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

  • Government Innovation Awards
    Government Innovation Awards - https://governmentinnovationawards.com

    Congratulations to the 2020 Rising Stars

    These early-career leaders already are having an outsized impact on government IT.

  • Cybersecurity
    cybersecurity (Rawpixel/Shutterstock.com)

    CMMC clears key regulatory hurdle

    The White House approved an interim rule to mandate defense contractors prove they adhere to existing cybersecurity standards from the National Institute of Standards and Technology.

Stay Connected