Detailed Information on the
General Services Administration - General Supplies and Services (GSS) Portfolio Assessment

Program Code 10000244
Program Title General Services Administration - General Supplies and Services (GSS) Portfolio
Department Name General Services Admin
Agency/Bureau Name General Services Administration
Program Type(s) Direct Federal Program
Assessment Year 2007
Assessment Rating Adequate
Assessment Section Scores
Section Score
Program Purpose & Design 66%
Strategic Planning 88%
Program Management 100%
Program Results/Accountability 40%
Program Funding Level
(in millions)
FY2007 $1,174
FY2008 $1,196
FY2009 $1,196

Ongoing Program Improvement Plans

Year Began Improvement Plan Status Comments

Continue to evaluate the programs to minimize duplication and identify opportunities to increase efficiencies. The key milestones are as follows: 1) Continue to enhance strategic partner relationships (ie DoD/DLA/GSA ESC). (MOA signed with USMC for a 4PL Solution. Continued coordination with TRANSCOM to link in with the Defense Transportation System. Ongoing progress by the 3 working groups representing the DLA-GSA Partnership.) 2) Partner across the portfolio and with the Customer Accounts and Research organization to implement a standardized approach for targeting and educating key customers on GSS' value proposition and available solutions. (The Communication Plan is in place that will integrate the GSS marketing message and includes advertising, direct mail, email campaigns, etc. Implementation is on-going.) 3) Continue implementation of Global Supply's new business model to reduce operating costs and increase efficiencies. (The Acquisition Strategy is being refined to strengthen small business participation. First phase, which will validate the concepts, will be the removal of office products from the depot, with fulfillment via Direct Vendor Delivery arrangements. A draft solicitation will be issued in late July 2008 in order to obtain industry comments.) 4) Work closely with GSS Acquisition Centers, the Offices of Acquisition Management and the CIO to implement tactics designed to standardize acquisition and business management practices across Centers, thereby minimizing redundancies. (GSS priorities have been communicated to the Integrator offices via the AO FY08 Business Plan. Close communication and partnership will ensue to ensure focus is placed on the priority projects and programs.)

Action taken, but not completed The focus of the "customer targeting/partnering strategy" will be to maximize understanding of the GSS portfolio offerings and minimize internal competition within the program areas. Management will also continue to analyze Global Supply's business model and redesign accordingly to allow for reduction in costs and create efficiencies in the way business is done.

Develop and implement independent evaluation processes that assess, on a regular basis, the full scope of this program's activities in carrying out its mission. The key milestones are as follows: 1) Request the IG review the program in FY 08. An IG audit review of the GSS program is scheduled to be completed in September 2008. 2) Revisit/Conclude MAS pricing study. The Office of Acquisition Management is working to conduct the study in FY08. 3) Continue annual customer and bi-annual vendor survey through independent third party. Customer Satisfaction surveys were completed in FY07. Scores are shown below in the Part Measures section. The FY08 Survey is underway.

Action taken, but not completed GSS recognizes and values the feedback from independent evaluations. Due to the overall financial outlook of the entire GSS portfolio, and that of FAS, budget concerns will be a significant hurdle in getting new expenditures approved by the FAS Controller and FAS Management Council. GSS will request the IG's assistance in executing an independent evaluation and simultaneously look for other cost-effective avenues to fulfill this recommendation.

Continue annual review of performance goals and organizational measures, adjusting strategies and implementing new tactics as appropriate. The key milestones are as follows: 1) Continually assess performance measures and targets. 2) Participate in GSA's PMP process to develop performance measures that support its Strategy and Action Plan (SAP). 3) Partner with the Planning and Performance team of the FAS Office of Strategic Business Planning and Process Improvement to analyze and report on improvements made towards the performance targets.

Action taken, but not completed Before each fiscal year, GSS meets with the FAS Planning and Performance team to review its performance measures and targets. Annually, performance measures are reassessed and designed to reflect current initiatives and alignment with FAS and GSA strategic goals. GSS will continue to incorporate key performance measures in the annual development of the SAPs and seek additional input from GSA Budget.

Completed Program Improvement Plans

Year Began Improvement Plan Status Comments

Program Performance Measures

Term Type  
Annual Output

Measure: Blended Mark Up (Global Supply)

Explanation:Measures the price passed on to the customer

Year Target Actual
2004 N/A N/A
2005 N/A 31.6%
2006 31.0% 32.7%
2007 30.5% 31.8%
2008 30.0%
2009 30.5%
2010 30.0%
2011 29.5%
2012 29.0%
Annual Output

Measure: Percentage of domestic, non-hazardous orders shipped within 24 hours (Global Supply)

Explanation:Measures on time delivery

Year Target Actual
2004 N/A 84.5%
2005 N/A 83.1%
2006 93.0% 83.8%
2007 84.0% 80.5%
2008 85.0%
2009 86.0%
2010 87.0%
2011 88.0%
2012 89.0%
Annual Output

