracting authority.
“We feel very confident that we have a successful program,” said Diane Frasier, director of the NIH Office of Acquisition Management and Policy, said April 7. “We are tried and true.”
NIH has come under some increased scrutiny as reports have surfaced that the General Services Administration has asked OFPP to not extend NIH’s GWAC authority.
Fraiser would not explicitly say whether NIH’s governmentwide acquisition contract would receive the blessing from Office of Management and Budget procurement officials, but she said her program has been around for 14 years and has received OMB’s designation as a GWAC host since 2000.
To be a GWAC, OFPP must grant an agency the designation. And few are given. Agencies with designations must get OFPP’s approval whenever one of their GWACs comes up for renewal. Compared to the number of multiple-award contracts surfacing throughout the federal government, government-wide contracts are a rarity. Only NIH, the General Services Administration, NASA and the Environmental Protection Agency now have the designation.
NIH’s Information Technology Acquisition and Assessment Center (NITAAC) has submitted its materials to OFPP. Frasier expects to sit down this month with Daniel Gordon, OFPP administrator, and his staff, to discuss NITAAC’s status as an executive agent of GWACs.
“We have to assure them that we have a well-run program,” Frasier said. One proof of its success is its sales. Since January NITAAC has had more than $100 million in orders on its Chief Information Officer-Solutions and Partner2i (CIO-SP2i) GWAC.
She also said agencies trust NITAAC enough to send their big orders to the center. Agencies, such as the Defense Department, have looked to CIO-SP2i for demands with engineering and program support, security information management systems and Internet-accessible database services. The Obama administration’s drive for a more open government may even bring more customers to NITAAC, Frasier said.
If NITAAC gets the designation from OFPP, Fraiser can take the next step in getting bids for its CIO-SP3 and CIO-SP3 Small Business contracts. NITAAC has already released a draft request for proposals and in March formally responded to questions about the contract. Fraiser said she expects business to continue growing, and to that end, NITAAC has put the ceilings for each CIO-SP3 contract at $20 billion.
Still, NITAAC has lost business as agencies, such as the Homeland Security Department, launched their own department-wide IDIQs or as other agencies set up multiple-agency contracts, Frasier said.
Despite agencies’ efforts to launch their own vehicles, Frasier said they should realize the GWACs have strict standards and reporting requirements for OMB. They are held to a higher standard, unlike the other contracts popping up.
Multiple-agency contracts are similar to GWACs in that both are interagency contracts. However, GWACs are specifically for information technology products and services, and agencies interested in awarding a GWAC must first get OFPP’s permission. They don’t need that approval to award MACs.
Facing OMB’s review of her program, Fraiser said she’s not running a “fly-by-night operation.”
“NIH has 14 years of experience in running a major IT program, and was one of the first programs to earn OMB’s designation as a GWAC,” Frasier said.
GSA could be trying to kill rival agency contract – Are other GWACS next on the hit list?
April 8, 2010 by cs
The General Services Administration seems to again be pushing to be the only provider of governmentwide acquisition contracts. The agency’s GWAC director is trying to get the Office of Federal Procurement policy to strip GWAC authority from the National Institues of Health, according to Joanne Woytek, program manager at NASA’s own Solutions for Enterprisewide Procurements GWAC, wrote today on FCW.com.
Woytek reported this in a posting to Harvard professor and FCW blogger Steve Kelman’s Facebook wall, and Kelman in turn based a blog entry on it.
Woytek said Friday morning that she has not been contaced by GSA or OFPP about rescinding NASA GWAC authority.
Officials from NIH’s Information Technology Assessment and Acquisition Center are slated to meet soon with Dan Gordon, OFPP administrator, to discuss a request he recevied to remove NIH’s Chief Information Officer-Solutions and Partners contract from the list of GWACs, according to Kelman.
Woytek said in her Facebook posting that she thinks GSA will try the same maneuver with SEWP when it comes up for renewal in 2012. Her Facebook posting and comment on Kelman’s blog were just “heads up” that she wanted to pass on to him, she said Friday.
