Georgia Tech Procurement Assistance Center

  • Home
  • About Us
  • Training
    • Class Registration
    • On-demand Training
    • GTPAC COVID-19 Resource Page
    • Cybersecurity Video
    • Veterans Verification Video
    • GTPAC Community
    • Other Training Audio & Video
  • Useful Links
  • Team Directory
    • Albany Counselor
    • Athens Counselor
    • Atlanta Counselors
    • Augusta Counselor
    • Carrollton Counselor
    • Columbus Counselor
    • Gainesville Counselor
    • Savannah Counselor
    • Warner Robins Counselor
  • Directions
    • Athens
    • Atlanta – Training Facility
    • Atlanta – Office
    • Albany
    • Augusta
    • Carrollton
    • Columbus
    • Gainesville
    • Savannah
    • Warner Robins
  • COVID-19
  • New Client Application
  • Contact Us

Is a GSA Schedule Contract Right for You?

May 11, 2010 By ei2admin

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.

Filed Under: Contracting Tips Tagged With: acquisition, government contract assistance, GSA, Schedules, VA

NIH prepares to fight for contract authority

April 9, 2010 By ei2admin

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.

By Matthew Weigelt – Apr 08, 2010 – About the Author: Matthew Weigelt is acquisition editor for Federal Computer Week.

Filed Under: Contracting News Tagged With: government contracting, government trends, GSA, marketing, NASA, NIH, Schedules

GSA could be trying to kill rival agency contract – Are other GWACS next on the hit list?

April 8, 2010 By ei2admin

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.

Filed Under: Contracting News Tagged With: government contracting, government trends, GSA, marketing, NASA, NIH, Schedules

GSA chief says agency will ‘up its game’ with technology

March 30, 2010 By ei2admin

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.”


© 2010 BY NATIONAL JOURNAL GROUP, INC. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

Filed Under: Contracting News Tagged With: government contracting, GSA, Schedules

Panel recommends overhaul of GSA’s Multiple Award Schedules

March 12, 2010 By ei2admin

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.


© 2010 BY NATIONAL JOURNAL GROUP, INC. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

Filed Under: Contracting News Tagged With: acquisition, GSA, Schedules

  • « Previous Page
  • 1
  • …
  • 6
  • 7
  • 8

Recent Posts

  • DoD publishes long awaited interim rule on CMMC
  • GSA Region 4 OSDBU hosting small business webinar
  • GTPAC launches COVID-19 resource page
  • GDEcD seeks GA Manufacturers and Distributors that can help with critical health care supply needs related to COVID-19
  • Georgia DOAS to hold 4th Annual Georgia Procurement Conference April 21-23, 2020

Popular Topics

8(a) abuse Army bid protest budget budget cuts certification construction contract awards contracting opportunities cybersecurity DoD DOJ False Claims Act FAR federal contracting federal contracts fraud GAO Georgia Tech government contracting government contract training government trends GSA GSA Schedule GTPAC HUBZone innovation IT Justice Dept. marketing NDAA OMB SBA SDVOSB set-aside small business small business goals spending subcontracting technology VA veteran owned business VOSB wosb

Contracting News

DoD publishes long awaited interim rule on CMMC

Small business subcontracting for cloud computing gets easier

Long awaited changes to WOSB/EDWOSB regulations expected this summer

The CMMC has arrived: DoD publishes version 1.0 of its new cybersecurity framework

GSA keeping ‘on track’ with schedule consolidation

Read More

Contracting Tips

A guide to labor and employment obligations for federal contractors

Who pays for CMMC certification?

Other transaction agreements: Where does an unsuccessful bidder go?

Knowledge is power, if you know how to use it

EAJA provides relief to construction contractor for government’s bad actions

Read More

GTPAC News

GSA Region 4 OSDBU hosting small business webinar

GTPAC launches COVID-19 resource page

GDEcD seeks GA Manufacturers and Distributors that can help with critical health care supply needs related to COVID-19

Georgia DOAS to hold 4th Annual Georgia Procurement Conference April 21-23, 2020

MICC Fort Stewart hosting acquisition forecast open house on Thursday, Feb. 6, 2020

Read More

Georgia Tech News

Dr. Abdallah testifies on U.S. competitiveness, research, STEM pipeline at Congressional hearing

Georgia Tech’s Technology Square Phase III to include George Tower

Student surprises his teacher with Georgia Tech acceptance news

Georgia Tech Applied Research will support DHS information safeguarding effort

$25 million project will advance DNA-based archival data storage

Read More

  • SAM.gov registration is free, and help with SAM is free, too
APTAC RSS Twitter GTPAC - 30th Year of Service

Copyright © 2021 · Georgia Tech - Enterprise Innovation Institute