Measure: External Customer Satisfaction (Global Supply)

Explanation:Measures ability to meet customer needs

Year Target Actual
2004 84.1 79.3
2005 82.3 77.3
2006 79.9 80.3
2007 80.4 80.9
2008 80.5
2009 80.6
2010 80.7
2011 80.8
2012 80.9
Annual Output

Measure: External Customer Satisfaction (Multiple Award Schedules)

Explanation:Measures ability to provide an effective customer solution

Year Target Actual
2004 77.1 71.2
2005 75.5 71.4
2006 76.0 73.0
2007 73.5 71.9
2008 73.8
2009 74
2010 74.3
2011 74.8
2012 75
Annual Efficiency

Measure: Direct Cost As A Percent of Gross Margin (Multiple Award Schedules)

Explanation:Measures cost control within the MAS program. Direct cost is for Multiple Award Schedules only, no Special Order Programs Targets are stretch targets

Year Target Actual
2004 36.1% 32.8%
2005 27.2% 29.8%
2006 25.2% 26.9%
2007 25.1% 23.6%
2008 25.0%
2009 24.9%
2010 24.8%
2011 24.7%
2012 24.6%
Annual Efficiency

Measure: Direct Cost as a percent of revenue (Global Supply)

Explanation:Measures cost control within the GGS program

Year Target Actual
2004 10.2% 9.9%
2005 9.0% 10.6%
2006 10.5% 10.5%
2007 10.4% 10.1%
2008 10.4%
2009 10.2%
2010 9.9%
2011 9.7%
2012 9.4%
Long-term/Annual Efficiency

Measure: Cycle time (days) to process offers from vendors (Multiple Award Schedules).

Explanation:This is one of the efficiency measures used to evaluate MAS Acquisition Centers. The measure is the number of calendar days from receipt of a vendor offer to award, rejection, or withdrawal. It relates to how well an Acquisition Center is able to process the workload of new schedule contracts assigned to it.

Year Target Actual
2012 75.0
2011 76.0
2010 77.0
2009 78.0
2008 79.0
2007 80.0 72.3
2006 86.8 87.8
2005 99.0 97.8
2004 84.0 109.6
Long-term/Annual Efficiency

Measure: Cycle time (days) to process contract modifications (Multiple Award Schedules)

Explanation:This is another efficiency measure used to evaluate MAS Acquisition Centers. The measure is the number of calendar days from receipt of a request for a contract modification (from a contractor or policy directive) to the issuance of the modification. It shows how well an Acquisition Center is able to process the workload of contract modifications it receives. Performance on this measure also affects the customer satisfaction with the MAS program.

Year Target Actual
2012 15.0
2011 16.0
2010 16.5
2009 17.0
2008 17.5
2007 18.0 16.1
2006 20.0 14.0
2005 19.8 20.0
2004 12.0 23.1

Questions/Answers (Detailed Assessment)

Section 1 - Program Purpose & Design
Number Question Answer Score

Is the program purpose clear?

Explanation: The General Supplies and Services (GS&S) Portfolio's purpose is to provide agencies with policy-compliant methods of acquiring products and services that help them accomplish their missions; obtain commercial products and services in a timely manner at discount prices; and fulfill their socio-economic requirements. The GS&S portfolio provides agencies with two ways to acquire products and services: 1) place orders directly with GSA and receive products from GSA depots or both products and services directly from vendors through the Global Supply distribution system; or 2) place orders with and receive products and services from vendors through the Multiple Award Schedule (MAS) supply contracts. The GS&S portfolio provides its customer agencies with: ?? Supply sources that are guaranteed to comply with the Federal Acquisition Regulation; ?? Easy access to Congressionally-mandated special vendor sources under the Javits-Wagner-O'Day Act (National Industries for the Blind and Severely Handicapped) and UNICOR (Federal Prison Industries), and; ?? Ready sources of supply for strategic customers related to national defense, disaster assistance, and the preservation of life and property (Military, Federal Emergency Management Agency, National Fire Suppression Program, and other strategic users).

Evidence: Federal Property and Administrative Services Act of 1949, Section 300, Federal Property Management Regulation 101-26.107, GSA Bulletin FPMR E-95 (1971 Agreement), 48 CFR 8.7 (JWOD and UNICOR), Executive Order 13101 "Greening the Government," GSA Order ADM 5440.591 (FAS Reorganization), Additional information concerning the purpose of the MAS program can be found on the GSA Website at http://www.gsa.gov/Portal/gsa/ep/contentView.do?P=FX7&contentId=8106&contentType=GSA_OVERVIEW YES20%

YES 22%

Does the program address a specific and existing problem, interest, or need?

