Interagency Contracting: An Overview of Federal Procurement and Appropriations Law

Interagency Contracting: An Overview of
Federal Procurement and Appropriations Law
Kate M. Manuel
Legislative Attorney
Brian T. Yeh
Legislative Attorney
January 11, 2011
Congressional Research Service
7-5700
www.crs.gov
R40814
CRS Report for Congress
P
repared for Members and Committees of Congress

---

Interagency Contracting: An Overview of Federal Procurement and Appropriations Law

Summary
Increased use of interagency contracting, coupled with widely reported incidents of
mismanagement and Antideficiency Act violations involving interagency contracts, has made
interagency contracting a topic of interest to some members of Congress and commentators.
“Interagency contracting” is the term used to describe several procurement relationships between
government agencies. The first is one of buyer and seller, where agency A directly purchases
goods or services from agency B. Second is that of co-purchasers, where agency A joins with
agency B to contract for goods or services to obtain economies of scale or some other benefit.
Third, agency A might hire agency B to negotiate and/or manage agency A’s contracts in toto or in
a specific area. Interagency contracting is a marked departure from the traditional model of
government contracting, wherein agencies have their own contracts with vendors and rely upon
the services of their own contracting officers in drafting and managing these contracts.
Interagency contracting can occur under several different statutory authorities, including (1) the
Economy Act of 1932; (2) the Information Technology Management Reform Act of 1996, also
known as the Clinger-Cohen Act, authorizing government-wide acquisition contracts (GWACs);
(3) the Federal Property and Administrative Services Act of 1949, as amended by the Office of
Federal Procurement Policy Act of 1974, underlying the Federal Supply Schedules (FSS), also
known as the General Services Administration (GSA) Schedules or Multiple Award Schedules
(MAS); and (4) the Government Management Reform Act of 1994 and other authorities creating
franchise funds and interagency assisting entities. Franchise funds and interagency assisting
entities are not themselves contracting vehicles, but they play a prominent role in interagency
contracting.
Interagency contracting generally implicates principles of appropriations law, as well as
procurement law, because appropriated funds are transferred between federal agencies.
Appropriations law specifies the ways in which appropriated funds may be spent, and agencies
must comply with the various requirements that are attached to any appropriation. Additionally,
appropriations law details how agencies must account for these funds and ensures payment is
made to the appropriate accounts.
The Government Accountability Office (GAO) first designated interagency contracting a “high
risk” area for the federal government in 2005, and interagency contracting remained on GAO’s
“high risk” list for the Department of Defense (DOD) in 2009. More recently, a December 3,
2010, report by the DOD Inspector General found that DOD acquisitions made through the
Department of Energy did not comply with defense procurement rules.

Congressional Research Service

---

Interagency Contracting: An Overview of Federal Procurement and Appropriations Law

Contents
Introduction ................................................................................................................................ 1
Key Terms in Interagency Contracting......................................................................................... 1
Key Concepts in Appropriations Law .......................................................................................... 3
Interagency Contracting Vehicles ................................................................................................ 6
Multi-Agency Contracts Under the Economy Act of 1932 ..................................................... 6
Transfers of Funds and Accounting for Transfers of Funds .............................................. 8
GWACs Under the Clinger-Cohen Act ................................................................................ 12
Revolving Funds and Reimbursable Accounts under GWACs ........................................ 13
Federal Supply Schedules Under the Federal Property and Administrative Services
Act................................................................................................................................... 17
Ordering Under the FSS................................................................................................ 18
Blanket Purchase Agreements under the FSS................................................................. 20
Other Requirements ...................................................................................................... 21
Expansion of the FSS to State and Local Governments.................................................. 22
Franchise Funds and Interagency Assisting Entities Under the Government
Management Reform Act and Other Authorities ............................................................... 23
Combining Various Types of Interagency Contracts............................................................. 24
Recent Developments................................................................................................................ 26
Legislative Initiatives .......................................................................................................... 28
Executive Branch Initiatives................................................................................................ 29

Figures
Figure 1. Use of Interagency Contracting in Hiring Interrogators for Abu Ghraib....................... 25

Tables
Table 1. Ordering Procedures Under the FSS............................................................................. 19
Table 2. Blanket Purchase Agreements Under the FSS............................................................... 20
Table 3. Comparison of Interagency Contracting Mechanisms ................................................... 24

Contacts
Author Contact Information ...................................................................................................... 30
Acknowledgments .................................................................................................................... 30

Congressional Research Service

---

Interagency Contracting: An Overview of Federal Procurement and Appropriations Law

Introduction
Traditionally, federal agencies procuring goods or services from private-sector entities had their
own contracts with these vendors and relied upon the services of their own contracting officers in
drafting and managing these contracts. Recently, however, agencies have increasingly resorted to
interagency contracting, relying on the contracts or contracting operations of other agencies to
acquire goods and services.1 Increased use of interagency contracting, coupled with widely
reported incidents of mismanagement and Antideficiency Act violations involving interagency
contracts,2 has made interagency contracting a topic of interest to some members of Congress and
commentators.3 The Government Accountability Office (GAO) first designated interagency
contracting a “high risk” area for the federal government in 2005,4 and interagency contracting
remained on GAO’s “high risk” list for the Department of Defense (DOD) in 2009.5 More
recently, a December 3, 2010, report by the DOD Inspector General found that DOD acquisitions
made through the Department of Energy did not comply with defense procurement rules.6
This report provides an overview of the federal procurement and appropriations laws governing
interagency contracting. It defines key terms used in discussing interagency contracting; surveys
the various interagency contracting vehicles; and describes recently enacted and proposed
amendments to the laws governing interagency contracting.
Key Terms in Interagency Contracting7
“Interagency contracting” is the term used to describe several procurement relationships between
government agencies. The first is one of buyer and seller, where agency A directly purchases
goods or services from agency B. Second is that of co-purchasers, where agency A joins with
agency B to contract for goods or services to obtain economies of scale or some other benefit.

1 See, e.g., Report of the Acquisition Advisory Panel to the Office of Federal Procurement Policy and the United States
Congress, at 225 (Jan. 2007) (“Interagency contracting has been recognized as one of the fastest growing fields in
federal acquisition.”). Forty percent of the government’s contracting funds were spent under some type of interagency
contract in FY2004, and agencies spent $46 billion under government-wide acquisition or Federal Supply Schedule
contracts in FY2006. Id. Spending on multi-agency contracts is more difficult to measure because it is unclear how
many multi-agency contracts exist. Id. at 229.
2 See, e.g., Abby Bowles, CACI Under Investigation by GSA, DOD, Interior for Role in Iraqi Prisoner Abuse, 81 Fed.
Cont. Rep. 546 (June 1, 2004) (noting that some interrogators allegedly involved in prisoner abuse at Abu Ghraib
worked for DOD under interagency contracts); Dep’t of Def. Inspector General, Potential Antideficiency Act Violations
on DoD Purchases Made Through Non-DoD Agencies, D-2007-042, at ii (Jan. 2007) (noting 69 potential violations of
the Antideficiency Act in DOD’s use of interagency contracts between 2005 and 2006).
3 See, e.g., Abusive Practices in Department of Defense Contracting for Services and Interagency Contracting:
Hearings before the Subcomm. on Readiness and Mgmt. of the Comm. on Armed Servs., United States Senate, 110th
Cong., 1st Sess. (Jan. 17 & 31, 2007).
4 Gov’t Accountability Office (GAO), GAO’s 2005 High-Risk Update, GAO-05-207, at 24 (Jan. 2005), available at
http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d05350t.pdf.
5 Gov’t Accountability Office, DOD’s High-Risk Areas: Actions Needed to Reduce Vulnerabilities and Improve
Business Outcomes, GAO-09-460T (Mar. 12, 2009), available at http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d09460t.pdf.
6 Inspector General, Dep’t of Defense, More DoD Oversight Needed for Purchases Made Through the Department of
Energy, Audit Report No. D-2011-021, Dec. 3, 2010, available at http://www.dodig.mil/Audit/reports/fy11/11-021.pdf.
7 Kate M. Manuel authored the sections of this report dealing with contract law.
Congressional Research Service
1

---

Interagency Contracting: An Overview of Federal Procurement and Appropriations Law

This is sometimes known as “direct purchasing” or “unassisted purchasing.”8 Third, agency A
might hire agency B to negotiate and/or manage agency A’s contracts in toto or in a specific area.
This is sometimes called “indirect purchasing” or “assisted purchasing.”9 Regardless of the exact
relationship between the agencies, interagency contracting is a marked departure from the
traditional model of government contracting, wherein agencies have their own contracts with
vendors and rely upon the services of their own contracting officers in drafting and managing
these contracts.
The agency seeking to acquire particular goods or services is known as the “requesting agency,”
while the agency that uses its contracts or contracting personnel to supply the requested goods or
services is known as the “servicing agency.”10 The phrase “ordering agency” refers to the agency
that issues task or delivery orders, or enters blanket purchase agreements, under existing
contracts. Depending upon the legal authorities governing a particular acquisition, the ordering
agency may be either the requesting agency or the servicing agency.
Interagency contracting often involves an indefinite delivery/indefinite quantity (ID/IQ) contract
between the servicing agency and the vendor.11 In an ID/IQ contract, the vendor agrees to provide
some yet-to-be-determined quantity of goods12 at predetermined prices at some yet-to-be-
determined times.13 Once the ID/IQ contract is in place, the servicing agency, or other agencies,
when authorized, may purchase goods or services from the vendor by submitting task or delivery
orders to the vendor,14 or entering into blanket purchase agreements (BPAs) with the vendor. A
BPA is a separate agreement, essentially establishing a “charge account” for the agency with a
vendor; agency personnel can take delivery of goods or services immediately and pay later.15
Because of the task or delivery orders issued under them, ID/IQ contracts are sometimes known
as task- or delivery-order (TO/DO) contracts.16 They can also be described as “single-award
contracts” or “multiple-award contracts” (MACs), depending upon the number of firms—one or
more than one, respectively—eligible to receive orders under the contract.17 Because ID/IQ

8 See, e.g., Gov’t Accountability Office, Interagency Contracting: Need for Improved Information and Policy
Implementation at the Department of State, GAO-08-578, at 2 (May 8, 2008) (discussing direct and assisted
interagency contracting).
9 Id.
10 See, e.g., Ralph C. Nash, Jr., Steve L. Schooner, Karen R. O’Brien-DeBakey, and Vernon J. Edwards, The
Government Contracts Reference Book: A Comprehensive Guide to the Language of Procurement 331 (2007).
11 See, e.g., 48 C.F.R. § 2.101 (defining “governmentwide acquisition contract”).
12 The amount is above some assured minimum and, sometimes, below an agreed-upon maximum.
13 See, e.g., Library of Congress: Obligation of Guaranteed Minimums for Indefinite-Delivery, Indefinite-Quantity
Contracts under the FEDLINK Program, B-318046 (Comp. Gen., July 7, 2009) (“[T]o provide adequate consideration
for a binding IDIQ contract, an agency must establish a guaranteed minimum that is more than a nominal amount and
reflects the amount the agency is fairly certain to order.”).
14 A task order calls for the performance of services, while a delivery order calls for the delivery of goods.
15 48 C.F.R. § 13.303-3 (stating that a BPA must contain the following terms and conditions: (1) a description of the
agreement; (2) the extent of obligation; (3) pricing; (4) a purchase limitation; (5) notice of individuals authorized to
purchase under the BPA and any dollar limitations on their purchases; (6) delivery tickets; and (7) invoices).
16 See 48 C.F.R. § 16.501-1.
17 Some commentators refer to single-award ID/IQ contracts as “monopoly contracts,” but such usage obscures the fact
that single-award ID/IQ contracts are themselves competitively awarded, even if task or delivery orders under them are
not, and are of limited duration. See, e.g., U.S. House of Representatives, Comm. on Gov’t Reform—Minority Staff,
Special Investigations Division, Dollars, Not Sense: Government Contracting Under the Bush Administration 13
(2006), available at http://oversight.house.gov/Documents/20060711103910-86046.pdf. Federal contracts are normally
for one year, but can be extended to five years through agencies’ use of options. 48 C.F.R. § 17.204(e). Multiple-award
(continued...)
Congressional Research Service
2

---

Interagency Contracting: An Overview of Federal Procurement and Appropriations Law

contracts are involved, agencies engaged in interagency contracting must generally comply with
the requirements for competition in the issuance of orders created by Federal Acquisition
Streamlining Act (FASA) of 199418 and amendments to it, such as the National Defense
Authorization Act for FY200219 and the National Defense Authorization Act for FY2008.20 Such
requirements are beyond the scope of this report, although they apply to multi-agency and
government-wide acquisition contracts.21
Key Concepts in Appropriations Law22
Congress is given the power to appropriate funds in the Constitution. This congressional power is
commonly called the “power of the purse” and is derived from several specific constitutional
provisions. First, in Article I, Section 8, Congress is given the power to “pay the Debts and
provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States” and the power to
“make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing
Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States
or in any Department or Officer thereof.” Later, the Constitution states that “[n]o Money shall be
drawn from the Treasury, but in Consequence of Appropriations made by Law” in Article I,
Section 9, clause 7 (first part). This means that “no money can be paid out of the Treasury unless
it has been appropriated by an act of Congress.”23
Additionally, Congress can “determine the terms and conditions under which an appropriation
can be used” as long as it acts within its Constitutional limits.24 These requirements may often
include “the purposes for which the funds may be used, the length of time the funds may remain
available for these uses, and the maximum amount an agency may spend on particular elements

