Last week, the Schedule 84 Suppliers Research Panel participated in reviewing the 2018 contracting year with the GSA Schedule 84 leadership team. Our panel group consists of experienced contractors and consultants meeting for a monthly conference call. Schedule 84 is the GSA Schedules Contract for Total Solutions for Law Enforcement, Security, Facilities Management, Fire and Rescue.

Our opinions are part of a research programme to provide valuable feedback to the GSA Schedule 84 programme and on to the GSA central office. The director of GSA Region 7 Schedules Program, the Schedule 84 Branch Chief and the Category Manager Subject Matter Expert who manages our suppliers' panel gave us their full attention as we discussed the successes of the programme, hot topics, problems and the future.

We determined 2018 under the Schedule 84 team to be a year of innovative thoughts, cooperative effort and renewed enthusiasm

Innovative review team

We determined 2018 under the Schedule 84 team to be a year of innovative thoughts, cooperative effort, renewed enthusiasm and productive changes building upon the successes of 2017.

There was high praise for the accessibility to the Schedule 84 staff. Their consistent quick response to questions and concerns, thinking outside the box and supporting the programme by partnering with their contractors was much appreciated. There has been a renewed spirit of partnering to cooperatively bring the best to agency customers. It seems to be working as per the Centre Director sales are growing for GSA Schedule 84.

Advocating for the security industry

In my experience, business development starts with the Administrator from Region 7 in Ft. Worth, TX. As the annual Schedule 84 Industry Day at the SSAC begins he is shaking every hand and passing out his cards looking folks right in the eye asking, “how can I help you?” They have the best practices and most organised paperwork. The SSAC director has chosen well in her staff and is hands-on in every endeavour to direct things along when challenges occur or to improve the programme.

The new 84 Branch Chief is knowledgeable, innovative, tireless and has been heavily involved in advocating for the security industry

It continues with the centre’s CASE Manager encouraging the contractors at events, visiting agency customers and promoting the GSA Schedules Program by helping coordinate the partnering. The new 84 Branch Chief is knowledgeable, innovative, tireless and has been heavily involved in advocating for the security industry for adding new technology, meeting with industry associations, understanding the complexity and challenges of Homeland Security Presidential Directive 12 (HSPD12) and advocating for the purchasing Physical Access Control Systems (PACS) utilising the appropriate standards and the GSA Program among other innovations. As far as the supplier panel, we gave our GSA Schedule 84 team and leaders high praise for 2018.

government procurement for GSA
GSA also added new categories or SINs for clearly identifying Physical Access Control Products that appear on GSA’s Approved Product List

Changes in the GSA programme

Some changes this year in certain GSA programmes included the creation of a new category of products/services Special Item Number (SIN) for Order Level Materials (OLM) developed to assist with solution procurements. This new SIN was added to Schedules 03FAC, 56, 70, 71, 00Corp, 738X and 84. Under Schedule 84 it is SIN 84-500.

GSA Schedule 84 consolidated many Special Items Numbers (SINs) to make finding products and services less complex

Essentially this SIN allows agencies procuring under the aforementioned GSA Schedules’ programmes to purchase and the contractor to add items and services not known prior to the task as a Contract Line Item Number (CLIN) not to exceed 33% of the order. For more information and FAQs on OLMs go to www.gsa.gov/olm. This is not to take the place of “Open Market” items for adding products only that are not listed on a company’s GSA Contract.

Physical access control products

Previously, GSA Schedule 84 consolidated many Special Items Numbers (SINs) to make finding products and services less complex for the agencies. GSA also added new categories or SINs for clearly identifying Physical Access Control Products that appear on GSA’s Approved Product List according to the standards created under FIPS201. These products appear under SIN 246 35-7 after being tested and approved by GSA. To be qualified to install these products under the GSA Program at least one individual from the GSA Contractor company must complete the class and be CSEIP certified before applying for labour SIN 246 60-5.

Additionally, the company must demonstrate certain qualifications and have past performance for this type of work. The Security Technology Alliance offers the training class and certification. Certified individuals and approved products are listed at www.idmanagement.gov. Companies listed with SIN 246-35 7 and SIN 246-60 5 may be found by searching at www.gsaelibrary.gsa.gov.

