Why aren’t GSA Schedule Contracts used more?

I’m curious and wanted to know reasons why so many agencies use FAR 15 actions instead. I do know there’s a lot of misinformation out there. Hopefully the RO of moving FAR part 8 ordering to GSAM eliminates some wrong beliefs. The GSAM clarifications include:

• RFQs are used for solicitations; not RFPs

• Additional terms and conditions can be added to orders as long as they don’t conflict with the GSA contracts

• FAR 15 rules don’t apply - this includes discussions, competitive ranges, formal evaluation plans, etc.

• Can seek price reductions

• FAR parts 5, 6, 13, 15, and 19 aren’t applicable

• Restrictions on multiple award BPAs eliminated - can do single without justification and approvals

• Unchanged - solicit only limited sources identified through market research as qualified. Allows prescreening to identify

55 minutes ago, formerfed said:

Why aren’t GSA Schedule Contracts used more?

What are the advantages?

1 hour ago, Moderator said:

What are the advantages?

Avoiding the preparation of lengthy solicitation document, identifying most highly qualified sources to solicit through market research upfront, no need for FedBizOpps notification and dealing with large number of responses, evaluation of responses and conducting questions/answers sessions without adherence to FAR 15 procedures, and placing orders without a complex contract award document.

Why Aren't GSA Schedule Contracts Used More?

HHS-Specific Analysis

After examining this issue, I've found it's less problematic than it initially appears. Many procurement situations either cannot use GSA schedule contracts or have legitimate reasons for using alternative sources.

Situations Where GSA Schedule Contracts Cannot Be Used

We immediately recognize that GSA schedule contracts are unavailable for non-commercial requirements or services categorically absent from GSA offerings. For example, we cannot establish a GSA BPA for expert witnesses—often esteemed professors of chemistry or biology from prestigious universities—because GSA contractors do not offer these specialized services.

We frequently utilize mandatory sources or various SBA socio-economic programs like 8(a).

HHS relies heavily on IDIQs and 8.4 BPAs.

Agencies rarely use open market procedures (FAR Parts 15 or 13) for requirements available through existing IDIQs or BPAs. While this occasionally occurs, it is not a significant issue.

My department makes minimal use of FAR Part 13 BPAs, BOAs, FAR Part 14, and other alternative procurement methods.

Reframing the Question

Given these exclusions, the real question becomes: Why aren't GSA Schedule Contracts used more instead of agency IDIQs?

Analysis by Category

For HHS and my agency, opportunities to use GSA instead of agency IDIQs fall into three broad categories:

1. Information Technology For IT hardware and software, the most common alternatives to GSA are other Best in Class sources like NITAAC and NASA SEWP. This represents a non-issue, as the number of agency IDIQs for IT products also available through GSA, GWACs, or other BIC sources is minimal—possibly zero.

2. Industrial/Scientific/Medical Products Agencies use GSA approximately 50% of the time for these millions of products. Medical procurement goes through VA. For the remainder using agency IDIQs instead of GSA, I have two competing theories:

• Duplication Theory: The IDIQs overlap with GSA offerings and could be replaced by GSA BPA calls/orders for identical services. This represents problematic duplication.

• Legitimate Gap Theory: Agencies have ongoing needs for products or requirements unavailable through GSA or other existing sources, necessitating separate IDVs (IDIQs or BPAs). This is not duplicative.

3. Professional Services This category represents the core issue, where agencies use GSA least despite GSA's extensive professional services offerings. While data is limited, several factors explain this pattern:

Line Agency Control Requirements Complex or high-risk procurements require direct line-agency ownership of the procurement process. Third-party involvement (GSA) can undermine agency control and dilute accountability, which is unacceptable for certain contract complexities or risk levels. Since end-users handle enforcement, GSA becomes an unnecessary intermediary.

Transaction Costs vs. Competition Benefits When contract transition costs exceed potential competition-driven savings, agencies have incentives to use their own IDIQs to minimize order-level competition and contractor turnover. The incentives are misaligned for direct government employees who bear the transaction costs (time and new contractor management) but receive no direct benefits from competition-driven savings. If this theory is correct, agency IDIQs should demonstrate minimal order-level competition—either single award or otherwise structured to limit competition.

Requirement Specificity "Professional Services" is an artificial category—specific requirements matter more. Having numerous GSA professional services schedule holders is irrelevant if none possess expertise in your specific requirement. While program managers frequently cite this reason, I suspect it's less often true than claimed. I also suspect GSA's claim, that this reason is almost never true, is also wrong.

Institutional Inertia Agencies continue using IDIQs for specific services simply because they have always done so, rather than evaluating whether GSA alternatives might be more effective