GWACs Getting D.O.G.E.-Y and the NASA SEWP Program

(*This article was published through LinkedIn on January 21, 2025)

I would like to thank Alan B. Thomas Jr. and Roger Waldron for providing the inspiration to write this little article.  A little over a week ago Roger had Alan on his “Off the Shelf” radio program/podcast.  I encourage people to listen.  It was spicy and provocative (!) (for the federal GovCon space anyway). [To my friends not in government, this is about as much beltway-inside baseball as you can get.  My apologies in advance.]

During the episode Alan gave his “look ahead in 2025 for government contracting”.  It was very D.O.G.E. – Y [the newest fad area DC consultants will gravitate towards], so it is nice to hear conversations in support of efficiency and effectiveness in the federal GWACs.  It is a subject close to my heart.

At around the 21:30 mark they talk about the State of GWACs in government.  Alan, among other things, was befuddled as to “Why is NASA in the business of doing federal contracting.  Huh?…I don’t get that” [I’ll explain], why such a “niche program” like SEWP even exists [I’ll explain that too] and “Why not just fold everything into the GSA?” [not a new proposal]. 

I thought I would take a moment to address some of these questions, and some other misunderstandings and misplaced assumptions, had during that episode (as well as the general marketplace).  I’ll also take a stab at answering the all-important question “Who does Alan Thomas have beers with?” through a data-driven approach.

So let’s get to it -

“Why does the SEWP Program even exist?” 

It all started WAY back [yesterday?] towards the end of the Bush I and into the Clinton Administration. If an agency wanted to buy something they had to purchase through GSA.  That was not bad in-and-of-itself.  It’s just that people who needed technology to execute missions couldn’t wait 18 months to receive a product that was already outdated once received.  This was the situation engineers at NASA faced. Existing acquisition structures couldn’t allow for government to acquire technology at the pace of change. 

At the same time, a group of bi-partisan legislators were also trying to fix federal acquisitions.  It started with the Federal Acquisition Reform Act – which eventually became embedded into the Clinger-Cohen [Avoiding hyperbole THIS WAS THE MOST IMPACTFUL PIECE OF BI-PARTISAN PIECE OF LEGILATION IN THE PAST 25 YEARS (!) and doesn’t get nearly the amount of attention related to its significance as it should. FITRA was pretty darn good too 😉]. Clinger-Cohen decentralized a system that wasn’t working well and established a new way of exchange while giving OMB the ability to “designate an executive agency to contract out for agencies IT management and acquisitions.”

NASA wanted to solve this problem for their engineers, came up with a concept to do so, and sought permission from OMB to do so. Ironically OMB knew that the structure that existed wasn’t working well and were thinking of a new way of doing business for the government.  So OMB, using this new authority provided in Clinger-Cohen, granted permission for to NASA proceed with this Scientific Engineering Workstations Procurement (SEWP) acquisition ONLY IF they opened it up for the entire federal government.  NASA agreed (reluctantly) and thus NASA SEWP became the government’s first GWAC (Government-Wide Acquisition Contract). 

As for how well that test performed over time, many would say exceedingly well; so well that the GSA started creating more GWACs and OMB allowed NIH to do the same – but none executed with the same efficiency and efficacy as the NASA SEWP Program.  Guess it took a rocket scientist to help fix federal acquisitions. [Snarky but come on…it’s a good line]

“NASA’s is a Space agency and has no role in government contracting”

Couldn’t agree more.  NASA is a Space Agency!  They launch things and do things that humble and inspire people daily. “Exploring the secrets of the universe for the benefit of all…Investigating the unknown in air and space, innovates for the benefit of humanity, and inspires the world through discovery” is a mission that they embrace and live every day, and the agency fulfills this mission admirably […and you can get the t-shirts at any department store or beach shop across the country!]. 

BUT…NASA also has another, important, role related to federal contracting.  Some in GovCon should remember that NASA, along with DOD and GSA, are the members of the FAR Council (Chaired by the Office of Federal Procurement Policy) responsible for matters of federal contracting and issuing the Federal Acquisition Regulations.  Why these three?  That precedent was set when DOD and NASA were the largest military and civilian agencies (respectively) in government [back in the 1950/60’s through the 1980’s], and this was embedded within the Federal Acquisition Regulations [1984 I think].  [I believe the VA is now the largest civilian organization, but that isn’t the point…the point is that to think NASA has no business in government-wide contracting may not be as cut and dry as some would think.]   When one asks, “What business is this of NASA?!?”, you know the answer.

