Skip to content Skip to left sidebar Skip to right sidebar Skip to footer

Tag: FAS

A Quick Dive into GSA’s Game-Changing Proposed Economic Price Adjustment Clause

The General Services Administration’s (GSA) recently proposed to revise the General Services Acquisition Regulation (GSAR) Federal Supply Schedule Economic Price Adjustment (EPA) clauses. Issued on November 16, 2023, the rule aims to align with commercial standards and practices by eliminating specific EPA requirements and introducing a standardized clause: 552.238-118, Economic Price Adjustment, Federal Supply Schedule Contracts. (Federal News Network, January 12, 2024)

This new clause mirrors the principles outlined in GSA Acquisition Letter MV-22-02 from March 2022, which temporarily suspended certain procedural limits within FSS clauses. This move provided contractors with increased flexibility in processing EPAs, responding more effectively to shifts in the commercial market. The proposed rule extends this market-driven flexibility into the GSAR. (ibid)

The EPA proposed rule is defined as the “agreed-upon procedure” for adjusting pricing throughout a contract period.” The proposed clause empowers contracting officers and contractors to negotiate the mechanism, timing, and frequency of price adjustments. This streamlined, flexible approach is poised to enhance responsiveness to market changes. (ibid)

When contract prices are based on commercial catalog pricing, adjustments can align with changes in the catalog price. Similarly, if an index determines adjustments, changes in the index can dictate price adjustments. These mechanisms, being part of the contract, underscore the proposal’s pragmatic approach. (ibid)

For the success of this flexible EPA, implementation across the FSS program is crucial. Proper training for the acquisition workforce, focusing on pricing context and accurate data usage, is paramount. The proposed rule’s success depends on aligning the FSS program with the commercial market, necessitating revisions to current policies such as Federal Acquisition Service (FAS) Policy and Procedure (PAP) 2021-05. (ibid)

The PAP, as it stands, contains contradictory guidance inconsistent with the Federal Acquisition Regulation, escalating data submission burdens on FSS contractors. To streamline the EPA process effectively, reforming, revising, and reissuing the PAP in accordance with legal and operational goals is a logical starting point. (ibid)

Beyond reducing regulatory burdens, success hinges on comprehensive training, clear guidance, and accountability. Stakeholders, including coalition members, stand ready to assist the agency in operationalizing the rule successfully. (ibid)

Questions concerning price adjustments to your current contract? Give us a call.

A workflow for everyone


The Catalog Management Office (CMO) is actively finalizing the workflow for Multiple Award Schedule (MAS) services between eMod and the new FAS Catalog Platform (FCP). Simultaneously, they are completing the new Services Plus File for FCP use, marking progress towards launching MAS service functionality in FCP by fiscal year-end 2024 (refer to the attached file for the Services Plus file). (BUY.GSA.GOV NOVEMBER 30, 2023)

The Services Plus file, formerly the Service File, will now accommodate all service contract and catalog data from the Services and Training, and the Language Services Price Proposal Templates. Vendors will also utilize it for non-GSA Advantage! publishable products, such as highly customizable items. (ibid)

Vendors can categorize their offerings in the new template under eight catalog item types:

  1. Commercial Labor Categories: Vendor-defined labor categories, using the hour (HR) unit of measure.
  2. Service Contract Labor Standards (SCLS) labor categories: Governed by Service Contract Act laws and regulations, using the HR unit of measure.
  3. Fixed Price Solutions: Services outside the labor category paradigm, using any unit of measure.
  4. Courses and Training: Sessions with minimum and maximum student constraints.
  5. Other Direct Costs (ODCs): Contract-level items sold, supporting public relations and marketing services.
  6. Language Services: Translation services, translating languages, one or both ways.
  7. Highly Customizable Products: Products with multiple options, that cannot be sold on GSA Advantage! Priced as a discount to a manufacturer group or family, as opposed to pricing products as a discrete set of line items.
  8. Ancillary Items: Products or services supporting the dominant service in the Services Plus File, and not sold on GSA Advantage! (ibid)

Questions about how to categorize your offerings? Give us a call.

Prohibited telcom equipment may cost you

The General Services Administration’s (GSA) Office of the Inspector General (OIG) published a new report highlighting GSA’s failure to address prohibited telecom items on its Multiple Award Schedule (MAS) contracts. The report states that this puts customers at risk of unauthorized surveillance by foreign adversaries. In 2017 and 2018, Congress passed laws prohibiting the procurement of certain telecom and video surveillance services from specific entities, with FAS responsible for ensuring compliance. However, the OIG report reveals that FAS’s reliance on contractor self-certifications and the Prohibited Products Robomod process is inadequate in preventing the inclusion of prohibited items on MAS contract price lists. (MerriTalk July 11,2023)