None of the agencies involved responded to requests for comments.
Overall GSA’s move, which is not the first attempt by the agency, raises the question of whether the government has too many GWACs, multiple-award contacts and indefinite-delivery/indefinite/quantity contracts, and if they have started overlap.
Experts are split on the decision.
Competition among contract vehicles, including the alternative default contracts inside each agency, promotes customer service and innovation, like competition in other markets, Kelman wrote. When GSA had a monopoly on the government contracting business, it also had poor customer service and little innovation when it had a monopoly on the government buying market, Kelman — himself a former OFPP administrator — wrote.
Martha Johnson, GSA’s administrator, agreed in a recent speech at FOSE 2010, saying GSA didn’t know how to spell “marketing” when agencies were required to buy from GSA. Competition has forced GSA to improve on its innovation and customer service.
However, other experts say there are too many GWACs that are selling much of the same items, especially commodity IT products. As a result, it creates inefficiencies in government operation.
Woytek disagreed with this characterization, saying there are only two commodity GWACs – SEWP and NIH’s Electronic Computer Store.
Bob Woods, president of Topside Consulting and a former GSA commissioner, said agencies should let the larger organizations, such as GSA, handle the commodities. Then the agency can allow employees in their contracting shops to attend to the agency’s unique purchases.
“Competition isn’t as important if you’re not taking care of the basics of business,” he said.
Furthermore, agencies can save money by paying the GSA’s 0.75 percent fee upfront to get general products, instead of launching their own contracts to get the same things, he said.
SEWP’s fee is 0.5, which would be even greater savings for agencies than using GSA’s vehicle, Woytek said.
At the same time, the government may be paying higher prices because of too many contracts
Ray Bjorklund, senior vice president and chief knowledge officer at FedSources, said companies believe they should be on each of the contracts to have access to a lot of business. But it creates more work and more divisions inside a company to deal with each contract’s specific requirements, such as reporting information.
As companies submit more bids and pour more resources into getting a chance to even compete for the work, costs can increase for the govenrment, he said.
Today, the marketplace has changed dramatically since the 1990s when agencies were first given the chance to start up their own contracts, he said. Now, most agencies have settled on their client, and industry is advanced enough to handle more complex work. The government now should consider GSA’s move several years ago to merge two different GWACs and created the Alliant GWAC for IT products and services. While there were some bumps along the GWAC’s way with bid protests and court cases, the principle is fine, he said.
Now, the acquisition community is waiting for officials in OFPP, who have the authority to deny an agency its GWAC status, to decision how it plans to address the issue of too many contractors or more competition.
“I wish OFPP would take a leadership position and reconcile this issue of GWACs and multiple-agency contracts,” Bjorklund said.
by Matthew Weigelt–Federal Computer Week-Apr, 01, 2010 - About the Author: Matthew Weigelt is acquisition editor for Federal Computer Week. © 1996-2009 1105 Media, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
GSA chief says agency will ‘up its game’ with technology
March 30, 2010 by cs
by Emily Long - NextGov.com – 03/25/10 - The General Services Administration will leverage technology solutions to better serve federal agencies, Martha Johnson, GSA’s top executive, said on Thursday.
GSA, which currently accounts for 13 percent of federal spending, could increase its sales if it were allowed to open its schedules to state and local jurisdictions or expand into new markets such as health information technology, Johnson said in a speech at FOSE, a government technology conference and security expo in Washington.
But if the agency is going to expand, it must change its internal business practices such as improving the flow of data and information to boost performance, she added. “What is in our hands is the whole notion of upping our performance and performing better for our clients — being more responsive, helping people find what they need more quickly and understanding where they can get the best value for the right price,” she told reporters after her speech.
“If GSA ups its game, its business will grow,” she said.
Johnson stressed that technology enables collaboration through collective intelligence or social media tools to harness expertise and solve problems. The technologies exist, but government still needs to work out how best to use them to communicate ideas, she said.