Explanation: Federal agencies procure billions of dollars of products and services to support their missions each year and are required to comply with numerous statutes, regulations, and Executive directives in doing so. Federal agencies also engage several hundred thousand employees and contractors in procurement and related supply activities. The Federal Property & Administrative Services Act of 1949 created GSA and stated: "It is the intent of the Congress....to provide for...an economical and efficient system for the procurement and supply of personal property...including related functions such as contracting, inspection, storage, issue, specifications, property identification..." The law also stated that GSA would operate warehouses and prescribe policies and methods to accomplish the related activities, coordinating these with the Department of Defense. The General Supplies and Services (GS&S) portfolio gives Federal agencies quick, simple, and cost-effective access to the supplies and services they need to accomplish their mission as well as support emergency situations or wartime conditions. This access is provided through pre-established, policy-compliant contracts or direct supply channels. GSA consolidates the requirements of multiple agencies to leverage its buying power (e.g., through strategic sourcing initiatives) and secure bulk discount pricing for products and services.

Evidence: Federal Property and Administrative Services Act of 1949, Section 300, OMB memorandum to utilize strategic sourcing.

YES 22%

Is the program designed so that it is not redundant or duplicative of any other Federal, state, local or private effort?

Explanation: The Hoover Commission, many of whose recommendations were implemented with the creation of GSA in 1949, envisioned that GSA would provide the leadership to achieve an efficient supply organization in the executive branch. The intent was that a GSA Bureau of Federal Supply would coordinate with the "National Military Establishment" to implement a supply system that would maximize the government's purchasing power by assigning responsibilities for procuring various commodities to the agencies best suited to make those purchases. If implemented as intended, there would have been a single National Supply System under which duplication of purchasing, storage, and other supply chain responsibilities would not have existed, or at least have been held to a minimum. Despite many cooperative efforts for coordination between GSA, DoD, and other large agencies, this vision of a Federal supply system with no duplication of responsibilities has never existed. Many agencies operate procurement and supply programs that duplicate many of the activities of the GS&S portfolio. There is even duplication of procurement and supply activities within the GS&S portfolio. Finally, the Congress and several Administrations have supported some degree of duplication in procurement and supply activities in order to promote competition among supply sources. Therefore, it is now policy that some degree of duplication should continue to exist. The recent establishment of the GS&S portfolio within FAS brought the Global Supply and MAS programs under the same management structure and created the opportunity to eliminate unnecessary duplication of procurement and supply activities within GSA.

Evidence: GSA Bulletin FPMR E-95 (1971 Agreement), FAR Subpart 38.000, Federal Supply Schedule Program, FAR 8.001, Title 10 Part 4 Chapter 145, Federal Property and Administrative Services Act of 1949, DLA/GSA Partnership charter

NO 0%

Is the program design free of major flaws that would limit the program's effectiveness or efficiency?

Explanation: The separate management of the Global Supply and Multiple Award Schedules (MAS) programs under the legacy Federal Supply Service (FSS) had created confusion for customers and vendors alike. Customers were offered similar, often identical, products through separate websites that did not allow them to compare the choices available to them or find the best prices available. Vendors were asked to do business with GSA and its customers in a confusing and costly variety of ways. Consolidating the management of these two programs under the GS&S portfolio created the opportunity to address many of those problems, but the portfolio also inherited some other long-standing problems with each business line. Global Supply came with an inefficient and costly infrastructure and was still stocking items that were more expensive and took longer to deliver to GSA's customers than alternate sources of supply. The Acquisition Centers responsible for the MAS program were (and still are) managed regionally. The lack of a central management structure for this program had led to Schedules contracts that offer similar, if not identical, products and services and actually compete with one another for customers. Furthermore, responsibility for various Schedules often seems to have been assigned randomly rather than according to some core commodity or service expertise or industry type. The management of the GS&S portfolio has begun to address many of these long-standing problems, but has a long way to go to correct them. GS&S management understands the need to integrate the two fundamentally different programs and to give its customers better tools for evaluating the multiple choices they are provided for obtaining products and services. The Federal Acquisition Service (FAS) is also concerned about the proper integration of the legacy programs under all of its portfolios. To address this issue, FAS has established the Office of Strategic Business Planning and Process Improvement to minimize duplication of the programs for which it is responsible.

Evidence: CFI Annual Customer Satisfaction Survey, GSA Order ADM 5440.591 (FAS Reorganization,) IT EDD BPA. 2005 Silosmashers Report on MAS Program. 2005 Accenture Brand Audit Report on Global Supply.

NO 0%

Is the program design effectively targeted so that resources will address the program's purpose directly and will reach intended beneficiaries?

