Paying Attention, Government and Industry Interests, And A Modest Proposal for OMB on GWAC Consolidation and GSA Reform.
- Jon Johnson
- Oct 13, 2025
- 9 min read
(*This a re-write on May 27, 2026 to article was published on LinkedIn April 8, 2025.)
The federal government finds itself at one of the most exciting crossroads, and one that occurs with rarity. Reform of acquisitions and the consolidation of government functions have not been tried in earnest in almost 40 years. It is needed, understood as to why, and is painful for many to see, feel, and understand - but what emerges at the back end of this will set the stage for considerably more efficient and accountable public sector operations.
We also know that the current environment is unsettling. Yes…you certainly need to disrupt things so you can set them right again, and the first 79 days of the Administration have done just that. People will have issues with certain actions the administration is taking, but the environment pertaining to government acquisitions is widely acknowledged by agencies and government alike, and putting something better in place is long overdue.
******************************
Paying Attention
As this is happening, I have been paying attention to the public rhetoric as the administration issued their Executive Order on Eliminating Waste and Consolidating Procurement.” I am paying attention to former executives from GSA since that is usually a fair indication of direction the agency wants to go. What I have seen has, to me, been…hmmm…entertaining.
Consolidation is required, so have we heard from former GSA executives on what they would do to satisfy the Administration’s direction? “KILL NASA’s STUFF! THEY SHOULDN’T BE DOING IT TO BEGIN WITH!” This rhetoric started prior to the Administration’s office oath, and I always found it funny. The though is as if NASA has not been fulfilling its job as a member of the FAR council, and under the obligations placed on them that they accepted in 1991 when establishing the government’s first, most efficient, most successful, most successful, most widely used single mechanism by government to execute mission with efficiency.
“NASA doesn’t do services and services are a whole ‘nother ballgame, therefore whatever happens we should stop NASA from awarding Groups B and C on their contract.” This is an example of the rhetoric coming from the former GSA executives and their surrounding consulting class EVEN BEFORE the administration was sworn into office. It was a topic of conversation once NASA determined that they required services as part of their contract. Now everyone is talking like the mid 2000’s again.
I will make this point once more…Federal agencies have been procuring services through NASA’s program for almost 10 years. Yes…I know…GSA-centric interests don’t like to hear it, but it is true, nevertheless. About 33% of what is transacted annually through their program and industry is service related.
Does the General Service Administration really believe that NASA as an agency doesn’t know what they are doing in service contracting and contract types? Do they really believe that the agency that fostered the rise of the commercial space industry and shepherded reusable rockets into the mainstream lacks the institutional experience to manage different contract types? Asking a question like that makes the supposition appear ridiculous…doesn’t it. I just wish former GSA executives and others who question NASA’s capabilities would be a bit more serious when even making these kinds of ridiculous claims or suggestions.
GSA was a disappointment in the 1990s, a condition recognized on both sides of the political aisle. GSA was perceived as arrogant, inflexible, incapable and ineffective. Reforms began under the Bush Administration, carried through in the Clinton Administration, and the first effort to reforming the agency was had. Scheduled was ‘fixed’ and NASA did what was asked of them by OMB, as well as what was expected of them by Congress. Unfortunately, after 35 years they find themselves in the same position as in 1990’s in having to reform, AGAIN. Why? It is because of systemic inefficiency, but after listening to these former executives I suspect it is a mix of arrogance too. In fact, I know it is because this is how we at GSA were perceived by our federal government colleagues at other agencies while there – and they were not wrong in that perception.
Those who advocate based on a GSA legacy are not going to like what I say. I understand that. But am I not writing to chastise or criticize a government agency? I recognize their potential of what could be a significant benefit for the execution of government functions. In fact, I believe it is critical to do so. I just don’t trust a group of former executives (and maybe a couple of remaining people there) who have perpetuated the conditions of duplication now saying they have the answers to what needs to occur for the sake of efficiency.
******************************
Government and Industry Interest
But let me shift to the interests that matter - the interest of government agencies executing mission and the industry community who supports them, because after all – you are the mission owners and enablers. You have interest in ensuring that NASA fulfills their current mission associated with SEWP VI that is self-evident to me. Let's take Industry’s side first.
What is the worst position to be in for a company? – the answer is a graduating Small Business. It is when successful businesses enter purgatory, and it is a hard spot to be in. You have worked with an agency or two to help them achieve their mission, supporting what they are doing, and therefore the agency is happy with you. You have just graduated business sizes, and due to how well you have done, they want to make sure you are still around. One problem though…how do we reach you? What are your options?
GSA never cared about you or considered you. They only offer hot and cold porridge to offer mid-size businesses: you are too big for their small options and too small for their big options. So, what are your options now?
Mid-sized companies need NASA’s SEWP Program to provide yet another niche that other GWAC’s have forgotten. THIS is why having more than one agency doing GWACs is critical for our Federal Customers and their critical missions. If I were a mid-size business watching what is happening now, I would have a significant interest and suggest you pay close attention.
******************************
A MODEST PROPOSAL FOR OMB
These positions have been grounded on experience, history, to achieving consolidation, and a genuine desire to “Make Acquisitions Great Again!!!” I understand what is being sought by the Administration, I understand the efficiencies (and inefficiencies) of what exists today, and I understand the mindset of former GSA executives, and I also understand how the current GSA personnel are feeling right now.
