Warning: version_compare() expects parameter 2 to be string, array given in /home/customer/www/gtpac.org/public_html/wp-content/plugins/all-in-one-seo-pack-pro/app/Pro/Utils/Addons.php on line 75
blanket purchase orders | Georgia Tech Procurement Assistance Center

Georgia Tech Procurement Assistance Center

Why CDM vendors need more flexibility

By

The first two phases of the Department of Homeland Security’s Continuous Diagnostic and Mitigation (CDM) program have helped government agencies deploy foundational cybersecurity solutions for real-time visibility and continuous network monitoring to identify vulnerabilities, reduce risk, ensure compliance and respond to threats.

DHS and the General Services Administration (GSA) deserve tremendous credit for implementing a technical program of this size and complexity. However, the first two phases barely bring government to the starting line of the cybersecurity technology race. The private sector and U.S. adversaries are already well past that point.

The most important phase of the CDM program is yet to come, under which government tackles the data security problems of an increasingly mobile workforce and distributed cloud computing environment.

Keep reading this article at: https://fcw.com/articles/2018/03/19/cdm-vendor-flex-comment.aspx

Former Georgia national guard employee indicted for corruption

By

Raytosha Elliott, a former contracting official with the Georgia Department of Defense, has been indicted for allegedly awarding contracts in exchange for illegal kickbacks.

“Ms. Elliott took advantage of the trust her job afforded her to award no-bid contracts by giving them to her friends,” said United States Attorney Sally Quillian Yates.  “The defendants pocketed nearly $75,000 from their scheme for work that was never completed, and denied services meant to maintain facilities supporting those who serve this country.”

Ricky Maxwell, Acting Special Agent in Charge, FBI Atlanta Field Office, stated: “This case is a direct result of government personnel detecting criminal financial irregularities and reporting them to the proper authorities. The FBI will continue to dedicate significant investigative resources to ensure that federal money is spent appropriately and as intended.”

Special Agent in Charge John F. Khin, Southeast Field Office, Defense Criminal Investigative Service, said, “In partnership with other law enforcement agencies, the Defense Criminal Investigative Service aggressively pursues all allegations of fraud and corruption impacting the Department of Defense and our warfighting mission, to ensure that American taxpayer dollars are not wasted or stolen.”

“The prosecution of individuals who manipulate normal business transactions in an effort to enrich themselves has always been a priority of IRS and our law enforcement partners”, stated Veronica F. Hyman-Pillot, Special Agent in Charge, IRS Criminal Investigation.  “We are proud to have contributed our financial expertise in order to ensure that those who engage in these illegal activities are vigorously investigated and brought to justice.”

“This case is an excellent example of federal and state law enforcement working together to fight corruption,” said Vernon M. Keenan, Director of the Georgia Bureau of Investigation.

Interim Inspector General Deb Wallace of the State of Georgia Office of Inspector General said, “Our office is dedicated to strengthening the trust between the citizens of Georgia and their public officials by continuously pursuing fraud, waste, abuse and corruption within the executive branch of state government. We would like to thank and recognize the Georgia Department of Defense for its vigilance and willingness to report irregularities within its contracting process. We appreciate the many investigative agencies who assisted on this case through countless hours of hard work to bring it to resolution.”

According to United States Attorney Yates, the charges and other information presented in court:  From May 2007 through April 2012, Elliott worked for the Georgia Department of Defense, the state agency charged with coordinating and supervising all agencies and functions of the Ga. National Guard.  Elliott worked as an Engineering Operations Manager out of the Clay National Guard Center, located at Dobbins Air Reserve Base, in Marietta, Ga.  In that position, Elliott worked with engineering firms to develop bid-ready construction projects, prepared bid documents, and oversaw no-bid purchase orders.  Under the rules governing the contracting process that Elliott oversaw, projects that cost less than $5,000 did not need to go through a competitive bidding process, allowing Elliott to award the contracts.  She then certified that the work had been completed for those projects, and facilitated payment to the vendors who allegedly completed such projects.

