Jump to content

REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL - Commercial Online Platform Acquisition


bob7947

Recommended Posts

The program seeks to provide commercial B2B online shopping capabilities for agency Government Purchase Card (GPC) holders for the purchase of routine, commercial items. The solicitation package closely aligns with the Request for Information released earlier this year under notice ID 47QSCC22N0007, and with the draft RFP released under notice ID 47QSCC22R0028.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I guess I'm just naïve. If the goal is to buy commercial items, why don't the holders of the GPCs just do a Google (or Bing) search for what they need? Why does the Gov't. require a unique system to replicate what the market already provides?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think a stand-alone platform is overkill -- an easier and adequate approach in my mind would be a simple certificate from sellers on their own platforms that they accept the GPC -- government cardholders could search the internet for the products they need and make purchases from sellers who advertise the certification -- think of a government label approximating kosher or halal.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, ji20874 said:

I think a stand-alone platform is overkill -- an easier and adequate approach in my mind would be a simple certificate from sellers on their own platforms that they accept the GPC -- government cardholders could search the internet for the products they need and make purchases from sellers who advertise the certification -- think of a government label approximating kosher or halal.

For the certificate or a pre-approval of some kind to be effective, it would need to involve a reliable assessment of the vendor's current terms and not just indicate their willingness to accept GPC. 

Online vendors not willing to accept GPC is one thing (in my experience there are a few of those vendors).

It's another thing to have an online vendor whose routine practices involve terms that are contrary to those a GPC holder can accept while staying inside the bounds of federal law & GPC rules and regulations (in my experience there are a lot of these vendors).

Absent some sort of pre-approval or implementation of a portal, the issue of unacceptable terms can easily get missed or misunderstood by the only Government personnel in a position to spot it before the purchase happens: a GPC cardholder or their approving official.

And even when spotted ahead of time, resolution may not be easy. Online vendors would probably have little ability or incentive to change their business system accommodate the unique needs of a party wanting only one or a few purchases. 

I've seen one such GPC issue elevated all the way to an agency Chief of Procurement who engaged with the company head before concluding that source could not be used.

In 2015 GSA a GSA identified 15 types of terms commonly used by vendors in their agreements that the federal Government cannot agree to...I've linked to it recently in another thread. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I’m skeptical this is worth all the time, effort, and money.  I believe most agencies are relatively happy with the status quo where they select vendors they like and know.  Several agencies have taken actions by looking at spend, identifying commodities most often acquired, and establishing BPAs with sources they are comfortable with.  If a vendor proposes terms they don’t like, they negotiate something acceptable or just don’t award.  Otherwise purchasing is done with non BPA holders for lower volume commodities with online sources that have proven customer track records.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 12/15/2022 at 8:05 AM, here_2_help said:

I guess I'm just naïve. If the goal is to buy commercial items, why don't the holders of the GPCs just do a Google (or Bing) search for what they need? Why does the Gov't. require a unique system to replicate what the market already provides?

I think the goal is to set up something like Amazon that would ensure compliance with socioeconomic policies (i.e., FAR part 8, FAR part 23). These policies apply to micro-purchases. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Don, that’s a good summary of the way it all evolved.  The original 2018 NDAA language is:

Quote

“to procure commercial products through commercial e-commerce portals … through multiple contracts with multiple commercial e-commerce portal providers, and shall design the program to be implemented in phases with the objective of enabling Government-wide use of such portals.”

Some labeled this as the “Amazon bill.”  It was intended to emphasize greater government acquisition of commercial items in a commercial manner and allow the government to adopt standard commercial terms and conditions.  So far, so good. Then GSA awarded three pilot contracts to gather test data and gain wider experiences.  After that and issuing a RFI, they are ready for long term contracts.  But so far, it doesn’t look much different than what agencies can do on their own if they like.  My question is what will these contracts do that current practices don’t?  I know GSA is claiming benefits like gathering governmentwide spend data but what’s the real value of that?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, formerfed said:

My question is what will these contracts do that current practices don’t?  I know GSA is claiming benefits like gathering governmentwide spend data but what’s the real value of that?

@formerfedGSA's principal function is to provide "vehicles" for buying stuff. That's what it does. Of course it claims benefits, and perhaps there are some. There's no point in questioning it. It's like asking why hens lay eggs and roosters crow.

Although, from my ancient point of view all those vehicles sure seem to clutter the contracting landscape.

Of course, the fact that our Federal government has to buy so much stuff from so many sources is indicative of its growth in terms of functions and size. It's expanding like the universe.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 12/16/2022 at 10:30 AM, FAR-flung 1102 said:

For the certificate or a pre-approval of some kind to be effective, it would need to involve a reliable assessment of the vendor's current terms and not just indicate their willingness to accept GPC. 