(...continued)
contracts are sometimes also called multiple-award task-order contracts (MATOCs).
18 P.L. 103-355, § 1003, 108 Stat. 3250 (Oct. 13, 1994) (codified at 10 U.S.C. § 2304a(d)(3) (defense agency
procurements); P.L. 103-355, § 1054, 108 Stat. 3262 (codified at 41 U.S.C. § 303h(d)(3) (civilian agency
procurements). FASA establishes a “preference” for multiple-award contracts by requiring agencies to use them, as
opposed to single-award contracts, “to the maximum extent practicable.” FASA also requires agencies using multiple-
award contracts to provide a “fair opportunity to be considered” in the issuance of individual task or delivery orders in
excess of $3,000 unless certain conditions are met. 10 U.S.C. § 2304c(b)(1)-(4) & 41 U.S.C. § 303j(b)(1).
19 See P.L. 107-107, § 803, 115 Stat. 1179 (Dec. 28, 2001) (limiting defense agencies’ ability to award single-award
ID/IQ contracts in excess of $100 million and specifying what constitutes a “fair opportunity to be considered” in
competitions for orders in excess of $5.5 million under multiple-award ID/IQ contracts). Section 803 was later repealed
by the Duncan Hunter National Defense Authorization Act for FY2009 because it was “redundant” after Congress
imposed identical restrictions on all agencies. See P.L. 110-417, § 863(f), 122 Stat. 4548 (Oct. 14, 2008).
20 See P.L. 110-181, § 843, 122 Stat. 236-39 (Jan. 28, 2008) (imposing requirements similar to those in P.L. 107-107 on
non-defense agencies).
21 As discussed below, these requirements do not apply to orders placed under the Federal Supply Schedules. 48 C.F.R.
§ 8.405-6(1).
22 Brian T. Yeh is the author of the sections of this report dealing with appropriations law.
23 Cincinnati Soap Co. v. United States, 301 U.S. 308, 321 (1937).
24 GAO, Office of the General Counsel, Principles of Federal Appropriations Law, Volume I, at 1-5–1-11 (3d ed.
2004), available at http://www.gao.gov/special.pubs/d04261sp.pdf. This publication is commonly known as the Red
Book.
Congressional Research Service
3

---

Interagency Contracting: An Overview of Federal Procurement and Appropriations Law

of a program.”25 Congress also may impose other requirements on appropriated funds, such as
preconditions for the use of an appropriation by an agency.26
Following the enactment of an appropriations act by Congress, “[t]he Office of Management and
Budget (OMB) apportions or distributes budgeted amounts to the executive branch agencies,
thereby making funds in appropriated accounts ... available for obligation.”27 These appropriated
accounts are administered by the Treasury Department.28 Following OMB’s apportionment of the
funds, agencies then make allotments, which are “delegation[s] of authority to agency officials
that allow[] them to incur obligations within the scope and terms of the delegation.”29 These
allotments are “pursuant to the OMB apportionments or other statutory authority.”30
After allotments have been made, agencies can then begin to incur obligations. Generally, an
obligation is “some action that creates a legal liability or definite commitment on the part of the
government, or creates a legal duty that could mature into a legal liability by virtue of an action
that is beyond the control of the government.”31 It is permissible to make immediate payment or
future payment of an obligation.32 Obligations are considered “officially charged against the
spending agency’s appropriation” at the time they are “recorded.”33 The requirements for
recording obligations are outlined in 31 U.S.C. § 1501(a), which states that “[a]n amount shall be
recorded as an obligation to the United States Government only when [it is] supported by
documentary evidence” of one of nine specified actions of an agency.34 A transaction is not a
proper obligation (and therefore may not be recorded) if it does not meet one of these nine

25 Id. at 1-5.
26 Id. at 1-6–1-7.
27 31 U.S.C. §§ 1511-1516.
28 Principles of Federal Appropriations Law, Volume I, at 1-31. Funds are distributed “by time periods (usually
quarterly) or by activities,” an apportionment system which is intended “to achieve an effective and orderly use of
available budget authority, and to reduce the need for supplemental or deficiency appropriations.” Id.
29 31 U.S.C. §§ 1513(d), 1514; Principles of Federal Appropriations Law, Volume I, at 1-31.
30 Id.
31 Principles of Federal Appropriations Law, Volume II, at 7-3–7-4 (3d ed. 2006), available at http://www.gao.gov/
special.pubs/d06382sp.pdf.
32 Id. at 7-4.
33 Id.
34 The nine specified actions that result in a recordable obligation for an agency when they are properly documented
are:
(1) [A] binding agreement between an agency and another person (including an agency) that is –
(A) in writing, in a way and form, and for a purpose authorized by law; and (B) executed before the
end of the period of availability for obligation of the appropriation or fund used for specific goods
to be delivered, real property to be bought or leased, or work or service to be provided; (2) a loan
agreement showing the amount and terms of repayment; (3) an order required by law to be placed
with an agency; (4) an order issued under a law authorizing purchase without advertising – (A)
when necessary because of a public exigency; (B) for perishable subsistence supplies; or (C) within
specific monetary limits; (5) a grant or subsidy payable – (A) from appropriations made for
payment of, or contributions to, amounts required to be paid in specific amounts fixed by law or
under formulas prescribed by law; (B) under an agreement authorized by law; or (C) under plans
approved consistent with and authorized by law; (6) a liability that may result from pending
litigation; (7) employment or services of persons or expenses of travel under law; (8) services
provided by public utilities; or (9) other legal liability of the Government against an available
appropriation or fund.
31 U.S.C. § 1501. For a more detailed discussion of the various issues surrounding these nine ways to incur a
recordable obligation, see Principles of Federal Appropriations Law, Volume II, at 7-10–7-55.
Congressional Research Service
4

---

Interagency Contracting: An Overview of Federal Procurement and Appropriations Law

criteria.35 The transaction is required to be recorded as soon as one of the criteria is met, but it is
still considered valid if the agency fails to record it, and it will be charged to the fiscal year in
which it occurred.36 In some instances, agencies may need to deobligate funds,37 and those funds
“may be reobligated within the period of availability of the appropriation.”38
In making obligations, an agency must comply with the Antideficiency Act. This act states that
“[a]n officer or employee of the United States Government or of the District of Columbia
government may not ... make or authorize an expenditure or obligation exceeding an amount
available in an appropriation or fund for an expenditure or obligation; or ... involve either
government in a contract or obligation for the payment of money before an appropriation is made
unless authorized by law.”39 If the Antideficiency Act is violated, an officer or employee “shall be
subject to appropriate administrative discipline including, when circumstances warrant,
suspension from duty without pay or removal from office.”40 Additionally, if the officer or
employee “knowingly and willfully” violates the act, he or she “shall be fined not more than
$5,000, imprisoned for more than two years, or both.”41
An appropriation account expires “[a]t midnight on the last day of an appropriation’s period of
availability” and is “no longer available for incurring new obligations.”42 However, an expired
appropriation “remains available for 5 years for the purpose of paying obligations incurred prior
to the account’s expiration and adjusting obligations that were previously unrecorded or under
recorded.”43 Following the five-year period, the account is closed, and “[a]ny remaining balance
(whether obligated or unobligated) in the account shall be cancelled and shall thereafter not be
available for obligation or expenditure for any purpose.”44 This means that the funds are “returned
to the general fund of the Treasury.”45 “Collections authorized or required to be credited to ...
[the] appropriation account, but not received before closing of the account ... shall be deposited in
the Treasury as miscellaneous receipts.”46 In the event that obligations or adjustments to
obligations that should have been charged to an account are discovered after the account is
closed, they “may be charged to any current appropriation account of the agency available for the
same purpose” as the closed account as long as they are “not chargeable to any current

35 Principles of Federal Appropriations Law, Volume II, at 7-4.
36 Id.
37 Agencies may need to deobligate funds for a variety of reasons, including “[l]iquidation in amount less than amount
of original obligation,” “[c]ancellation of project or contract,” “[i]nitial obligation determined to be invalid,”
“[r]eduction of previously recorded estimate,” “[c]orrection of bookkeeping errors or duplicate obligations,” or even
statutory requirements to deobligate funds. Principles of Federal Appropriations Law, Volume II, at 7-59–7-60.
38 Principles of Federal Appropriations Law, Volume II, at 7-59.
39 31 U.S.C. § 1341(a)(1) (emphasis added). For a more complete discussion of the Antideficiency Act, see Principles
of Federal Appropriations Law, Volume II, 6-34–6-159 (3d ed. 2006).
40 31 U.S.C. §§ 1349(a), 1518. This provision also applies to violations of 31 U.S.C. § 1342 and 31 U.S.C. § 1517(a).
41 31 U.S.C. § 1350, 1519. This provision also applies to violations of 31 U.S.C. § 1342 and 31 U.S.C. § 1517(a).
42 Principles of Federal Appropriations Law, Volume I, at 1-37.
43 Id.; 31 U.S.C. § 1553(a).
44 31 U.S.C. § 1552(a).
45 Principles of Federal Appropriations Law, Volume I, at 5-73.
46 31 U.S.C. § 1552(b). The “miscellaneous receipts” statute requires “an official or agent of the Government receiving
money for the Government from any source ... [to] deposit the money in the Treasury as soon as practicable without
deduction for any charge or claim.” 31 U.S.C. § 3302(b). Penalties for violating this statute may include removal from
office. 31 U.S.C. § 3302(d). For more information about the “miscellaneous receipts” statute, see Principles of Federal
Appropriations Law, Volume II, at 6-166–6-222.
Congressional Research Service
5

---

Interagency Contracting: An Overview of Federal Procurement and Appropriations Law

appropriation account of the agency.”47 Congress may exempt appropriations from these rules
through specific legislation.48
Interagency Contracting Vehicles
Interagency contracting can occur under several different statutory authorities, including
1. The Economy Act of 1932 and other authorities permitting multi-agency
contracts, which are also known as interagency agreements;
2. The Information Technology Management Reform Act of 1996, also known as
the Clinger-Cohen Act, authorizing government-wide acquisition contracts
(GWACs);
3. The Federal Property and Administrative Services Act of 1949, as amended by
the Office of Federal Procurement Policy Act of 1974, underlying the Federal
Supply Schedules (FSS), also known as the General Services Administration
(GSA) Schedules or Multiple Award Schedules (MAS); and
4. The Government Management Reform Act (GMRA) of 1994 and other
authorities creating franchise funds and interagency assisting entities.
Franchise funds and interagency assisting entities are not themselves contracting vehicles.
However, they play a prominent role in interagency contracting and are thus included here.49
Multi-Agency Contracts Under the Economy Act of 1932
Certain statutes, such as the Economy Act of 1932, as amended, and the Government Employees
Training Act (GETA) of 1958, authorize federal agencies to purchase directly from other
agencies, or use the contracts or contracting operations of other agencies when procuring goods
or services.50 The Economy Act governs when there are no specific statutory authorities, such as
GETA,51 and is the focus of discussion here.
Congress enacted the Economy Act during the Great Depression with the hope that agencies
might, at times, save money by relying upon existing contracts between other agencies and
private companies when procuring goods or services.52 The act originally applied only to direct or

47 31 U.S.C. § 1553(b)(1).
48 Principles of Federal Appropriations Law, Volume I, at 5-75. For a more complete discussion of expired and closed
accounts, see Principles of Federal Appropriations Law, Volume I, at 5-71–5-75.
49 Cf. Report of the Acquisition Advisory Panel, supra note 1, at 236 (also including franchise funds and interagency
assisting entities when discussing interagency contracting).
50 See, e.g., An Act Making Appropriations for the Legislative Branch of the Government for the Fiscal Year Ending
June 30, 1933, and for Other Purposes, P.L. 72-212, 47 Stat. 382 (June 30, 1932) (codified at 31 U.S.C. §§ 1535-1537);
GETA, P.L. 85-507, 72 Stat. 327 (July 7, 1958) (codified at 5 U.S.C. § 2303(a)(5)). Another “Economy Act” was
enacted in 1933, cutting the salaries of federal workers and reducing veterans’ benefits in response to the Depression.
See P.L. 73-2, 48 Stat. 8 (Mar. 20, 1933). It is no longer in effect.
51 48 C.F.R. § 17.500(b).
52 See, e.g., 75 Cong. Rec. 9348 (1932). By relying on an existing contract, agencies could potentially avoid the
administrative expenses associated with soliciting bids or proposals, and they might be able to take advantage of lower
prices negotiated under other contracts, especially when purchasing too few items to independently qualify for
(continued...)
Congressional Research Service
6