In that position, Elliott awarded numerous contracts under $5,000 to vendor companies created by her friends and associates, including co-defendant Lakeysha Ellis.  In return, the friends and associates paid Elliott kickbacks, equal to 50% of the value of the contracts, for steering the contracts to them.  Elliott falsely certified that work had been completed when, in fact, it had not been in order to facilitate payment.  One of the vendor companies was Total Source Solution, LLC, owned by co-defendant Ellis.  Elliott awarded Total Source Solution 17 contracts with a total value of approximately $75,000.  Those contracts were for a variety of services supposedly to be performed by Total Source Solution, including electrical work, landscaping, and HVAC work.  But the work was never done.  Instead, the defendants split the money awarded under these contracts and spent it on personal items, including travel, meals, merchandise, and even liposuction treatment for Ellis.  As part of the scheme, Elliott owned a company named Tech Group Investments, LLC.  Ellis took money she had obtained from the Georgia Department of Defense contracts, and paid kickbacks to Elliott through this company.

The indictment also alleges that Ellis and Elliott conducted a similar fraud scheme from January 2009, through May 2011, when Ellis was an accountant at Baumueller-Nuermont Corporation, an industrial equipment company with offices in Atlanta.  Her job responsibilities included payroll and paying vendors.

While employed as Baumueller-Nuermont’s accountant, Ellis fraudulently funneled money to the defendants’ two sham companies, Total Source Solution and Tech Group Investments.  Ellis wrote corporate checks to Total Source Solution, signed her name on the checks, and forged the signature of the Vice President on the checks, to ensure that the checks could be negotiated.  Ellis recorded these payments in the check registry to reflect falsely that the checks had been issued to true vendors (such as American Express) when in fact they went to Ellis’ company.

As part of the scheme, Ellis also falsified employee records in the corporation’s payroll system to disguise payments to the defendants’ two companies.  Ellis created at least two phantom employees by altering the names of real employees (by switching their first and last names) and slightly changing their Social Security numbers.  She then caused the payroll system to make fraudulent salary payments to Total Source Solution and Tech Group Investments for these new, non-existent employees.

Baumueller-Nuermont lost about $85,000 from this scheme.

The ten count indictment charges Elliott, 33, and Ellis, 36, both of Atlanta, Ga., with two counts of conspiracy and seven counts of wire fraud.  Elliott is also charged with accepting a bribe or kickback as a public official.

Members of the public are reminded that the indictment contains only allegations.  The defendant is presumed innocent of the charges and it will be the government’s burden to prove the defendant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt at trial.

This case is being investigated by Special Agents of the Federal Bureau of Investigation; the Georgia Bureau of Investigation; the U.S. Department of Defense, Office of Inspector General, Defense Criminal Investigative Service; Internal Revenue Service Criminal Investigation; the U.S. Army Criminal Investigation Command; and Deputy Inspectors General of the State of Georgia Office of the Inspector General.

Source: http://www.justice.gov/usao/gan/press/2014/01-16-14.html 

Janitorial supply and maintenance equipment contract opportunities designated for GSA Schedule-holders

By

The General Services Administration (GSA) has just announced two contract opportunities for bulk purchases, one for janitorial supplies and the other for maintenance equipment.

If you are a GSA Schedule contractor, these opportunities may be of interest to you.  In order to bid on the janitorial supplies contract, you must be an existing holder of a GSA Schedule contract in categories 51V, 73 or 75.  In order to bid on the maintenance equipment contract, you must hold GSA Schedule 51V.

These new opportunities are part of GSA’s “strategic sourcing initiative” whereby multiple Government agencies agree to pool their contracting needs in certain categories of purchasing.  The two solicitations now open for bid involve products that cost the Government more than $1 billion annually, and GSA estimates that strategic sourcing will reduce the Government’s costs by 10-20 percent.

The departments of the Army, Navy and Air Force have committed to use GSA’s strategic sourcing solution for janitorial and sanitation supplies, as did the Veterans Affairs, Homeland Security, Treasury and Energy departments, and others.  Many of those departments also committed to the other solution GSA announced — the one for maintenance, repair and operations supplies.

GSA will issue blanket purchase agreements (BPAs) to multiple contractors under both of these solicitations.  Under BPAs, agencies can repeatedly buy the same supplies or services from a contractor without having to redo the procurement process each time.

For both the janitorial and maintenance solicitations, GSA says it is reserving a majority of the awards for small businesses and service-disabled-veteran-owned small businesses.

You can find the solicitations posted as follows:

* RFQ for janitorial and sanitation – https://interact.gsa.gov/node/62442

* RFQ for maintenance, repair and operations – https://interact.gsa.gov/blog/request-quote-rfq-issued-fssi-mro

Right now, the deadline for responses to these solicitations is Nov. 12, 2013, although you should always check the web sites listed above for any changes.

