Just GSA

Doan is done

http://www.fcw.com/online/news/152393-1.html

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/04/30/AR2008043001271.html?nav=rss_email/components

Well, Ms. Lurita Doan's resignation (GSA Administrator) was expected long ago but some people won't quit under pressure (Mayor of Detroit, US Senator Larry E. Craig, etc), until forced out of office.  Who knows why the White House waited so long....

Doan - GSA seeks advice on schedule program...

While it sounds nice (new advisory panel to begin an in-depth review of the General Services Administration’s policies and regulations for schedule contracts) http://www.fcw.com/online/news/152271-1.html,  I'm pessimistic of any  substitutive  recommendations by 15 acquisition experts ever being implemented. 

I also question the benefits of a two-year panel.  How about a two-day off-site session next month? Why wait two-years?  By that time, we'll undoubtedly have a new GSA Administrator with their own initiatives.
Why having auditor clones is unlikely, it would be nice to have some common expectations by the auditors.  While the auditors have their GSA Report Card to follow, each seems to have their own agenda and determination to find fault. 

I find it absurd that "serious concerns exist" if a GSA contractor has a negative determination to one of the first ten questions on a GSA Report Card http://vsc.gsa.gov/casi/New_Casi.pdf.   So, since when is receiving a 90% satisfactory report generate concerns?

GSA pricing policy could get the boot

Per, Federal Computer Week's article "GSA pricing policy could get the boot" http://www.fcw.com/online/news/152288-1.html, a new advisory panel will determine the fate of a price reduction clause that requires companies on General Services Administration schedule contracts to match discount exceptions made to the class or classes of customers as negotiated in their Final Proposal Revision that are below their GSA rates.

GSA has always required offerors to be "most advantageous" (not defined), as well as being equal to or better than their most-favored customer (not defined either but should be restricted to end-user customers who used the products/services themselves vs. distributors, VARS, dealers or OEM's). 

The price reduction clause does not state any quantity or time frame to invoke the price reduction clause.  My position, is that the discounts and/or concessions made beyond those negotiated with GSA made to the class(es) negotiated under the price reduction clause need only be matched during the overlapping period of performance.  For example, a commercial customers receives a 2% better price for an item and the order is received on Monday and ships out on Tuesday.  GSA should only be granted the additional 2% improvement from the GSA price if an authorized federal ordering activity ordered the same product  on Monday or  before being shipped out on Tuesday.   Many years ago, if an improved price or concession was made to a  federal agency,  GSA holders had to offer the same price/concession to all federal GSA ordering activities for the next 30 days.

I doubt there will be any substantive change to the price reduction clause, as it ensures GSA is continuing to receive pricing and concessions made by GSA holders throughout the life of the contract (5-20 years) vs. their commercial customers.

Sun and Senator Grassley

Per FCW article http://www.fcw.com/print/11_33/news/90256-1.html, it was determined during Sun's option to extend their GSA schedule for five-years that Sun had offered better discounts to some customers their GSA pricing. 

First, this is clearly acceptable behavior and occurs everyday with any large corporation like Sun.  Under the price monitoring clause of Sun's negotiated class(es) of customers in their Final Proposal Revision (Basis of Award), Sun is required to pass along any favorable pricing/concessions if the item is on their schedule and is sold during the same time as any GSA order.  While Sun can and likely indicated in the CSP's for their renewal that they have deviated from their stated business practices, all they needed to provide is  (1) a discussion of the situations that lead to deviations from standard practice, (2) an explanation of how often they occur, and (3) the controls you employ to assure the integrity of your pricing.

 

Sun refused to provide additional historical pricing/concessions to GSA and they became a deadlock.  I know two GSA CO's who refused to sign the Sun GSA extension and the third did so quickly that it was highly suspect.  Amazingly, the signing CO said she was under no pressure to sign the award but she no less was given a bonus for such (boy, that stinks) and she quickly transferred to another government office out of state.  The two non-signing CO's moved into other GSA schedule centers.