---

Interagency Contracting: An Overview of Federal Procurement and Appropriations Law

unassisted purchasing, authorizing agency heads to use other agencies’ existing contracts to
obtain goods or services whenever doing so was more convenient and cheaper than contracting
out:
Any executive department or independent establishment of the Government, or any bureau or
office thereof, if funds are available therefor and if it is determined by the head of such
executive department, establishment, bureau, or office to be in the interest of the
Government to do so, may place orders with any other such department, establishment,
bureau, or office for materials, supplies, equipment, work or services, of any kind that such
requisitioned Federal agency may be in a position to supply or equipped to render ...
Provided, however, That if such work or services can be as conveniently or more cheaply
performed by private agencies such work shall be let by competitive bids to such private
agencies.53
The act was amended in 1942 to allow other agencies to perform contracting services—also
known as indirect or assisted purchasing—for certain defense-related agencies.54 A later
amendment, in 1982, authorized any agency to perform contracting services for any other
agency.55
From the earliest days, agencies’ ability to use the contracts or contracting services of other
agencies under the authority of the Economy Act was subject to the following four conditions:
1. The requesting agency had the funds available;
2. The head of the requesting agency determined that the order was in the best
interests of the United States;
3. The servicing agency was able to provide the goods or services requested; and
4. The head of the requesting agency determined that the goods or services could
not be provided as conveniently or cheaply under a contract with a commercial
enterprise.56
More recently, however, regulations promulgated under the authority of Section 1074 of the
Federal Acquisition Streamlining Act (FASA) of 1994 further limited agencies’ exercise of
Economy Act authority.57 These regulations prohibit agencies from entering into multi-agency
contracts to (1) circumvent conditions imposed on the use of appropriated funds; (2) contract out
inherently governmental functions; or (3) acquire goods or services contrary to an agency’s

(...continued)
discounts based on sales volume.
53 P.L. 72-212, § 601, 47 Stat. 418 (codified, as amended, at 31 U.S.C. § 1535(a)).
54 An Act to Amend Section 7(a) of the Act of May 21, 1920, P.L. 77-670, 56 Stat. 661-62 (July 20, 1942). The
defense-related agencies included the War, Navy, and Treasury Departments; Civil Aeronautics Administration; and
Maritime Commission. The Economy Act was itself an amendment to the act of May 21, 1920, which is why that
statute is referenced here.
55 An Act to Amend the Economy Act to Provide That All Departments and Agencies May Obtain Materials or
Services from Other Agencies by Contract, and for Other Purposes, P.L. 97-332, 96 Stat. 1622 (Oct. 15, 1982).
56 15 U.S.C. § 1535(a)(1)-(4).
57 P.L. 103-355, § 1074, 108 Stat. 3271-72 (Oct. 13, 1994). This section is no longer effective because the regulations
required under it have been in effect for over one year. See id. at § 1074(d)(“This section shall cease to be effective one
year after the date on which final regulations prescribed pursuant to subsection (a) take effect.”).
Congressional Research Service
7

---

Interagency Contracting: An Overview of Federal Procurement and Appropriations Law

authority or responsibility.58 Additionally, all orders under multi-agency contracts that require
“contracting actions” by the servicing agency must be supported by determinations and findings
approved by contracting officers of the requesting agency that state, among other things:
(1) [t]he acquisition will appropriately be made under an existing contract of the servicing
agency, entered into before placement of the order, to meet the requirements of the servicing
agency for the same or similar goods and services;
(2) [t]he servicing agency has capabilities or expertise to enter into a contract for such
supplies or services which is not available to the requesting agency; or
(3) [t]he servicing agency is specifically authorized by law or regulation to purchase such
supplies or services on behalf of other agencies.59
“Contracting actions” include soliciting bids or proposals for a new contract, as well as issuing
task or delivery orders under existing contracts.
Transfers of Funds and Accounting for Transfers of Funds
Unlike other statutes discussed below, the Economy Act provides detailed directions regarding
interagency fund transfers under its authority. Under the act, the servicing agency may decide to
use one of two types of authorized forms of payment—advance and reimbursement60—and the
payment may be made in a lump sum or in installments.
Authorized Forms of Payment
1. Advanced Payment
The act authorizes advanced payment to the servicing agency by the requesting agency.61
Advanced payment is often based on cost estimates. As a result, after the actual cost is known, the
amounts should be adjusted accordingly. If the advance exceeds the actual cost, the excess should
be returned to the proper account at the requesting agency because retaining the excess amount
would constitute an “improper augmentation” of the funds of the servicing agency.62 When the
excess is determined “while the appropriation charged with the advance is still available for
obligation,” the servicing agency should attempt to return the funds in time for the requesting
agency to use them.63 In the event that the requesting agency’s account has been closed, the
excess should “be deposited in the Treasury as miscellaneous receipts.”64

58 48 C.F.R. § 17.502(b)-(d).
59 48 C.F.R. § 17.503(b)(1)-(3).
60 31 U.S.C. § 1535(b).
61 Id.
62 Principles of Federal Appropriations Law, Volume III, at 12-34 (3d ed. 2008) (referencing 72 Comp. Gen. 120
(1993)).
63 Id. (referencing GAO, Policy and Procedures Manual for Guidance of Federal Agencies, tit. 7, § 2.4.C.2d (May
1993)).
64 Id. The “miscellaneous receipts” statute requires “an official or agent of the Government receiving money for the
Government from any source ... [to] deposit the money in the Treasury as soon as practicable without deduction for any
charge or claim.” 31 U.S.C. § 3302(b). Penalties for violating this statute may include removal from office. 31 U.S.C. §
(continued...)
Congressional Research Service
8

---

Interagency Contracting: An Overview of Federal Procurement and Appropriations Law

The act outlines that advanced payments are to be “credited to a special working fund that the
Secretary of the Treasury considers necessary to be established.”65
2. Reimbursement Payment
The act also authorizes payment by reimbursement amounts, which allows the servicing agency
to “temporarily use its own funds to do the ... [requesting] agency’s work.”66 Prompt payment by
the requesting agency is required by the act.67
Reimbursement payments are to be credited to the servicing agency’s appropriation that incurred
charges for performance. As a result, the payment is credited to the fiscal year in which the
appropriation incurred charges, not the fiscal year in which the reimbursement is made.68 If a
reimbursement is made while the charged appropriation is still available for obligation, then the
servicing agency may use the money for any of the purposes that were authorized for the
appropriation.69 However, if a reimbursement is made when the charged appropriation is no
longer available for new obligations, then the servicing agency must credit the money to the
expired account. In the event the expired account has already been closed, the servicing agency
again must deposit the money in the Treasury as miscellaneous receipts.70
With respect to expired accounts, the Department of Defense has been granted a major exception
to the above provisions. When the charged appropriation is no longer available for new
obligations (and the account is therefore expired), the Department of Defense has the option to
credit reimbursements for the expired appropriation to appropriations that are current at the time
of the payment rather than crediting the money to the expired account.71 This means that the
money will be available to the agency to obligate to a new expenditure during the period of
availability of the current appropriation. If the money were to return to the expired account, then
it could only be spent to liquidate the obligations incurred during the period of availability of the
appropriation associated with the expired account.

(...continued)
3302(d). For more information about the “miscellaneous receipts” statute, see Principles of Federal Appropriations
Law, Volume II, 6-166–6-222 (3d ed. 2006), available at http://www.gao.gov/special.pubs/d06382sp.pdf.
65 31 U.S.C. § 1536(a). A working fund is “an account established to receive advance payments from other agencies or
accounts.” Principles of Federal Appropriations Law, Volume III, at 12-35. Congress originally intended this fund to
be established by the Treasury upon request of the servicing agency, but the 1982 recodification appears to give
Treasury the final decision on the fund’s creation. Id.
66 Id. at 12-34.
67 31 U.S.C. § 1535(b).
68 Principles of Federal Appropriations Law, Volume III, at 12-35.
69 31 U.S.C. § 1536(b); Principles of Federal Appropriations Law, Volume III, at 12-35.
70 31 U.S.C. § 1552(b); Principles of Federal Appropriations Law, Volume III, at 12-35. An agency has the choice to
“deposit reimbursements in the Treasury as miscellaneous receipts” but must do so in certain circumstances in order to
avoid improper augmentation. Principles of Federal Appropriations Law, Volume III, at 12-36.
71 10 U.S.C. §§ 2205(a), 2210(a); Principles of Federal Appropriations Law, Volume III, at 12-36.
Congressional Research Service
9

---

Interagency Contracting: An Overview of Federal Procurement and Appropriations Law

Payment for Items Provided from Stock
When a servicing agency provides items from stock on hand, special rules apply. The requesting
agency’s payment for goods provided from stock typically is credited to replace the goods.72
However, if the “head of the executive agency filling the order decides that replacement is not
necessary ... the amount received is deposited in the Treasury as miscellaneous receipts.”73
Replacement items are not required to be identical, but they cannot be “dissimilar” from those
authorized by the appropriation language.74
Definition of Actual Cost
Agencies that use the Economy Act “must avoid the unauthorized augmentation of anyone’s
appropriations,” which means the servicing agency cannot charge “too much” or “too little.”75
Therefore the determination of “actual cost” is very important in any Economy Act transaction.
Payments under the Economy Act are based on the “actual cost of goods or services provided,”76
but neither the act itself nor its legislative history define the term. However, as noted in a GAO
General Comptroller’s decision, “actual cost” can be determined in a manner consistent with the
objectives of the statute and the legislative history’s guidance by considering two categories of
cost: required costs and situational costs.77
Required costs include direct costs and indirect costs.78 A direct cost is any expenditure of the
servicing agency that can be identified with the performance of the transaction,79 including
salaries of employees,80 the cost of materials or equipment “furnished to the ... [requesting]
agency or consumed in the course of performance” by the servicing agency,81 and related
transportation costs.82 An indirect cost is overhead for the contract, including “administrative
overhead applicable to supervision ... billable time not directly chargeable to any particular
customer ... and rent paid to the General Services Administration attributable to space used in the
course of performing Economy Act work.”83 In order to be recoverable under the Economy Act,

72 31 U.S.C. § 1536(b). These payments can be credited to another appropriation or fund if authorized by law. 31
U.S.C. § 1536(b)(1).
73 31 U.S.C. § 1536(b)(2) (emphasis added).
74 Principles of Federal Appropriations Law, Volume III, at 12-37 (citing 41 Comp. Gen. 671 (1962)).
75 Id. at 12-36–12-37.
76 31 U.S.C. § 1535(b).
77 Principles of Federal Appropriations Law, Volume III, at 12-38–12-39 (citing 57 Comp. Gen. 674, at 681-82).
78 Id. at 12-39–12-40.
79 This does not necessarily include every identifiable direct cost. For example, a judgment for an injury incurred by an
employee during the contract’s performance is not necessarily reimbursable. Id. at 12-39 (citing 39 Comp. Gen. 650
(1960)).
80 The salaries of employees means gross compensation in this context, including the accrual of annual leave. Id. at 12-
39 (citing 14 Comp. Gen. 452 (1934); 32 Comp. Gen. 521 (1953)).
81 Id. This means “historical cost and not current replacement or production cost.” However, this historical cost does
not have to be “the original acquisition cost” and instead may be “the most recent acquisition cost of the specific kind
of item provided” to the requesting agency. Id.
82 Id.
83 Id. at 12-40.
Congressional Research Service
10

---

Interagency Contracting: An Overview of Federal Procurement and Appropriations Law

an indirect cost must be “funded out of currently available appropriations” and bear a “significant
relationship to the service or work performed or the materials furnished.”84
Situational costs result from circumstances when “other competing congressional goals, policies
or interests might require recoveries beyond that necessary to effectuate the purposes of the
Economy Act.”85 For example, situational costs could be recovered for depreciation and interest
based on the project’s specific circumstances.86 The servicing agency has discretion whether or
not to include these costs in its charges.87 If the servicing agency fails to recover them, it is “not
legally objectionable,” although “it could be shown to be an abuse of discretion” in very limited
circumstances.88
The Economy Act does not require the “actual cost” determination to be “an exact science,” so “a
bona fide attempt to determine the actual cost ... [that] reasonably approximates the actual cost” is
acceptable.89 GAO has found “billing on the basis of standard costs derived from documented
costs of the last acquisition or production” to be reasonable and meet the Economy Act’s
requirements.90 This determination of “actual cost” is limited, however, to a “reasonable
approximation.”91 Additionally, the Economy Act, in attempting to promote interagency
cooperation and harmony, does not require “an audit or certification in advance of payment”
conducted by the requesting agency or “a detailed breakdown” of costs by the servicing agency.92
Obligation of Requesting Agency’s Appropriation
A requesting agency’s appropriations are obligated by an Economy Act agreement93 as long as
they meet certain requirements to become a recordable obligation.94 For example, the agreement
“must be for a purpose the ... [requesting] agency is authorized to accomplish.”95 Obligations for
an Economy Act agreement must be incurred “within the period of availability of the
appropriation being used,”96 and the funds must then “be deobligated at the end of their period of