The report also identifies FAS’s shortcomings in taking sufficient action against contractors violating Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) restrictions, as well as the lack of a process to notify customer agencies about purchases of prohibited telecom items. Furthermore, FAS initially failed to comply with FAR requirements by not including subsidiaries and affiliates of named entities in their efforts to identify prohibited items on MAS contracts. To address these issues, the OIG has made five recommendations to FAS Commissioner Sonny Hashmi, including strengthening controls and implementing more stringent consequences for non-compliant contractors. (ibid)

This report from the GSA’s OIG follows the release of the Federal Communications Commission’s (FCC) “Covered List,” which prohibits the sale of telecom network equipment and services from certain China-based providers due to national security concerns. The FCC’s ban aims to safeguard the nation’s communications networks and enhance the security and resilience of the domestic supply chain. These efforts reflect the commitment of both agencies to protect national security and mitigate risks associated with unauthorized telecommunications equipment and services. (ibid)

Questions about prohibited telcom items? give us a call.

GSA is about to make Cloud purchases a whole lot easier

GSA is about to reveal a plan for a governmentwide marketplace for cloud solutions. This new marketplace will not only make it convenient, it will also set up a one-stop-shop for agencies to purchase commercial Software as a Service, Infrastructure as a Service, and Platform as a Service, offerings. (FedTech October 7, 2021)

On a recent webinar, Laura Stanton, assistant commissioner for the Office of Information Technology Category in the GSA’s Federal Acquisition Service, said, “We’re looking at how we put together a cloud marketplace that then becomes a buying platform for agencies. We want to put together not just a framework, but a market contractual vehicle that will allow our agencies to buy these core cloud services that we’re seeing them need more and more.” (ibid)

The GSA marketplace will provide agencies with professional IT services as well as post-award contract management tools. It would also set the requirements to verify cloud services meet the baseline security and adherence to guidance from the Federal Risk and Authorization Management Program (FedRAMP). (ibid)

GSA wants to streamline the entire cloud procurement process for agencies. According to Laura Stanton, “GSA uses the cloud and cloud-related IT professional services special item number (SIN) 518210C as a vehicle for multiple-award procurements. The contract type can be used to acquire cloud computing services, as defined by the National Institute of Standards and Technology.” Stanton said that GSA is “hearing that agencies have to go to multiple places to buy cloud. We decided it was time to take the next step.” (ibid)

An RFI is expected early in the new fiscal year, which began October 1, 2021. (ibid)

Questions concerning the upcoming RFI? Give us a call.

Not everyone is sold on the Transactional Data Reporting (TDR) pilot

Almost five years ago GSA launched the Transactional Data Reporting (TDR) pilot to replace the Price Reduction Clause (PRC). GSA’s goal is to use the data received, to obtain better pricing from contractors. GSA calls TDR a success, critics are not so quick to agree. (Federal News Network May 10, 2021)

Jeff Koses, GSA’s senior procurement executive said, “GSA has successfully demonstrated the value of TDR under the existing scope of the pilot. It has shown steady progress over the past four years, met most of the pilot’s objectives in the most recent year, and has made the necessary investments to leverage TDR’s potential in the years to come. We will continue to make improvements, especially in contracting officer usage.” However, Koses made no mention of using the TDR information in 2019 or 2020 (ibid).

Some argue that TDR works on paper, but not in reality. Many contracting officers are reluctant to use the data for decision-making. One industry expert went so far as to say, “I have not experienced any negotiations based on TDR data in order to form an opinion.” Others have suggested that the data is incomplete and that GSA has no strategy to back the pilot. (ibid)

One consultant pointed out that as more companies participate in TDR, the IG’s ability to audit prices before an award is made is more difficult. She noted, “under the TDR pilot, the population of auditable contracts has ostensibly been cut in half. When you remove the major resellers and the integrators, what remains are largely professional service contractors and products companies under Schedules 84 (Law Enforcement), 71 (Furniture), and 66 (Scientific). The audit threshold for annual sales is also reduced due to the smaller pool of contracts from which the OIG is selecting. Small businesses who would never have been a blip on the OIG’s radar are now at much higher risk of pre-award audit.” (ibid)

Another complication is GSA’s move toward unpriced contracts under Section 876 of the 2018 National Defense Authorization Act. The Act makes the Price Reduction Clause as well as TDR less necessary because the burden is on vendors to provide the lowest price possible as part of contract negotiations. (ibid)

Koses said GSA will refine and consider:

  • The ability of Federal Supply Schedule contracting officers to use transactional data for price negotiations in lieu of commercial sales practices and price reduction clause disclosures
  • The impact of an expanded data collection on GSA’s ability to use the data it currently collects
  • The impact on current/future GSA schedule contract holders
  • Communication to industry partners
  • Training and tools for category managers not impacted by TDR
  • Possible impacts on other FAS initiatives such as the National Defense Authorization Act (ibid)

So when will the pilot move to production? The waters remain murky. Whether the IG will move from the production stage should be made more clear when the Inspector General report on the TDR pilot is released, in the coming weeks. Vendors should be ready to invest in systems to collect and report pricing data, should the TDR pilot go into production.

Questions concerning how to collect and report pricing data? Give us a call.