 

If GSA wasn't so concerned about losing a big chuck of their Industrial Funding Fee from Sun's GSA sales or if Sun wasn't a big fish, no GSA CO would have tolerated Sun's behavior.  Soon after Sun's GSA extension, they terminated their schedule for convenience but there's talk that their business practices may be investigated, which is allowable for up to three years after a GSA schedule expires/cancelled/terminated.

GSA's long reach overextended

In reference to this blog,

http://blogs.govexec.com/techinsider/archives/2007/11/gsas_long_reach.php.

 

CapITal Reps has been a GSA consulting practice since 1996.  We always require/provide/submit Commercial Sales Practices (CSP's) from any manufacturer being proposed to any GSA schedule, along with the CSP's of the schedule offeror/holder (dealer/reseller).  While we've had rare requests by GSA CO's over the years for the distributor's CSP's, we've always kindly stated that they're irreverent and that was the end of the request.

While GSA auditors are certainly non-standard in their GSA compliance reviews of our clients, they commonly focused on proper Industrial Funding Fee (IFF) capture and reporting, trade compliance, price reductions and occasionally if our client triggered their automatic price reduction clause (the auditor rarely is aware of which class(es) of customers was selected in our clients Final Proposal Revision (Basis of Award) and too often our clients have forgotten.

The cited DoD memo dated Nov 7, 2007 is way off base with requiring Ingram to provide their costs information, if it is the basis of a request by the GSA IG.

First, Ingram is rarely the "exclusive" distributor of any mfg product line.  Even if Ingram was an exclusive distributor, having CSP's from the mfg and offerer/reseller and quick market research always results in a fair and reasonable pricing determination.  In fact, since May 15th, 2007, the GSA Schedule 70 program requires all new mfg adds to include in the proposed pricing matrix the lowest GSA price.

Second, Ingram's GSA mfg Letter of Supply packages are the best offered by any distributor and they either include the mfg's CSP's or state that they are on file with a specific CO at GSA.

Third, the primary purpose of a mfg's CSP is for GSA to determine if the stated discounts and/or concessions stated for the given class of customer that my client/reseller is (Dealer/Reseller/VAR/SI) matches those indicated in my clients spreadsheet matrix.  We often catch this simply mistake.

The GSA IT Schedule 70 solicitation FCIS-JB-980001B, Refresh 21, clause E.6 states that cost and pricing data is not required and states that the CO "may" require additional supporting information, but only to the "extent necessary to determine whether the prices offered are fair and reasonable".  GSA can easily and always determine price reasonableness with CSP's from the mfg, the GSA resellers CSP's and market research and therefore it is unwarranted to request any cost information from Ingram. 

Also, armed with the mfg's CSP's, it's clear what Ingram's discount/cost is and not too hard to determine their markup to our clients (dealer cost/Ingram mfg discount).

The DoD memo states that FAR 15.402 requires CO's must obtain cost information, when there is no other basis for determining that the proposed prices are fair and reasonable (e.g. through market research and price analysis techniques).  While FAR 15.402 is not incorporated by reference into the schedule 70 solicitation, I fully agree that any CO should not award products/services to a GSA schedule without fair and reasonable price determination (e.g.  CSP's from the mfg and reseller and comparing the proposed pricing against other GSA resellers or the open market) and I'm not aware of any that have ever done so.

The memo states that the distributor/dealer is responsible for supporting all costs contained within its proposal.  Ingram is never the offeror/schedule holder of any GSA modification and/or proposal and therefore is not responsible for providing their costs, as the dealer provides their costs, as they are the offeror.

I do agree with the DoD memo when it states that any dealer who does not comply with the requirement to submit cost information for a contract or subcontract is ineligible for award.

 

So bottom line, I'm not certain what or to whom the DoD memo was directed at as it causes more confusion than clarity. 

