Mission-Driven Agencies vs. Functionally Driven Agencies

(*This article was published on LinkedIn June 8, 2025 .)

With the Administration’s first 100+ days in office what should be clear is the desire to create a more manageable structure for the Administrative State.  They have folded some basic functions into the General Services Administration and are asking them to go back to their roots of helping to execute the administrative work of the federal government.  They are asking GSA to fulfill their purpose as a functional agency once again and have begun the process of consolidating those functions under the current federal restructuring.

Every agency has a purpose to their existence; a raison d'être for my French friends (don’t ask me to pronounce it…I had to look up the correct spelling.  Sorry to my friend Gilbert Reveillon).  But despite the fact that every agency has a purpose, are there different ‘kinds’ of federal agencies?  More specifically, is there a distinction between a mission-driven federal agency and a functionally driven federal agency?  I thought yes.  Mission-driven agencies are found in sectors like National Security, Defense, Law Enforcement, and Space.  Functionally driven agencies are those whose role in government administration are to execute a particular purpose and exist to help efficiently and effectively execute their intended function in support of the Administrative State.  Agencies like OPM (HR), US Post Office (Mail Delivery), USPTO (Patent and Trade), and the General Services Administration (General Services…it’s in the name) are examples of functionally driven agencies.

This leads to the following simple logical construct:

Mission vs. Function Syllogism

Every agency has a purpose for their existence.  But that doesn’t mean that every agency is a mission-oriented agency, although all agencies have responsible functions to either directly execute that mission, or create the structure and conditions to support mission execution. 

In the example below I outline a mission-oriented agency.  It is an agency created for a clear purpose (for example border protection, national security), a clear mission (for example “Protect the American people, safeguard our borders”), mission-oriented programs that advance the agency’s stated mission and purpose, and the functions of the organization are meant to fulfill the stated mission and purpose of the agency.  These agency functions are not separate missions but rather advance the stated mission of the agency.

Mission Driven Organizations and Organizational Functions

Agencies have functions that interplay with one another to advance an agency’s mission.  Information technology is interesting because sometimes it plays a functional role in the agency’s mission operations, and at other times it holds a mission-oriented role.  Think of CISA, National Security, and many DOD deployments.  But where does procurement reside?  As an organizational function.  Where does the General Services Administration find themselves?  As an organizational support function for those mission-oriented agency functions:

Functional Support for Mission Agencies

OMB and the Trump Administration has placed some of the service functions under GSA.  By folding in contracting for OPM, Department of Education, SBA, and HUD the Trump Administration is folding in the buying functions for those respective civilian agencies.  They also require the General Services Administration to extend that function to other agencies as well, assuming some of their basic service agreements that other agencies have, and to manage those agreements in their stead.

This is not to diminish the General Services Administration’s position; it is only meant to recognize that this is now where they fit operationally as an organization relative to mission-oriented federal agencies.  The contracting function is not their only functional role.  They also have their real estate function, as well as advancing government-wide policies that are advanced by statute, through executive orders and policy from OMB, and those advanced by other agencies like CISA and DOD. (Side note - it will be interesting to see whether folding in the buying functions of OPM, SBA, Education, and HUD will also result in assuming their policy functions as well).  The best example of this functional role is the FAR rewrite that is currently being worked on by the members of the FAR Council (OMB, GSA, DOD, and NASA).

What of the efforts around contract/ GWAC consolidation?  GSA now finds itself in a position as a federal buying agency once again, while also having the responsibility of undergoing a consolidation effort to avoid duplication of agreements.  They have a suite of vehicles that they can consider as they do the buying on behalf function of their operations.

Schedules and GWACs

However, they also must account for federal agencies who leverage certain vehicles for their mission and operational functions as they consider the impact of their choices.

Mission Agency GWAC use for Mission Execution

ather than being in the business of creating government-wide agreements, the Administration is seeking efficiencies, and soon GSA will offer a plan of how they intend on moving forward for the sake of acquisition efficiencies.  They will have to balance their functional responsibilities to make merit-based decisions that will ultimately affect agencies who are executing mission, the ability for OMB to have the required visibility into the government marketplace, as well as shape how industry will interact with the federal government at the point of exchange.

I have some suggestions as to what that plan should look like for the sake of advancing the President’s efficiency agenda.  Stay tuned for more.