Updates to guidance for procurement

Updates to guidance for procurement of PACS will continue to be posted to the GSA PACS Ordering Guide

Updates to guidance for procurement of PACS will continue to be posted to the GSA PACS Ordering Guide. The ordering guide posted at www.gsa.gov/firesecurity is a valuable support tool created to assist agencies with understanding the requirements of FIPS201 and procuring a PACS. The guide includes relevant regulations, FAQs, sample systems designs, sample statements of work, a list of key points of contract for additional help and questions.

In partnership with GSA and guided by the GSA Ombudsman group, the Security Industry Association and the Security Technology Alliance members and their contractor companies participated in a GSA Reverse Industry PACS Training Day on September 17, 2018. We presented from an industry perspective important fact on PACS system requirements, procurement planning, providing information on resources and further educating with panel discussions, individual presentations and amusing skits to over 300 Government agency staff and acquisition specialists. You can find some of the unedited recording of the PACS Reverse Industry Day Training on YouTube.

The GSA Schedules Program is a streamlined contracting vehicle incorporating specific Federal Acquisition Regulations for more efficiently purchasing commercial items
Some changes included the creation of a new category of products/services Special Item Number (SIN) for Order Level Materials (OLM) 

GSA Schedules Program

A hot topic about the GSA programme for 2018 was also an issue for the prior year. The GSA Schedules Program is a streamlined contracting vehicle incorporating specific Federal Acquisition Regulations for more efficiently purchasing commercial items. Companies may apply per a continuous open season for a 5-year contract with three 5-year options to renew. Contractors are vetted for past performance, corporate experience and financial capability. Products and services are considered for offering to Federal, State and Local customers (for Schedule 84) with pricing that is determined to be fair and reasonable through negotiations with GSA.

To make the determination for fair and reasonable pricing GSA carefully reviews the commercial practices of the contractor

To make the determination for fair and reasonable pricing GSA carefully reviews the commercial practices of the contractor as well as the competition of identical or similar item pricing. The most vocal complaint of concern from the contractors was regarding the consideration of competitor contractors offering identical items with out-of-date pricing or holding a Letter of Supply not authorised by the manufacturer.

GSA pricing tool

Since the GSA utilises a pricing tool to determine if the pricing offered is competitive, a rogue competitor can cause a pricing action to possibly be rejected due to out of date information even as the manufacturer offers an update of the product. This is an issue on all GSA Contracts that the supplier panel hopes will be reconsidered by GSA policymakers at the central office.

Most of us believe the Letters of Supply should only be issued by the manufacturer or with documented specific permission of the manufacturer to a reseller. Manufacturers may want to have a better understanding of the Letter of Supply, how it is considered by GSA and more carefully choose their Government partners for experience and compliance.

letter of supply GSA
Another challenge for the security community is regarding the lack of accessibility of participating dealers to GSA eBuy

Overcoming challenges for the security community

Contractors may only see RFQs which are posted under the Special items Number(s) that were awarded to their GSA Contract

Another challenge for the security community is regarding the lack of accessibility of participating dealers to GSA eBuy. GSA eBuy is an online Request for Quotation (RFQ) programme that is for GSA Contract holders only. Agencies will post their requirements by Special Item Number for at a minimum 48 hours.

Contractors may only see RFQs which are posted under the Special items Number(s) that were awarded to their GSA Contract. GSA Participating Dealers may take orders on behalf of a manufacturer if they are authorised under the manufacturer’s GSA Contract. They may also have an online PO Portal to receive orders. But they have no access to GSA eBuy to response to RFQs. Usually, under these arrangements, the manufacturers do not respond directly, so there is a problem using GSA eBuy for opportunities as their GSA Participating Dealers have no access to respond.

GSA Schedule 84 leadership

In some instances, a contracting officer may allow an emailed quotation. However, with the use of the electronic ordering system, this has become a common problem we hope to bring to the attention of policymakers. Some changes to the programmes may make the presentation of documentation more effective going forwardThe GSA Schedule 84 leadership has been helpful to explain the challenges to the agencies to try and resolve such issues.

So, what’s up for 2019? GSA modernisation is coming. There will be improvements to their tools and more consolidations of SINs and more. There have been discussions of a revival of the GSA Expo. The Expo offered training for contracting staff both Government and private industry.

Valuable tools for vendor training

Equally important is the networking, meetings and the exhibits of the contractors. Expos have been discontinued since 2012 but smaller events have been growing as well as online webinar training. Webinars are valuable tools for GSA and vendor training, but they do not take the place of being able to meet your customers face-to-face. GSA online eOffer and eMod programme have made processing actions more efficient.