Explanation: The intended beneficiaries of GS&S programs are Federal agencies, both civilian and military, and GS&S offers its customers the ability to choose the level of service, ranging from self-service (MAS) to full service (Global Supply), that best suits their needs. Global Supply focuses a great deal of its effort and resources towards the support of its largest customer, Army, which accounted for 48% of Global Supply revenue through February. From the yearlong process of modifying our systems to comply with new Army-approved ordering channel policy, to the ongoing arrangements to put supplies closer to Army locations via GSA Base Supply Stores, GSA maintains a close relationship with Army to support its changing needs. The majority of MAS resources are directly involved in contracting functions with emphasis on enhancing timeliness of the contract award process by following regulatory guidance and procedures in their performance of preparatory work required to award the contracts. The MAS Program also conducts training seminars for its customers on proper use of MAS contracts at trade shows and at the annual GSA EXPO. On-site training is also available on request to individual agencies. GS&S relies heavily on the inputs received from annual customer and vendor partner satisfaction surveys to ensure that both of these programs are closely aligned with their customers' needs.

Evidence: Federal Property and Administrative Services Act of 1949, Section 300, which sets forth the purpose of the program, CFI Annual Customer Satisfaction Survey (Global Supply and MAS,) CFI Annual Vendor Satisfaction Survey (Global Supply and MAS), OPM's HR Line of Business, VA's credit monitoring

YES 22%
Section 1 - Program Purpose & Design Score 66%
Section 2 - Strategic Planning
Number Question Answer Score

Does the program have a limited number of specific long-term performance measures that focus on outcomes and meaningfully reflect the purpose of the program?

Explanation: When FAS was established, the GS&S portfolio inherited a set of long-term performance measures from two legacy programs, the Global Supply and the Multiple Award Schedules (MAS) programs. The legacy organizations used these long-term performance measures to guide program management and performance, and to gain insight into how well each program met the needs of its customers and the Federal government as a whole. FAS has retained these legacy long-term measures to guide its operational tactics and provide direct linkage to FAS long term goals. The GS&S portfolio has begun to take advantage of the synergies between the Global Supply and MAS programs and to reorganize the two supply channels to present a more integrated face to its customers and vendors. To monitor the performance of this more highly integrated business model, FAS will need to adjust its legacy performance measures so that they reflect any changes in the GS&S business model. This portfolio also needs to develop better measures of best value or savings that can be applied to the entire portfolio, or at least to the acquisition of similar products and services.

Evidence: GS&S Acquisition Operations Strategic Assessment, FAS Long Term Goals, GS&S Performance Measures

YES 12%

Does the program have ambitious targets and timeframes for its long-term measures?

Explanation: Specific quantified targets have been established for GS&S long-term goals through the year 2012, and are presented in the file "GS&S Performance Measures" cited under Evidence. Most of the long-term targets appear ambitious, but the program seems to have a history of redefining its long-term goals based on annual results. Institutionalizing the relationship between the long-term goals presented in the PART and the goals shown in the annual performance budgets should help the program demonstrate its commitment to a consistent set of long-term goals.

Evidence: FY 2006 Congressional Justification, GS&S Performance Measures

YES 12%

Does the program have a limited number of specific annual performance measures that can demonstrate progress toward achieving the program's long-term goals?

Explanation: FAS maintains corporate and portfolio level balanced scorecards designed to link FAS' long term goals and performance measures. The GS&S portfolio has retained the annual performance measures for the legacy MAS and Global Supply programs. These measures include external customer satisfaction for each legacy program, blended markup for all Global Supply items, and percent of domestic non-hazardous items shipped with 24 hours for Global Supply. Although these annual measures were considered adequate when these legacy programs were managed separately, they will be replaced by measures that apply equally well to all of the supply and acquisition tools offered by the portfolio, as appropriate.

Evidence: FY 2006 Congressional Justification, GS&S Performance Measures

YES 12%

Does the program have baselines and ambitious targets for its annual measures?

Explanation: Baselines and targets have been identified for all annual measures. GS&S maintains a robust performance measurement system intended to integrate performance with strategic planning, and budget formulation and execution. This link is intended to ensure that the short term targets will help lead to movement toward achieving GS&S' long term goals. FAS has a tradition of reviewing the current year's performance and setting ambitious targets for the following year. While each year's target might be ambitious relative to the previous year's performance, those changing targets do not generally show steady progress toward a consistent long-term goal. As mentioned under Q 2.2, this situation should improve as the relationship between the long-term goals presented in the PART and the goals shown in the annual performance budgets is strengthened and institutionalized.

Evidence: FY 2006 Congressional Justification, Proposed MAS Scorecard, FY2006 Global Supply Scorecard. FY 2006 MAS and GGS Customer Satisfaction Survey, Draft Statement of Objectives, Evaluation of GSA MAS Pricing, GS&S Performance Measures, Global Supply and MAS Data Sheets

YES 12%

Do all partners (including grantees, sub-grantees, contractors, cost-sharing partners, and other government partners) commit to and work toward the annual and/or long-term goals of the program?

