Is the GSA's Power Dimming?

A colleague of mine recently heard an interesting conversation while at a government technology event that so many in the Beltway attend. Two GSA employees mentioned that they were in sales--providing consulting services to federal agencies trying to navigate the GSA Schedule. A technology vendor at the table was intrigued and asked if the consulting services went out for bid. Apparently the answer was no and an awkward silence ensued.

Upon further investigation, the services mentioned were legit--or legal at least. But it begs the question: With competitive sourcing and the balance of public/private competition being such hot topics, are these fee-based "consulting services" provided by the GSA fair to integrators and--as the GSA itself gets called out more and more--is the GSA's status as a contracting superpower diminishing?

The Department of Defense (DoD) seems to think so. In August, the behemoth agency announced it was bringing its contracting in-house. The Army, Navy and Air Force had, in effect, decided to implement their own contracting vehicles for tech products and services. The reason? To consolidate purchases, save money and make processes more efficient. The move comes after a report released by the GSA's inspector general, which revealed violations of contract law and regulations across the GSA's Federal Technology Service (FTS) offices--the very offices that offer the aforementioned fee-based consulting services.

The GSA's fees were cited as a possible motive for the DoD's latest move. Specifically, the GSA charges a fee of .75 percent of the contract for basic contract access with additional fees for services such as contract officers to help the agency. According to the inspector general's report, the DoD shelled out between $170 million and $425 million in fees to the FTS last year.

The stated mission of the FTS is to help agencies "achieve best-value solutions and avoid doing costly, time-consuming acquisitions, save taxpayer dollars and enable them to devote more of their own staffs directly to their agency missions and programs." Many wonder whether this fee-for-service offering from the agency that ultimately oversees the contracting of the government's IT projects isn't suspect.

"It's a service that is offered," explains Mary Alice Johnson, GSA Public Affairs spokesperson. "Are there companies that offer similar services? I'm sure. Another agency can certainly go to a private company doing that work, but because it's a service they offer, there's nothing to bid."

She adds that agencies can choose to take advantage of the FTS' services, but they don't have to; and when agencies have their own procurement offices, they typically wouldn't. "If they're small or [midsize], though, they might need help with the requirements, development and issuing of the RFP," Johnson says.

Just a few of the FTS' services include statement-of-work development; request-for-proposal package development, acquisition strategy and options; management of milestones, schedules and costs; and project and financial management--all areas that a contractor technically could and would provide.

But some integrators wonder whether these services, while legitimate, are fair in the long run.

"They're helping agencies that don't have the resources or expertise internally to draft the statements of work, issue RFPs and do all of the contract stuff," says Steve Charles, executive vice president and co-founder of McLean, Va.-based ImmixGroup. "What does happen, which affects competition, is that they point to their favorite contracts, which precludes people that are not already hooked up with the GSA as a preferred supplier."

Robert Deitz, CEO of Shingle Springs, Calif.-based Government Technology Solutions, a security-focused solution provider, adds, "The GSA folks are saying, 'I'm a government employee; I can talk to a government employee and I don't have to abide by certain regulations. I don't have to go out to bid because it's a government transaction.'"

In the end, the scrutiny surrounding the GSA's fees and services probably won't cause any mass exodus, but it seems the contracting tides may be changing. Larry Allen, executive vice president of the Coalition for Government Procurement, says, "Government agencies are currently swinging away from GSA a bit and doing more of their own contracting and buying."