GSA’s new software-buying strategy makes no sense

At the end of April, GSA announced its baffling OneGov strategy, of which the govwide Microsoft agreement is now a part. Behind the spin, the Microsoft agreement is mostly the government aligning itself on language, terms, and security, rather than achieving cost savings. Its key elements comprise:

• Establishing, improving, and better understanding standardized terms and conditions through governmentwide engagement to best align with the government’s mission.
• Enhanced cybersecurity measures addressing critical risks in government IT systems.
• Commitments to develop enhanced governmentwide support and education capabilities.

Why wouldn’t Microsoft jump in? The water’s fine.

OneGov is purportedly more expansive, however:

The OneGov Strategy reflects a shift in how the federal government approaches buying what it needs—not as a series of isolated purchases, but as a shared enterprise that powers everything from citizen services to national security. The initiative supports President Trump’s April 2025 Executive Order on ensuring commercial, cost-effective solutions in federal contracts.

Never mind that much federal purchasing often is a series of one-off purchases dispersed across agencies, geographies, and purposes. OneGov promises “deeper, direct engagement with OEMs to ensure more transparent pricing, streamlined acquisition, and improved cybersecurity protections.”

OEMs, Oracle first among them, have decided they mostly do not want to deal with federal government contracting, especially its oversight and audit bodies (Oracle learned its lesson after buying Sun Microsystems and having to resolve its False Claims Act violations). Meanwhile, the government, through the Multiple Award Schedules and GWACs, encouraged experienced federal resellers to handle contracting for multiple publishers. Technology moves fast, with many product adds and deletes, and each add much be checked for compliance with federal procurement laws, such as AbilityOne and trade agreements. Resellers are adept at such contract administration.

How can direct engagement with OEMs result in lower, “more transparent pricing,” as OneGov promises? Initially, GSA can demand a discount off reseller pricing. Rapidly, however, new SKUs must be added without corresponding reseller pricing. How will the government negotiate fair and reasonable pricing for those? Significant information asymmetry exists between software publishers and potential customers, and we know publishers will not provide information to government to level that imbalance (that’s why they use resellers).

Government-experienced reseller sales teams benefit the government, too. Often competitors misalign product offerings to prevent buyers’ apples-to-apples comparisons. Sometimes, a friendly reseller contact can help navigate such complexity. They can help structure deals with service providers for licensing and product into complete solutions; they understand both the federal procurement and appropriations process; and they can help agencies navigate their unique concerns, such as the validity of click-through licensing agreements (they do not bind the government).

Nevertheless, Josh Gruenbaum, Commissioner of GSA’s Federal Acquisition Service, already touts OneGov as “a big win for both government and industry [emphasis added].” That doesn’t seem possible.