Explanation: GS&S works with many partners "to provide agencies with policy-compliant methods of acquiring products and services." GS&S contractors commit to overall programmatic goals when they agree to contractual Terms and Conditions that outline specific performance standards by which they are evaluated. Successful achievement of the Terms and Conditions by GS&S' contractors relates directly to the portfolio's ability to achieve its annual performance measures. FAS Contracting Officers partner with the GSA IG to help enforce contractor compliance through pre-award reviews of selected major contracts prior to contract options being exercised. Through interagency Memoranda of Understanding (MOUs), GS&S has formalized partnering relationships with several of its major customers, e.g., the Defense Logistics Agency (DLA) and Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), to look at better ways to meet their supply needs. The partnership with DLA also includes the sharing of DLA dedicated trucks by GSA to ensure more efficient use of truck space by both agencies. Finally, each Acquisition Center within the portfolio has created Industry Government Councils designed to bring industry partners and Federal customers together with GSA to discuss common issues and concerns. Each Council addresses issues that are specific to the continued success and growth of the MAS program and focuses its efforts on issues most important to the customer. For example, the Services and Information Technology Industry Government Councils have government/industry teams working together to develop recommendations for e-tool enhancements, improvements in communications and operational compliance and consistency. All efforts were initiated to support FAS long term goals, performance, and customer satisfaction measures.

Evidence: GSA-DLA Partnership Charter, FEMA Umbrella MOU, FEMA Logistics IAA, Services Industry Government Council, Section 833, Industry Government Council Meeting Notes, February 21, 2007, Expanded Direct Delivery BPAs with J&L Tools, PC Mall and Boise Cascade, Xerox Pre-Award audit

YES 12%

Are independent evaluations of sufficient scope and quality conducted on a regular basis or as needed to support program improvements and evaluate effectiveness and relevance to the problem, interest, or need?

Explanation: Several evaluations and studies have been performed on specific aspects of each of the two legacy GS&S supply programs, but not on a regularly scheduled basis. The Tompkins Study of the Global Supply program made recommendations to rationalize the overall program design and improve future operations. The major weakness in this study was its failure to address the complete supply chain between GSA's vendors and the ultimate agency end users. The Sharpe IG audit looked at only one distribution center and helped establish the Sharpe facility as the new Global Supply Western Distribution Center. This audit also led to improvements in the operations of both the Western and Eastern Distribution Centers. The SOAB Business Model Review was the basis for a decision by Global Supply to remove commercially available office supplies from GSA depots and, instead, fulfill those orders through vendor direct delivery arrangements. This review is also addressing transportation practices, the warehouse management systems and the point of sale systems to ensure the efficient use of resources in the future. In 2005, SiloSmashers issued a report that analyzed and made several recommendations on the structure of the MAS program. Yearly customer and vendor satisfaction surveys of each of the legacy programs also help identify areas of improvement from a customer and vendor perspective. This portfolio has been in existence since Sept. 30, 2005, but was only able to implement the new organizational structure on May 1, 2007 because of Congressional approval requirements and union challenges. Since May 1, 2007, the portfolio has begun to restructure some of its business processes and supply methods to better serve its customers. A comprehensive evaluation the full scope of GS&S' supply activities is needed to determine additional areas of duplication, gaps, and any other issues in the supply support offered by the two legacy programs. As yet, however, no such comprehensive evaluation has been scheduled

Evidence: GAO and GSA IG audits (pending,) CFI Annual Customer Satisfaction Survey (Global Supply and MAS.) CFI Annual Vendor Satisfaction Survey (Global Supply and MAS,) Booz-Allen Fee Structure study. Silosmashers, Inc. Report, Draft MAS Pricing Study SOO, Deloitte slideshow, Decision memo from Commissioner

NO 0%

Are Budget requests explicitly tied to accomplishment of the annual and long-term performance goals, and are the resource needs presented in a complete and transparent manner in the program's budget?

Explanation: GSA requires all of its major programs to adhere to its Performance Management Process (PMP) which requires that all external budget requests (OMB Submission and Congressional Justifications) link program funding requests to the accomplishment of its annual and long-term performance goals and associated performance measures. However, the FY 2008 Congressional Justification for FAS was not able to completely display performance metrics for the GS&S Portfolio because performance measures for some components of legacy FSS programs had not been fully developed for external purposes. FAS has drafted a revised Congressional Justification to display how performance measures and all funding will be displayed for its programs going forward including a place holder for the funding of legacy programs that was not aligned to performance metrics in the FY 2008 Congressional Justification. FAS intends to utilize this revised format when the OMB FY 2009 Budget Submission is formulated.

Evidence: FY 2007 Congressional Budget Justification http://www.gsa.gov/gsa/cm_attachments/GSA_DOCUMENT/2007CJ_R2E-s65_0Z5RDZ-i34K-pR.pdf, FY 2004-YTD Profit and Loss Statements, FY2008 to be delivered by June 2008.

YES 12%

Has the program taken meaningful steps to correct its strategic planning deficiencies?