Questions about either of these solicitations are due not later than Oct. 22, 2013. For questions regarding the janitorial/sanitation RFQ or attachments, contact JoAnn Stanley at joann.stanley@gsa.gov and Steve Nieswiadomy at steve.nieswiadomy@gsa.gov.  For questions regarding the maintenance equipment RFQ or attachments, please contact Glenda Lambert at glenda.lambert@gsa.gov and Shaun Hankton at shaun.hankton@gsa.gov.

How one small business chipped away at the market and captured a $75M opportunity

By

Contrary to its name, marketing and communications company LeapFrog Solutions didn’t immediately leap into the government market.

That happened in 2002, when Lisa Martin’s company won three small consulting contracts from the Federal Railroad Administration, Voice of America and the Federal Aviation Administration.

Others modest government awards followed from the Secret Service, National Credit Union Administration and Office of the Currency.

Martin said she quickly realized that, like commercial entities, many federal agencies had websites that were not in sync with their mission statements. Also, activities such as direct mail, trade show appearances and ad campaigns also were disjointed because each operation was the responsibility of a different domain.

So for the government market, she said, “Our very ambitious goal was ‘make the message matter.’ Whether it was online, offline, we wanted to make the message consistent.”

LeapFrog’s big leap into the government arena began in 2008, when the Federal Emergency Management Agency set aside its marketing and communications contracting as a small-business award.

Following Hurricane Katrina and other ensuing natural disasters, FEMA managers in 2010 decided they needed a public campaign to publicize how citizens could protect their homes and possessions from flood damage through government-sponsored insurance.

FEMA then created the National Flood Insurance Program Integrated Marketing and Advertising and Public Services contract.

About 30 small businesses answered FEMA’s request for proposals, which included managing the agency website, its publications, direct mail, conference appearances and advertising.

“We’d been watching for [the RFP] for a while,” said Mark Nelson, LeapFrog’s business development and communications manager, who joined the company in 2010.

“Our challenge was putting together a strong proposal in response to the RFP and corralling all the [partner] elements,” he said. “For example, we don’t do large-scale media buying so that’s why we enlisted Spurrier Media Group out of Richmond.”

And although LeapFrog does some web design, it doesn’t do the more complex back-end coding that is required, so it brought in Blue Water Media as a partner.

This past March the LeapFrog-led team won the five-year, $75 million FEMA contract to publicize and market government-sponsored flood insurance under the National Flood Insurance Program.

The LeapFrog team of Blue Water Media and Spurrier Media Group also includes Bender Consulting Services Inc. and former incumbents ad agency JWT, once known as the J. Walter Thompson agency, and Ogilvy Public Relations.

Among other tasks, LeapFrog manages the FEMA website FloodSmart.gov and collates the data from the agency’s call center queries.

“If you go to FloodSmart.gov, you can type in your address it will show you what your [flood] risk level risk is and give you a ballpark figure of what a policy would cost,” Nelson explained.

“FEMA actually has done a really good job,” he said. “They’re in the process of redoing a lot of the flood maps around the country using more digital and interactive tools.” Martin’s team also is tasked with spreading the word about FEMA’s flood insurance assistance through trade shows and by disseminating information to local officials, insurance companies, contractors and others.

LeapFrog Solutions is leveraging its work with FEMA at other government assistance agencies including the Homeland Security, Health and Human Services and Interior departments as well as the Office of Personnel Management.

“We’re also working at VA because of all the health care initiatives; also the military heath care system under DOD,” Martin said.

As a result of the FEMA award and its other government and commercial contracts, LeapFrog Solutions has grown to about 25 employees and the company, which began in Martin’s basement in 1996, will be moving into new, larger offices within the next few months.

“We’ve probably doubled [the staff] within the past two years,” she said. “As we’re growing, one of the things that we’re finding is that communications really need to be more and more refined.”

She said the advent of new social media and the growth of a tech-savvy government work force require companies like LeapFrog to be up on the latest technologies and be able to communicate their benefits. That includes keeping abreast of what the young generation of government workers wants and needs, she added.

At the same time, Martin sees health care initiatives becoming a big part of LeapFrog’s future.

“There’s a huge opportunity there,” she said, citing new opportunities at VA, HHS and NIH, where LeapFrog has secured a blanket purchase agreement.