84 Id. (citing 56 Comp. Gen. 275 (1977)).
85 Id. (citing 57 Comp. Gen. 674 at 683 (1978)) (internal quotations omitted).
86 Id. at 12-40–12-41 (citing 57 Comp. Gen. 674 at 685-86 (1978)). An additional example would be instances where
“the ... [servicing] activity is funded by a statutorily authorized stock, industrial, or similar fund which provides for
‘full cost’ recovery, that is, beyond what the Economy Act would otherwise require, and the fund’s Economy Act work
is an insignificant portion of its overall work.” Id. at 12-41 (citing B-250377, Jan. 28, 1993).
87 Id. at 12-41.
88 Id.
89 Id. at 12-42 (citing B-133913, Jan. 21, 1958) (internal quotations omitted).
90 Id. (citing B-250377, Jan. 28, 1993).
91 Id. Cost allocations where “some customers are paying excessive amounts and effective subsidizing others,” for
example, or allocations “based on the availability of appropriations” are not allowed. Id.
92 Id. at 12-41 (citing 39 Comp. Gen. 548, 549-50 (1960); 32 Comp. Gen. 479 (1953); B-116194, Oct. 5, 1953).
93 31 U.S.C. § 1535(d).
94 31 U.S.C. § 1501(a)(1).
95 Principles of Federal Appropriations Law, Volume III, at 12-44. The Economy Act “is not intended to permit an
agency to avoid legislative restriction on the use of its funds, nor is it intended to permit an agency running short of
money to dip into the pocket of another vulnerable and more budgetarily secure agency.” Id. at 12-46. For more
information about the restrictions on a requesting agency’s appropriations and specific examples of how these
restrictions impact certain types of Economy Act transactions, see id. at 12-46–12-50.
96 Id. at 12-44.
Congressional Research Service
11

---

Interagency Contracting: An Overview of Federal Procurement and Appropriations Law

availability (fiscal year or multiple year period, as applicable) to the extent the ... [servicing]
agency has not performed or itself incurred valid obligations as part of its performance.”97 This is
different than an agency’s contract with a private party, in which funds obligated in one fiscal
year remain obligated in future fiscal years.98
GWACs Under the Clinger-Cohen Act
Congress created the government-wide acquisition contracts (GWACs) in 1996 when it changed
the way in which the federal government procures information technology (IT). Between 1965
and 1996, Section 111 of the Federal Property and Administrative Services Act, commonly
known as the Brooks Act, governed federal purchases of IT, granting the General Services
Administration (GSA) sole authority to acquire IT for federal agencies.99 This changed in 1996,
when Congress enacted the Information Technology Management Reform Act.100 This act and the
Federal Acquisition Reform Act (FARA) of 1996 were later jointly designated as the Clinger-
Cohen Act.101
The Clinger-Cohen Act repealed the Brooks Act102 and made the director of the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) “responsible for improving the productivity, efficiency, and
effectiveness” of federal IT programs.103 Among the things that the Director of OMB could do in
fulfilling this responsibility was designating “one or more heads of executive agencies as
executive agent[s] for Government-wide acquisition of information technology.”104 These
“executive agents” could create GWACs by entering into contracts with vendors of IT goods or
services. Once the GWAC was formed, other agencies could then either (1) enter agreements
authorizing the executive agents to order items from the GWACs on their behalf or (2) be
authorized by the executive agents to place their own orders with GWAC vendors.105
Four federal agencies were initially designated as executive agents under the Clinger-Cohen Act,
the Department of Commerce, the National Institutes of Health (NIH), the National Aeronautics
and Space Administration (NASA), and the Department of Transportation, although the GWAC
programs of some of these agencies were later transferred to GSA.106 Additionally, because the

97 31 U.S.C. § 1535(d); Principles of Federal Appropriations Law, Volume III, at 12-45.
98 Principles of Federal Appropriations Law, Volume III, at 12-44.
99 See An Act to Provide for the Economic and Efficient Purchase, Lease, Maintenance, Operation, and Utilization of
Automatic Data Processing Equipment by Federal Departments and Agencies, P.L. 89-306, § 111, 79 Stat. 1127-29
(Oct. 31, 1965) (then codified at 40 U.S.C. § 759). The law was designed to encourage vendors to offer the lowest
possible prices and reduce the overhead associated with multiple acquisitions of IT products, especially for smaller
agencies, through the aggregation of agency demand for IT products and services. Another “Brooks Act” was enacted
in 1972 and governs the procurement of architect-engineer services. See P.L. 92-582, 86 Stat. 1278 (Oct. 27, 1972)
(codified, as amended, at 40 U.S.C. § 541 et seq.).
100 See National Defense Authorization Act for FY1996, P.L. 104-106, §§ 5001-5703, 110 Stat. 679-703 (Feb. 10,
1996). The Information Technology Management Reform Act was the name originally given to Division E of this act.
101 P.L. 104-208, § 808, 110 Stat. 3009-393 (Sept. 30, 1996). FARA was Division D of the National Defense
Authorization Act for FY2006. See P.L. 104-106, §§ 4001-4402.
102 P.L. 104-104, § 5111, 110 Stat. 680.
103 P.L. 104-104, § 5112(b), 110 Stat. 680 (codified at 40 U.S.C. § 11302(b)).
104 P.L. 104-104, § 5112(e), 110 Stat. 681 (codified at 40 U.S.C. § 11302(e)).
105 See Report of the Acquisition Advisory Panel, supra note 1, at 230.
106 For example, the Transportation Department’s Information Technology Omnibus Procurement (ITOP) GWAC
program was transferred to GSA in 2004 after the Transportation Department declined to seek re-designation as an
(continued...)
Congressional Research Service
12

---

Interagency Contracting: An Overview of Federal Procurement and Appropriations Law

Clinger-Cohen Act allowed the Federal Technology Service (FTS) at GSA to continue operating
under previously granted authority to make IT purchases on behalf of the federal government,107
the FTS also had authority to create GWACs.108 This authority was transferred to the Federal
Acquisition Service (FAS) when the FTS was merged into this newly formed component of
GSA.109
Revolving Funds and Reimbursable Accounts under GWACs
Unlike the Economy Act, the Clinger-Cohen Act did not specify how financial transactions
between agencies are to be accounted for, nor did it expressly prohibit agencies from charging
fees for use of their contracts or contracting services. Various executive agents thus structured
their GWACs differently: GSA and NIH use existing revolving funds, while NASA and the
Commerce Department use standalone reimbursable accounts.110
Revolving Funds
A revolving fund is “a fund established by the Congress to finance a cycle of operations through
amounts received by the fund.”111 A revolving fund has two key features: it is “a single combined
account to which receipts are credited and from which expenditures are made,” and its “generated
or collected receipts are available for expenditure for the authorized purposes of the fund without
the need for further congressional action and without fiscal year limitation.”112 Revolving funds
fall into three broad categories: public enterprise revolving funds,113 trust revolving funds,114 and
intragovernmental revolving funds.115

(...continued)
executive agent in 2002. See id. (transfer of ITOP from Transportation to GSA); Gov’t Accountability Office, Contract
Management: Interagency Contract Program Fees Need More Effective Oversight, GAO-02-734, at 2 (July 2002),
available at http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d02734.pdf (Transportation declining to seek re-designation in 2002). The
Commerce Department’s Information Technology Solutions NextGen contract was similarly transferred to GSA in
2008. See, e.g., Matthew Weigelt, GSA Recasts Statements on the End of the GWAC Era: No Merger of GWAC and
Schedules, Agency Says, Fed. Computer Week, July 2, 2009, available at http://www.fcw.com/Articles/2009/07/06/
WEEK-GSA-GWAC-schedules-plans.aspx.
107 P.L. 109-313, § 2(c), 120 Stat. 1734-35 (Oct. 6, 2006).
108 P.L. 104-104, § 5124, 110 Stat. 684 (codified at 40 U.S.C. § 11314(b)).
109 GSA reportedly does not plan to renew some of its GWACs, including Millennia, Millennia Lite, and Applications
‘N Support for Widely-diverse End-user Requirements (ANSWER), when the existing ID/IQ contracts expire in 2010,
although there is some question as to whether this strategy is part of a broader initiative to “phase out” the GWACs or
merge them with the Federal Supply Schedules. Compare Nick Wakeman, GSA to Phase Out GWAC Program, Wash.
Tech., June 24, 2009 (quoting Ed O’Hare, assistant commissioner of the Office of Integrated Technology Services at
the FAS, as saying that the only GWACs GSA will continue supporting after 2010 are Alliant, Alliant Small Business,
and vehicles targeted to companies in specific socioeconomic categories, such as minority-owned businesses) with
GSA Recasts Statements, supra note 106 (quoting Mary Davie, assistant FAS commissioner for assisted acquisition
services as stating, “GSA is not shutting down or ending the GWAC program”).
110 See Contract Management, supra note 106, at 9.
111 Principles of Federal Appropriations Law, Volume III, at 12-86 (3d ed. 2008) (quoting GAO, A Glossary of Terms
Used in the Federal Budget Process, GAO-05-734SP (Washington, D.C.: Sept. 2005), at 88) (internal quotations
omitted).
112 Id. at 12-88.
113 “A public enterprise revolving fund is a revolving fund which derives most of its receipts from sources outside of
the federal government. It usually involves a business-type operation, which generates receipts, that are in turn used to
finance a continuing cycle of operations. Although not a legal requirement, like a self-sustaining business operation the
(continued...)
Congressional Research Service
13

---

Interagency Contracting: An Overview of Federal Procurement and Appropriations Law

An agency may only establish a revolving fund if it has been given statutory authority to do so.
This authority must be explicit and contain at least the following attributes:
• “It must specify the receipts or collections which the agency is authorized to
credit to the fund;”
• “It must define the fund’s authorizes uses, that is, the purpose or purposes for
which the funds may be expended;” and
• “It must authorize the agency to use receipts for those purposes without fiscal
year limitation.”116
As long as these attributes are met, the statute does not have to use the words “revolving
fund” in order to create a revolving fund. This specific statutory authority requirement
applies to federal agencies but not “to the use of revolving fund financing by grantees or
contractors unless prohibited by the relevant grant agreement or contract.”117 Unless the
statute includes a termination provision for the revolving fund, Congress must pass
another statute to terminate a revolving fund.118
The legislation authorizing the revolving fund typically furnishes “an initial infusion of
working capital” (the “corpus”), which is intended to enable the fund to operate until the
ongoing/operational receipts start being received by the fund.119 The corpus may come to
the fund in various forms, such “an initial lump-sum appropriation, a transfer of balances
from some existing appropriation or fund, a transfer of property and/or equipment,
borrowing authority, or some combination of these,” and the fund may be required to
repay the corpus.120 With respect to ongoing receipts, the statute “will prescribe the types
of receipts which may be credited to the fund and, where contextually appropriate, the
method of payment.”121 At the very least, “payment by reimbursement is usually

(...continued)
fund should be self-sustaining or nearly so.” Id. at 12-97. These funds finance most government corporations, and they
are “commonly used for credit programs (direct loan, loan guarantee) of agencies such as the Department of Housing
and Urban Development and the Small Business Administration.” Id.
114 A trust revolving fund is “a fund permanently established to finance a continuing cycle of business-type operations –
except that it is used for specific purposes or programs in accordance with a statute that designates the fund as a trust
fund.” Id. at 12-98. The Employees’ Life Insurance Fund and the Veterans Special Life Insurance Fund are examples.
Id.
115 “An intragovernmental revolving fund ... [is] a revolving fund whose receipts come primarily from other
government agencies, programs, or activities. It is designed to carry out a cycle of business-type operations with other
federal agencies or separately funded components of the same agency.” Id. at 12-98. These funds have common
elements: “receipts that the fund has earned through its operations are available without fiscal year limitation;” the
authorizing statute “list[s] the services [to be covered] ... , leave[s] it to the agency’s discretion ... , or provide[s] some
combination;” payment for “goods or services the fund provides” is required; “some form of budgetary disclosure” may
be required; and “a provision limiting the amount the fund may retain and requiring return of amounts exceeding the
limitation to the general fund of the Treasury” may exist. Id. at 12-99. These funds “include stock funds, industrial
funds, supply funds, working capital funds, and franchise funds.” Id. at 12-99–12-106.
116 Id. at 12-90.
117 Id. at 12-91.
118 Id. at 12-92. “Legislation terminating a revolving fund should address the payment of existing debts if any remain,
and the disposition of the fund’s balance and future receipts.” Id.
119 Id. at 12-92.
120 Id.
121 Id. at 12-94.
Congressional Research Service
14

