Listen to the Deep Dive of this post
Headline: GSA Targets Top Consulting Firms for Contract Cuts: A New Era of Federal Spending?
Introduction:
The General Services Administration (GSA) is pushing agencies to cut “nonessential” consulting contracts, with a focus on the top 10 highest-paid consulting firms. This initiative, driven by acting GSA administrator Stephen Ehikian, aims to change the current trend where these firms are set to receive over $65 billion in fees in 2025 and beyond. Agencies have been directed to identify contracts for termination by March 7, signaling a potential shift in federal spending and contracting.
Key Points:
- GSA’s Directive: Agencies must provide a list of contracts with the top 10 consulting firms that they intend to terminate or maintain. Any contracts that continue must be justified by a senior official, confirming their mission-critical status and provision of substantive technical support.
- Targeted Firms: The GSA is focusing on contracts awarded to Accenture Federal Services, Booz Allen Hamilton, CGI Federal, Deloitte Consulting, General Dynamics IT, Guidehouse, HII Mission Technologies, IBM, Leidos, and SAIC.
- DoD and VA Involvement: The Defense Department has initiated a phased review of “nonessential” consulting contracts, starting with GSA-awarded deals, with an initial review due by March 19. The Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) initially canceled 875 contracts, projecting $2 billion in savings, but paused the effort due to concerns about impacting critical veterans’ health services.
- Industry Perspective: While some, like IBM, are defending their contributions to streamlining government operations and modernizing federal services, others in the industry are concerned about the lack of clarity in defining “consulting services”.
- Broader Implications: The Government Accountability Office (GAO) reported that agencies spent $478 billion on services in fiscal year 2023, with the DoD accounting for $230 billion of that total. This initiative could lead to a significant realignment of these expenditures.
Expert Opinions:
- Former federal contracting experts suggest that reducing consultant contracts requires a thoughtful approach rather than a haphazard one. A more considered strategy is needed to avoid gaps in government understanding, decision-making, and service delivery.
- Stephanie Kostro from the Professional Services Council, highlights the lack of clarity in defining consulting contracts as a significant issue for both agencies and vendors. The absence of a clear definition, whether based on NAICS codes, FAR definitions, or keyword searches, complicates the process of determining which contracts are essential.
- Trevor Skelly, president of Strategic Growth Partners, notes that agencies are already supposed to review service contracts annually. He questions whether this new initiative is a scare tactic or a response to Services Contract Act reporting data.
Conclusion:
The GSA’s push to cut consulting contracts signals a potential shift in federal spending priorities. While the goal is to streamline operations and save taxpayer dollars, experts emphasize the need for a more thoughtful and transparent approach to avoid unintended consequences.
Tags: Acquisition, Acquisition Policy, All News, consulting contracts, Contracting, Contracts/Awards, Defense, Defense Industry, Defense News, General Services Administration, GSA, Stephen Ehikian, Strategic Growth Partners, Trevor Skelly