Most importantly, I have a good understanding of what federal agencies like and seek in terms of government-wide acquisition vehicles. They want tools to use, they want bureaucratic burdens to be lifted, and their people want to execute their mission.
So here is a proposal to the Office of Management and Budget that accomplishes both the consolidation of GWACs, as well as what GSA can focus on for the next few years.
The Administration issued an executive order that required a plan for the contract consolidation, and a plan for GSA to reset themselves to be more relevant for what government agencies need from them. GSA now has an opportunity to create the conditions needed to meet their own aspirations. They called for, and GSA has already begun executing elements of their needed restructuring.
GSA as Buyer Again
Buying some things for agencies is obviously one of the matters that the General Service Administration will have to figure out. In the past we would hear of their claims as an “Acquisition Authority”, however the only real buying program performed is through their FEDSIM group. Yes, they have internal 1102’s buying on their own agency’s behalf, but now you must do the same for the buying responsibilities that the Administration is placing upon you. Most of the acquisition staff, people, and processed are around building acquisition vehicles than executing acquisitions, so GSA is going to have to learn how to be a buying agency again.
Becoming a buyer instead of a vehicle producer should, in the long term, give insights to their operations, insights into their own tools and structures, and if they engage in an improvement process throughout can result in efficiency.
Schedules
Schedules are the foundation of GSA acquisitions and a cornerstone of their operations. It is the first mechanism available to businesses to conduct mission-meeting exchanges, and its availability to State and Local entities is a feature that has some incredible potential. Unfortunately, that potential has not yet been met since 1991. Today is an opportunity for that potential to start becoming realized.
GSA has started that revitalization project by looking at their business processes and beginning to leverage automation. These are all things that NASA has accomplished with what they have managed, resulting in operational efficiencies – changing over 11,000 line item modifications per day, taking 48 minutes on average to do so, all while facilitating over 50,000 orders annually, and with an operation staff of only 140 people who manage everything including the database, contract, contract holders, infrastructure, and working with federal agencies to help them by and procure at the speed of mission.
It is good that GSA is now finally looking to do the same with their schedules program, and they have a model to go by and a standard to meet.
First and foremost, the General Services Administration must figure out a way to establish a Database of Record that houses top quality data at the point of transaction. Even the “Transactional Data Reporting” initiative was ineffective and met with limited success, and the reporting appears to be a requirement separate from the systems they use. GSA Advantage. GSA E-Buy. TDR. All of these are “optional” for agencies to use. GSA has yet to figure out how to facilitate the exchanges that capture data at the point closest to when the transaction occurs.
This is a singularly critical function and feature needed for:
· The stewardship of trackability for agency spending.
· A foundational requirement for sourcing initiatives.
· For supply-chain security and national security.
Fixing of schedules should go beyond the current initial cleanout. Integrating automation into GSA’s systems and processes will take time, but unless they build their system to facilitate electronic exchange while capturing data along the way, the current efforts may not produce the rewards and outcomes expected. It is an essential condition for relevancy. Without it, strategic sourcing and category management are impossible to initiate.
GWAC Consolidation
Below are three proposals for GWAC consolidation. These options are limited to GSA’s GWAC consolidation and its relation to NASA’s program. These vehicles between these programs are sufficient to augment the needs of federal agencies buying critical information technology products and services to execute mission.
In “Thin Option 1” the General Services Administration will over time merge their IT GWACs into a more consolidated offering to meet government’s need to do the business of mission execution. In this scenario the GSA also holds the OASIS GWACs for professional services.
In “Thinner Option 2” the General Services Administration would initiate an IT Professional Services cutout within their OASIS agreements. OASIS and Schedules would then serve as means for government agencies to access both, while NASA’s program is only for the scope of SEWP VI for IT related Products, Solutions, and Services.
In “Thinnest Option 3 A” OMB turns back the clock to 1992 when the original intention was for NASA to Innovate with a GWAC and GSA to serve the IT market through the Schedules Program. GWACs have proven successful, and GSA will run and manage an independent GWACs for professional services only. GSA would manage Schedules and OASIS, and NASA continues their stewardship of their GWAC.
An alternative option would be to simply dial back to 1991 in its purest form. In this option GSA would focus exclusively on their market mechanism, and NASA would focus on theirs.
These are the commonsense options for OMB to consider and for the General Services Administration to take to help reduce duplication, undergo consolidation, while meeting agency mission needs. These choices should be considered by federal buyers to see if this meets their needs in doing the business of mission. I invite our federal colleagues in defense and national security to highlight which of these options you would like to see. The same goes for industry who seek to meet government’s needs at the speed of mission.
We are certain that these proposed consolidations meet the needs of the administration, while also giving GSA the opportunity to reinvent themselves and earn the right to serve a critical function within the public administration. Prior to 1991 GSA lost that right of exclusivity which they were accustomed to having. Two separate legislatures and two presidential administrations saw the need to reform both federal acquisitions and the General Services Administration. It was the display of arrogance on behalf of the agency which led to the initial efforts that resulted in Clinger-Cohen in 1996.
10 years after Clinger-Cohen the agency began the perpetuation of vehicles and increasing costs for business and government alike. They have had more than 20 years to learn lessons in efficiency from NASA to improve their business model and thought process, their systems and tools. For 20 years they have failed to do so. The consolidation proposals above should prompt the agency towards more reflection on how they will perform their function and give them enough time to execute on.
We hope you help the General Services Administration make the right choice. Let us in government and industry know if there is anything we can do to do the same.
Comments