---

Interagency Contracting: An Overview of Federal Procurement and Appropriations Law

authorized,” but advanced payment may also be authorized.122 The statutory language can
specify the recovery of indirect costs along with direct costs in the case of receipts “based
on the cost of work or services;” however, the statute may be less specific and only
require recovery of “actual cost.”123 Finally, if the fund needs more capital, additional
appropriations can always be provided to the fund by Congress, whether explicitly stated
in the statute or not, or the fund can borrow money if it has been granted that authority.124
Funds in a revolving fund are available for expenditure without further appropriation, but,
because they are considered appropriations, they are subject to the rules that apply to
appropriated funds.125 Funds in a revolving fund are to be used for their intended
purpose(s).126 These purposes are determined by looking at the authorized expenditures in
the statute that created the fund and by applying the “necessary expense” rule, which
allows expenditures that are “directly related to, and which materially contribute to
accomplish an authorized purpose of, the fund and which are not otherwise specifically
provided for or prohibited.”127 The purpose of the appropriations “from which the
revolving fund is advanced or reimbursed” must also be considered.128 The amount of the
revolving fund expenditure is limited by governmentwide restrictions and specific
statutory restrictions for the fund.129 The most important law restricting the amount of an
expenditure by a revolving fund is the Antideficiency Act,130 which prohibits
overobligating the funds.131 Revolving funds can violate the Antideficiency Act by
“creating an obligation in excess of available budgetary resources;” “overspending a
specific monetary limitation;” charging “an obligation or expenditure to an appropriation
which is not legally available for that item, regardless of how much money is in the
account;” and “[o]verobligating or overspending an apportionment” of appropriations.132
Finally, as with any other appropriation, obligations must be recorded, but the “amount to
be recorded [under a multiyear or base-year-plus-options contract] ... depends on the
nature and extent of the government’s commitment.”133
Special rules and restrictions apply to intragovernmental revolving funds. Although
revolving funds, by definition, do not have fiscal year limitations, an intragovernmental
revolving fund is subject to the time rules of the appropriations of the requesting agency,
and those appropriations must be obligated “for a bona fide need within the specific

122 Id.
123 Id. at 12-95.
124 Id. at 12-96–12-97.
125 Id. at 12-106.
126 Id. at 12-109. This is because the fund is subject to 31 U.S.C. §1301(a), the purpose restriction for appropriated
funds. Id.
127 Id. at 12-109–12-114.
128 Id. at 12-113.
129 Id. at 12-118–12-119.
130 For a complete discussion of the Antideficiency Act, see Principles of Federal Appropriations Law, Volume II, 6-
34–6-159 (3d ed. 2006).
131 Principles of Federal Appropriations Law, Volume III, at 12-119.
132 Id. at 12-119–12-121.
133 Id. at 12-122. “[I]f a multiyear contract does not restrict the government’s obligation to less than the full contract
amount, then the full contract amount is the amount of the obligation.” However, “[i]f the contract consists of a basic
period plus renewal options, the obligation is the cost of the base period plus any amounts payable for failure to
exercise the options (termination costs).” Id. Congress can change these requirements by statute. Id.
Congressional Research Service
15

---

Interagency Contracting: An Overview of Federal Procurement and Appropriations Law

period of availability.”134 Also, in addition to the above limitations on the amount of the
expenditures, intragovernmental revolving funds are subject to the amount restriction on
the appropriations themselves.135 Finally, with an intragovernmental revolving fund, the
obligational treatment for the appropriations must be considered. It is generally
determined by applying the appropriate recording standard: either a “written, binding
agreement” or an “order required by law to be placed with another agency.”136
Special rules also govern purchases that are from stock or supply funds.137 With stock
items that are either “on hand or on order and expected to be delivered promptly, placing
the order obligates the ... [requesting] agency’s appropriations.”138 However, for “other
orders of items which are part of the stock fund system,” the fund has two options: (1) it
can develop a system “under which placing the order ‘accepts’ the offer and creates the
recordable obligation” (such as “a list of items which constitutes an offer to sell at the
published prices”), or (2) the fund must accept the ... [requesting agency’s] order (the
offer) in order for the obligation to become recordable, “unless the order is required by
law to be placed with the fund.”139 In the case of items outside of the stock fund system,
the fund must accept the requesting agency’s order “before the obligation can be
recorded.”140
A revolving fund must not be improperly augmented. Therefore, an agency is not allowed
to “[put] something in the fund which Congress has not authorized to be put there” or
“[leave] something in the fund, regardless of the propriety of the original deposit, beyond
the point Congress has said to take it out.”141 Because revolving funds are often designed
to break even in their long-term operations, Congress will frequently require a revolving
fund to make “periodic payment[s] of surplus amounts to the general fund of the
Treasury” to avoid improper augmentation of the fund.142 Because items of property and
equipment are considered assets of the revolving fund, various issues related to these
assets, such as equipment replacement and asset transfer, also raise concerns about
improper augmentation of the revolving fund.143
Revolving funds originated within the Department of Defense, and “they now play a
highly significant role in financing defense operations.”144 Congress has passed very
specific and extensive statutory authority for these funds over the past several decades.145

134 Id. at 12-115–12-118.
135 Id. at 12-119.
136 Id. at 12-123.
137 Id. at 12-123–12-124.
138 Id.
139 Id. at 12-124.
140 Id.
141 Id. at 12-125. See id. at 12-125–12-130 for a more detailed discussion of the improper augmentation of funds in a
revolving fund.
142 Id. at 12-128. Examples of funds that have this requirement in statute are the General Services Administration’s
Acquisition Services Fund, 40 U.S.C. § 321(f); the Bureau of Engraving and Printing Fund, 31 U.S.C. § 5142(d); and
the Office of Personnel Management Revolving Fund, 5 U.S.C. § 1304(e)(4). Id. at 12-128–12-129.
143 Id. at 12-130–12-136.
144 Id. at 12-136.
145 Id. at 12-136–12-140.
Congressional Research Service
16

---

Interagency Contracting: An Overview of Federal Procurement and Appropriations Law

Still, “the legal issues they raise and the analytical approach used in resolving them are
not fundamentally different from other revolving funds.”146
Standalone Reimbursable Accounts
The term “standalone reimbursable account” is used by the Acquisition Advisory Panel in their
report.147 However, it is not a term of art in the budget and appropriations context and is not
defined by GAO publications on budget and appropriations.
Federal Supply Schedules Under the Federal Property and
Administrative Services Act
The Federal Supply Schedules (FSS), also known as the GSA or Multiple Award Schedules
(MAS), list vendors from whom government agencies can148 purchase “commercial supplies and
services at prices associated with volume buying.”149 The GSA, or another agency exercising
authority delegated to it by GSA,150 has entered into contracts with these vendors under the
authority the Federal Property and Administrative Services Act of 1949, as amended by the Office
of Federal Procurement Policy Act of 1974.151 The ID/IQ contracts typically obligate the vendors

146 Id. at 12-140.
147 See Report of the Acquisition Advisory Panel, supra note 1, at 230.
148 Use of the FSS is generally voluntary for federal agencies, although each Schedule separately identifies agencies
that are required to use it as the “primary source[] of supply.” 48 C.F.R. § 38.101(b)-(c); 48 C.F.R. § 8.002(a)(vi)-(vii).
149 48 C.F.R. § 8.402(a). For purposes of federal procurements, a “commercial item” means:
[a]ny item, other than real property, that is of a type customarily used by the general public or by
non-governmental entities for purposes other than governmental purposes, and (i) [h]as been sold,
leased, or licensed to the general public; or (ii) [h]as been offered for sale, lease, or license to the
general public ... [including] installation services, maintenance services, repair services, training
services, and other services if (i) [s]uch services are procured for support of [a commercial item],
regardless of whether such services are provided by the same source or at the same time as the
item; and (ii) [t]he source of such services provide similar services contemporaneously to the
general public under terms and conditions similar to those offered to the Federal Government; [or]
… [s]ervices of a type offered and sold competitively in substantial quantities in the commercial
marketplace based on established catalog or market prices for specific tasks performed or specific
outcomes to be achieved and use standard commercial terms and conditions.
48 C.F.R. § 2.101. This definition is itself controversial, in part because it includes the phrase “of a type” when
referring to services as well as goods, while the statutory definition of commercial services on which it is based does
not. Compare id. (regulatory definition of “commercial items”) with 41 U.S.C. § 403(12)(F) (statutory definition of
“commercial items”). Some commentators worry that this definition, in part, enabled agencies to procure non-
commercial services under the simplified acquisition procedures applicable with commercial items. The Acquisition
Advisory Panel also studied commercial item authorities and made ten recommendations for improvements. See Report
of the Acquisition Advisory Panel, supra note 1, at 31-38.
150 48 C.F.R. § 8.402(a). GSA has, for example, delegated authority to the Department of Veterans’ Affairs (VA) to
contract for medical and nonperishable subsistence items under the VA Federal Supply Schedules Program. See 48
C.F.R. § 38.101(d).
151 Federal Property and Administrative Services Act, P.L. 81-152, §§ 301-310, 63 Stat. 393-97 (June 30, 1949)
(codified at 40 U.S.C. § 471 et seq. and 41 U.S.C. § 251 et seq.); Office of Federal Procurement Policy Act, P.L. 93-
400, §§ 2-15, 88 Stat. 796-800 (Aug. 30, 1974). The authority that GSA generally references in relation to the FSS is
40 U.S.C. § 501, which resulted from these acts, as amended. See Gen. Servs. Admin., Frequently Asked Questions
about GSA, available at http://www.gsa.gov/Portal/gsa/ep/contentView.do?faq=yes&pageTypeId=17112&contentId=
8106&contentType=GSA_OVERVIEW.
Congressional Research Service
17

---

Interagency Contracting: An Overview of Federal Procurement and Appropriations Law

to supply the goods or services listed on a “Schedule” to agencies at the listed prices for the
duration of the contract.152 The listed prices generally represent “most favored customer pricing,”
or the best prices that the vendors give to their preferred commercial customers for requirements
on a similar scale.153 Moreover, the contracts between the vendors and GSA, or an agency
delegated authority by GSA, contain “price reductions clauses,” requiring that vendors who
subsequently offer more favorable prices or discount arrangements to their most favored
customer(s) extend the same prices or terms to federal agencies.154
Agencies may order items from the Schedules by placing oral or written orders against the
contract;155 using Optional Form 347 or an agency-prescribed order form;156 using GSA’s online
shopping site, GSA Advantage!;157 or establishing a blanket purchase agreement (BPA) with the
vendor.158 Because of these and other simplified procedures that are discussed below, agencies
generally can obtain goods or services under the FSS within 15 days, as opposed to 268 days in
standard acquisitions.159 Agencies may pay for FSS purchases by using “any authorized means,”
including government-wide commercial purchase cards.160 Because FSS contracts are not under
the authority of the Economy Act,161 GSA, or those agencies to whom GSA has delegated
authority, may charge a fee for use of the Schedules.162
Ordering Under the FSS
The requirements that agencies must comply with when ordering from the FSS vary depending
upon (1) the nature of the items acquired; (2) whether a statement of work is required when
ordering services; (3) whether the order involves brand name specifications for goods; and (4) the
amount of the order. Table 1 illustrates these requirements in more detail. A “statement of work”
(SOW) is a written description of the work to be performed, location of work, period of
performance, deliverable schedule, applicable performance standards, and any special
requirements (e.g., security clearances, travel).163 A SOW is generally part of an invitation for

152 48 C.F.R. § 8.402(a). FSS contracts typically last for five years and may be renewed three times, with each renewal
lasting for five years. See Report of the Acquisition Advisory Panel, supra note 1, at 234.
153 48 C.F.R. § 538.270(a)-(c). This section of the Code of Federal Regulations is also known as the GSA Acquisition
Manual (GSAM).
154 See 48 C.F.R. § 552.238-75.
155 48 C.F.R. § 8.403(a)(1); 48 C.F.R. § 8.406-1. Agencies must place written orders if they are ordering services for
which a statement of work is required, or if they require name brand items costing more than $25,000. Id.
156 48 C.F.R. § 8.406-1.
157 48 C.F.R. § 8.402(c)(1). Use of GSA Advantage! is always discretionary, unlike use of e-Buy, discussed below,
which is mandatory when agencies issue orders containing brand name specifications. See 48 C.F.R. § 8.402(d).
158 48 C.F.R. § 8.403(a)(2). See supra note 15 and accompanying text for more discussion of BPAs.
159 Report of the Acquisition Advisory Panel, supra note 1, at 234.
160 48 C.F.R. § 8.402(c)(2); 48 C.F.R. § 8.405-7. These cards are like commercial credit cards and allow agency
officials to obtain goods or services immediately and pay later. These cards have sometimes been misused, leading
some members of Congress and commentators to propose reforms. See, e.g., Government Charge Card Abuse
Prevention Act, H.R. 2189, 111th Cong.; S. 942, 111th Cong.
161 48 C.F.R. § 17.500(b)(1).
162 GSA historically charged an “industrial funding fee” of 1% of FSS purchases, resulting in $210.8 million in
“profits” between FY1997 and FY2001. See Contract Management, supra note 106, at 11-13. Rather than lower the
fee, GAO used the funds to support its stock and fleet programs, uses permitted by the revolving fund within which the
FSS program resides. See id., at 3.
163 48 C.F.R. § 8.405-2(b).
Congressional Research Service
18