“All of these government-wide vehicles are the same”

This is a point-of-view held by many careerists found in and around the halls of 1800 F St (General Services Administration Headquarters address).  You can see where they come from if you look at it their way.  They often come from [and long for?] the days when all things ran through GSA; and lets acknowledge GSA’s pivotal role in federal IT acquisitions.  These former executives also look at vehicles as being interchangeable with only differences in scope rather than structure.  Just looking at the awardees to OASIS +, Alliant II, and CIO SP 3/4.  You will see them competed the same way with the same names of the same contract holders on each only for a slightly different focus concerning their scope.  What has always befuddled me is how much former GSA executives don’t know about the federal government’s first GWAC – but not surprising as it was not a central part of their portfolio.

But NASA SEWP has always been a bit different.  Not “niche” [a term used to delegitimize SEWP in the marketplace implying that they were unimportant, not mainstream, or lacking a broad reach] as Alan characterized NASA SEWP during his talk with Roger, but different.

Here are 5 examples of what makes the NASA SEWP different and distinct [not niche!]:

1. NASA SEWP, like NASA itself, is mission-oriented program.  “The NASA SEWP Program enables NASA, and all Federal Agencies, to efficiently and effectively acquire mission critical Information Technology, Communication and Audio Visual (ITC/AV) solutions and services via a suite of contracts encompassing a diversity of business sizes and offerings.”  NASA SEWP helps execute, first and foremost, NASA Mission, and efficiently and effectively is spelled out in its mission statement and in the program’s DNA.  

2.       NASA SEWP figured out how to expedite the business between government and industry at the speed of relevancy.  Contract holders can add products and services in less than a day.  Let's let that sink in a bit… it takes less than 24 hours for a contractor to add the newest or latest technology onto their contract for purchase by, or to respond to, federal agency buyers.  This means that federal agencies can get what they want to meet their mission needs when they need them. No other vehicle has been able to duplicate or replicate the SEWP program’s speed and efficiency at adding products and services.

3. Its all about the data.  Most in the govcon marketplace view NASA SEWP through FPDS data sets.  This is the data that agencies are required to report on due to them conducting an exchange [though there are exemptions such as micro-purchasing].  What many people do not know is that NASA SEWP contains the most complete and accurate datasets of IT products and services not just in government but IN THE WORLD(!).  Currently there are 4,000,000 unique items (products, services, or solutions) in their system, and the contract holders add on average 11,000 items/day.   The program has people dedicated to data quality assurance [including the program manager who does data clean-up late at night and on weekends] so agency personnel have the supply-chain risk management information required to have a line of sight on what they are buying, from who, and where with a level of unmatched specificity. No other government-wide vehicle [or company for that matter] has the same data quality and volume other than NASA SEWP.  Most of the others rely on monthly vendor reporting [which takes another month to analyze and aggregate – talk about putting a cost burden on industry!] or FPDS.

4. Data availability is another key differentiator.  Does the CIO for USDA want to know what was bought yesterday (who bought it, who provided it, when delivered, for how much) from NASA SEWP by his agency?  They can get that information through the NASA SEWP program.  The program works with agency CXOs to automate this information and have this detailed information sent upon request. No other program can give that level of detailed visibility into their transactions.  They can’t answer the question “What did we buy yesterday?” or “What was purchased last week.”  The NASA SEWP program can.

5. Fees matter to the feds who try to stretch their funding. The SEWP Program “fee” (or cost that the contract holders pay the program) is .34% (or .0034) for every dollar of spend through the vehicle, the lowest “fee” among all GWACs or government-wide acquisition vehicles.  This “fee” is exclusively how the program runs its operations, and the NASA SEWP program has had in its charter and inception at NASA that all funds are used for program purposes and that all remaining funds are returned to the Treasury.  Not all agencies and programs can say the same.

“The NASA SEWP Program should just fold into GSA”

This is not a new proposal.  In fact, Lurita Doan, former GSA appointee from 2006-2008 made an active effort to fold NASA SEWP into GSA.  Here is a cartoon published in Fed News Network that summarizes the feelings the last time this topic came up:

It didn’t happen then (mid-2000’s), and the relevance of the program has only increased over time.  Because nobody has been able to meet, match, or exceed the efficiency and effectiveness of the NASA SEWP program, calls for having it fold into the General Services Administration would make federal acquisitions less efficient and effective as a result.  The opposite of D.O.G.E..

