Imagine that you’re an overworked official federal buyer, and an end-user requests your services in making a buy. The end-user has identified a vendor that meets his needs, has the budget dollars to make the buy, and wants the vendor onboard in a matter of weeks.

Further, suppose that you, the buyer, can’t use simplified acquisition procedures because the procurement is too large. What are your options?

If the favored vendor is not on the GSA Schedule, you’ll probably have to use traditional full and open (time-consuming, red-tape laden) acquisition procedures.

If the favored vendor IS on the GSA Schedule, you could meet the end-user’s needs in a matter of a week or so, do a whole lot less work, AND stay within the rules.

As the buyer in this scenario, which choice would you prefer? The answer, of course, is obvious.

Traditional full and open competition procedures are horrendously inefficient. End-users and official buyers do not like to use them. Once they’ve reached a decision (i.e., have been pre-sold and "closed"), end-users and buyers typically want their solutions of choice as soon as possible. They’re humans; they’re not patient. And yet traditional public bids require significant professional time to prepare bid documents and evaluate proposals, and can take up to 6 months -- sometimes much longer! -- from requirement identification to contract award.

All of this work, combined with public visibility and the potential for protest, adds up to a general distaste for the public bidding process. It is no surprise, then, that the use of GSA Schedules has skyrocketed in recent years.

That’s reality. That’s what’s happening. Vendors already on the GSA Schedule have faced up to it.