Industry’s Experience With GSA’s Electronic Systems

Feedback to vendors on awards is weak. Too many vendor resources are being tied upwaiting for and following up on award notices. eBuy doesn’t click directly to the RFP/RFQ after sign-on when users receive an emailnotification of an RFP/RFQ. Capability to set up notification based on criteria such as key words, dollar value, NAICScodes, etc doesn’t exist. Scope confusion – the ability to select more than one Schedule for the same requirementcauses vendor confusion as to actual scope, and could also expose an award to negative auditoversight or interpretation. Open market or incidental items cannot be added to an RFP/RFQ response, this iscontradictory to the GSA Schedule program guidance and FAR 8.402. The tool is limited to GSA Schedules and GWACs, which limits the customer and theContractor in their ability to respond. GSA employees in the acquisition centers and other offices that work with customer agenciesare unable to view opportunities, other than their own, posted to e-Buy. eBuy has no system change notice function; therefore, vendors are not being notified ofchanges to the system. These changes have negatively impacted how data is retrieved, bothmanually and automatically. It is very difficult to find services using the GSA Advantage! search engine. The results arenot consistent nor are they accurate. Currently a contractor can only review RFQ’s or RFI’s for SIN’s which are approved on theirindividual contracts. This is a major limitation to those using Teaming or Participating Dealerrelationships. The respondent who does not carry the particular SIN on their contract will notbe able to view or respond to the RFQ at all, thus limiting competition.RecommendationsDescription of ItemNeed a mandatory structure tothe eBuy notification messageRecommendation for ActionIn order to have a complete RFP/RFQ, it would be beneficial to havethe following on the notification message: Financial type of the order (i.e., T&M, FFP, CP) Client Organizational Information (customer) Location of Work Security level (services)Increase User Help toolsCreate a user Help Window “how to” for completing RFQ life cycleevents. For example, one problem that increasingly occurs is that aGov. user does not know how to make a mod to the existing eBuy RFQfor extending the due date or updating the record for changes to anSOW.Mandatory response tovendors on order statusFor all vendors submitting a quote, have the system send a notice ofstatus change upon award or cancellation.Change status code “NotAwarded” to “Not Selected”The code “Not Awarded” can also mean the order was not awarded atall. “Not Selected” is better suited to a vendor’s understanding. Reserve“Not Awarded” for those RFPs/RFQs that truly have not been awarded.GSA SystemsJune 6, 20077

Description of ItemRecommendation for ActionMake RFI results known tovendorsVendors frequently have no idea of what has happened to theresponses they send in to COs. Status should state “RFQ forthcomingapprox date ” or “RFQ closed pending client approval.” Having noinformation leaves the vendor in limbo.Establish a separate questionsand clarifications window ineach order for all vendors touse and view responsesA common window would allow all vendors to ask questions and viewall responses equally and openly.Efficiency of user processHave eBuy click directly to the order after sign on for directed users.Expand notification criteriaInclude criteria such as key words, dollar value, NAICS codesLimit Schedule selection basedon requirementsAllow the buyer to select only one Schedule for a requirement. Acomment may be made that other Schedules may be used tocomplement the effort.Open market/incidental itemsPer Patricia Pierson, a change to this issue is to be put in place, toallow the contractor to annotate (via a check box) if any open market orincidental items are included as part of the response, which will thenflag the procuring office to review the Open Market requirements of theFAR. We recommend an update to eBuy when this change occurs.Open to other GWACSGain permission of the other GWAC Agencies, and open the tool tothese vehicles.Post an operations messagewindow showing pending eBuychange actionsSome vendors have automated interfaces to eBuy for more efficientscanning of opportunities. Unplanned changes cause severe businessprocess interruptions.Single sign-on limitation forSchedule holders with dealersor teaming agreementsWhen a company signs a Teaming or Participating Dealer Agreement,request GSA provide a separate GSA login and password for thosepartners which the contract holder can issue upon execution of theagreement. With this "limited access" login and password, teamingpartners could bid on RFQ's through e-Buy, but not have access to therest of the contract holder’s GSA systems tools, reporting, etc.GSA SystemsJune 6, 20078