Some changes to the programmes may make the presentation of documentation more effective going forward. The GSA online website for viewing the items on the GSA Contract and for purchasing items, GSA Advantage could definitely use an update as it has been basically the same for 20 years. Keep an eye on GSA Interact for the latest happenings with GSA.

Share with LinkedIn Share with Twitter Share with Facebook Share with Facebook
Download PDF version

Author profile

In case you missed it

What is the biggest change in the security industry since 2010?
What is the biggest change in the security industry since 2010?

Ten years is a long time, but it seems to pass in an instant in the world of security. In terms of technology, 2010 is ages ago. Changes in the market have been transformative during that decade, and we called on our Expert Panel Roundtable to highlight some of those changes. We asked this week’s panelists: What was the biggest change in the security industry in the 2010-2019 decade?  

SIA composing code of conduct for U.K. private security, seeking comments
SIA composing code of conduct for U.K. private security, seeking comments

The Private Security Industry Act of 2001 gives the Security Industry Authority (SIA) the function of setting standards of conduct in the United Kingdom’s private security industry. Time is winding down to provide input during the SIA’s six-week consultation on a new draft code of conduct for SIA licence holders and applicants for SIA licences. The authority is inviting the industry, licence holders, and anyone with an interest in private security to have their say on the draft code of conduct by taking part in a survey. The consultation will end on 23 February.   “The ethos of the code of conduct is that it will improve standards and public safety by setting out the standards of conduct and behaviour we expect people to uphold if they are entrusted with protecting the public, premises and property,” says Ian Todd, Chief Executive, Security Industry Authority (SIA). Security's Code of Conduct A code of conduct sets out what standards of behaviour professionals have to meet in order to work in the profession In security as in many professions, a code of conduct sets out what standards of behaviour professionals have to meet in order to work in the profession. SIA is suggesting Six Commitments of behaviour that will apply to all licensed security operatives and to applicants. If the code of conduct is sanctioned by the U.K. Home Office, it would become mandatory and incorporated into SIA’s licensing criteria Get Licensed. A commitment to certain standards of behaviour is fundamental to what it means to be fit and proper, and to being part of a profession. The six commitments are: Act with honesty and integrity Be trustworthy Protect the people and property you are entrusted to protect Be professional at work Act with fairness and impartiality at work Be accountable for your decisions and actions “We will review the comments from the consultation once it concludes on 23 February, analyse the results and publish a report on our findings,” says Todd. “The SIA will then use the comments it has received to write a final version of the code of conduct. The introduction of a code of conduct will be subject to final approval by Home Office Ministers.” SIA’s current Standards of Behaviour provide guidance on professional behaviour but are not mandatory. The draft code of conduct builds on the Standards of Behaviour. Upholding SIA's Standards The SIA’s Partnership and Interventions team is the unit that enforces the Private Security Industry Act “The majority of licence holders uphold the standards of behaviour that the SIA, their employers and the public expect of them,” says Todd. “Their professionalism and dedication keep the public safe and tackle crime. However, there are incidents in which some licence holders do not behave in this way. This minority lower the standard of service the public receives, harm public safety, and bring themselves and the rest of the private security industry into disrepute.” The SIA’s Partnership and Interventions team is the unit that enforces the Private Security Industry Act. It is likely that they will be required to enforce the code of conduct should it become mandatory. The draft code of conduct is currently out for consultation and the proposal has been shared widely to licence holders, private security businesses, and enforcement partners encouraging them all to take part. “Once the consultation has concluded, we will analyse the findings from the feedback, produce a report and publish it on our website and share this widely via social media,” says Todd.

