Original Broadcast 4/27/25
This episode was presented by Maximus
Philcox pointed out that GSA already manages seven of the ten categories under federal category management initiatives. However, fully embracing this new role will require substantial changes. Agencies will need to identify which of their current contracts fit within the "common goods and services" definition and prepare to transition that work to GSA. For GSA itself, the shift means not only scaling up contract management capabilities but also developing infrastructure to absorb the surge in procurement volume.
Both Waldron and Philcox stressed that this transition involves much more than simply handing over purchasing responsibilities. It will require:
Transferring existing contracts and managing novations.
Hiring or reallocating contracting officers and specialists to handle the new workload.
Streamlining systems and processes to handle a broader, more diverse procurement portfolio.
Expanding and adapting GSA’s current marketplaces and tools to accommodate the increased scale.
Philcox noted that GSA’s Assisted Acquisition Service (AAS), traditionally focused on highly complex, high-dollar buys, may not be the ideal operational model for managing high volumes of more routine purchases. New organizational structures, templates, and standard operating procedures will likely need to be developed.
Fortunately, GSA is skilled at test-and-learn approaches. The agency plans to start by piloting this model with four agencies initially. This phased approach will allow GSA to refine processes, address unforeseen challenges, and build a scalable model before rolling it out government-wide.
Importantly, Waldron highlighted the potential benefits for contractors if GSA leverages this consolidation to simplify the procurement environment. By aligning efforts with the ongoing Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) rewrite initiative, GSA could streamline contract requirements, reduce duplicative regulations, and create a more accessible marketplace for both large and small businesses.
Automation and the expansion of AI-driven proposal evaluation tools also present an opportunity to make federal contracting more efficient and responsive. Philcox and Waldron agreed that technology will be crucial in managing the volume and complexity of this acquisition centralization effort.
Crystal Philcox acknowledged that trying to execute multiple reforms simultaneously—contract consolidation, FAR streamlining, scaling up GSA’s internal structures—introduces risk. Ideally, these kinds of systemic changes would be phased over time. However, given the current momentum and bipartisan appetite for acquisition reform, she said the government has a rare window to drive meaningful, comprehensive change.
Waldron connected the urgency to national security imperatives. He pointed out that peer adversaries like China are not constrained by lengthy, burdensome procurement systems. If the U.S. government wants to maintain its technological and operational advantage, it must modernize acquisition practices to be faster, more agile, and better aligned with commercial innovation cycles.
The consolidation of acquisition authority under GSA is a historic move that promises to reshape how federal agencies buy what they need to serve the American people. If executed well, this transformation could reduce costs, speed up procurement, simplify compliance, and make federal contracting more attractive to a broader range of vendors.
Both Waldron and Philcox agreed that while the path ahead will not be without challenges, the opportunity for modernization is too important to ignore. GSA’s leadership—and the collaboration of the broader acquisition community—will determine how successful this bold vision becomes.