Saw your reply, and you are correct re: GSA support activities.

Here's more to think about....

The PDSG offering may not be a fully comprehensive system, i.e., probably more a component or set of components for integration into a larger, fully comprehensive overall system. Now you have to consider how the USG typically procures. They typically select a prime contractor/system integrator to put the whole package together, and they subcontract for the necessary pieces to be included. Perhaps the effort here has to do with methods of soliciting interest and awareness of what PDSG has to offer with prime contractors (e.g., Lockheed-Martin, Raytheon, Boeing, etc.). As an example, I KNOW that Ratheon subs all communications support activities to CSC. So how will PDSG get the attention of CSC and other support organizations in the communications world? Strategy required....

Having said the above, having worked for 4 prime contractors - only one located on a military base - only that one was eligible for use of GSA as a supplier (and this is stipulated in contract, and they supplied vehicles, facilities, office supplies and "common minor material"). This I KNOW, as at that time I was a Sr. Logistics Specialist and head of Logistics Operations Controls. The bulk of the military industrial complex is not located on USG facilities. They do often have a "presence" on base, but typically the majority of the work/production is done at contractor/subcontractor facilities. Example: Vandenberg AFB has well over 50 contractors with a presence on the base, but very little work/production is done using base facilities.

Another barrier they may be trying to breach is USG Source Selection criteria. For many years the primary criterion for source selection was price/cost (raising the concern of "just think, our weapon/space systems were built by the cheapest supplier"). In the mid-1990s, there was a shift (to sanity) to where the number one criterion became "past performance". While price/cost still ranked second among the criteria, the primary consideration became "how'd these guys do on prior contracts - did we experience massive overruns, late deliveries, quality problems, etc.?". While, as a tax-payer, I applauded this shift (to avoid waste), I can easily see where this shift would present problems for new contractors trying to break into the business (as a prime contractor), or even existing prime contractors offering a new product line. This seems as though it would be a difficult hurdle having no or little past experience for the USG to consider. Strategy required....

Thus, there are many possible reasons for bringing in a knowledgable consultant. And it just seems to me to be counter-intuitive to sell off a possible source of predictable income, when that has apparently been the objective to augment unpredictable MMP income.

Also consider the timing... NOW is the time to get into action when considering the bulk of USG funds for such endeavors is just rolling out, with a supposed surge in the fall (actually, they may be a bit behind the curve).

JMHOs FWIW,

SGE - sliding back into occasional lurk mode