Centralized federal procurements bring plenty of risks, potential rewards

The talk started when the Office of Personnel Management shuttered its procurement operations and pushed the management of its contracts to the General Services Administration.

That action has led to more talk that the Department of Government Efficiency will push all civilian procurement functions to the General Services Administration.

The idea is born out of the Trump administration’s push for more efficiency and cost savings.

On the surface, it makes sense. You have to ask why any agency needs its own contract when looking at all the vehicles offered by GSA like the Schedules, Alliant, OASIS and VETS to name a few.

But it is also hard to see the likes of NASA or the NIH IT Acquisition and Assessment Center transferring their own programs to GSA, such as SEWP or CIO-SP.

The idea of running all civilian contracts through GSA is not new. When Lurita Doan was administrator of GSA during the George W. Bush administration, she pushed the idea of making GSA the primary for government contracting. That had mixed results.

Doan was able to stop the Treasury Department from setting up its own telecommunications contract in favor of GSA’s Networx vehicle, but could not absorb NASA SEWP into the fold.

Since Doan stepped down from the role in 2008, more agencies have relied on GSA for their contract vehicles. Agencies still have their internal procurement teams developing the requirements and vetting proposals, but only write their own contracts for mission-specific aspects.

GSA runs a widely-used assisted services program to help agencies run procurements.

But what if DOGE forces agencies to shutter their internal acquisition offices? Can GSA absorb those duties?

There are several things to consider, including what is being acquired.

For commodity-type products and services, then perhaps GSA can take over those contracts. More mission-specific procurements, such as health care and contact centers, would require an understanding of the breadth of an agency’s services.

Doubts also linger about GSA’s capacity to take more procurement responsibilities. DOGE has cut a substantial number of people and positions at GSA, so how can the agency take on more with fewer people? More tech can address some of that, but it is limited as well.

One could argue that the moves by the Trump administration and DOGE will return GSA to being the mandatory center of purchasing for civilian agencies, rather than the services organization it has evolved into.

But the industry should remember that GSA has always performed best when it competes. Competition drives efficiency and innovation. We’ve seen plenty of that in the contracting world over the last decade or more.

Are there places that GSA needs to improve on? Definitely. Is adding more responsibilities and duties, while also cutting its workforce, the right way to improve GSA? Most likely not.