GovernmentExecutive.com

Return to Article: Managers discourage agencies from solo IT shopping

• 92029
  

  There are merits to some of the posts, but I think overall that agencies should not be continually creating new contract vehicles as this creates unnecessary redundancy and drives costs up. Once of the fundamental issues for this mentally is that all agencies think they are unique, and that they have unique services and interests. This falsehood is further exacerbated by the need to custom develop technologies to meet these unique requirements. I believe that using mature technologies, specifically COTS solutions, is ultimately the best option for federal IT procurements. Further, if requirements definitions could be done better, all the unique requirements fall off the table to the point where mature, commercial technologies can be procured to meet the needs of many of these agencies. This scenario allows the use of contract vehicles already in place (e.g. GSA Schedules and Alliant), which would in turn reduce procurement costs, and increase the chances of positive outcomes by helping standardize the way technology is purchased across the federal government.

  Jaime Gracia Posted November 14, 2009 3:36 PM
• 91512
  

  Mr. Olasoaga, if GSA contracts are essentially foolproof, then why is Steve Kempf, assistant commissioner for acquisition at GSA's Federal Acquisition Service, saying that GSA knows that agencies' acquisition employees are incorrectly issuing task orders on the Multiple Award Schedule program's contracts and blanket purchase agreements (BPAs), which are under the same program? Why is GSA having to provide remedial contracting training for such an "easy" set of contracts?

  Stan Posted November 9, 2009 7:54 AM
• 91510
  

  "What we're battling every day is these [indefinite delivery-indefinite quantity contracts] being created in other agencies and departments," said Marcelo Olasoaga, deputy director for GWAC programs at GSA, during the National Contract Management Association's annual conference in Bethesda, Md. This quotation indicates that these agencies are battling competition even with agencies who prefer to protect their own interests by writing their own contracts. If something goes wrong with an order from another agencie's GWAC, there is no guarantee that the other agency will have the same interests as the issuing agency. Mr. Olasoaga's words also may indicate a conflict of interest between his agency's need to collect fees from other agencies and the best interests of the agency issuing the orders. From my nearly 25 years of experience in Federal contracting, I find that it takes as much care to issue an order from an existing contract as it does to issue my own contract. One size does not fit all, and it isn't as easy as saying "You don't have to get three bids." Depending on the fair opportunity provisions, you may have to get more than three, and in the case of IT services that involve software, NASA SEWP IV doesn't include any terms and conditions in the basic contracts for the software licensing, leaving it up to the issuing agency to negotiate adequate terms that protect the Government. Readers, remember the source of these words from NASA, NIH, and GSA, who are shopping for your funds in a not-so-altruistic way. Sometimes it is best to write your own contract, especially after reading the terms and conditions from the GWAC (if you can get a copy of the basic GSA contract - not the schedule- that is). I find it easier to get copies from the contractors of the basic GSA contracts.

  William Posted November 9, 2009 7:50 AM
• 91456
  

  "If you want a program that is being run right and reporting to [the Office of Management and Budget], Congress and the [Government Accountability Office], we're the ones you need to be going to."

  Thank you very much, I needed a good laugh today!!!

  Humerous Posted November 6, 2009 4:17 PM
• 91399
  

  "GSA can't cut it and price right?"

  I have seen no evidence of this, and I really don't know why anyone would need to look further than the GSA IT Schedule or GSA Alliant to procure IT services? I think people don't know they can use these ready-built vehicles to run their own procurement. I also think it is not common knowledge that many IDIQs advertise themselves and operate as governmentwide vehicles. The IDIQ proliferation issuse is a perfect case of bureaucracy gone wild, and government's inability to police itself.

  M Posted November 6, 2009 9:25 AM
• 91378
  

  It would be great if NASA and NIH actually have the self-claimed relative high quality of management. But why do two agencies with critical missions other than IT acquisition hawk and tout IT services? In NASA's case, are its own acquisitions models of good value, top contractor performance, warranted award fees, cost management, schedule discipline, transparency, etc? Are these two agencies only in the acq business because GSA can't cut it and price right? Can the government go back to the well one more time and fix GSA so it attracts the business that the NIHs and NASAs of the world take up as improbable sidelines, in questionable diversifications of their missions? Is there any wonder that the CPO calls these arrangements bizarre. There are multiples more than is needed of acquisition management capacity and actual IT services capacity in already awarded contracts. Agencies seem to like being in the IT business (just as USDA loves being in the payroll business). But in the aggregate is all of this saving money and making good use of scarce acquisition workforce? Let's think again.

  Michael Lent Posted November 6, 2009 5:36 AM