GSA may lower some contract surcharges for agencies

The General Services Administration’s is considering reducing the surcharge it applies to some contract purchases, potentially providing a boost to the Barack Obama administration's push for strategic sourcing.

The fee is expressed as a percentage of the dollar value of orders placed. On Multiple Award Schedule contracts, the fee has been 0.75 percent since fiscal 2004. GSA can use the money to fund the Schedules program or another agency program.

“We think there’s already an opportunity for us to reduce fees,” Dan Tangherlini, acting GSA administrator, told Homeland Security and Governmental Reform Committee Chairman Sen. Joe Lieberman (I-Conn.) at a hearing held Sept. 12.

Furthermore, GSA has a surcharge on the strategic sourcing initiative contracts.

“In many ways, the [fee] discourages agencies from doing the right thing,” which is to use the strategic sourcing contracts, he said. Without an additional fee or even a decreased fee, agencies may be more inclined to choose the contracts as they try to save money. Some Obama administration officials have also been concerned about the relatively slow pace of agencies adopting strategic sourcing.

GSA’s fees have generated more money than officials need to run the MAS program. The fee brings in more than $250 million per year, Lieberman said. He pointed out too that, based on a GSA inspector general audit from fiscal 2012, GSA has reserves of more than $687 million, as of September 2009, in its revolving fund. GSA IG Brian Miller did not have a more current figure.

Lieberman doesn’t want to eliminate the reserve fund. However, “this is clearly a time in our federal government where every dollar counts, and you’ve got millions of dollars in excess in this reserve fund,” he said. He urged Tangherlini to reduce the fees.

"It’s worthy of a good deep dive and inspection,” Tangherlini said.

The Federal Acquisition Service, which oversees the Schedules program, should get a better understanding of the right amount to keep on reserve and develop a transparent process so agencies can see how GSA is spending the reserves, he added.

Overall, “we really want to kick off a broader discussion with our agency partners and say, what’s the right structure for these fees going forward,” he said.

About the Author

Matthew Weigelt is a freelance journalist who writes about acquisition and procurement.

2014 Rising Star Awards

Help us find the next generation of leaders in federal IT.

Reader comments

Mon, Jul 22, 2013

These seems interesting considering everyone I work with at GSA moans about being severly overworked, not enough people or resources, and action time has gone from slow to non-existent. If GSA has so much money in reserve, then why aren't they hiring and training their work force to keep up with the market demand?

Fri, Sep 14, 2012 GSA FED

I'm not a member of the Federal Acquisition Service, however, I have used them and my understanding of the fees was to help offset the cost of managing the required actions associated to acquisition (Staff time, contract fees, requests for proposals, etc.). Also, that these fees didn't fully cover the costs. If true, then lowering htem may encourage some vendors to do business with GSA but also dig deeper into GSA's budget. I would like to hear from someone at FAS about these fee, how they are determined and used.

Thu, Sep 13, 2012 peter

Would seem a good idea to me also, as part of the continuing quest to trim IT spending, to force ALL federal agencies to run their IT hardware/software procurement through GSA.

Thu, Sep 13, 2012

Here we go again - Eliminate the fees on FSSI contracts in an effort to force ordering agencies to use them instead of letting the market set the final price through healthy competition between GSA schedule contractors thereby forcing hundreds of bone fide GSA schedule contractors out of the schedules program if not out of business and putting thousands more out of work. This is just another example of this administration picking the winners. If this were done on the commercial side the commercial entities(s) would probably be sited by some IG for price fixing under the Sherman Antitrust Act.

Please post your comments here. Comments are moderated, so they may not appear immediately after submitting. We will not post comments that we consider abusive or off-topic.

Please type the letters/numbers you see above