Letter: Commercial terms among vendors and government should match

Regarding "GSA short on customer input": I find it difficult to verify that schedule prices are x% discounted from list prices, especially when the only list price available is the schedule price.

In my purchases, [General Services Administration] Schedule prices are always just a starting point for negotiations.  Rarely do I pay the schedule price.  So what does that say about competitive schedule pricing?

I think the schedule contracts for COTS [commercial-off-the-shelf] software should already modify vendors standard commercial terms to match those of the government (i.e., no terminations without the CDA, Prompt Pay supercedes commercial interest charges, only the DOJ can defend the Govt in court, state law vs. federal law, taxes, "entire contract," termination, indemnity, injuctive relief, limitations on actions, etc.)

Also need to address the fact that software maintenance is normally paid one year in advance as standard industry practice.  If my vendors change that practice, the GV always ends up paying more because of all the extra work involved in monthly and quarterly billing.

Anonymous

What do you think? Paste a comment in the box below (registration required), or send your comment to [email protected] (subject line: Blog comment) and we'll post it.

Featured

  • People
    2021 Federal 100 Awards

    Announcing the 2021 Federal 100 Award winners

    Meet the women and men being honored for their exceptional contributions to federal IT.

  • Comment
    Diverse Workforce (Image: Shutterstock)

    Who cares if you wear a hoodie or a suit? It’s the mission that matters most

    Responding to Steve Kelman's recent blog post, Alan Thomas shares the inside story on 18F's evolution.

Stay Connected