“NASA SEWP has never done services before!”

This is a common (and outdated) fallacy [and one that is intentionally spread by service providers who lack SEWP V contract…after all if I was a service company without a SEWP agreement I would not want agencies knowing they can have services through an agreement I don’t have].  Yes, when the NASA SEWP was established through its first 4 version it was an IT product focused acquisition vehicle.  That changed under the SEWP V agreements where services that support IT became in scope.  Federal agencies and contract holders have been procuring product-based services and solutions under NASA SEWP for the past 10 years, and account for about 33% of the spend under SEWP.  This translates to $4B of services out of the $12B of annual spend agencies placed under SEWP V.

“Services are a different beast, has different complexities, and something new for NASA SEWP?”

I state above that services under SEWP are not new, but they are different for those who don’t work with the SEWP program.  They view the program through the lens of the other GWACs that have a service focus.  I would argue that the services procured through the NASA SEWP program are more complex than had in other vehicles.  Contract officers articulate their requirements, including performance work statements, as they acquire the licenses, help deck, and integration support required for deployment of their Information Technology solutions, Telecommunication Technology solutions, or Audio/Visual Technology solutions.  The combination of technology and the services companies provide are more complex than doing just one exclusively [having bought both as a government contract/program officer I can attest to this personally].  And nothing is more complex than telecommunications contracts [I think my colleagues at GSA can attest to that]. These are examples of the solutions had today under SEWP V.  So, I will argue that the program is certainly capable of supporting services in the federal environment, and they were explicitly asked to do so by NASA.

And Lastly…

“Who is Alan Thomas having beers with who would have an issue with contract duplication?”

During the interview Alan said that “over beers people in industry have a concern about contract duplication.” It caused me to pause and look at the large companies holding contracts with OASIS, Alliant II, and CIO-SP3. 

There are 22 companies who have contracts with OASIS, Alliant, and CIO-SP3. 

They are:

Accenture PLC, ASGN Inc, BAE Systems PLC, Booz Allen Hamilton Holding Corp, CACI International Inc, CGI Inc, Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu Ltd/United Kingdom, General Dynamics Corp, Govcio LLC, Guidehouse LLP, ICF International Inc, International Business Machines Corp, Jacobs Solutions Inc, Leidos Holdings Inc, ManTech International Corp/VA, Nippon Telegraph & Telephone Corp, Northrop Grumman Corp, Peraton Intermediate Holdings Corp, RTX Corp, Science Applications International Corp, Smartronix LLC, Tetra Tech Inc.

So, this would be a good list of suspects of whom Alan may be having beers with. 

Alan continues by making the claim that with a reduction of contract duplication, savings would be had by federal government personnel concerning pricing for their services.  Looking at this list forgive me if I find that claim to be a bit [very] dubious.  Any savings would be passed along to their shareholders…after all, that is the role of a publicly traded company…isn’t it?

But more importantly than that, nobody is compelling these companies to bid on every vehicle.  Those are strategic business decisions made by each company as to how they will ‘service’ the federal marketplace.  It is a choice.  It is a decision. 

I know plenty of companies who limit the vehicles they have in order to service the federal marketplace.  For example, a company holding an OASIS and Alliant agreement for services cover a lot of territory between the two and have similar reporting requirements since both are contained within GSA.  It makes a lot of sense that a company would only have these two agreements for efficiencies sake and service the federal sector accordingly.  Most importantly is that if these companies have relationships with the agencies they seek to serve, then these vehicles provide them the answer the question “I want you to compete for this.  How can I reach you?”  They are not given the business, but agencies who value the companies will ensure that they execute through an agreement in which these companies can compete.

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 to managing them after making that choice.  In fact, the better approach would be not to bid on everything making sure that the decision do so fits with your company’s approach to the federal marketplace.  Your agency relationships will ensure that they use what you have in order to meet their needs.

**************************************************************************

WHEW!!!  I feel a lot better now.  Thank you, Alan and Roger, for prompting this piece of writing.  As everyone gets all D.O.G.E.- Y consider this information as you are making your proposals and recommendations.  Moreso, make sure you know what you speak of when characterizing the NASA SEWP program.  There is ample misunderstanding out there concerning this program.  If you would like to understand them better, the role they play and the value they provide, and what makes it different and distinct, then feel free to reach out and I would be more than happy to chat about this more.  Even better, reach out to the program director if you have any questions.