But “it’s not enough just to be able to build and maintain a website. If you have a solution, you really have to show results,” she said. “When we go into an agency, we’re looking at what we can measure. What gets measured gets results.”

About the Author: David Hubler is senior editor of Washington Technology. This article was published Dec. 19, 2011 at http://washingtontechnology.com/Articles/2011/12/19/LeapFrog-FEMA-contract.aspx?s=wtdaily_201211&p=1.

New rule funnels more contracts to small businesses

By

Under a proposed new rule, small companies are expected to get more business through multiple-award contractors because that’s where the money has increasingly been going since the mid-1990s.

Regulators have revised the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) to match the fluctuation toward task-order contracts, such as governmentwide acquisition contracts, blanket purchase agreements and agencywide contracts. The Office of Federal Procurement Policy has pushed those types of vehicles to streamline purchasing and get lower prices.

Officials released an interim rule Nov. 2 about the FAR revisions. The rule took effect the same day.

The changes make clear that contracting officers can set aside orders for small businesses both on blanket purchase agreements under the General Services Administration’s Multiple Award Schedules and on multiple-award contracts.

The revisions add a new section in the FAR. It authorizes agencies to set aside one or more contracts for small business on a multiple-award contract, including any of the socioeconomic programs, such as the service-disabled, veteran-owned small business program.

Officials are hopeful for what the changes will bring to small businesses. at the Defense Department, GSA, and NASA expect agencies to take advantage of the set-aside revisions. They want agencies to identify possible multiple-award contracts through which they could set- aside orders for small businesses. They also want agencies to set aside more orders when using GSA’s Schedules, according to the notice.

The changes are based on law and an advisory group.

Congress included language in the Small Business Jobs Act, which became law in 2010, addressing set-asides among task and delivery orders.

Also in 2010, an interagency panel, which was created by President Barack Obama to study small-business contracting, found the issue needed some attention since multiple-award contracts have become so popular.

“There has been no attempt to create a comprehensive policy for orders placed under either general task-and-delivery-order contracts or Schedule contracts that rationalizes and appropriately balances the need for efficiency with the need to maximize opportunities for small businesses,” the Task Force on Small Business Contracting wrote in its report.

About the Author: Matthew Weigelt is a senior writer covering acquisition and procurement for Washington Technology. Published Nov. 3, 2011 at http://washingtontechnology.com/articles/2011/11/03/small-business-set-asides-multiple-award-contracts.aspx?s=wtdaily_041111

FAR update clarifies interagency contracting responsibilities

By

Anytime the Defense Department hires another federal agency to do procurements for it, those servicing agencies are now responsible in regulation for ensuring that the General Services Administration schedule orders they place on behalf of the DoD comply with Defense regulations.

The new regulation–part of an interim rule made effective Dec. 13 and so subject to change (although, if past experience is anything to go by, minor changes)–settles an argument among federal agencies about how far regulations from the original customer agency penetrate past the level of another federal agency hired to perform procurement services. The answer is all the way.

The rule, in fact, applies to the entire government, but the Defense Department is the federal agency with the most involved set of department-specific regulations and so generally the most likely to have a difference from federalwide regulations. The new rule specifically states that the contracting officer placing the order is responsible for applying the regulatory and statutory requirements of the agency for which the order is being placed. The same goes when establishing a GSA blanket purchase agreement. The new language is part of a revised Part 8.404 (b)(1) of the Federal Acquisition Regulation

Many federal agencies, the Defense Department included, hire agencies such as GSA or the Interior Department’s Acquisition Services Directorate to perform procurements for them, paying them a fee for their services. The Pentagon a few years ago grew highly strained in its relationship with GSA and Interior in part over the extent to which those agencies were applying DoD rules to procurements made on its behalf.

All agencies that utilize an interagency procurement vehicle–including GSA schedules, although only for orders worth more than $500,000–must also now make a determination that use of another agency’s contract is the “best procurement approach.” That means at a minimum a document that analyzes the suitability of the contract vehicle and the value of utilizing it. Also from now on, any agency utilizing the services of another agency to make procurements (except, apparently, for assisted acquisitions made through GSA schedules that are worth less than $500,000) must have in place a written interagency agreement governing roles and responsibilities before the servicing agency releases a solicitation on behalf of its customer agency. These changes are all found in the new FAR Part 17.502-1 .