Explanation: Since the legacy Global Supply and MAS supply programs were formally consolidated into the GS&S portfolio on May 1, 2007, the biggest challenge facing the portfolio is the consolidation and integration of the business models of the legacy programs. Meaningful steps have been taken to meet that challenge. At the FAS corporate level, the Office of Strategic Planning and Business Process Improvement has been established to guide the overall FAS performance management program. Within the GS&S portfolio, a Business Process Improvement Division has been established within the Office of Business Management to develop a strategic plan and monitor the strategic planning process and performance metrics. This division will also work closely with the FAS Office of Strategic Planning to ensure that all strategic documents and resulting measures align with external documents such as the Congressional Justification and Performance Accountability Report. At this very early point in the implementation of the GS&S portfolio, it is too early to tell whether these new offices will address this challenge effectively, but the program deserves credit for identifying the challenge and organizing itself to address it.

Evidence: Guide to the FSS Performance Measurement System, FSS Scorecard, Proposed MAS Scorecard, FY2006 Global Supply Scorecard, FY 2006 Congressional Budget Justification, Transportation Audits, FY2006 Performance and Accountability Report (PAR,) Acquisition Operations FY2009 Strategic Assessment, IT EDD BPA, GS&S Organizational Chart

YES 12%
Section 2 - Strategic Planning Score 88%
Section 3 - Program Management
Number Question Answer Score

Does the agency regularly collect timely and credible performance information, including information from key program partners, and use it to manage the program and improve performance?

Explanation: FAS manages performance using the Balanced Scorecard approach. FAS Scorecards display corporate goals, strategies identified to achieve the goals and measures that track how effective the organization is executing the strategies and day-to-day performance. FAS' senior management meets quarterly to review the performance data. Performance data is also used on an on-going basis by program managers overseeing the supply program in several ways, such as using monthly performance indicators to adjust inventory, and using customer and vendor satisfaction data to identify performance strengths and specific customer concerns. Another relevant example is the 'dashboard' report, derived from internal systems data which captures and depicts all aspects of Global Supply business performance, and which provides important management information used to continually improve performance. Additionally, in response to results received from the annual Vendor Partner Satisfaction Survey, the MAS program instituted a monthly survey directed to vendors who completed a contract offer or modification within the previous month. The surveys serve as a real-time gauge of satisfaction in responsiveness, professionalism and the contract offer/mod process. Data gathered helps standardize operational practices, improve efficiencies across the Schedules program and ultimately improve future Vendor Partner Satisfaction scores. Six-month results indicate improvements in responsiveness and professionalism. Additional efforts are underway to improve standardization and consistency with the overall offer/contract modification process.

Evidence: Guide to FSS Performance Measurement System. Monthly performance reports, CFI Annual Customer Satisfaction Survey (Global Supply and MAS), CFI Annual Vendor Satisfaction Survey (Global Supply and MAS), Monthly Offer/Modification Survey and Transaction Report, Performance Measurement Tool (http://pmt.gsa.gov/.

YES 14%

Are Federal managers and program partners (including grantees, sub-grantees, contractors, cost-sharing partners, and other government partners) held accountable for cost, schedule and performance results?

Explanation: To assess vendor responsibility and minimize the Government's risk, GS&S conducts pre-award audits and utilizes firm-fixed price contracts with penalties for non-performance. In some cases the Inspector General performs pre-award audits for major contracts prior to contract options being exercised. In addition, managers are held accountable through the annual performance review process and ongoing monitoring of major business performance and internal process quality indicators to anticipate and adjust as necessary. Additionally, the Office of Acquisition Management uses contractor site visits and report cards to ensure that MAS vendors continually meet the terms of the contracts.

Evidence: Contract administration files illustrate enforcement of commercial vendor performance. FSS' annual employee review and rating evaluation, CASI reports.

YES 14%

Are funds (Federal and partners') obligated in a timely manner, spent for the intended purpose and accurately reported?

Explanation: The GS&S Portfolio, in cooperation with the Federal Acquisition Service's Controller's office, utilizes a rigorous financial planning process which establishes resources requirements for its operations prior to the execution of the current year's budget and operations. These plans are tracked on a monthly basis throughout the year and compared with actual spending as funds are utilized to execute program operations. Any large variations between planned and actual spending are researched to ensure that program operations are being executed according to plan. GSA and FAS financial practices and processes are also certified through the annual financial audit as documented in the Annual Performance and Accountability Report for GSA.

Evidence: Through tracking the use of funds on a monthly basis within the Federal Acquisition Service (FAS) Controller's Office the program ensures that its funds are obligated in a timely manner and spent for the intended purpose. As stated any discrepancies in the use of funds compared to the program's plan is investigated and resolved. Additionally, FAS's performance on its financial audits in the past also is indicative of the program's success in managing funds see archive of prior annual reports http://www.gsa.gov/Portal/gsa/ep/programView.do?pageTypeId=8199&ooid=10645&programPage=%2Fep%2Fprogram%2FgsaDocument.jsp&programId=9666&channelId=-13346 YES12%

YES 14%

Does the program have procedures (e.g. competitive sourcing/cost comparisons, IT improvements, appropriate incentives) to measure and achieve efficiencies and cost effectiveness in program execution?