GSA on Thursday launched two pilots for its Better Buy Project, a collaborative forum that collects ideas for improving the federal acquisition process. The first uses a wiki and other social media tools to collect comments and questions on how to improve data storage and hosting on Data.gov. The second solicits feedback on the infrastructure of a new hosting environment called Clearpath.
The agency is involved in several IT areas, according to Johnson. Its Office of Citizen Services is exploring social media and helping agencies purchase the right applications. Such a focus has led to agencies having posted 85 YouTube channels and 80 Facebook pages, she said. GSA officials also believe cloud computing could boost the value of IT and hope to quickly improve the government’s legacy IT infrastructure.
Each technology solution involves green IT, Johnson added, and GSA will continue to pursue data center consolidation and more efficient technology solutions.
Johnson also highlighted the importance of collaborating with industry and other agencies such as GSA’s partnership with the Office of Personnel Management to give federal employees the tools and guidance they need to telework. Technology has been an enabler for telework, she said.
GSA no longer serves as the sole supplier of goods and services to government, so it will be a challenge to meet its goal of growth, she said. The agency must compete with other procurement vehicles and explain how it provides the best service to its customers. “GSA’s mission is to support its client agencies so that they can focus squarely on their core missions,” Johnson said. “We must deliver innovative solutions, not the solutions and tools that may have worked in the past.”
Panel recommends overhaul of GSA’s Multiple Award Schedules
March 12, 2010 by cs
By Emily Long 03/11/10
A changing acquisition landscape and inconsistent policy implementation are behind a push to update the General Services Administration’s contract practices, according to procurement professionals.
The Multiple Award Schedules Advisory Panel, made up of stakeholders from GSA, agency users and industry, published on Monday its 20 recommendations to improve the structure, use and pricing of GSA’s schedules program.
The recommendations acknowledge the program, which has evolved from offering commodities to providing solutions and services, and the pricing methodologies might not suit what agencies are buying today, said Alan Chvotkin, a panel member and executive vice president and counsel at the Professional Services Council, a contractor trade association.
Although the schedules have been a useful tool for agencies looking for commercially available services and products, “MAS has needed a lot of rehab because it hasn’t kept up with the wide expansion of services and products that are out there,” said Ray Bjorklund, senior vice president and chief knowledge officer at FedSources, a market research firm.
One of the panel’s tasks was to determine the future of the price reduction clause, which states if a vendor lowers prices for its target customer, then it also must do so for government. The panel recommended GSA remove the clause from supply and services contracts and, in turn, not apply the provision to solutions.
“[Some are] mischaracterizing the panel’s recommendations regarding the price reduction clause,” Chvotkin said. “We did recommend eliminating it, but the mischaracterization is that we said, ‘Do away with it.’ We proposed replacing it with other tools and techniques to help buying agencies.”
Chvotkin said GSA can’t simply eliminate the clause, so the recommendations in part were designed to build transparency and visibility for purchasing agencies. They ask, for example, for GSA to develop more information about individual orders, give benchmark data and provide more disclosure about how it establishes reasonable prices.
Bjorklund said one of the report’s less explicit themes is that GSA and contractors must apply policies consistently and coherently, which will help companies to sign up for multiple schedules.
The report also proposes governmentwide adoption of Section 803, a provision from the 2002 National Defense Authorization Act that previously applied only to the Defense Department. The policy would require agencies gathering bids for more than $100,000 in task and delivery orders to solicit all schedule contractors and collect bids from at least three.
Some of the changes are regulatory and administrative, Chvotkin said, adding the only statutory change — adopting Section 803 — has congressional approval. “It’s a leadership challenge more than a technical challenge,” he said.
Larry Allen, president of the Coalition for Government Procurement and a panel member, hopes the recommendations receive fair examination. “The report was designed to improve the schedules program. It would be a shame not to pilot test them,” he said.
GSA executives, including Administrator Martha Johnson, Chief Acquisition Officer Michael Robertson and the incoming head of the Federal Acquisition Service who has yet to be named, will review the recommendations and implement any changes.
GSA on Thursday confirmed that the administrator received the report.