The interim rule also requires any agency setting up a new multi-agency contract vehicle with payment between agencies governed by the Economy Act to put together a business case analysis, although the rule’s language doesn’t appear to require that business case to gain approval from any higher authority before it proceeds with the new vehicle.   

The rule does say that the agency should consider strategies for small business participation; analyze all the direct and indirect costs to the government for administering such a contract; describe the impact the vehicle will have on governmentwide purchasing power; analyze whether there “is a need” for establishing the multi-agency contract and, finally, document roles and responsibilities in contract administration. That new language can be found in FAR Part 17.502-2 .

Multi-agency contracts have come under some criticism in the past few years for diluting the ability of the government to concentrate its purchasing power. An August 26, 2010 report  (.pdf) from the Office of Procurement Policy found that while during fiscal 2009 interagency contracting amounted to $53 billion worth of procurements, multi-agency contracts accounted for about $3 billion of that, or almost 6 percent.

Orders through GSA schedules totaled about $37 billion, orders through the Department of Veterans Affairs administered schedules totaled about $9 billion, and orders through governmentwide acquisition contracts (which are statutorily different from multi-agency contracts) accounted for about $3 billion.

Comments about the interim rule are due by Feb. 11, 2011.

For more:

  • download the interim rule (.pdf)
  • or go to the Federal Register interim rule webpage.

— by David Perera – Dec. 15, 2010 – Fierce Government – Source URL:
http://www.fiercegovernmentit.com/story/far-update-clarifies-interagency-contracting-responsibilities/2010-12-15

GSA’s office supply contract causes concern

By

The blanket purchase agreement (BPA) for office supplies awarded to 15 companies this past June is expected to save the government more than $50 million a year. Already 16 agencies from the departments of Defense to Veterans Affairs to Treasury have committed to at least making the multiple award contract mandatory for consideration by its employees when buying these products.

As the BPA is just getting off the ground, the General Services Administration also suspended any new vendors coming on to Schedule 75, which is for office supplies. The suspension is for two years starting Oct. 1.

These two actions may have some unintended consequences for more than 485 vendors who currently have a schedule contract to provide office supplies to the government.

“The BPA is part of GSA’s effort to funnel some of this business or as much as possible to low cost providers and that is a way to limit choices a lot of agencies have in this marketplace,” said Mike Tucker, president of the George W. Allen Company, an office supply company, which didn’t get a spot on the BPA. “Right now we will feel the effects of the BPA in the short term. We are hearing from our customers that they are being told to try the BPA, and until they have problems they can take back to their supervisors, we will take that hit.”

Chris Bates, the president of the National Office Products Association (NOPA), added that GSA’s decision to temporarily suspend Schedule 75 caught his members by surprise.

“We have some significant concerns about scope of GSA’s decision and the potential impact on our members,” Bates said. “Our concerns deal with those current Schedule 75 contract holders and those whose contracts expire between now and the end of the moratorium. We also are asking for confirmation on how the freeze will effect dealer consortia arrangements. There are three or four of them that potentially could be impacted. There are more questions than answers at this point, and the short notice of the freeze is of concern.”

GSA and the Office of Federal Procurement Policy say the benefits outweigh the potential negatives.

Paul McDermott, the regional commissioner for the Northeast and Caribbean region of the General Services Administration’s Federal Acquisition Service, which runs the BPA, said agencies can save between 5 percent and 45 percent off the list prices under Schedule 75.

“As we try to accomplish savings across the government, we’ve got to do a better job than we do today in leveraging our buying power,” he said. “We are proud of this BPA. It certainly gives us increased leverage, and it resulted in more attractive pricing.”

Agencies spent $690 million on office supplies through Schedule 75 in 2009, and that was only a fraction of the $1.6 billion spent overall. GSA and OFPP hope to push more money through the BPA to take advantage of the volume discounts the BPA offers.

McDermott added that while some Schedule 75 small businesses may be impacted by the BPA, there was ample opportunity to bid on strategic sourcing vehicle.

“We had 75 offerors and made 15 awards and we believe that was healthy competition,” he said. “We wanted to keep it to a manageable number of BPA holders. And nothing prevents current schedule holders from reducing their prices to compete with those on the BPA. It’s up to them to decide their best approach.”

But with the strong encouragement from GSA and OFPP to use the BPA, Tucker and Bates say non-BPA holders are in a tough position, and new companies trying to get into the federal market will be shut out.

