Listen to the Deep Dive of this post
Centralized Federal Procurement: Opportunity or Risk?
The federal government is once again considering a significant shift in how it buys goods and services. The Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) is reportedly contemplating designating the General Services Administration (GSA) as the mandatory purchasing center for all civilian agencies. This idea, fueled by the pursuit of greater efficiency and cost savings, isn’t new.
The recent move by the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) to shutter its procurement operations and transfer contract management to GSA has reignited this discussion. Proponents argue that consolidating procurement under GSA would eliminate redundancy, leveraging existing GSA contract vehicles like the Schedules, Alliant, OASIS, and VETS. Why should each agency create its own contracts when GSA already offers numerous options?.
However, history offers a nuanced perspective. While former GSA Administrator Lurita Doan achieved some success in centralizing telecommunications contracts under GSA’s Networx, she couldn’t absorb programs like NASA’s SEWP. Even now, agencies like NASA and NIH’s IT Acquisition and Assessment Center may resist transferring their specialized programs like SEWP or CIO-SP to GSA.
Several concerns exist regarding this potential shift. One major question is GSA’s capacity to handle the entire civilian procurement workload, especially considering past personnel cuts. While technology might offer some assistance, its limitations must be acknowledged. Furthermore, the nature of what is being acquired matters. Commodity-type products and services might be suitable for centralized procurement, but mission-specific procurements, particularly in areas like healthcare and contact centers, demand a deep understanding of individual agency needs.
There’s also the fundamental principle that competition drives innovation and efficiency in contracting. GSA has historically performed best when it operates within a competitive environment. Returning GSA to a mandatory central purchasing role could stifle this dynamism. While improvements at GSA are undoubtedly needed, simply adding more responsibilities while reducing its workforce might not be the optimal path. The long-term impact on agency autonomy, specialized procurements, and the overall health of the federal contracting landscape warrants careful consideration.
Tags: federal procurement, GSA, government contracting, DOGE, centralization, efficiency, innovation, risks, opportunities, SEWP, OASIS, Alliant, VETS