Explanation: Annual performance goals/efficiency measures for the program are cycle time to process offers/contract modifications, operating cost per $100 of business volume, socioeconomic purchasing, fill rate and % of domestic, non-hazardous orders shipped within 24 hours. GS&S management reviews metrics on a daily basis using key indicators such as the daily backorder report, daily inventory management report, dashboard report, internal management report and monthly performance measures update. Utilizing 'Manugistics' as Global Supply's Inventory Management Tool allows for a more sophisticated method of determining replenishment schedules and forecasting demand, critical elements of a supply management program. In addition, the portfolio constantly performs studies on the IT systems for order taking and processing. System changes take place on an ongoing basis as a means of constantly responding to the changing operating environment. Finally, the Acquisition Centers routinely analyze the schedules program through use of Business Case Analyses to cover the current state of each schedule, changes customers would like to see, risk analyses, and the costs required to implement any proposed changes.

Evidence: Draft Business Case Analysis for Intelligence Services and Draft Business Case Analysis for Administrative Services

YES 14%

Does the program collaborate and coordinate effectively with related programs?

Explanation: GSA participates in various intergovernmental committees relating to procurement, standards, cataloging, billing, ordering, transportation, and quality of service. GSA also coordinates with the Defense Logistics Agency (DLA) on aspects of the National Supply System. The program collaborates with USDA Forest Service and DOI Bureau of Land Management in the national wildfire suppression effort. Global Supply is coordinating heavily with FEMA to prepare for the necessary support during future disaster situations and in carrying out federal responsibilities outlined in the National Response Plan. In addition to the previously mentioned MAS Acquisition Center sponsored industry and customer alliances, GSA works closely with its customer agencies to provide value-added services to compliment its product and service offerings. For example, GSA worked closely with its largest customer, the Department of Defense, to provide spend data and online contract terms and conditions for all MAS contracts. GSA also worked closely with the Department of Veterans Affairs when they experienced a critical IT data breach by establishing a Blanket Purchase Agreement for Credit Monitoring Services for those impacted by the breach. GSA is also leading several government-wide strategic sourcing efforts covering a wide range of products and services.

Evidence: Distribution Transformation Task Force, Supply Process Review Committee, MILSTAMP, and committees that help promulgate procurement standards. Interagency Memorandum of Understanding with USDA Forest Service. MAS Industry and Customer Alliance, DoD/DLA charter.

YES 14%

Does the program use strong financial management practices?

Explanation: The GS&S Portfolio is supported by Pegasys, the GSA official financial system of record. The Federal Acquisition Service, Controller's Office also monitors monthly spending and prepares monthly operating expense reports to ensure that the program is operating within the annually established budget levels. The account that funds the GS&S Portfolio is subject to the standards of GSA's annual financial audit and received a favorable audit on its FY 2006 audit. ITSS/ITOMS is the only FAS CIO-run system that currently interfaces directly with Pegasys. This interface works well and it is not anticipated that the system be replaced in the near term.

Evidence: An archive of prior year annual reports containing the financial audit findings can be found at the link below, the findings of these audits are evidence of strong financial management practices within the Portfolio and GSA. http://www.gsa.gov/Portal/gsa/ep/programView.do?pageTypeId=8199&ooid=10645&programPage=%2Fep%2Fprogram%2FgsaDocument.jsp&programId=9666&channelId=-13346

YES 14%

Has the program taken meaningful steps to address its management deficiencies?

Explanation: FAS implemented a formalized process for addressing GAO and IG audit recommendations. Global Supply established the Supply Operations Advisory Board (SOAB to identify and address management deficiencies. The SOAB Business Model Review has already addressed many management issues, for example, transitioning Global Supply from a decentralized to a centralized national organizational structure and moving office supplies from the depots to the Expanded Direct Delivery (EDD) program. GSA Global Supply also works closely with IG auditors on the use of audit recommendations to improve program efficiencies. The most prominent recent example pertains to a series of audits of the relocation and modernization of our Western Distribution Center (from Stockton, CA to French Camp, CA), which led to additional analysis of labor productivity and transportation costs with positive outcomes. Additionally, the Acquisition Operations Board of Advisors meets on a quarterly basis to review the MAS program and address operational issues as well as recommendations for improvement made through the IG MAS Management workload study. Finally, as part of the FAS reorganization, Global Supply moved to a national reporting structure, from the regional structure that existed in the past. This move allows Global Supply to be more flexible in its ability and authority to change the business model to respond to emerging trends in the federal environment and concentrates accountability, authority and responsibility in one place at the national level. As yet, however, the Acquisition Centers supporting the MAS program are still managed regionally, not centrally.

