The second group of “consulting companies” provides the General Services Administration.
Until Friday, a new series of 10 providers have to submit data, analyzes and options for potential savings of their existing consulting contracts to GSA and agency customers.
The 10 providers are:
- Asgn installed
- Chemonics International
- Fcn inc.
- Ironbowing technologies
- Mantech International Corporation
- Minburn Technology Group LLC
- Peraton
- Outstanding CRGT
- Smartronix LLC
- V3Gate LLC
Fox Business News reported for the first time about the list of nine companies and the latest GSA letter. Federal News Network learned that GSA sent a letter to a 10th company, Iron Bow.
“In order to promote this review in cooperation with the industry, we are looking for the detailed input of your company to spend the expenditure that has broken out by the agency, project and service category, as well as the pricing of such services. We intend to use this article as a scorecard in order to compare your perspective with the state overview of other consultation companies. Received.
Industry experts questioned the decision of the GSA to check these next 10 companies, since many are not traditional consultants. In fact, mini gymnastics and iron arch are resellers, while Peraton is more of a system integrator.
“If people say consulting contracts, I think their definition is too wide. There are management contracts, many of which are shorter and are firmer with a certain incentive basis,” said an industry manager who applied for fear of retaliation. “And then there are employee enlargement contracts. These are often T&M contracts. These persons become extensions of the staff and often when an incumbent provider loses a contract, half or three quarters of the staff only turn the badge of the new seller. I think that is more of what the GSA looks at.”
Industry sources also point out that some big names were missing in the first two rounds, including Caci, Northrop Grumman, Lockheed Martin and KBR, which have all considerable contracts with the government and are involved in the same type of “advisory work” as the first 20 companies.
USD 33 billion in potential savings or avoidance
GSA initiated these efforts in February with a first set of 10 consulting companies. The agency followed in April with a second letter after the first answers from these companies were checked.
Sources say that these companies have met with Gruenbaum and other FAS managers, but the agency has no longer answered since the providers submitted their second data and analysis rate.
GSA officials said the first 10 companies were only the beginning and the state review would include many other companies.
A GSA official, who applied for anonymity to discuss the ongoing efforts with the efforts, said that the first group of companies would have submitted around 33 billion US dollars of potential or real savings through determination, termination and restructuring of existing contracts, and the GSA has already worked on $ 8.9 billion.
“We believe that it is the right way to do this by having a voice. What they see through public statements by companies like Booz Allen Hamilton and Leidos is that they are shopping for the goals of the administration,” said the official. “The first consulting companies have taken measures against around 2,500 contracts and realized the actual savings of 8.9 billion US dollars. The companies came back after this second round and offer other tools and support them through what we asked them to improve the Federal Acquisition process.”
The second round of the letters is a continuation of these efforts to reduce the contract expenditure and to re -form these consulting contracts in order to concentrate on the fact that it is not based on results, and less about putting the butt in seats.
“The administration is intended to find every dollar of savings that you can find and we check how we can change or improve the system along the ideas of this administration in the future,” said the GSA official. “We consider things such as results, packaging rates and other reforms that lead to long -term savings and improvements to provide these contracts.”
Continued rotation according to results contracts
The second letter to the next 10 providers is similar to the first, with the exception of GSA does not ask for credits or a refund, and there is no mention of agencies that have overpaid these services.
GSA calls on the providers to “identify expenses by each agency, to identify every associated contract and every associated project and to continue to open the expenditure according to the functional category in simple lay reasons (that is, a 15 -year -old should be able to understand the service they offer – no advisory jargon or gobbledygook).”
In addition, the GSA continues to push for “result -based” contracts.
“All contracts that are classified and recommended to continue this review should be re -restructured in order to assess a” result “model that we define as results that are based on quantifiable results or milestones,” the letter states. “You should also consider a” common savings “model for the pricing of each project so that it leads to the work for yourself, whereby you have” skin in the game “as a contractor.
The GSA official said one of the initiative's goals is to switch to a standardized tariff card and to remove time and material contracts (T&M).
“If we have to use T&M, we want it to be more standardized and predictable. We believe that T&M is not preferable and that the results we prefer,” said the official. “T&M is more open to vague. We want to find out how we can get to the best contracts of types.”
The industry manager said that companies are trying to adapt to many of these changes, in particular the departure of time and material type contracts and the proportion of savings options.
But the expert said that many of these changes also depend on the government.
“The big question is whether the government calls its bluffs. If there is a big project and there is a share of savings, the government will reduce a large check or see it as too risky and return to the old way of shops?” The expert said. “The move to a result -based contract is not as easy as it seems. Two weeks.
Approach is not of the base?
The challenge that many providers face is to obtain the agency's customers to identify these results in advance and then agree to the remuneration approach.
The executive said that the government and sometimes industry are smarter than the government, especially if they achieve less demanding contracts.
Stan Soloway, a former deputy understate secretary of the defense for acquisition and technology and now President and CEO of Celero Strategies, said that the GSA targets to pursue contracts and improve their total value for the government is good. But the way you continue to do is away from the base.
“We have the requirements for the system competitions, price realism and the delivery requirements for one reason. If you want to ask yourself whether the pricing is correct or whether the government receives added value for the money, these are completely fair questions, but it is difficult to ask them in the middle of the contract,” he said. “It is also a question that GSA should ask the agencies and not the providers. If you want to take remedial measures, you can take them or implement them during an option period. These are not unfair questions, but they are wrong and the timing is wrong.”
Soloway and other industry experts say that it is difficult for providers to advance the changes that GSA wishes, e.g.
“There is nothing that is unreasonable that you ask, but who ask you who ask, the time of questions and your expectations are what is unreasonable,” he said. “If you want to ask the questions that ask FAS, go back to advertising, look at the commandments and judge the prices against what everyone else offers. This is the jumping point if you hold a competition primarily. I am not sure why GSA is trying to reinvent the wheel. Sure, there are times when we see the prices.
Another industry expert said that moving to the government's integral part of the government could cost more, especially for things like agile software development, where the results are not so clear.
The managing director said that fixed price contracts usually need certain parameters. If there are no good project lines, providers will be charged because they take the risk.
At the same time, the first industry manager said that the first efforts of the GSA in the 10 companies have their desired effect more generally.
The expert said many industry people ask if they will be next.
“Many have carried out internal fire brigade exercises and simulate what they would do if they are next because they want to be ready,” said the source. “You have found that it is a good exercise and have found some things that need to be cleaned up. Some goods proactively and offered their agency customers some ways to clean up the contracts.”
The GSA official said there is no doubt that these companies critically support the government, but the administration is of the opinion that these contracts can be improved.
“We ask agencies to do this with us, as this is a two -sided effort,” said the official. “Agencies have been asked to identify things that they considered critical. Now we ask the industry to help us if they want to work with the government because there must be a common feeling that we are all owners of debt and deficit.”
Copyright © 2025 Federal News Network. All rights reserved. This website is not intended for users in the European Economic Area.