---

Interagency Contracting: An Overview of Federal Procurement and Appropriations Law

bids or request for proposals in standard acquisitions, and a SOW must be provided, even when
ordering under the FSS, when ordering services priced at hourly rates.164 A “brand name
specification” is one calling for a particular brand name product, or a product or feature of a
product unique to one manufacturer.165 Agencies must comply with more stringent requirements
when using brand name specifications because of the limits effectively imposed on competition
whenever agencies will accept only the goods of certain manufacturers.166
Table 1. Ordering Procedures Under the FSS
Nature of the Items Ordered
Value of the
Supplies & Services Not Priced
Order
at Hourly Rates
Services Priced at Hourly Ratesa
At or below the
No need to solicit offers from a specific number No need to solicit offers from a specific
micro-purchase
of Schedule contractors, but agencies should
number of Schedule contractors, but
threshold
attempt to distribute orders among eligible
agencies should attempt to distribute
(generally $3,000)b contractors.
orders among eligible contractors.
Above the micro-
The order must be placed with the contractor
The ordering agency must develop a
purchase
that can provide the best value. Before placing
statement of work (SOW) and provide a
threshold but
the order, the ordering agency must consider
Request for Quotations (RFQ), including
below the
reasonably available information about the
this SOW and evaluation criteria, to at least
maximum order
goods or services by surveying at least three
three Schedule contractors offering services
thresholdc
Schedule contractors. When the order includes
meeting the agency’s needs, requesting that
brand name specifications, the ordering agency
these contractors submit firm fixed prices
must post a Request for Quotations (RFQ),
to perform the services in the SOW.
along with the justification required under 48
C.F.R. § 8.405-6.d
Above the
Once an order reaches this level, the ordering
The ordering agency must provide the RFQ
maximum order
agency must seek a further price reduction from to an “appropriate number” of additional
thresholdc
the vendor. Before doing this, agency must
Schedule contractors offering services that
review price lists from additional Schedule
could meet the agency needs, with the
contractors; seek price reductions from those
“appropriate number” being determined by
considered best value; and place the order with
the complexity, scope and value of the
the contractor that provides best value. The
requirement, as well as findings from
agency must also document: the contracts
market research. The agency must then
considered; the contractor from whom the
seek price reductions from these
purchase was made; the goods or services
contractors.
purchased; and the amount paid.
Source: Congressional Research Service, based on 48 C.F.R. §§ 8.405-1 and 8.405-2.
a. In all cases, regardless of the value of the order, agencies must provide copies of their Requests for
Quotations (RFQ) to al Schedule contractors that request one; evaluate al responses using the evaluation
criteria provided in the RFQ; and document (1) the contracts considered, (2) the contractor from whom
the service was purchased; (3) the service purchased; (4) the amount paid; (5) the evaluation methodology;
(6) the price reasonableness; and (7) the rationale for using other than a firm-fixed price order or a
performance-based order. The agency should also provide timely notification to unsuccessful offerors.

164 48 C.F.R. § 8.405-2(a). When services are not priced at hourly rates, they are priced based upon the performance
and completion of specific tasks.
165 48 C.F.R. § 8.405-6(a)(2).
166 See, e.g., William S. Cohen, The Competition in Contracting Act, 14 Pub. Cont. L.J. 20-21 (1983/1984) (noting that
agencies can use brand name specifications, among other things, to effectively limit competition).
Congressional Research Service
19

---

Interagency Contracting: An Overview of Federal Procurement and Appropriations Law

b. The micropurchase threshold varies somewhat depending upon the circumstances of the acquisition. It is
$2,000 for acquisitions of construction services subject to the Davis-Bacon Act; $2,500 for acquisitions of
services subject to the Service Contract Act; $15,000 for acquisitions of supplies or services used in
support of contingency operations or to facilitate defense against or recovery from nuclear, chemical, or
radiological attacks when the contract is performed inside the United States; and $30,000 when a contract
of the latter sort is performed outside the United States. See 48 C.F.R. § 2.101.
c. The maximum order threshold depends upon the nature of the goods or services ordered. See 48 C.F.R. §
8.405-1(d).
d. Agencies must post Requests for Quotations to e-Buy when orders contain brand name specifications. 48
C.F.R. § 8.402(d).
Blanket Purchase Agreements under the FSS
Blanket purchase agreements (BPAs) allow agencies to “fill repetitive needs for supplies or
services” by taking delivery of goods or services now and paying later.167 The number of BPAs
issued when purchasing particular goods or services is generally within the ordering agency’s
discretion, although the number of BPAs used should be determined based on a strategy
“expected to maximize the effectiveness” of the BPA(s),168 and the rules governing single BPAs
differ somewhat from those governing multiple BPAs, as Table 2 illustrates. Multi-agency BPAs
are permissible when the agreements identify the participating agencies and estimate
requirements.169 A BPA generally cannot last for longer than five years,170 and the ordering
agency must review the BPA each year to determine whether (1) the ID/IQ against which the BPA
was issued is still in effect; (2) the BPA still represents the best value; (3) the estimated quantities
or amounts have been exceeded; and (4) additional price reductions can be sought.171
Table 2. Blanket Purchase Agreements Under the FSS
Number of
BPAs Requirements
Single BPA
The agency must place the BPA with the vendor that represents the best value and results in the
lowest overall costs for the government, as well as inform other vendors of the basis for its
selection. Once the BPA is placed, authorized agency personnel who are not contracting officers may
place orders directly against the BPA when the need arises.
Multiple
If the purchase is above the micro-purchase threshold (general y $3,000),a the agency must forward
BPAs
the requirement, or a statement of work and evaluation criteria, to an appropriate number of BPA
holders and evaluate responses to make a best value determination prior to making a purchase.
Source: Congressional Research Service, based on 48 C.F.R. § 8.405-3(b)(1)-(2).
a. The micropurchase threshold varies somewhat depending upon the circumstances of the acquisition. It is
$2,000 for acquisitions of construction services subject to the Davis-Bacon Act; $2,500 for acquisitions of
services subject to the Service Contract Act; $15,000 for acquisitions of supplies or services used in
support of contingency operations or to facilitate defense against or recovery from nuclear, chemical, or

167 48 C.F.R. § 8.405-3(a)(1).
168 Id. In making this determination, agencies should consider the scope and complexity of the requirements; whether
there is any need to periodically compare multiple technical approaches and prices; administrative costs; and the
technical qualifications of the prospective vendors. Id.
169 48 C.F.R. § 8.405-5(a)(4).
170 48 C.F.R. § 8.405-3(c).
171 48 C.F.R. § 8.405-3(d)(1)(i)-(iii).
Congressional Research Service
20

---

Interagency Contracting: An Overview of Federal Procurement and Appropriations Law

radiological attacks when the contract is performed inside the United States; and $30,000 when a contract
of the latter sort is performed outside the United States. See 48 C.F.R. § 2.101.
Other Requirements
Agency purchases under FSS contracts are exempt from many of the requirements governing
federal procurements generally, or subjected to modified versions of these requirements.172 Such
purchases are not subject to the requirements governing solicitations, awards, and other activities
applicable when agencies use sealed bidding, negotiated procurement, or simplified acquisition
procedures.173 They are similarly exempt from the small business requirements,174 other than
those prohibiting “contract bundling,”175 although purchases from the Schedules can count toward
agency goals for the percentage of contract dollars awarded to small businesses and agencies can
consider socioeconomic status in selecting vendors.176 Purchases under the FSS are also generally
not subject to the same competition and notice requirements as other federal contracts.177 This is,
in part, because the competition requirements are intended to obtain the lowest priced or best-
value items, and items listed on the FSS have already been determined by GSA to be fairly and
reasonably priced.178 However, ordering agencies may seek price reductions at any time,179 and
they are required to seek price reductions when (1) the goods or services are available at a lower
price or (2) they establish a BPA.180 Similarly, when ordering from fewer than the number of
schedule contractors required for orders of a specific type or amount, as indicated in Table 1, or

172 The underlying contract against which the orders are made, or the BPAs are issued, are generally not similarly
exempt.
173 48 C.F.R. § 8.404(a). The one exception to this rule is that agencies using the FSS must comply with the
requirements for issuance of unpriced purchase orders found in 48 C.F.R. § 13.302-2(c)(3).
174 It remains to be seen whether the regulations governing set-asides under multiple award contracts to be promulgated
under Section 1331 of the Small Business Jobs Act of 2010 will apply to FSS contracts. See P.L. 111-240, § 1331, 124
Stat. 2541 (Sept. 27, 2010). FSS contracts have traditionally been treated differently from other multiple-award
contracts where small business preferences are involved. See, e.g., 48 C.F.R. § 8.405-5(a) (stating that the “mandatory
preference programs of FAR Part 19 do not apply” to GSA orders).
175 48 C.F.R. § 8.404(a) (requiring compliance with 48 C.F.R. § 19.202-1(e)(1)(iii). “Contract bundling” involves
consolidating two or more requirements for supplies or services, previously provided or performed
under separate smaller contracts, into a solicitation for a single contract that is likely to be
unsuitable for award to a small business concern due to—(i) [t]he diversity, size, or specialized
nature of the elements of the performance specified; (ii) [t]he aggregate dollar value of the
anticipated award; (iii) [t]he geographical dispersion of the contract performance sites; or (iv) [a]ny
combination of the factors described in paragraphs (1)(i), (ii), and (iii) of this definition.
48 C.F.R. § 2.101.
176 48 C.F.R. § 8.404(a). There are goals for the percentage of federal contract dollars awarded to various categories of
small businesses by individual agencies and by the federal government as a whole. See 15 U.S.C. § 644(g)(1)-(2).
Small businesses are nonetheless arguably well represented in FSS purchases. It is estimated that 81% of all FSS
contracts were held by small businesses as of October 2006. Report of the Acquisition Advisory Panel, supra note 1, at
234.
177 48 C.F.R. § 8.405-6(a). The notice requirements are generally intended to support the competition requirements by
ensuring that potential competitors are aware of agencies’ proposed awards or awards and can submit bids or proposals
or protest awards. See, e.g., Competition in Contracting Act, supra note 166, at 2.
178 48 C.F.R. § 8.404(d). An agency’s decision to purchase from the FSS further indicates that it has concluded that the
purchase represents the best value and results in the lowest overall cost alternative to meet the government’s needs.
Additionally, BPAs and orders placed against FSS contracts are “considered to have been issued using full and open
competition.” 48 C.F.R. § 8.404(a).
179 48 C.F.R. § 8.404(a).
180 48 C.F.R. § 8.405-4.
Congressional Research Service
21

---

Interagency Contracting: An Overview of Federal Procurement and Appropriations Law

when using brand name specifications, agencies must provide justifications and approvals like
those required for noncompetitive awards.181 Additionally, with purchases wholly or partially
funded under the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA), agencies must post (1) pre-
award notices of proposed orders or BPAs in excess of $25,000 and (2) post-award notices.182
However, FSS purchases are subject to the general requirements concerning acquisition plans and
IT acquisition strategies, and they must comply with all statutes and regulations governing the
requesting agency’s acquisition of goods or services.183
“Open market items,” or items that are not on the FSS, may generally be included on orders or
BPAs with FSS items only when (1) all applicable regulations governing purchase of non-FSS
items have been complied with; (2) the contracting officer of the ordering activity has determined
that the price for the items is fair and reasonable; (3) the items are clearly labeled as non-FSS
items; and (4) the order includes all contract clauses applicable to non-FSS items.184
Expansion of the FSS to State and Local Governments
Congress has recently expanded use of the FSS by authorizing state and local governments to
purchase goods or services from it in certain circumstances. The E-Government Act of 2002 first
allowed state and local governments to purchase IT items from GSA’s “Schedule 70” or the
Consolidated Products and Services Schedule.185 Section 833 of the John Warner National
Defense Authorization Act for FY2007 later expanded the range of schedules that state and local
governments could use, authorizing them to use any Schedule to purchase goods or services to
facilitate recovery from terrorism; nuclear, biological, chemical, or radiological attacks; or major
disasters declared by the president.186 Then, the Local Preparedness Acquisition Act authorized
state and local government to purchase:
[a]larm and signal systems, facility management systems, firefighting and rescue equipment,
law enforcement and security equipment, marine craft and related equipment, special
purpose clothing, and related services (as contained in Federal supply classification code
group 84 or any amended or subsequent version of that Federal supply classification
group).187

