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

  • Defense
    concept image of radio communication (DARPA)

    What to look for in DOD's coming spectrum strategy

    Interoperability, integration and JADC2 are likely to figure into an updated electromagnetic spectrum strategy expected soon from the Department of Defense.

  • FCW Perspectives
    data funnel (anttoniart/Shutterstock.com)

    Real-world data management

    The pandemic has put new demands on data teams, but old obstacles are still hindering agency efforts.

Stay Connected