The Costs of Contract Duplication

Why It Matters

Contract duplication drives up costs and delays mission delivery, eroding taxpayer value and creating barriers for small businesses. Addressing the overlap aligns federal procurement with efficiency goals mandated by executive policy.

Key Takeaways

• MAPS duplicates existing vehicles such as FSS, Polaris, OASIS+, Alliant
• Duplicate contracts cost firms hundreds of thousands, collectively millions, in bid expenses
• Redundant procurement delays mission delivery and wastes taxpayer dollars
• Leveraging existing contracts aligns with EO 14240 to cut waste
• Coalition’s new survey aims to quantify duplication costs for reform

Pulse Analysis

The federal acquisition landscape is undergoing a major overhaul under the Revolutionary Federal Acquisition Regulation (RFO), yet the Army’s MAPS initiative illustrates how legacy practices can undermine reform. By recreating contract vehicles already covered by the Federal Supply Schedule, Polaris, OASIS+ and Alliant, MAPS adds a layer of redundancy that forces contractors to re‑submit proposals, inflating costs without delivering new capabilities. This duplication not only burdens suppliers but also stalls the government’s ability to meet urgent operational needs.

Financially, the impact is stark. Large contractors report bid and proposal expenditures in the high‑hundreds of thousands, while the aggregate expense across all participants climbs into the multi‑million‑dollar range. Small businesses, which operate with tighter cash flows, feel the pinch even more acutely, potentially deterring them from pursuing federal work. From the taxpayer’s perspective, the duplicated procurement process consumes resources that could otherwise be allocated to mission‑critical projects, directly contravening the intent of Executive Order 14240, which mandates the elimination of wasteful spending.

Industry advocates, led by the Coalition for Common Sense in Government Procurement, are pushing back with data‑driven solutions. Their upcoming Contract Duplication Survey, timed with the Spring Training Conference, seeks to capture precise cost metrics and highlight inefficiencies. By quantifying the financial toll, the Coalition aims to persuade agencies to leverage existing contracts, streamline award timelines, and foster a more competitive environment. If adopted, these measures could restore efficiency, lower costs, and reinforce the federal market’s accessibility for both established and emerging firms.