TOPICS
TOPICS
GSA to establish $5 billion IT contract for disabled vet businesses
The General Services Administration will release a 10-year, $5 billion governmentwide acquisition information technology contract this spring for small businesses owned by disabled veterans.
The governmentwide acquisition contract, or GWAC, will be an option for agencies shopping for information technology services. Small IT businesses owned by service-disabled veterans interested in the GWAC must respond to GSA's request for proposal, which is slated to be issued this spring. Contract awards are expected in early 2006.
The contract, known as Veterans Technology Services, will have two functional areas: Information Systems Engineering and Systems Operations and Maintenance. Both will include IT security. GSA officials said less than 60 service-disabled veteran-owned small businesses are expected to receive contracts under the offering.
The contract is intended to help agencies meet their mandated 3 percent goal for contracting with service-disabled veteran-owned small businesses. The contracts are indefinite delivery/indefinite quantity, with the purpose of providing agencies with a means for acquiring services when they do not know the specifics of the services they need.
GSA Administrator Stephen A. Perry said GSA is forming a partnership with the Veterans Affairs Department and the Small Business Administration to provide the contract.
The contract is in response to an executive order signed by President Bush in October 2004 directing GSA to establish a contract for service-disabled veteran-owned small businesses. The procurement will be managed by GSA's Small Business GWAC center in Kansas City, Mo.
"We're seeing a great interest from our clients in trying to achieve their 3 percent goal," said Brad Scott, GSA heartland regional administrator and designated senior official for service-disabled veterans matters. "There's renewed interest in fulfilling our obligations for those veterans."
According to Scott, federal agencies do not come close to fulfilling their goal, with only about 0.5 percent of their contracting going toward service-disabled veteran-owned small businesses.
"The federal government's performance has not been stellar," Scott said. "But we have had more tools available to us in the past year and a half than we had previously, so hopefully agencies will come closer to meeting that goal."
Ray Bjorklund, a senior vice president with Federal Sources Inc., a government contracting consulting firm in McLean, Va., that analyzes agencies' technology budgets, said it might have been better for GSA to create a special offering in the current GWACs for service-disabled veterans rather than a separate offering.
"There are just so many GWACs out there and so many GSA schedules," Bjorklund said.
Bjorklund said the contract's ceiling of $5 billion may be wishful thinking because of the high number of indefinite delivery/indefinite quantity contracts available for information technology.
COMMENTS
- The service disabled small business program had the best of intentions. But I have personally seen a case where the "disabled veteran owned" construction business becomes a front man for a greedy large contractor. There is no provision for any oversight here, so fraud must run rampant. The disabled vet has absolutely no control over the operation or management of "his" company. I recently worked as a project manager for such a company. I was paid through the non-vet owned company, given authority to run the entire job, and I never even met the supposed owner. When I asked my real employer if this was legal, I was told that this was the way everyone did this, and that it was all legal. But when the disabled veteran wanted to be involved, the real owners told him to just shut up, stay away from the job, and stay out of the daily management and operations. It disgusted me to see them take the bulk of the money, as the disabled vet learned nothing about running a business. Instead, he got an allowance like a child, was to get only a very small percentage of the profits. The project staff at the VA hospital knew of the deception, but the manager there chose to look the other way. You see, the real contractor had a suite for the season with the local NHL team. I actually stood there as he told the VP of the company that he could use some tickets,(blocks of four seats) to several upcoming NHL hockey games. He took a schedule out of his desk to detail what games he wanted to go to, to help him and place his "order." He half jokingly told me after attending one of his hockey games, that he hoped the job would last until the NFL football season, because he knew that the firm had a block of season tickets for that as well. I left the company as soon as I found another position. The entire affair was the low point of my career. I wish I had simply refused to run the project, and let them discharge me, but I cant change that now. But the real shame is that no one in the government is watching or even seems to give a damn... DJ Posted April 8, 2008 12:15 PM
- The service disabled small business program had the best of intentions. But I have personally seen a case where the "disabled veteran owned" construction business becomes a front man for a greedy large contractor. There is no provision for any oversight here, so fraud must run rampant. The disabled vet has absolutely no control over the operation or management of "his" company. I recently worked as a project manager for such a company. I was paid through the non-vet owned company, given authority to run the entire job, and I never even met the supposed owner. When I asked my real employer if this was legal, I was told that this was the way everyone did this, and that it was all legal. But when the disabled veteran wanted to be involved, the real owners told him to just shut up, stay away from the job, and stay out of the daily management and operations. It disgusted me to see them take the bulk of the money, as the disabled vet learned nothing about running a business. Instead, he got an allowance like a child, was to get only a very small percentage of the profits. The project staff at the VA hospital knew of the deception, but the manager there chose to look the other way. You see, the real contractor had a suite for the season with the local NHL team. I actually stood there as he told the VP of the company that he could use some tickets,(blocks of four seats) to several upcoming NHL hockey games. He took a schedule out of his desk to detail what games he wanted to go to, to help him and place his "order." He half jokingly told me after attending one of his hockey games, that he hoped the job would last until the NFL football season, because he knew that the firm had a block of season tickets for that as well. I left the company as soon as I found another position. The entire affair was the low point of my career. I wish I had simply refused to run the project, and let them discharge me, but I cant change that now. But the real shame is that no one in the government is watching or even seems to give a damn... DJ Posted April 8, 2008 12:15 PM
- "The contract is intended to help agencies meet their mandated 3 percent goal for contracting with service-disabled veteran-owned small businesses. The contracts are indefinite delivery/indefinite quantity, with the purpose of providing agencies with a means for acquiring services when they do not know the specifics of the services they need." Stated only as a government operation could state something. This is ridiculous! Now all the small businesses will have to run out and bring a disabled vet into ownership to take advantage of this contract. If the agencies need help let then achieve results or give up money! Also, if the agencies do not know their requirements how could they contract for services? This illustrates the totally ridiculous use of my money to achieve political objectives that should not be implemented! Why do you think the USA is broke? If South Korea is diverting its investments away from dollars what do you think others are doing? This type of waste will cause the dollar to give up even more value and redirect investment to other currencies! This is another example of it is more important to look good than to feel good! taxpayer Posted February 28, 2005 6:27 AM