181 48 C.F.R. § 8.405-6.
182 48 C.F.R. § 8.404(a). Orders under the FSS are otherwise generally exempt from such notice requirements. See id.
However, the Office of Management and Budget construed Sections 1526(c)(4) and 1554 of the ARRA as imposing
these requirements on FSS orders wholly or partially funded under the act. See Office of Mgmt. & Budget, Initial
Implementing Guidance for the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, Feb. 18, 2009, at § 6.2, available
at http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/assets/memoranda_fy2009/m09-10.pdf.
183 48 C.F.R. § 8.404(c)(1)-(3).
184 48 C.F.R. § 8.402(f)(1)-(4). However, the FSS may not be used for requirements that “substantially or to a dominant
extent” specify the performance of architect-engineer services. 48 C.F.R. § 8.403(c). When such services are involved,
agencies must instead follow the procedures outlined in 48 C.F.R. § 38.101(d).
185 P.L. 107-347, § 211, 116 Stat. 2939-40 (Dec. 17, 2002). Under GSA regulations implementing the E-Government
Act, a vendor’s sales to state and local governments under Schedule 70 do not trigger the “price reductions clause.” See
supra notes 152- 154 and accompanying text; Gen. Servs. Admin., Federal Supply Schedule Contracts: Acquisition of
Information Technology by State and Local Governments Through the Federal Supply Schedules, 69 Fed. Reg. 28063
(May 18, 2004).
186 P.L. 109-364, § 833, 120 Stat. 2332 (Oct. 17, 2006).
187 P.L. 110-248, § 2, 122 Stat. 2316 (June 26, 2008).
Congressional Research Service
22

---

Interagency Contracting: An Overview of Federal Procurement and Appropriations Law

Most recently, the 111th Congress authorized certain private entities to use the FSS under certain
circumstances.188
Franchise Funds and Interagency Assisting Entities Under the
Government Management Reform Act and Other Authorities
Section 403 of the Government Management Reform Act (GMRA) of 1994 authorized the
Director of the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), in consultation with certain
congressional committees, to establish franchise funds in six executive agencies on a pilot
basis.189 A franchise fund is “a type of intragovernmental revolving fund designed to compete
with similar funds of other agencies to provide common administrative services ... [such as]
accounting, financial management, information resources management, personnel, contracting,
payroll, security, and training.”190 The franchise funds created by GMRA were authorized to
provide “administrative support services,” including contracting services, to other agencies, in the
hope that centralized provision of these services would result in such services being “provided
more efficiently.”191 Congress envisioned that the funds would compete with one another to
provide their services192 and explicitly authorized them to charge fees for services and retain
funds to create an operating reserve.193 The various agencies that operate franchise funds under
the authority of GMRA or other statutes, including the Economy Act, are all known as
“interagency assisting entities,” although their operations differ somewhat because of their
different statutory bases.194
OMB designated the Environmental Protection Agency and the Departments of Commerce,
Veterans Affairs, Health and Human Services (HHS), Interior and Treasury as interagency
assisting entities for GMRA’s pilot program.195 This pilot program expired on October 1, 1999,196
but all funds other than those operated by HHS and Interior have apparently been granted
permanent authorization.197 In 2003, in what appears to be the most recent attempt to identify
extant federal revolving funds, the Government Accountability Office identified 25 other
interagency revolving funds,198 seven of which are authorized to charge and retain fees.

188 See Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2010, P.L. 111-117, § 516, 123 Stat. 3192 (Dec. 16, 2009) (authorizing “relief
and disaster assistance organizations,” as defined in Section 309 of the Stafford Act, to use the FSS to purchase goods
or services for use in preparing for, recovering from, or responding to natural disasters or accidental or “man-caused”
events); Omnibus Appropriations Act, 2009, P.L. 111-8, Title V, § 517, 123 Stat. 664 (Mar. 11, 2009) (same).
189 P.L. 103-356, § 403, 108 Stat. 3413-14 (Oct. 13, 1994) (codified at 31 U.S.C. § 3301 note).
190 Principles of Federal Appropriations Law, Volume III, at 12-102 (3d ed. 2008).
191 P.L. 103-356, at § 403(b).
192 Id.
193 Id. at § 403(c).
194 Report of the Acquisition Advisory Panel, supra note 1, at 236-37.
195 Id. at 237.
196 P.L. 103-356, § 403(f).
197 Cf. Report of the Acquisition Advisory Panel, supra note 1, at 237.
198 Gov’t Accountability Office, Budget Issues: Franchise Fund Pilot Review, GAO-03-1069 (Aug. 2003).
Congressional Research Service
23

---

Interagency Contracting: An Overview of Federal Procurement and Appropriations Law

The franchise funds can effectively allow agencies to retain funds beyond their appropriations
period in certain circumstances, a fact which has given rise to concern among some members of
Congress and commentators.199
Table 3. Comparison of Interagency Contracting Mechanisms
Goods or
Who May Enter
Procedures for
Contracting
Authorizing
Services
Underlying ID/IQ
Ordering Under
Fee-for
Mechanism
Statutes
Covered
Contract
ID/IQ Contract
Service?
Multi-agency
Economy Act
Any
Any agency
Ordering and servicing
No
contracts
of 1932;
agencies must authorize
specific
or approve orders
statutory
authorities
Government-
Clinger-Cohen
Information
Only designated
Agencies must obtain a
Yes
wide
Act of 1994
technology
“executive agents”
delegation of authority
acquisition
to order, or authorize
contracts
an executive agent to
order for them
Federal
Federal
Commercial
GSA or an agency
Agencies may place
Yes
Supply
Property and
items
delegated authority by
orders or enter BPAs
Schedules
Administrative
GSA
directly with vendors
(GSA
Services Act of
Schedules,
1949; Office of
Multiple
Federal
Award
Procurement
Schedules)
Policy Act of
1974
Interagency
Government
Administrative
n/a
n/a (procedures would
Possibly
assisting
Management
support
depend upon the
entities;
Reform Act of
services,
contracting vehicles
franchise
1994
including
used)
funds
contracting
services
Source: Congressional Research Service.
Combining Various Types of Interagency Contracts
Although the different types of interagency contracts are governed by different statutory
authorities, agencies can rely upon multiple types of interagency contracts in specific contracting
situations. Perhaps the best illustration of agencies’ ability to do this, and the potential risks of
doing so, is CACI International’s work for the Army in Iraq. Although CACI employees worked
for the Army as interrogators at Abu Ghraib, where they were allegedly involved in prisoner
abuse, the Army did not have a contract with CACI.200 Rather, the Army had a multi-agency
contract with the Department of the Interior, under which Interior agreed to perform contracting
services for the Army. The Interior Department fulfilled this contract, in part, by making orders

199 Report of the Acquisition Advisory Panel, supra note 1 at 241.
200 See, e.g., Gov’t Accountability Office, Problems with DOD’s and Interior’s Orders to Support Military Operations,
GAO-05-201 (Apr. 2005), available at http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d05201.pdf.
Congressional Research Service
24

---

Interagency Contracting: An Overview of Federal Procurement and Appropriations Law

against a FSS listing of vendors of information technology services. CACI was on this Schedule
because it had into an ID/IQ contract with the GSA.
Figure 1. Use of Interagency Contracting in Hiring Interrogators for Abu Ghraib

Source: Congressional Research Service.
Among the other problems in this particular contracting situation,201 the absence of a contract
directly between the Army and CACI effectively limited opportunities for the Army to manage
and oversee the work of CACI employees.202 In this complex situation, as well as in “simpler”
interagency contracting situations, the contracting officers generally work in one agency, while
the contracting officers’ representatives (CORs) and technical representatives (COTRs), who are
charged with overseeing performance of the contract work, work in another.203 This disjunction
between contracting officers and CORs or COTRs is far from the only such disjunction to arise
with interagency contracting. In fact, until fairly recently, the various interagency contracting
authorities generally allowed units within agencies that required goods or services to work
directly with contracting officers at other agencies, without even consulting contracting officers at
their own agencies.204

201 See, e.g., id. at 7-8 (noting that 10 of the 11 task orders that the Interior Department issued to CACI under the FSS
were outside the scope of the underlying ID/IQ contract between CACI and GSA). Out-of-scope orders are in violation
of the competition requirements, which require that agencies conduct a new solicitation for work not within the
statement of work of an existing ID/IQ contract.
202 Id. at 11-13.
203 See Report of the Acquisition Advisory Panel, supra note 1, at 230.
204 See, e.g., National Defense Authorization Act for FY2002, P.L. 107-107, § 801(b), 115 Stat. 1174-78 (Dec. 28,
2001) (requiring certain approvals from agency contracting officers before DOD components can acquire services
through contracts awarded by other agencies).
Congressional Research Service
25

---

Interagency Contracting: An Overview of Federal Procurement and Appropriations Law

Recent Developments
Interagency contracting has recently been “one of the fastest growing fields in federal
acquisition,” largely due to its ease and apparent value.205 Such growth, in itself, would probably
have drawn increased attention to interagency contracting. However, this growth has also been
coupled with highly publicized problems on particular interagency contracts, such as those
resulting in CACI employees working as interrogators at Abu Ghraib, as well as numerous
reported contracting or appropriations violations under interagency contracts generally.206 The
Government Accountability Office first listed interagency contracting as a “high risk” area in
2005 because, among other things, it results in a “much more complex [contracting] environment
in which accountability has not always been clearly established,”207 and interagency contracting
remained on GAO’s “high risk” list for DOD in 2009.208 The Acquisition Advisory Panel, created
under Section 1423 of the Services Acquisition Reform Act of 2003, similarly included
recommendations for improving interagency contracting in its 2007 report to Congress and the
Office of Federal Procurement Policy.209 Commentators have also expressed concerns about
whether the proliferation of interagency contracting vehicles offering similar goods or services
dilutes the government’s buying power, or imposes excessive demands upon contractors,
particularly small business contractors, which must incur the expenses associated with obtaining
eligibility for orders under multiple contracts.210

205 Report of the Acquisition Advisory Panel, supra note 1, at 225. Questions have, however, been raised about whether
agencies do obtain lower priced goods under interagency contracts. See, e.g., Gov’t Accountability Office, Interagency
Contracting: Improved Guidance, Planning, and Oversight Would Enable the Department of Homeland Security to
Address Risks, GAO-06-996 (Sept. 27, 2006).
206 See, e.g., Gov’t Accountability Office, Contract Management: Agencies Are Not Maximizing Opportunities for
Competition or Savings Under Blanket Purchase Agreements Despite Significance Increases in Usage, GAO-09-792
(Sept. 2009) (finding that agencies often failed to compete BPAs when establishing them, relied heavily on single-
award BPAs, did not compete orders under multiple-award BPAs, did not seek discounts when establishing BPAs or
obtain better pricing when placing orders, and failed to conduct required annual reviews of BPAs); Gov’t
Accountability Office, Interagency Contracting: Need for Improved Information and Policy Implementation at the
Department of State, GAO-08-578, at 3-4 (May 8, 2008) (finding that the State Department lacked “reliable
information” on the nature and extent of its interagency contracts and did not adequately provide for oversight of
contractor performance under interagency contracts); Dep’t of Def. Inspector General, Potential Antideficiency Act
Violations on DoD Purchases Made Through Non-DoD Agencies, D-2007-042, at ii (Jan. 2007) (noting 69 potential
violations of the Antideficiency Act in DOD’s interagency contracts between 2005 and 2006); Dep’t of Def. Inspector
General, DoD Purchases Made Through the General Services Administration, Report No. D-2205-096 (July 29, 2005)
(finding that 91% of the purchases lacked acquisition planning to determine that contracting though GSA was the best
alternative available; 98% of the interagency agreements failed to outline the terms and conditions of the purchases;
and 38% were inadequately funded).
207 GAO’s 2005 High-Risk Update, supra note 4, at 17.
208 DOD’s High-Risk Areas, supra note 5.
209 Report of the Acquisition Advisory Panel, supra note 1, at 251-57. Among other things, the Panel suggested that
“some of the most fundamental issues associated with interagency and enterprise-wide vehicles could be best addressed
by establishing more formal procedural requirements for initially establishing such vehicles and subsequently for
authorizing their continued use.” Id. at 222. In April 2008, an independent Multiple Awards Schedule Advisory
Committee was formed to examine the FSS. See MAS Advisory Panel, available at http://www.acquisition.gov/comp/
masap/index.html. The committee released its final report in February 2010, but the recommendations contained
therein have not yet been implemented. See infra notes 220-225 and accompanying text.
210 Report of the Acquisition Advisory Panel, supra note 1, at 247, 251. Intra-agency contracting vehicles, or internal
enterprise-wide purchasing programs for goods or services like those offered under the FSS or through other
interagency vehicles, could have similar effects and have also been proliferating. See Report of the Acquisition
Advisory Panel, supra note 1, at 220 (discussing the Naval Sea Command’s SeaPort-e program).
Congressional Research Service
26

---

Interagency Contracting: An Overview of Federal Procurement and Appropriations Law

