Can anyone recommend one over the other? The pros, cons of both. I have a requirement for IT advisory services, which is available through both vehicles. I have experience with GSA not NITAAC.

Thanks in advance.

From the contractor side---

NITAAC is typically easier to work with, GSA can be difficult. Pricing should be similar, and the fee from NITAAC is less. Cant speak to the customer side.

Depends on whether FAR 8 or FAR 16 makes is easier to execute for you.  FAR 8 is typically easier and gives wide berth to the CO so long as you understand what is and is not required.  Pricing is likely to be comparable.  Agencies pay a fee to use NITAAC but they don't under Schedules.  That comes from industry.  Same structure under SEWP.

6 hours ago, jonmjohnson said:

Depends on whether FAR 8 or FAR 16 makes is easier to execute for you.  FAR 8 is typically easier and gives wide berth to the CO so long as you understand what is and is not required.  Pricing is likely to be comparable.  Agencies pay a fee to use NITAAC but they don't under Schedules.  That comes from industry.  Same structure under SEWP.

Neither 8.4 nor 16.5 impose the procedural burdens seen in 15.3. Both give one the chance to focus on getting the best deal for the customer vice on competitive ranges, the content of exchanges and final proposal revisions.

I believe that NITAAC's fee is .65% with a max of $150,000 and that the contractors' schedule prices are increased by an Industrial Funding Fee of .75%. The contractors pay the fee quarterly to GSA.

  

NASA SEWP is where the majority of the COs in my agency go for anything IT related. We are just not that familiar with NITAAC.

19 hours ago, napolik said:

Neither 8.4 nor 16.5 impose the procedural burdens seen in 15.3. Both give one the chance to focus on getting the best deal for the customer vice on competitive ranges, the content of exchanges and final proposal revisions.

I believe that NITAAC's fee is .65% with a max of $150,000 and that the contractors' schedule prices are increased by an Industrial Funding Fee of .75%. The contractors pay the fee quarterly to GSA.

  

NITAAC has a few GWACS but all 3 have fees paid by the government. CIO-CS is .35%, SEWP in .39% GSA is .75%. None are paid directly by the government, but industry includes that cost. 

Schedule orders of any size may be protested at GAO.

Schedules 70, 84, others, allow for the purchase of solutions including both product and services; GWACs tend to be for one or the other. Schedule CTAs provide additional flexibility.

The universe of MAS contract holders is much larger than any other contract.