Introduction to the OneGov Strategy in Government Contracting and Acquisition

The General Services Administration (GSA) has been championing the OneGov Strategy, a bold initiative designed to streamline government contracting and acquisition by leveraging the federal government’s massive buying power. Positioned as the ultimate enterprise buyer akin to a Fortune One company the U.S. government seeks to secure the best pricing and value for taxpayers through this approach. By aggregating demand and consolidating purchasing, the OneGov Strategy aims to revolutionize federal government acquisitions, particularly for commodity IT and common goods, through the GSA Schedules program. But despite its promise, the strategy has yet to fully deliver after two decades of similar efforts. Why? The answer lies in flawed assumptions that undermine its effectiveness in government contracting and acquisition. Today we dives deep into the OneGov Strategy, its roots, its challenges, and the realities of federal government acquisitions and far government acquisition standards.

What Is the OneGov Strategy in Government Contracting and Acquisition?

If you look at its core the OneGov Strategy is an evolution of earlier initiatives like the Federal Strategic Sourcing Initiative (FSSI) and Category Management, both aimed at centralizing and optimizing government contracting and acquisition. It builds on the idea that the federal government, as a single, massive buyer, can negotiate better terms with private-sector technology companies, ensuring cost savings and efficiency in government contracts and simplified acquisition. The strategy emphasizes:

• Aggregated Demand: Combining the purchasing needs of federal agencies to secure lower prices.
• GSA Schedules: Providing a platform for negotiated terms accessible to all agencies.
• Cost Savings: Delivering value to taxpayers through streamlined federal government acquisitions.
• Simplified Acquisition: Making it easier for businesses to engage in government contracts and simplified acquisition processes.

The OneGov Strategy draws inspiration from private-sector practices, such as those used by companies like Caterpillar or Capital One, where consolidated purchasing reduces costs. However, despite its roots in proven private-sector methods, the strategy struggles to achieve its goals in the complex world of government contracting and acquisition.

The Historical Context of the OneGov Strategy

The OneGov Strategy is not a new concept. Centralization efforts in government contracting and acquisition began in the early 2000s under President George W. Bush’s Management Agenda, which introduced the FSSI in 2005. The Obama administration followed with Category Management, further refining the approach. The OneGov Strategy is the latest iteration, building on these efforts to enhance federal government acquisitions and align with far government acquisition regulations.

Yet, after two decades, the federal government has not fully realized the intended benefits of these initiatives. If you ask me, the reason is that the OneGov Strategy rests on several flawed assumptions that fail to account for the unique structure of the federal government and the realities of government contracting and acquisition. Let’s explore these assumptions and their impact on government contracts, simplified acquisition and federal government acquisitions.

Flawed Assumptions of the OneGov Strategy

Assumption 1: The Federal Government Is a Single Enterprise

The OneGov Strategy assumes the federal government operates as a unified enterprise, like a corporation such as Citigroup or Toyota. However, this is far from reality. The federal government functions as a federated system, with agencies like the Department of the Navy, NASA, the USDA, and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers operating independently due to their distinct missions, procurement processes, and regulatory environments. Each agency has unique needs, making a one-size-fits-all approach to government contracting and acquisition impractical.

For example, comparing the federal government to Berkshire Hathaway—a conglomerate with diverse, independent companies like Dairy Queen and GEICO—is more accurate. These agencies don’t procure goods or services under the same conditions or for the same purposes, undermining the premise that a single vehicle like the OneGov Strategy can succeed in federal government acquisitions.

Assumption 2: IT Can Be Treated as a Commodity

Another critical flaw in the OneGov Strategy is its treatment of IT as a commodity. Commodities, such as pencils or paperclips, are static and do not drive strategic value. In contrast, IT is dynamic, enabling innovation, performance, and mission-critical services in government contracting and acquisition. Treating IT as a commodity ignores its role in supporting complex, evolving needs, which conflicts with the rapid pace of technological advancement.

This commoditization approach is counterproductive, as it fails to recognize the strategic importance of IT in federal government acquisitions and far government acquisition processes. Agencies require tailored IT solutions, not one-size-fits-all products, to meet their unique mission demands.

