|
As the tables indicate, recent trends in awards and modifications
show mixed results for GSA MAS. For example, the increase in the
number of GSA MAS awards dramatically outpaced total DOD volume
increases, with GSA MAS experiencing four-year growth of 125% versus
an overall growth rate of just over 83% for all DOD awards for that
same time period.
At the same time, though, GSA MAS and total DOD awarded dollars
rose at the much more comparable rates of 57% and 50% respectively.
As a portion of the total awards made, GSA MAS experienced slow
but reasonably steady increases from 9.2% of total awards in 2000
to 11.3% of total awards in 2003, an increase of 23%. However, as
a portion of total dollars awarded, GSA MAS experienced limited
growth of only 5%. (Growth was considerably slowed by a comparatively
sharp decrease in the pace of growth from 2002 to 2003.)
The following table and chart address the year-over-year variances
in awards and dollars awarded.
In terms of dollars per award, both total DOD and GSA MAS experienced
an increase in dollars per award from 2000 to 2001, but both have
experienced an overall decline in dollars per award from 2000 through
2003. However, GSA MAS has experienced a much more precipitous decline
of 30% compared to a decline of 18.2% overall.
Finally, in terms of year-over-year variances, again, both total
DOD awards and GSA MAS awards have positive growth, in both number
of awards and dollars, for 2000 through 2003. For all DOD awards-in
both dollars and number of awards-growth is accelerating, while
growth in this category is decelerating for GSA MAS awards. In other
words, while GSA MAS awards and dollars continue to grow, the pace
of growth is slowing, while the pace of DOD awards is growing.
GSA MAS Has Its Supporters
GSA MAS awards have numerous high powered supporters. Generally,
operational people like using the schedules; they are convenient,
simple, and more flexible than many other acquisition vehicles.
Section 803 of the National Defense Authorization Act for 2004 (Public
Law 108-12) endorsed the concept and practice of applying the civilian
schedules to military acquisitions: "…the Secretary of
Defense…may, but shall not be required to, award contracts
using the procedures established by the Administrator of General
Services for the multiple awards schedule program…."
In 1997, Eleanor Spector, Director of Defense Procurement, strongly
and publicly supported the GSA schedules as the preferred sources
of supply for DOD. She saw the schedules as tools for both simplifying
acquisition and increasing the authority of contracting officers.
The current Director of DPAP, Dee Lee, has reaffirmed that support,
while emphasizing the need to stay within the boundaries of ethical
behavior.
The House Committee on Government Reform has supported DOD's use
of the schedules, as well. Drew Crockett, spokesperson for the Committee,
commented, "It's important for DOD to take full advantage of
the GSA schedules. DOD simply does not have the workforce or the
infrastructure to make these kinds of commercial purchases on its
own."
Finally, several large and mid-tier consulting companies are seeing
an increasing share of their DOD work passing through the GSA schedules.
The senior vice president of marketing for one of the largest government
contractors estimates that over 30% of its DOD business is now being
done via GSA, and estimates that some of its competitors are procuring
50% or more of their work through these vehicles.
And GSA MAS Has Its Detractors
DOD contracting officers initially were leery of GSA vehicles because
of concerns about loss of control and erosion of their ability to
make independent decisions. Despite support for GSA MAS, that leeriness
has yet to be eliminated.
In 2003 and 2004, heavy use of the schedules in the intense operational
tempo of Iraq led to questions about whether items procured were
in scope and if GSA was able to handle oversight in an international
environment. Crockett, of the House Committee on Government Reform,
recognizes that there have been a few problems with the way DOD
has used the schedules in the past. "All purchases, including
those off the schedules, must be made in full compliance with applicable
law. These vehicles were carefully structured to provide quick and
cost effective access to the commercial market so there is no need
for improper shortcuts."
Furthermore, some defections away from MAS are occurring inside
DOD. Navy's SEAPORT-E program and Air Force's Network Centric Solutions
(NETCENTS) both represent challenges to the GSA schedules. These
procurement programs overlap GSA's capabilities and are gaining
broader support within the services' acquisition communities. Air
Force's CIO has encouraged contracting officers to focus on NETCENTS,
an IDIQ schedule contract covering five years and $10 billion, and
in November 2004 awarded the first competitive task order to Northrop
Grumman under the program.
A Possible Direction
Contracting sloppiness-some associated with questionable use of
the GSA schedules-led GSA to issue its "Get It Right"
plan last year. It "attempts to secure the best value for federal
agencies and American taxpayers through an efficient and effective
acquisition process, while ensuring full and open competition, and
instilling integrity and transparency in the use of GSA contracting
vehicles." (www.gsa.gov) Get It Right can be seen as a good
first step in improving the MAS environment along with procurement
in general, as well as providing much needed guidance on the direction
of the use of GSA MAS.
At this point, though, the DOD jury is still out on the wholesale
use of GSA schedules, and the trends are unclear. Congressional
approval and pockets of DOD support for MAS remain. GSA offerings
are a good tool for eliminating some of the widespread duplication
of effort in the DOD acquisition community. At the same time, increased
usage means that GSA must step up its efforts to police the process.
|