Evidence: IG MAS Management workload study (pending,) Acquisition Operations Board of Advisors Action Items, GSA Order ADM 5440.591 (FAS Reorganization.), Commissioner's memo and Deloitte presentation

YES 14%
Section 3 - Program Management Score 100%
Section 4 - Program Results/Accountability
Number Question Answer Score

Has the program demonstrated adequate progress in achieving its long-term performance goals?

Explanation: The legacy organizations that formed FAS have been measuring the performance of the two GS&S business lines for many years. Four performance measures reported by this portfolio relate to its long-term outcome goals and show long-term targets. Of these, three have reported their performance since at least 2004; the other since 2005. Only two of the measures reported their performance against annual targets in 2004, and the other two began in 2006. Only for one measure, External Customer Satisfaction (MAS), was GSA able to demonstrate improvement each year.

Evidence: FY2005 Congressional Budget Justification, FSS Scorecard, Proposed MAS Scorecard, FY2006 Global Supply Scorecard, Acquisition Operations FY 2009 Strategic Assessment, GS&S Performance Measures.


Does the program (including program partners) achieve its annual performance goals?

Explanation: Annual performance measures are in place that focus on the accomplishment of the long-term goals. These measures also have annual performance targets that are tracked to determine the success or progress that the GS&S programs are making toward achieving those goals. In the three years since 2004 in which actual results could be measured against annual targets, these programs met or exceeded their targets only once out of 8 chances.

Evidence: FY2006 OMB Budget Submission, FY 2006 Congressional Justification, FSS Scorecard, Proposed MAS Scorecard, FY2006 Global Supply Scorecard, Industry Government Councils, GS&S Long Term Goals.

NO 0%

Does the program demonstrate improved efficiencies or cost effectiveness in achieving program goals each year?

Explanation: The GS&S programs have met or come close to the annual targets associated with their four efficiency measures for less than 60% of reported years. However, they have shown steady progress in seven of the eight reported years.

Evidence: FSS Scorecard, Proposed MAS Scorecard, FY2006 Global Supply Scorecard, FY 2006 GSF Congressional Justification, GS&S Performance Measures.


Does the performance of this program compare favorably to other programs, including government, private, etc., with similar purpose and goals?

Explanation: External customer satisfaction survey still shows positive evaluations, with the highest score in both the Global Supply and MAS program history. The scores of 80.3 (Global Supply) and 73 (MAS) exceed the government average for FY06 of 72. In addition, the scores compare well versus the private industry average for specialty retail of 75 (includes Home Depot (70), Lowes (74), Sam's Club (78), Costco (81)). Global Supply's extremely high Fill Rate (96.7%) compares very well across government and private industry. In addition, the customer call center response rate for order placement is 98% and the low abandonment rate of less than 1% far exceed private industry metrics. Use of the MAS program contracts compares favorably with other federal acquisitions vehicles. The cost to use MAS program contracts is also very economical (.75%) and compares favorably with other federal government franchises, which charge significantly more for use of the same types of supplies and services. Additionally, GSA continually strives to meets the needs of worldwide Federal customers by offering nearly 18,000 contracts, 81.3% of which involve small businesses. Over 64% of these contracts represent services and 27% represent products and in total bring over eleven million items to the Federal community.

Evidence: FY06 CFI Annual Customer Satisfaction Survey results: overall score 80.3 for Global Supply- and 73.0 for the MAS Program, GS&S Long Term Goals.

YES 20%

Do independent evaluations of sufficient scope and quality indicate that the program is effective and achieving results?

Explanation: Since the legacy Global Supply and MAS supply programs were combined to form the GS&S portfolio, there has not been an evaluation of the full scope of GS&S' supply activities. A study of the MAS progam by SiloSmashers identified that customers were confused by duplications and overlaps in the services available on schedules offered by various Acquisition Centers. A comprehensive review of the entire GS&S portfolio would also identify duplications and overlaps between the products and services offered on the MAS contacts and those offered by Global Supply as well as in web-based ordering procedures for both programs. Taken together, most of the independent reviews of the elements of the legacy supply programs do not present an assessment of programs that are effective and achieving results. Mostly, they identify problems that need to be addressed.

Evidence: Global Supply Brand Audit, CFI Annual Customer Satisfaction Survey (Global Supply and MAS,) CFI Annual Vendor Satisfaction Survey (Global Supply and MAS,) Booz-Allen Fee Structure Study, 2003 Audit of Procurement of Professional Services from Federal Supply Service's Multiple Award Schedules, 2007 IG report on MAS consistency, 2007 IG report on MAS workload (pending.)

NO 0%
Section 4 - Program Results/Accountability Score 40%

Last updated: 09062008.2007SPR