e-Offer/e-ModPurpose and Descriptione-Offer is an electronic tool which was created to facilitate the submission, review, andnegotiation of new GSA Schedule offers for new GSA Schedules. Based off of the same systemas e-Offer, e-Mod is an electronic tool for submitting modifications to GSA to automate themodification processes. The e-Mod tool is open and available to all GSA Schedules not just theInformation Technology (IT) Schedules.StrengthsGSA should be commended on creating an electronic tool to support the submission of newcontracts and contract modifications. The cost savings to both Government and industry is notinsignificant.Weaknesses Technology not embraced – with some of the problems related to the electronic submissionof offers and mods, the Acquisition Centers have not fully embraced this technology. Solicitation lacking – all of the required pages from the solicitation that require contractor tofill in data are not in the e-Offer tool. Therefore, most offers submitted are incomplete andare subsequently rejected. Missing capability - the system does not appear to allow for communication between thecontractor and the CO within e-Mod. When the CO has a question or concern regarding themodification, they cannot send a notification via e-Mod; instead the CO is forced to reject thesubmission. This is very frustrating and time consuming for both the Government andcontractor as the mod has to be completely resubmitted. If the capability currently exists totransfer any number of documents (e.g., e-mails, certifications, etc.), please provideadditional training to the CO’s and contractors. Contractor view different - Contracting Officers in the Acquisition Centers have no idea whatthe proposed contractor sees on his end. Therefore, they are not in a position to help thecontractor with his submission. Submission process - the e-Offer and e-Mod tool incorporates additional steps not required ina paper offer. For example, a mod must be signed by the contractor before it is complete andin some cases, they sit in their in-box for 2 weeks. This time counts against the CO’s PALTand is a step they would not have to worry about if the mod were originally submitted inpaper. Difficulties in submission - Several private companies that develop offers for a fee haveindicated that they no longer choose to use E-Offer or E-Mod because of the problems anddifficulty. Signatures - When a modification is fully executed the contractor can see, save, and print afully executed copy of the SF30. When the GSA CO or an auditor revisits a fully executedmodification, the signatures do not appear. As of November 17th GSA is aware of the issueand is working on fixing this.GSA SystemsJune 6, 20079

Digital certificates – should a digital certificate expire and a contractor acquire a newcertificate, a modification posted and worked on under the prior certificate is blocked to anyother certificate; therefore, the contractor no longer has visibility to see, work on, or retrievethe electronic data issued under the expired certificate.RecommendationsDescription of Iteme-Offer solicitationRecommendation for ActionEnsure that the full solicitation, and all fill ins, areaccessible by the contractor.Realizing that the e-Offer system runs both solicitation andelectronic modification applications; both applicationsshould be improved and value added to their processes.If GSA has a test site for its e-Offer system work, therecommendation is to share and beta test prior to launch,and then roll it out to the contractor community in phases.Modification/clarification capability ismissingModify the e-Mod application to allow for clarifications,communication, and negotiations.Signature processEnsure workflow of the e-Tools is consistent with thenormal offer and modification process and signatures nowappear on all fully executed printed versions of theapproved contract or modificationDigital certificate replacementModify the system to allow for replacement digitalcertificates.TrainingExpand training for all GSA and contractor personnelGSA SystemsJune 6, 200710

Information Technology Solutions Shop (ITSS)Purpose and DescriptionTo accommodate government procurement through its programs, IT-Solutions has developed anon-line, web-based purchase order system called IT-Solutions Shop (ITSS). ITSS providesconvenient access through the internet to a centralized work environment where orders aresubmitted, processed, and awarded. All information is automatically posted and made availableas it is processed in the system, and individuals are notified when events requiring their attentionoccur. Clients, contractors, and individuals from GSA are all able to work simultaneously on-linein this completely integrated internet environment. Furthermore, ITSS includes several securityand support systems to make this environment secure and easy to use.The system is a secure, web-based system using Lotus Notes/Domino software and a CommonOperating Database (CODB) sharing data and records with ITOMS in a real-time mode. Thesystem is designed to provide full life-cycle support for task orders with full, secure and opentransparency for clients, GSA members, and authorized vendors for the orders under which theyhave access. The security parameters allow vendors to see ONLY those orders for whichauthorized.Strengths Generally easy to use and to learn “how to”. Registration process is relatively easy. Goodhelp functions. Multiple simultaneous accesses to task orders are a great feature, especially when workingwith support personnel from different geographical areas. Kudos to ITSS for their handling of essential security parameters. The vendor controls accessat the task order level while GSA maintains access control at the company level. Dual email notification of all actions (to the primary and alternate points of contact) keepsactions from getting overlooked or lost. Task ID search capability is good, except for Quick Order Status. Web response time is very good (most of the time). Help desk personnel are very helpful and responsive. They try to solve the problems ratherthan pass them on. Organizational layout of Home Page is good, but a little crowded. Suggest using color andgraphics to differentiate the sections (Quick Links, Orders, Registrations, and Help). Email links all appear to open to the correct order page. Holding RFQ in open status until the time frame cutoff is good. This gives vendors theability to control the proposal until closeout time.Weaknesses Quick Order Status - needs to be able to search on partial order ID and search the same wayas the other search functions. Quick Order search requires an exact match; otherwise it takesyou to the beginning of the vendor’s task order list. The other search function allows a partialentry, and goes to the first task with that entry (e.g., if you enter ‘4TFL’ in Quick Links, itgoes to the beginning of the list which is not a task beginning with 4TFL. The others go tothe first task with the first characters identifying 4TFL, or the first task beyond that which isclosest).GSA SystemsJune 6, 200711

