Market Patterns Emerge 

May 6, 2026

 

To my colleagues within the US Army, this is a follow-up to my last article defending your action to establish the MAPS vehicle for your mission needs and purposes.  In that article I noted 7 assumptions, and should those assumptions still hold true, I thought I would help you, and others, see what an identical pattern of rhetoric on behalf of a group of interests is who would like to stop you from what you are doing; establishing a mission mechanism for your mission needs.

​

In Defense of the GSA Civil Servants

​

Before I continue, however, I would like to make clear to my colleagues at the GSA that nothing I am about to say involves or should be attributed to you (not most of you anyway).  In fact, I appreciated Administrator Forst’s approach to less as a mandate and more as a choice for agencies, and the responsibility for GSA is to respond and deliver with better value, speed, and efficiency.  As a former employee, this was something I would have loved to have had as my north star and recognize that this is a mind-set and behavioral shift for that organization.  It’s also a mindset and behavioral shift for the influences on the organization. Speaking of those influences…

​

Back to Army Matters

​

You have heard an earful the past couple of weeks - haven’t you?  A little over a week ago I came to your defense as area interests complained publicly about your approach – and the first to bring negative public attention to you.  I say the first, but that isn’t necessarily true.

​

MAPS came up publicly with a group of former GSA Executives.  It was during a same course of conversation where they were positively giddy when talking about the closure of NITAAC’s CIO-SP Program, and they also raised your Army’s MAPS program.

​

(*They did not mention NASA’s program this time in their conversation.  Can’t say as I blame them).

One former executive made the argument that Army should just leverage GSA where the other two tacitly agreed but were not as committal, saying Army must have their reasons and that GSA should investigate why and then learn from it.  This was the correct initial response because it reflected the common sense some aspires towards.  But I fear that was just a set-up for a larger narrative push against your initiative.

​

Which now brings us right back to today where you ended up getting a two-fer!!!

​

First…

​

The President of the (GSA) Colaition released an article on “The Cost of Contract Duplication” calling upon EO 14240 as the reason for you not to compete your MAPS program.  This argument he makes is the same as made in Jan 2025.

​

Here is what I point out then:

​

“Nobody is asking these companies to bid on anything. It is a business decision and choice made. You can’t make that choice to bid on all government-wide agreements and then complain about the costs of managing them after making that choice.  In fact, the better approach would be to not bid on everything and instead make decisions that fit with your company’s approach to the federal marketplace.  Your agency value-added relationships will ensure that they reach you to meet their needs.”

​

This remains true today.

​

I realized that FOMO on government business is real, and the choice of which vehicle to bid on will be dependent on which you can qualify for.  The choice, however, of which to maintain will be dependent on which works best at meeting agency needs, the fastest way possible, and works best for your customer base.  The “Contract Duplication” argument is certainly not without merit but always struck me as a “market fixing” initiative.  After all, for every service vehicle that does not fall under GSA is one that GSA-centered interests cannot control nor profit from.

​

And then…

​

Mr. Robert Turner then comes up with a demand that is the complete opposite from those made just a week or two ago.  One day he is telling your leadership what to do to open your agreement on behalf of industry, and the next he is suggesting you shouldn’t do it at all.  Could it not be clearer to you and the market what we are seeing?  To me it is abundantly clear.  He plays a game, as are others.

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

 

These ‘characters’ are players in a larger structure that can best be described as…The GSA-Industrial Complex.

​

Nobody ever referred to what we are seeing in such a way; however, it rang true immediately once you read it…didn’t it?

​

The GSA-Industrial Complex Defined

​

The “GSA-Industrial Complex” is the ecosystem of some former executives and staff members, consultants, contractors, system integrators, schedule holders, compliance shops, and beltway intermediaries who all hold a vested material interest around a system that they would like to centralize towards, protect, and expand. Like any entrenched interest, it thrives in complexity where process becomes their product, and access to government procurement policy and spending matters more than mission outcomes.

​

Hooah!!!

​

As for the US Army, I will repeat that your requirements are your requirements.  I am sure you are in conversation with both the Office of Federal Procurement Policy and the General Services Administration on these matters.  Should you decide to execute – I understand why.  Should you decide to not and instead leverage one of the existing to meet your needs – I will understand that as well.

​

Allow me to reiterate to my federal colleagues at GSA that you should not be faulted for the promises others make of you.  I had not heard anyone from the General Services Administration criticize or question the US Army for what they are doing.  It is only coming from the GSA-Industrial Complex trying to shape the marketplace for their interests and benefit.

​

Best of luck in your decision making.  I hope you (the Army MAPS Program, OMB/OFPP, and GSA) found this piece helpful as you make sense of what you see.

​

​

                                                                                                                                                                           ~ J. Johnson