Excellent GSA Sales History Tool

Not really a blog item but every GSA schedule holder should check out their reported GSA sales (and their competitors as well) by visiting this excellent web site - http://www.ffata.org/ffata/ (type in your GSA schedule # with no dashes)

The Federal Cotton Hammer Threat

I laughed when I saw the attached article/link "SBA plans to keep pressure on agencies"  @ http://www.fcw.com/online/news/150722-1.html, as there never has been and never will be a penalty for an agency for failing to meet their annual 23% subcontracting goal for small business concerns.

Likewise, there is no reward for achieving the 23% goal.  As an aggregate with a lot of fuzzy math, each year the feds report barely meeting (22.85%) or slightly exceeding the goal (23.15%), followed by much debate amongst the politicians.

GSA FX Mod 47 Recovery Purchasing

GSA (Federal Acquisition Service) has recently issued FX Mod 47 for Recovery Purchasing which permits GSA purchasing use by state or local governments of Federal Supply Schedules for goods or services that are to be used to facilitate recovery from a major disaster declared by the President under the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act, or to facilitate recovery from terrorism or nuclear, biological, chemical, or radiological attack.

I see no down sides to accepting this OPTIONAL modification with only the state or local governments NOT having backup phone and computer systems in play, which were not in place in New Orleans due the levy break.

To read about this mod, please click on this link http://www.capitalreps.com/GSA%20FX%20Mod%2047%20Recovery%20Purchasing.pdf

When playing by the GSA rules means an invitation to a No Bid response on a GSA RFQ

This GSA inquiry, submitted today was long overdue and a perfect subject for my new blog.

One of our clients was sent a GSA RFQ yesterday for 60 UPS Backup Devices from APC Sales and Service by the Dept of Labor.  Naturally, my technically compliant client (in the minority) of the other 75 APC GSA schedule offerors is unable to bid, as their CO correctly and astutely required the attached language for each of their APC GSA offerings (i.e. Part # NBAC0105 - ABC NetBolz - 48V Power Supply DC to DC - Please note that APC products cannot be sold as individual items.  They must be sold in conjunction with the IT equipment that these products support).

I requested that the GSA Schedule 70 Center provide notice to me when GSA administrative remedies or corrective guidance will be issued to the CO's of the other APC resellers so that they will be held to the same standard as my client.

Also, I advised the IT Data Center that while I recognize that they've made corrective attempts to ensure that the IT products are correctly positioned solely on Schedule 70 vs. Schedule 75, APC is offered by three firms on Schedule 75 (Office Supplies), which has no excluded restriction for said items*.

* Requirement from Schedule 70 Solicitation.  NOTE:  The following ARE EXCLUDED from the Information Technology Schedule:  ii:  Electrical Equipment - e.g., Uninterruptible Power Supplies, Computer Back-Up Power Systems, Surge Suppressers, Power Line Conditioners, Surge Absorbers, etc.  may be offer under this solicitation ONLY in conjunction with the IT equipment these devices support. 

Frustrations on hold...

Well, I've had many a client who's frustrations have surfaced as once they've gone through the wonderful process of having a GSA modification approved and whereas CapITal Reps has uploaded the product/service/price changes to GSA's Vendor Support Center for validation (required within five-days of the mod approval but has never been enforced), only to wait for their CO to review and approve the mod changes again onto GSA Advantage.  Many CO's approve the Advantage uploads weekly, while others, due to circumstances unknown....take longer to approve/post then it did to have the mod approved. 

What to do?  Well, you need to be pleasantly persistent and ping the CO via e-mail and voice mail, as more and more ordering activities will not award a contract to a schedule holder unless the offerings are displayed on GSA Advantage.  I always advise my clients that at best, GSA Advantage postings are 30-45 days old.  If you're awaiting a posting to an approved GSA mod that's been validated by the Vendor Support Center, you can always forward a copy of the approved mod (redact your cost and markup or discount data) to the ordering activity.

Of course, you must remember that GSA Advantage is really an online "viewing guide" as less than 1/10th of 1% of all GSA sales are transacted on Advantage.  Think how successful Amazon.com would be if their web site was 30-45 days old...not.

Good luck on closing the loop in the GSA mod process.