“When President Obama and the SBA say they support small businesses and here you have a schedule that has been around for a while and a lot of people, small businesses, competing every day who have gone to considerable expense of getting a schedule to do business and they now are shut out, that leaves us with a number of questions,” Bates said. “One big one is what will this happen to other schedules as well or just is this commodity group singled out?”

Bates said NOPA is meeting with GSA to try to get some of their concerns addressed.

McDermott said that small businesses are not being shut out. He said of the 500-plus Schedule 75 contract holders 50 percent did less than $100,000 in business in 2009, and 10 percent did no business at all last year.

He added that the BPA also likely will have on-ramps, or opportunities to add new companies, as needed.

This is the second time GSA has led a strategic sourcing effort around office supplies. It awarded a BPA to 13 companies in 2007 with an expectation that that agencies would spend about $400 million on it. Tucker said agencies spent only $30 million in almost three years.

“GSA and agencies are putting a much stronger push behind this,” Tucker said. “The administration wants them to cut spending by three percent a year, so a lot of agencies can see if they fall in line by using the BPA.”

McDermott said the first BPA didn’t find the success GSA had hoped so the agency is offering training, and requiring the 15 companies to offer the discounted prices when feds use their government credit card to buy office products.

“The primary reason for the suspension of Schedule 75 is we wanted to gather data and it will take two years to do a meaningful evaluation of both the BPA and schedule programs,” he said. “We want to evaluate the impact going forward, and we didn’t want companies to have to take on the cost to get and administer the schedule when most of the work is going to the BPA program.”

— By Jason Miller, Executive Editor, Sept. 23, 2010, Federal News Radio – http://federalnewsradio.com/?sid=2060341&nid=35 

Purchasing agreements emphasize strategic sourcing, vendor diversity

By

Federal contracting officials can save nearly $200 million during the next four years by buying office supplies through one of 12 new blanket purchase agreements, the General Services Administration said on Wednesday.

The agreements — essentially charge accounts set up with certain companies — will help agencies meet the Obama administration’s goal of cutting contract spending by 7 percent by fiscal 2011, according to GSA officials.

The 12 agreements use strategic sourcing to consolidate purchases and leverage the government’s buying power. GSA said the pricing structure would save government buyers $48 million annually or $192 million over the life of the agreement. Agencies could spend as much as $800 million through the agreements during the next four years.

“These agreements show how [the Federal Acquisition Service’s] skillful negotiations can, and do, leverage the buying power on behalf of agencies governmentwide,” said Steven Kempf, acting commissioner of GSA’s Federal Acquisition Service. “The expertise and care the contracting team displayed have driven the prices down and opened doors for sustainable technologies and environmentally preferable products, while providing substantial opportunities for small business.”

According to the request for proposals, issued in March, a formalized commodity team, made up of officials from more than a dozen agencies, helped establish the agreements’ requirements. Many of those agencies have made funding commitments to use the agreements, the document said.

“Some participating agencies currently have established agency-specific vehicles for the purchase of office supplies with advantageous pricing,” the RFQ stated. “The aggregate participation of these and other agencies should result in pricing that is more competitive than that which a single agency can achieve. To this end, the contractor is strongly encouraged to offer BPA prices that are lower than pricing offered to any other federal government agency.”

The agreements are divided into three pools of companies offering office supply catalogs. The first pool is composed of seven small businesses, the second includes two companies that are focused on price and the third consists of three service-disabled veteran-owned small businesses offering discounted prices on toner catalogs. Each of the pools emphasizes price and sustainable or environmentally friendly products.

Daniel Gordon, the administrator of federal procurement policy at the Office of Management and Budget, lauded the purchasing structure.

“The agency is doing a very good job in balancing our commitment to low prices with our commitment to smoothing the path to the federal marketplace for small businesses and service-disabled veteran-owned small businesses,” Gordon said during a recent interview with Government Executive.

The agreements have other unique features, Gordon said. Unlike most BPAs, which are available only to a few agencies, they will be open governmentwide and available to all federal employees, he said.

“If you are a federal employee and you go into the winning vendor’s store, you give them your federal purchasing card and you will automatically get these prices,” Gordon said.

_______________________________________

— by Robert Brodsky – GovExec.com – June 3, 2010

Contracting News

Read More

Contracting Tips

Read More

GTPAC News

Read More

Georgia Tech News

Read More