Responding to such concerns and recommendations, Congress and federal agencies have recently
enacted or implemented numerous reforms to interagency contracting, as the following
Chronology illustrates.
Chronology of Recent Developments in Interagency Contracting
Oct. 2002
DOD promulgates a rule implementing Section 803 of P.L. 107-107 that requires certain approvals for
noncompetitive orders exceeding $100,000211 under multiple-award contracts, including FSS contracts.
The rule also requires that when DOD places orders for services valued at over $100,000 on FSS
contracts, notice must be provided to al FSS contractors providing the service, or as many as practicable
so as to ensure offers from at least three contractors. If written offers are not received from three
contractors, contracting officers must make a written determination that no additional contractors could
be identified despite reasonable attempts to do so.
July 2003
The Federal Acquisition Regulatory Council amends the Federal Acquisition Regulation to create a
“Governmentwide database of contracts and other procurement instruments intended for use by
multiple agencies.” All agencies must enter certain information into the database within ten days of the
award of a GWAC, multi-agency contract, FSS, or similar procurement instrument.
Oct. 2003
DOD promulgates a rule implementing Section 801(b) of P.L. 107-107 that requires DOD components
to obtain certain approvals before acquiring services through a contract or order awarded by an agency
other than DOD.
July 2004
The Federal Acquisition Regulation is amended to make clear that a contracting officer placing an order
against the FSS on behalf of another agency is responsible for complying with that agency’s procurement
statutes and regulations.
Oct. 2004
Section 854 of the Ronald W. Reagan National Defense Authorization Act for FY2005 prohibits DOD
from procuring goods or services through a contract or task order valued at more than $100,000 under
an interagency contract unless DOD: (1) determines that an interagency contract is in its best interests
given customer requirements, schedule, cost effectiveness, and contract administration; (2) determines
that the goods or services to be acquired are within the scope of the contract to be used; (3) ensures
that funding complies with appropriation limitations; (4) ensures that the contract complies with all
statutes, regulations and other requirements applicable to DOD; and (5) col ects data on the use of
assisted acquisitions for subsequent analysis.
Nov. 2005
The Office of Federal Procurement Policy establishes the Interagency Acquisition Working Group.
Feb. 2006
The Office of Federal Procurement Policy initiates an effort to identify the number and scope of
interagency contracts and collect other information related to interagency acquisitions.
Oct. 2006
DOD implements a policy requiring that all orders in excess of $500,000 made under interagency
contracts that are not under the authority of the Economy Act be reviewed by DOD contracting officials
before they are sent to the non-DOD agency.212
Jan. 2008
Section 801of the National Defense Authorization Act for FY2008 general y prohibits DOD from placing
an order in excess of $100,000 through a non-defense agency unless the head of that agency certifies the
agency will comply with the defense procurement requirements for that year or other conditions are
met. Section 801 also requires DOD to promulgate regulations specifying (1) the circumstances in which
it is appropriate for DOD to use direct or assisted acquisitions; (2) the circumstances in which DOD
may use interagency contracts to acquire items unique to DOD or items already being provided under a
DOD contract; (3) the tools contracting officers should use to determine whether items are already
being provided under a DOD contract; and (4) the procedures for ensuring that DOD requirements are
adequately identified and communicated to other agencies involved in interagency contracting.213

211 The values contained in this chronology are those given in the statute as it was enacted. They do not reflect any
subsequent adjustments made for inflation.
212 See Under Sec. of Def., Non-Economy Act Orders: Memorandum for the Secretaries of the Military Departments,
Oct. 16, 2006, available at http://www.aqd.nbc.gov/docs/NonEconomyAct.pdf.
213 The final rule implementing Section 801 was promulgated on February 11, 2010. See Dep’t of Defense, Defense
(continued...)
Congressional Research Service
27

---

Interagency Contracting: An Overview of Federal Procurement and Appropriations Law

April 2008
Multiple Award Schedules Program Advisory Panel is created to review the FSS’s pricing policies, among
other things.214
June 2008
The Office of Federal Procurement Policy (OFPP) issues guidance requiring agencies to (1) make “best
interest determinations” in support of their decisions to use interagency contracting; (2) use model
interagency agreements or otherwise ensure that certain elements are present in any interagency
agreement; and (3) identify the roles and responsibilities involved in particular interagency acquisitions.215
Oct. 2008
Section 865 of the Duncan Hunter National Defense Authorization Act for FY2009 requires that (1) al
interagency acquisitions include written agreements between the requesting and servicing agencies
assigning responsibility for contract administration and management, determinations that an interagency
acquisition is the best procurement alternative, and sufficient information to ensure an adequate audit
and (2) all multi-agency contracts be supported by a business case analysis detailing the administration of
the contract, including an analysis of all direct and indirect costs of awarding and administering the
contract and the impact of the contract on the federal government’s ability to leverage its purchasing
power. Additional y, the Director of the Office of Management and Budget is to submit a comprehensive
report to Congress on interagency acquisitions and issue guidelines addressing procedures for the use of
interagency acquisitions; categories of work inappropriate for interagency acquisition; and requirements
for training acquisition workforce personnel in the proper use of interagency acquisitions.216
July 2009
The Civilian Agency Acquisition Council and the Defense Acquisition Regulations Council (Councils)
amend the FAR to require that agencies provide evaluations of past performance for orders exceeding
$100,000 placed against FSS contracts or against multi-agency contracts or GWACs, among other things.
Legislative Initiatives
The 111th Congress expanded upon some of these initiatives, holding hearings on several issues
related to interagency contracting,217 and enacting or proposing additional legislation that
addressed interagency contracting (e.g., P.L. 111-5, P.L. 111-8, P.L. 111-117, P.L. 111-263).218

(...continued)
Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement: Limitation on Procurements on Behalf of DOD, 75 Fed. Reg. 6819 (Feb.
11, 2010). Previously, on May 26, 2009, Defense Procurement and Acquisition Policy Director Shay Assad indicated
that the Central Intelligence Agency is not authorized to purchase property or services costing over $100,000 for DOD
in FY2009 because of its inability to certify compliance with DOD procurement requirements as required under Section
801. See DOD Bars Procurements Through CIA Valued in Excess of $100,000, 91 Fed. Cont. Rep. 435 (May 26,
2009).
214 In February 2010, the group issued its final report. See infra notes 220-225 and accompanying text.
215 See, e.g., OFPP Issues New Guidance, Mandates on Interagency Acquisition Use, Management, 89 Fed. Cont. Rep.
640 (June 17, 2008).
216 These requirements do not appear to have been implemented to date.
217 The House Oversight and Government Reform Committee held a hearing on May 20, 2010, to discuss the transition
of telecommunications services from one GWAC contract (FTS 2001) to another (Networx). The Ad Hoc
Subcommittee on Contracting Oversight of the Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs
also held two hearings on interagency contracting, one on February 25, 2010, and the other on June 30, 2010. The first
of these hearings examined the “benefits and shortcomings” of interagency contracting, as well as the impact of
interagency contracting on competition, while the second focused on the “need for increased transparency, oversight,
and other potential reforms” in interagency contracting.
218 Among the legislation proposed, but not enacted, was the following: Department of Veterans Affairs Acquisitions
Improvement Act, H.R. 4221 (requiring the Department of Veterans Affairs to acquire certain “health care items” by
using particular FSS Schedules or contracts awarded by the National Acquisition Center and approved by the
department); Enhanced Oversight of State and Local Economic Recovery Act, H.R. 2182 (authorizing state and local
governments to use the FSS when purchasing products or services wholly or partially funded under ARRA); Federal
Agency Energy Efficiency Improvement Act, S. 1830 (allowing state and local governments to use the FSS to acquire
“environmentally preferable ‘green’” products and services); Information Technology Investment Oversight
Enhancement and Waste Prevention Act, S. 920 (allowing the E-Gov Administrator, in conjunction with the
Administrator of GSA, to establish competitively bid contracts with one or more qualified consultants independent of
(continued...)
Congressional Research Service
28

---

Interagency Contracting: An Overview of Federal Procurement and Appropriations Law

Members of the 112th Congress may take similar actions if concerns about interagency
contracting persist.
Executive Branch Initiatives
The executive branch is also considering certain changes in interagency contracting as a result of
the February 2010 issuance of the final report of the Multiple Award Schedule Advisory Panel.219
The panel, which was established during the Bush Administration, has called for significant
changes to the terms and usage of FSS contracts, including
• elimination of the price reduction clause from FSS contracts,220 coupled with a
requirement that all agencies “compete” their FSS orders by either soliciting all
contractors holding the contract and receiving offers or quotes from at least three
qualified contractors or explaining why they did not solicit the requisite number
of contractors and receive the requisite number of offers;221
• taking steps to ensure fair and reasonable pricing at the order-level, as opposed to
the contract-level, which is the focus of the current clauses regarding price
reasonableness;222
• disclosure of the basis upon which GSA determined that the prices for certain
contracts are “fair and reasonable,” as well as the terms and conditions of FSS
contracts, to contracting officers in other agencies placing orders under the
contract;223
• exploring ordering on a cost-reimbursement basis for service contracts, while
ensuring that certain other contracts are firm-fixed-priced and performance-
based;224 and
• reviewing the length of FSS contracts, which can currently last for up to 20 years
with the exercise of options, and ensuring that contracts are used in ways that are

(...continued)
any GSA schedule); Veterans Small Business Opportunities Act, H.R. 2415 (requiring the Department of Veterans
Affairs and other federal agencies use FSS purchases to meet the government-wide goal for contracting with service-
disabled veteran-owned small businesses).
219 See Multiple Award Schedule Advisory Panel Final Report, Feb. 2010, available at https://www.acquisition.gov/
comp/masap/documents/MAS_Panel_Final_Report_Signatures.pdf.
220 Id. at 12. Groups such as the American Bar Association Section of Public Contract Law and the Coalition for
Government Procurement have long advocated modifications to or even removal of the “price reductions clause” on the
grounds that it is “unworkable,” “unfair,” and not the sort of clause generally found in contracts for commercial items.
See, e.g., Bar and Contractor Groups Urge GSA to Change Price Reductions Clause, 85 Fed. Cont. Rep. 475 (May 2,
2006).
221 Multiple Award Schedule Advisory Panel Final Report, supra note 219, at 12-13. Section 803 of the National
Defense Authorization Act for FY2002 imposed these requirements upon the orders of defense agencies, while Section
863 of the National Defense Authorization Act for FY2008 extended them to civilian agencies. The requirements for
defense agencies, in particular, have been interpreted at applying to orders under FSS contracts.
222 Id. at 15-17.
223 Id. at 17-18.
224 Id. at 19.
Congressional Research Service
29

---

Interagency Contracting: An Overview of Federal Procurement and Appropriations Law

consistent with the goods or services and pricing that formed the basis for the
award.225
It remains to be seen whether these recommendations are implemented. The recommendations
concerning the “price reductions clause,” in particular, have generated significant opposition from
agency inspectors general, who are concerned that removal of the clause could limit their ability
… to review contractor performance and to identify sums that should be returned to the
government as a result of: 1) mispricing at the time of initial contract award; or 2) failure to
reduce pricing to the government during contract performance when the contractor had
reduced its pricings to the basis of award customers.226
There have also been reports that GSA is seeking to become the sole provider of GWACs,
removing other agencies from this role.227 It is unclear, however, whether GSA’s reported
opposition to reauthorization of the National Institute of Health’s GWAC authority is part of a
broader program to remove GWAC authority from other agencies that currently have it.

Author Contact Information

Kate M. Manuel
Brian T. Yeh
Legislative Attorney
Legislative Attorney
kmanuel@crs.loc.gov, 7-4477
byeh@crs.loc.gov, 7-5182

Acknowledgments
CRS Legislative Attorney Carol J. Toland contributed to an earlier version of this report.


225 Id. at 21. For example, the GSA Inspector General recently reported that certain orders for acquisition management
support services were outside the scope of the FSS contract under which they were placed. See Review of the Use of
Multiple Award Schedule Contracts for Acquisition Management Support Services (No. A090018/Q/A/P10009), Aug.
17, 2010, available at http://www.gsaig.gov/auditreports/reports/A090018_1.pdf.
226 Multiple Award Schedule Advisory Panel Final Report, supra note 219, at 12. See also Matthew Weigelt, MAS
Panel Recommendation Meets IG Resistance, Wash. Tech., May 1, 2009, available at
http://www.washingtontechnology.com/Articles/2009/05/01/web-GSA-IG-MAS-panel.aspx (describing initial
opposition to this proposal from GSA’s inspector general). The Federal Supply Schedules are generally limited to
commercial items and services. See supra note 149.
227 See, e.g., Matthew Weigelt, GSA Could be Trying to Kill Rival Agency Contract, Wash. Tech., Apr. 1, 2010,
available at http://washingtontechnology.com/articles/2010/04/01/gsa-nih-gwacs.aspx (reporting that the GSA’s
GWAC director sought to get the Office of Federal Procurement Policy at OMB to strip the National Institutes of
Health of GWAC authority); Matthew Weigelt, NIH Prepares to Fight for Contract Authority, Wash. Tech., Apr. 8,
2010, available at http://washingtontechnology.com/articles/2010/04/08/fraier-talks-nitaac-gwac-renewal.aspx.
Congressional Research Service
30

---