Just GSA

GSA Refresh #23 rumor..Software Maintenance billing defined.....

An unnamed but reliable GSA source has advised that Refresh #23 for the IT 70 program is forthcoming that will clearly identify that software maintenance as a product vs. software maintenance as a service will be clarified (not currently clear, per GSA issued Mod FX65 - see below), which will allow software firms that state/certify that their software maintenance as a product would allowed to be paid for like any other product vs. being billed month or quarterly in arrears for software maintenance identified as a service.

   Software Maintenance as a Product is:

 

Software maintenance as a product includes the publishing of bug/defect fixes via patches and updates/upgrades in function and technology to maintain the operability and usability of the software product.  It may also include other no charge support that are included in the purchase price of the product in the commercial marketplace.  No charge support includes items such as user blogs, discussion forums, on-line help libraries and FAQs (Frequently Asked Questions), hosted chat rooms, and limited telephone, email and/or web-based general technical support for user’s self diagnostics.

 

Software maintenance as a product does NOT include the creation, design, implementation, integration, etc. of a software package.  These examples are considered software maintenance as a service.

 

Software Maintenance as a Service is:

Software maintenance as a service creates, designs, implements, and/or integrates customized changes to software that solve one or more problems and is not included with the price of the software. Software maintenance as a service includes person-to-person communications regardless of the medium used to communicate: telephone support, on-line technical support, customized support, and/or technical expertise which are charged commercially.  Software maintenance as a service is billed arrears in accordance with 31 U.S.C. 3324.

b.             Invoices for maintenance service shall be submitted by the Contractor on a quarterly or monthly basis, after the completion of such period.  Maintenance charges must be paid in arrears (31 U.S.C. 3324).  PROMPT PAYMENT DISCOUNT, IF APPLICABLE, SHALL BE SHOWN ON THE INVOICE.

GSA's Central Intake Desk (CID)....progress??

Well, GSA has announced more changes (in addition to a 90 day notice to update GSA price lists on Advantage or being de-listed, issuing a customer satisfaction survey, etc) that now includes the formation of the Central Intake Desk (CID).

GSA's CID notice states that "in order to improve customer service, GSA Center for IT Schedule 70 has implemented a Central Intake Desk for the receipt of all Modification Requests.

In the future, please submit your request electronically through GSA’s eMod system or forward your modification requests directly to our Central Intake Desk."

The real purpose behind the CID is to monitor how long it takes CO's to process modifications.  I'll be the first to admit that the GSA Schedule 70 CO's have too heavy of a burden and often undergo variable management initiatives without common logic.  With the exception of a CO actually caring about her clients and/or their personal pride, CO's who fall below the processing benchmarks will still receive the same annual pay increase as their fellow GSA COs, regardless of performance. 

I'm certain that the initial phase of the CID will delay mods by several weeks.  Also, the IT Schedule 70 group has CO's in MO and GA, so it's yet to be seen if mods will be scanned by the CID and e-mailed to the remote CO's or more likely dropped in the mail, received by the CO, mailed back to the CID and then mailed back to the contract holder.

GSA provides 90-day notice to update GSA Advantage or be de-listed...

By definition, each GSA contract awardee is required to update their on-line GSA products and services to GSA Advantage within five-days of any contract mod approval.  In reality, the practice is not enforced, plus GSA doesn't make it easy to publish such, even though GSA's free software (Schedule Input Program) is on version 7.3, so, my firm, CapITal Reps uses a third-party firm to process.

GSA sent out a mass e-mail message in late January to all schedule holders that they have ninety (90) days to (1) submit an electronic catalog/price list update, or( 2) verify that your existing on-line catalog/price list is current and accurate.   If an electronic catalog/price list or verification is not received within 90 days of this email, the price list(s) will be removed from GSA Advantage.

If  one is goes through the effort of being awarded a GSA schedule, one needs to keep their Advantage files current, accurate and complete.  While less than 1/10th of 1% of all GSA sales are transacted on Advantage, most GSA eligible ordering end-users will use Advantage to provide their contracting officer three known sources (or preferred sources) for their needs.  Needless to say, if you haven't uploaded your latest price list (including price reductions), don't expect any requests for quotes.

If you have any questions about the 90 day notice, contact CapITal Reps @ capsales@capitalreps.com or 703.326.0640 or  contact the GSA Vendor Support Center at vendor.support@gsa.gov or 877-495-4849.

False Claims Act inquires are up....how to stay our of trouble....

The Wall Street Journal reported on 3-3-09 that "Federal prosecutors accused EMC Corp. of paying illegal kickbacks and overcharging U.S. government agencies, as part of a broad investigation of federal technology contracting.  Separately, NetApp Inc, indicated it expected to pay $128 million to resolve a government inquiry also related to alleged illegal overbilling on government contracts."

Both companies sell computer storage systems. EMC, of Hopkinton, Mass., denied the government's allegations. Net- App, of Sunnyvale, Calif., declined to discuss its filing.

While kickbacks in the federal space are unusual, more important to me is that the complaint against EMC also alleges the company illegally overcharged the government on a contract for "hundreds of millions of dollars in sales by EMC to the Government," by billing the government more than comparable private-sector customers, which would be a violation of the False Claims Act (see www.taf.org/federalfca.htm).

A Justice Department spokesman declined to estimate the damages the government would be seeking. In 2007, International Business Machines Corp. and PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP agreed to pay a combined $5.3 million to settle related cases against them.  Sun and Oracle have also paid fines in the past.

With each GSA contract is awarded, a class or classes of customers are selected/negotiated in which the awardee is required to maintain the initial GSA benefit (in terms of markup or discount) than their class(es) of customers for price reduction monitoring, when and only when they offer a lower price to said customers (price reduction monitoring clause) AND only when a GSA ordering activity has placed an order for the same goods/services during the period of performance of the non-federal customers order(s).

The crux of the problem is that very rarely does GSA or the contract awardee actually define who the said customers are, as they are widely classified as commercial end-users, national accounts or corporate accounts and commercial firms just aren't in a habit of classifying their customers as such.

My suggestion to my GSA clients is that if their basis of award and price monitoring reduction is so widely broad as "commercial end-users", they need to document on file at the time of award which of their current customers are classified as such and have that list linked to their order management entry system and to update the list quarterly.

GSA seeks customer satisfaction feedback - let's hope they act on the results...

Well, it's always good to have a customers evaluate your performance, so I'm pleased to see that GSA is interested in such.  While GSA's survey originated before the election of President Obama, change is still forthcoming.  By the way, ALL GSA new offerors are required to submit a completed Open Ratings Customer Satisfaction Report, which natuarally, rarely has negative comments.

I sincerely hope that GSA management reviews and actually implements changes based on the survey results rather than a federal SES official simply checking the survey off as a completed process for their annual performance review.

Per the e-mail survey, the "General Services Administration (GSA) is deeply committed to better meeting your needs and those of the vendor community as a whole. In support of this goal, a survey is being conducted to measure your satisfaction with the Procurement Contracting Officer (PCO) and contract award/mod process.

CFI Group, an independent satisfaction research and consulting firm, is administering this survey. Your responses will remain completely confidential and your identity will not be revealed to GSA unless desired. The survey is conducted via a secure server and is authorized by Office of Management and Budget Control No. 1505-0191.