Tech Insider: Perception and reality at GSA

"Mamma Mia!," a staged tribute to the songs of 1970s pop group Abba, is wowing the crowds at Washington's National Theatre. But last Thursday morning, if you'd walked a few blocks from the ticket booth to Capitol Hill, you'd have been treated to another great piece of theater from a far less conspicuous cast of players than the polyester-garbed Swedes of the aforementioned band.

The House Government Reform Subcommittee on Technology and Procurement Policy last week convened for what many observers thought would be a watershed discussion on the future of the General Services Administration, the main purchasing arm of the federal government. Specifically, those at the hearing expected to hear the results of two major studies, one from the General Accounting Office, ordered by subcommittee chairman Tom Davis, R-Va., and the other from business consulting giant Accenture, commissioned by GSA Administrator Stephen Perry. Both studies were intended to get to the bottom of a debate that has churned for years about whether GSA's various contracting operations, which work for many of the same agency clients, are in conflict.

But despite much pre-hearing ballyhoo, the star reports never made an appearance. Instead, Perry, an official from GAO and a representative of Accenture seemed to read from the same script when they told the eager audience that, at this time, there's not enough hard data to say whether GSA needs to be restructured. But stay tuned, they promised. We should know more by the end of the month, when the work is actually completed.

Thursday's meeting was as delicate a dance as those found in traditional Japanese kabuki. Davis, Perry and a supporting cast of witnesses led the performance, but the audience, at first enthusiastic, was disappointed that the occasion seemed to be much ado about nothing.

Exactly why the meeting was convened when it appeared the players weren't ready for prime time has left some puzzled, especially since the issue is so contentious. GSA is divided into three parts: the Public Buildings Service, the government's landlord; the Federal Supply Service, which buys agencies everything from fire trucks to desktop computers; and the Federal Technology Service, the pillar of technology contracting, which negotiates and manages billions of dollars in agreements each year with a private sector mentality toward customer service.

The plot has centered on the latter two agencies and whether they're upstaging one another in the federal technology market. Both FSS and FTS sell similar technology goods and services from the same companies to the same federal agencies

Given that the two agencies together sold more than $16 billion in technology to the government last year, it's easy to see why so many technology executives have a keen interest in keeping GSA running smoothly. While having two contracting shops provides more ways to sell, it also requires companies to spend more time and money drafting contracts and deploying marketing and sales teams. Rep. Davis, himself a former local official from the Northern Virginia technology corridor, counts many major technology contractors as his constituents.

Davis' subcommittee has taken the leading role in probing GSA to find inefficiencies, duplication of efforts and weak management. He has heaped praise on the FSS technology schedules, a network of contracts that allows thousands of companies to sell quickly to agencies. At the same time, Davis has been the nemesis of FTS. After all, he is the man who brought the agency's commissioner, Sandra Bates, before him last summer to pummel her with tough questions on FTS fees. FTS charges agencies fees to manage their contracts, fees that Davis and many technology executives say are too high.

Given the past rancor and vested interest of the players, onlookers expected sparks to fly. But alas, Thursday's performance was marked by subtlety, not spectacle. Davis spoke highly of both agencies and the services they provide to the government. Even the venue for the hearing was downgraded from its usual stage, an imposing wood-paneled chamber, to a pint-size room with plain white walls. Overall, it was an underwhelming show.

But, as in Sophocles, things are not always what they seem to be.

While Davis and his fellow lawmakers were benign in their discourse, their lines of questioning couldn't have been more barbed. A resolution to the conflict is at hand, according to a number of ex-government officials and industry insiders. And while the dialogue at last week's meeting was cordial, no one seems to think the outcome will be so civil.

GSA Administrator Perry gave a hint of what might be the final act when he told Davis that he was considering appointing an associate administrator who would oversee the work of FTS and FSS and report back to Perry about ways that their efforts could be streamlined.

All eyes are now focused on this as-yet uncast player. Many wonder whether he or she will act to put GSA's house in order, or instead engineer an eventual merger of the two agencies. How inclined the FTS and FSS chiefs are to such an arranged marriage is unclear, but former GSA executives and observers agree that the act of merging the two will be great theater in itself.

Thursday's muted hearing might reflect a wish by almost everyone that there be a quiet, if not completely happy, ending to this saga. But after so much intrigue, it's doubtful that will happen, said one former GSA official. A leading technology trade association has urged GSA officials to go one step further and integrate all three of the agency's business lines into one house, a super-GSA that could lease buildings, paint and carpet them and supply them with furniture and Internet access. Larry Allen, the executive director of the Coalition for Government Procurement, who testified on Thursday, said his discussions with officials in Perry's office led him to believe the administrator is considering that option as well.

When the curtain finally falls, many people will look back and wonder if this whole drama wasn't one big comedy of errors. As one GSA executive said in an interview with Government Executive last year, the perception of reality, not reality itself, is what is most important to the agency's existence. Neither FTS nor FSS has done a particularly good job portraying themselves to their Congressional audience. But the approval of that audience is what counts, and the audience will decide who continues to play, and who takes a final bow.