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

  • Comment
    customer experience (garagestock/Shutterstock.com)

    Leveraging the TMF to improve customer experience

    Focusing on customer experience as part of the Technology Modernization Fund investment strategy will enable agencies to improve service and build trust in government.

  • FCW Perspectives
    zero trust network

    Why zero trust is having a moment

    Improved technologies and growing threats have agencies actively pursuing dynamic and context-driven security.

Stay Connected