Creating Order Mod - two differing methodologies are used (GSA request vs. vendorrequest), a single methodology is preferable. When GSA requests a mod, it is done as anRFQ process which can cause confusion as to what dollar amounts to place on the order.However, when the vendor requests a mod, the system asks for the new total price, and thencalculates the price difference as a check for the Mod value, this methodology is preferred. Adding/deleting contract authorizations – the vendor principal, not the registration desk,should be confirming individual primary registrations. Vendors with large employee usage,as well as the ITSS registration desk spend inordinate amounts of time processing userauthorization letters. The registration desk should still require approvals at the companylevel. In addition, the maintenance process for registrations is cumbersome. Vendors cannotdelete registrations for employees no longer with the company; the vendor principal has tosend a letter to the registration desk. The amount of extra/unnecessary registrations canbecome unmanageable. Paragraph titles - the Guide Me window paragraph titles do not match too well with theactual titles on the Welcome page which can cause confusion for new users. Award notices – the e-mails only state the winning vendor, not the award value. The awardvalue is public information, and to reduce the amount of time and money for both industryand Government on FOIA requests, the award value should be included on the award noticesent to all bidding vendors. Client Acceptance (Invoice) - the action to rate the vendor should be mandatory. Contract authorization verification - there is no automatic check of contract authorizationwhen a GSA rep selects a person to receive an RFQ. In some cases an RFQ is sent out to aregistrant in a company who does not have authority to submit a proposal for the intendedcontract vehicle. Fee tracking – the system doesn’t have the ability to track the fee that GSA organizationscharge if it is done in a method other than a percentage (i.e., hourly rates for GSA services).Therefore, ITSS is not used by FEDSIM or other GSA organizations that charge for theirservices by the hour. Multiple funding documents – the system cannot track tasks that receive funding frommultiple sources (it can track serially but not in parallel). This creates the need to manuallytrack what money was spent against what funding sources.RecommendationsDescription of ItemRecommendation for ActionQuick Order status requires exact matchAll order search functions need to operate thesame way (e.g., take you to the closest order withthe data entered).Creating Order Mods differsChange the award value calculation on the GSAwindow to match the vendor window – the new totalvalue will be recalculated based on the modamount that was entered.GSA SystemsJune 6, 200712

Description of ItemRecommendation for ActionRegistration processITSS security needs to be a shared responsibility.Once approved by the registration desk at thecompany level, give the authority to one or twoauthorized vendor representatives to add, maintain,delete registrations and add or remove eligiblecontracts. Have the registration desk/GSA reviewthe eligible contracts list for integrity.Make new user guides more efficientReview the Guide Me windows and titles to ensureall match and can be followed.Award notices are incompleteEnhance award notice emails to include winningvendor and total price. This is open governmentinformation and will save money to both vendorsand government by reducing FOIA requests.Not all Client Acceptances have a ratingMake the rating of vendors a mandatory (gold dot)action. The approving person cannot leave thepage until a rating is accomplished.Contractor employee selected to receive orderdoes not match intended contractBuild a list by contract (ANSWER, Millennia,Schedule, etc) that links to the appropriateindividual in each company who has responsibilityand authority to submit proposals for that contract.A suggestion for doing this is to provide a “selectingfunction” whereby the GSA CSR selects thecontract which then opens another drop down list ofauthorized companies. The CSR selects thecompany and another drop down list pops up whichhas the names of primary registrants authorized tosubmit proposals under that contract. The CSRthen picks one of those names.Fees charged as hourly rates not supportedModify the system to also allow the fee charged byGSA to be input as hourly rates.Funding sourcesModify the system to allow tracking of multiplefunding sources per task order.GSA SystemsJune 6, 200713

Task Ordering System (TOS)Purpose and DescriptionTOS allows electronic delivery of vendor orders and vendor invoices via the internet, includingelectronic delivery of approved invoices to the one paying office. TOS interfaces, allows users toinput commitment, obligation, and disbursement transactions for vendor orders in a mannerequivalent to that done by OMIS.TOS is a Lotus Notes system that is used by FEDSIM/FEDCAC to develop and input contractinginformation and serves as a front-end to OMIS. TOS processes and stores structured (i.e.,conventional database) and unstructured (i.e., free form text documents) data. The systemsupports the end-to-end workflow involved in preparing, routing, and awarding a completeprocurement package. Some of these workflow steps are captured in TOS for transmission toOMIS and performance of FEDSIM/FEDCAC financial processing.Strengths Registration is easy to understand. There is a primary and alternate vendor POC and onlythey can add other company members to the vendor registration for any particular contract. Invoices automatically go to the GSA finance center (Greater Southwest Finance Center)without having to enter it a second time (more connected to Finance centers than ITSS). TOS now has the capability to handle partial payments. This is a great improvement andmuch appreciated by both Government and Industry.Weaknesses Help desk is responsive, but not knowledgeable of details such as how to configure automaticnotifications. System limitations – the following elements discuss limitations in the TOS system: RFQs/TORs – are not issued by TOS, they have to go out through some other method (e.g.,e-mail and fax). Locating specific invoices – when a vendor has a large number of orders, locating specificinvoices in a range of dates is difficult. Order layout - when an order is issued and awarded, the PO is on the top o

Jun 07, 2006 · The Acquisition Management SIG started a new subcommittee (GSA systems advisory committee), in coordination with the General Services Administration (GSA), to report on experience with and usability of GSA electronic systems. The subcommittee was tasked to provide GSA with an assessment on th