Online vendors not willing to accept GPC is one thing (in my experience there are a few of those vendors).

It's another thing to have an online vendor whose routine practices involve terms that are contrary to those a GPC holder can accept while staying inside the bounds of federal law & GPC rules and regulations (in my experience there are a lot of these vendors).

Absent some sort of pre-approval or implementation of a portal, the issue of unacceptable terms can easily get missed or misunderstood by the only Government personnel in a position to spot it before the purchase happens: a GPC cardholder or their approving official.

And even when spotted ahead of time, resolution may not be easy. Online vendors would probably have little ability or incentive to change their business system accommodate the unique needs of a party wanting only one or a few purchases. 

I've seen one such GPC issue elevated all the way to an agency Chief of Procurement who engaged with the company head before concluding that source could not be used.

In 2015 GSA a GSA identified 15 types of terms commonly used by vendors in their agreements that the federal Government cannot agree to...I've linked to it recently in another thread. 

 

I don't really doubt you're correct in your assessment of the situation. But to me, what you are saying is that when the government enters the marketplace to acquire commercial items, it is unable to conform to standard marketplace practices and standard terms and conditions. In my mind, that kind of makes a mockery of the entire "commercial goods" and/or "commercial services" concept.

If a buyer can't accept what the marketplace is offering, then the notion of market-determined price reasonableness goes out the window.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I suspect it has a lot to do with two things.  The first being section 889(a)(1)(B) of the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) for Fiscal Year (FY) 2019 dealing with the use of "covered" telecommunications equipment and services (essentially Chinese manufactured equipment).  I heard in the past that there were issues specifically with Amazon who would/could not certify to 52.204-24 & 52.204-26 since they do sell Chinese manufactured equipment. Establishing a Government unique Amazon platform, which doesn't offer prohibited equipment, alleviates that issue.

The section thing deals with third-party payments. Using Amazon as an example again, they offer items for sell that they have purchased and stocked in their warehouse.  But they also off third-party items which Amazon stocks in their warehouse, but do not own. When a customer orders a third-party item, Amazon bills for it, takes their cut, and gives the third-party vendor the rest of the money.  This makes Amazon a third-party payment processor.  In the GPC realm third-party payments are frowned upon, and are supposed to only be used when no other option is available.  I imagine the Amazon Government unique platform will not offer third-party items, eliminating this concern.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The notion that the government can ever participate in the commercial marketplace like any other participant is fantasy.

The government has too many special requirements and rules. Many of them are unnecessary, but many are very necessary for a variety of reasons. When it comes to technology and product development, the commercial marketplace is fast and agile. It thrives on speed, risk-taking, and inventiveness, It's about who gets there firstest-with-the-mostest. The government plods by intention and design.

Most government personnel are neither chosen nor trained to be fast, agile, inventive risk-takers. They are urged to be but, with a few  exceptions (e.g., the SEALS), they are not developed to be, nor do they work in organizations that are designed to employ and support such persons.  Compare launch vehicle development by government agencies with development by Space X and Blue Origin.

Democratic government must answer to Congress (a wacko organization at its best), short-term presidential appointees, the media, and the people. The government had accomplished great things, but it is not designed for commerce.

Apple had to answer to Steve Jobs. Nike had to answer to Phil Knight. Space X and Tesla have to answer to Elon Musk. Blue Origin has to answer to Jeff Bezos.

Get it?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

30 minutes ago, Vern Edwards said:

The notion that the government can ever participate in the commercial marketplace like any other participant is fantasy.

*****

Get it?

Quote

Based on the foregoing, it does not matter that the contracting officer had no actual knowledge of the terms of the licensing agreement. The circumstances support finding the contracting officer had a duty to inquire as to its terms, which he failed to do, and to impute knowledge of same to him. Accordingly, based on the fact that it is, and has been, the policy of the federal government prior to the award of the contract to accept the terms of licensing agreements offered by vendors of commercial software that are customarily provided by the vendor to other purchasers and that vendors of commercial software have long included shrinkwrap and clickwrap license agreements with their software, which many courts have found to be valid, enforceable contract terms and the FAR currently also recognizes the validity of clickwrap and shrinkwrap licenses, we find the contract included the licensing agreement appellant shipped with 21 its software. We also hold the government can be bound by the terms of a commercial software license it has neither negotiated nor seen prior to the receipt of the software, so long as the terms are consistent with those customarily provided by the vendor to other purchasers and do not otherwise violate federal law.

CiyaSoft Corp., ASBCA Nos. 59519, 59913, 6/27/2018. (Emphasis added.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...