Satisfaction criteria differ for DIY vs. pro-install companies, says J.D. Power
Satisfaction criteria differ for DIY vs. pro-install companies, says J.D. Power

J.D. Power is a well-known name when it comes to measuring customer satisfaction, and they have been measuring satisfaction in the home security industry since 2016. Changes affecting the marketplace – both in terms of disruptors and technology – make this a unique time. For example, in 2019, J.D. Power expanded the Home Security Satisfaction Study to not only measure the traditional pro-install/pro-monitor companies, but to separately evaluate self-install/pro-monitor brands.  “At J.D. Power our rankings are meant to support an industry in two key ways,” says Christina Cooley, J.D. Power's Director, @Home Intelligence. “First, we provide consumers who are shopping for products and services with a ‘report card’ of who provides customers with high levels of customer satisfaction. Second, we provide companies with actionable insights to help them prioritise their initiatives to improve and maintain high levels of customers satisfaction that drive loyalty and growth.” Differentiating between companies The traditional Pro-Install/Pro-Monitor companies are challenged to differentiate from one another In home security, J.D. Power is in a unique position to report on the changes taking place in the evolving industry. The 2019 rankings show that the traditional Pro-Install/Pro-Monitor companies are challenged to differentiate from one another, as each have their individual strengths and opportunities, but overall the score range is relatively tight. On the do-it-yourself (DIY) side, there is more differentiation. A set of brands has been able to challenge the traditional industry by achieving extremely high customer satisfaction levels. Price is always an important factor that impacts customer satisfaction, whether for security or another market J.D. Power serves. The equation is simple, says Cooley: does the price paid equal the value the customer feels they have received from the product or service? “For Home Security, we didn’t specifically look at price until this year,” says Cooley. “With the changes that have occurred in the market, price can be a differentiator as we’ve seen with the emergence of DIY-installed systems. However, lower pricing does not have a direct relationship to quality of service.” The price factor For example, there are some higher-priced pro-installed brands that perform lower on customer satisfaction than lower-priced competitors. And DIY-installed systems as a whole are less expensive, and price is the customer satisfaction driver in which the DIY segment most outperforms the pro segment. Price is the customer satisfaction driver in which the DIY segment most outperforms the pro segment The equation is: performance minus Expectations equals Customer Satisfaction. “Obviously, price point will be a factor in the purchase decision and the expectations the customer has about the product and service,” says Cooley. “Any pro or DIY system has the opportunity to differentiate the customer experience regardless of price point.” There are clear differences in the pro vs. DIY experience, which is why J.D. Power evaluates the brands in separate rankings. However, Cooley says the drivers of satisfaction are consistent across both groups. The key to each group goes back to the equation above.  Evaluating the purchase process For the both pro and DIY companies, J.D. Power evaluates the purchase process the same. Though the customer may take a different path to purchase based on the offering they seek, the drivers are still the same: Usefulness of information provided Reasonableness of contract terms Professionalism of sales representative Ease of purchasing home security system. For installation, there are clear differences. DIY systems are evaluated based on: Ease of completing installation Quality of installation instructions provided Timeliness of receiving home security system. Pro systems are evaluated based on: Professionalism of technician Timeliness of completing installation Quality of work performed. Interestingly, purchase and installation are the customer satisfaction driver where both pro and DIY providers (as a whole) are most closely aligned on performance. Customer loyalty The price a customer is paying must align with the quality of the system they receive What drives a customer to purchase a home security system initially will often be very different than what will keep them as a loyal customer, Cooley notes. The price a customer is paying must align with the quality of the system they receive, and the service provided through the professional monitoring and customer service. “With the expansion of home security offerings, it’s more important than ever for home security companies to understand the motivations, intentions, and usage patterns across different customer segments to ensure that regardless of the decision to go pro or DIY-install, they are able to meet their customers’ needs and differentiate in the very competitive market. The J.D. Power Home Security Study provides these actionable insights.” The study is focused on the companies/brands that comprise the top two-thirds of market share in each segment, pro and DIY installed. A number of the brands included may work with local dealers or retailers for sales and install, but the customer is essentially evaluating those services as part of the system purchased. It is one and the same from the customer’s perspective, and the sales/install process can either delight or frustrate a customer from the beginning, which can then set the foundation for the entire experience moving forward. Reasons for shopping for a security system tend to differ between pro and DIY shoppers: Both sets are most focused on wanting a newer, more up-to-date system Between the two, pro customers are more often moving into a new home or wanting to take advantage of a discount or bundling opportunity with other products For DIY customers, they are shopping for a system to give them more peace of mind and to protect their property. Reasons for selecting the provider also vary: A pro company is often selected based on brand reputation or a special offer/promo A DIY company is primarily chosen based on price or a positive review. In terms of brand image, we see that customers see both pro and DIY providers similarly in terms of reliability. However, when it comes to being customer-driven, DIY providers receive higher image ratings compared to pro-installed companies.