A Cautionary Tale

May 11, 2026

​

As a one-man operation I was in the market for an iPad.  I needed something I could feel comfortable writing while on a plane, so I decided on an iPad with a Magic Keyboard package.

​

I had some choices for purchasing.  I could:

A)      Go Reseller Retail – Get one in person at COSTCO, BestBuy, or MicroCenter.

B)      Go Reseller Online Retail – Amazon.

C)     Go OEM Online/Retail – Order direct from Apple or visit an Apple Store.

 

I chose to do ”C”.  To sweeten the deal, I also met up with a friend who works for Apple and applied his “friends and family” discount to the purchase.  One would think that going direct I would certainly be getting the best ‘deal’.  I mean…one would think…right?

 

Know the result?

 

I paid more than I would have with either of the two reseller options.  He and I discussed why that is while I was making the purchase.

 

This is something that the US Army may want to take into consideration.

 

Volume and Competition Result in the Lowest Costs/Prices.

 

It is a common truism in federal procurement that volume and competition are the two features necessary to secure the best value at the best market price.  This has proven true time and again, and a key feature of responsible sourcing.  If you compete, the market will let you know what the price (and tradeoffs) are.  But competition appears to be on the outs as everyone looks to go directly to the “product owners”.

 

Competition, however, is central to what the HON Dr. Kevin Rhodes seeks in the OFPP reform initiatives: Speed, Competition, and Cost/Price Containment. Competition is necessary requirement for price/cost containment is one of govcon's truisms.  It is also how claims are tested and proven out.

 

When GSA sent out an RFO questioning the value of the channel partner community they became embarrassed.  They were embarrassed because they lacked the internal data and knowledge needed to understand the marketplace that they are supposed to steward (the IT Category) and had a host of assumptions that were just wrong.  The marketplace responded both publicly and privately in response to their inquiry.

 

What does this have to do with the US Army?

 

In December 2025 and January 2026, the US Army released a series of J&A’s that justified direct contracts with a group of companies.  The contents of those justifications were telling.

​

• Trellix claimed that awarding through Army CHESS (the mandatory vehicle for the US Army for hardware and software and where their enterprise agreements are housed) “would result in the Government paying an unnecessary higher rate premium.”

• Appian took an antagonistic view of channel partners in their J&A basically saying that Appian’s Channel Partners add no value.

• Salesforce said that their specialized SKUs are not provided to their channel partners for resale because they are not capable of performance.

 

There are a few different ways one could take this:

​

1. Each of these companies are honest brokers and are telling the truth.  But it begs the question as to why they were never going direct to begin with, especially in Appian and Salesforce’s case.  They have been working with channel partners for many, many years.  Should we believe they just had a corporate “come to Jesus” moment where they said “Holy Mother of Pearl!!!  We could have been saving the Government money all this time!!!  Let’s fix it now!”.  I just can’t see how that could be the case, so is there something else happening?
    

2. Each of these companies are lying through their teeth.  The most profitable agreements are always the ones you don’t have to compete for.  Although there will be claims for savings, so long as comparisons can’t be made, we will just make the claims and make up the support later.  After all, numbers don’t lie, but liars love numbers.  We can create savings where none exists, so long as we don’t show what we are doing in a way to make comparisons.
    

3. An office is pushing an agenda.  I found the justification against using Army CHESS as an indication that another group in the Army resents CHESS mandatory role in the Army Procurement Enterprise.  Army CHESS charges no fee, so rate premiums just strike me as a red herring argument.  This strikes me as internal competition and justification NOT to use something that the Army indicated was mandatory for their enterprise management.

 

Which do you believe the case to be?

Would you choose 1?

Would you choose 2?

Or would you choose 3?

A combination of all the above?

 

There would be one easy way for the Army, or anyone else for that matter, to prove these claims out.

Compete the agreements!!!

 

Did these companies just undermine their channel partners for the sake of expediency?

It certainly seems to be the case. The sharpening of the value through the channel partners is one outcome of the government’s questions raised about their role in the marketplace. Now channel partners must deal with additional unsubstantiated claims.  It would be nice to see these claims proven out rather than just taking someone’s word for it.

 

How would the Army know that the claims made by the OEMs are accurate?  By having the OEM compete for the agreements and prove out their market claims with evidence rather than “projected savings”.

 

If the OEMs can care for the contractual obligations that come with working direct with the federal government, have the staff to do so in direct support of their customer, and whose corporate group and shareholders are fine with interspersed payments and higher overhead costs, then I am sure this will work out great and be proven out through competed agreements.

 

‘Trust me…I am giving you the best deal’ would not have been a valid justification without proven evidence.

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

                                                                                                                                                                           ~ J. Johnson