Assumption 3: Agencies “Go Shopping” for IT

The OneGov Strategy operates under a “buyer-as-shopper” mentality, treating federal agencies as consumers chasing deals rather than mission-driven organizations managing complex IT ecosystems. In the private sector, companies like Amazon or Microsoft don’t acquire IT by browsing for discounts; they align purchases with long-term architecture, security, and performance goals. Similarly, federal agencies need strategic partnerships with vendors to ensure compatibility and efficiency, not a glorified flash sale model.

This assumption undermines the government contracts’ simplified acquisition process, as it fails to address the need for integrated, secure IT solutions that align with agency missions.

Assumption 4: GSA Is Making Direct Agreements with OEMs

The GSA has promoted the OneGov Strategy as a way to “disrupt” traditional procurement by securing direct agreements with original equipment manufacturers (OEMs). However, evidence of such agreements is scarce. Major players like Google, Microsoft, Adobe, or Salesforce do not have GSA Schedules for their products, raising questions about the feasibility of direct deals.

The GSA’s claim that it cannot engage OEMs directly due to “privity of contract” issues is unconvincing, as these companies routinely work with federal agencies on sensitive matters. Instead, OEMs rely on value-added resellers (VARs) and supply chain partners to manage federal engagements, a reality that contradicts the OneGov Strategy’s narrative of direct agreements in government contracting and acquisition.

Assumption 5: It Delivers Taxpayer Value

The OneGov Strategy claims to deliver taxpayer value by cutting out intermediaries and passing savings along. However, the GSA lacks the data to support this assertion. Only recently, after a decade-long pilot, did the GSA mandate participation in its Transactional Data Reporting (TDR) initiative to capture transaction-level pricing data. Without reliable data, claims of taxpayer savings in federal government acquisitions remain speculative.

Moreover, removing intermediaries may not reduce costs. OEMs often prefer VARs to handle support, integration, and compliance, allowing them to focus on innovation. Shifting these responsibilities to OEMs could increase costs, negating the promised savings in government contracts simplified acquisition.

Challenges and Solutions in the OneGov Strategy

The OneGov Strategy faces significant challenges in government contracting and acquisition. Below are some key issues and potential solutions:

Challenge 1: Federated Structure of the Government

Issue: The federal government’s decentralized structure complicates centralized procurement. Solution: Develop flexible frameworks that allow agencies to tailor government contracts simplified acquisition processes to their unique needs while leveraging GSA Schedules for common goods.

Challenge 2: IT Complexity

Issue: Treating IT as a commodity ignores its strategic role in federal government acquisitions. Solution: Shift focus to strategic IT partnerships that prioritize innovation and mission alignment over cost-cutting.

Challenge 3: Lack of Data

Issue: The GSA’s limited access to transaction-level data undermines claims of taxpayer value. Solution: Accelerate TDR implementation and invest in real-time data analytics to track pricing and performance in government contracting and acquisition.

Challenge 4: Competitive Environment

Issue: The reliance on VARs and intermediaries complicates direct OEM agreements. Solution: Foster collaboration between OEMs, VARs, and agencies to streamline far government acquisition processes while maintaining efficiency.

Case Study: A Failed Attempt at Centralization

To illustrate the challenges of the OneGov Strategy, consider a hypothetical case study:

Background: A federal agency sought to adopt the OneGov Strategy for IT procurement, aiming to secure cost savings through GSA Schedules. Approach: The agency followed government contracts simplified acquisition guidelines, focusing on commodity IT purchases. Outcome: The agency struggled with incompatible IT solutions, as the standardized approach failed to address its unique mission needs. Costs increased due to additional integration efforts, highlighting the limitations of the OneGov Strategy in federal government acquisitions.

Conclusion: Rethinking the OneGov Strategy

The OneGov Strategy represents a well-intentioned effort to streamline government contracting and acquisition, but its reliance on flawed assumptions limits its success. By treating the federal government as a single enterprise, commoditizing IT, adopting a shopper mentality, overstating direct OEM agreements, and lacking data to prove value, the strategy falls short of its goals.

To succeed, the GSA must account for the government’s federated structure, recognize IT’s strategic importance, and invest in data-driven decision-making. Only then can government contracting and acquisition deliver the promised value to taxpayers. Until these realities are addressed, the OneGov Strategy risks repeating the same mistakes of its predecessors, leaving federal government acquisitions and far government acquisition processes in need of a more effective approach.