The federal government is preparing to undertake one of the most ambitious IT transformations in decades: Modernizing and unifying human resources information technology across agencies. The technology itself is not the greatest challenge. Instead, success will hinge on the government’s ability to establish an effective, authoritative and disciplined governance structure capable of making informed, timely and sometimes difficult decisions.
The central tension is clear: Agencies legitimately need flexibility to execute mission-specific processes, yet the government must reduce fragmentation, redundancy and cost by standardizing and adopting commercial best practices. Historically, each agency has evolved idiosyncratic HR processes — even for identical functions — resulting in one of the most complex HR ecosystems in the world.
We need a governance framework that can break this cycle. It has to be a structured requirements-evaluation process, a systematic approach to modernizing outdated statutory constraints, and a rigorous mechanism to prevent “corner cases” from derailing modernization. The framework is based on a three-tiered governance structure to enable accountability, enforce standards, manage risk and accelerate decision making.
The governance imperative in HR IT modernization
Modernizing HR IT across the federal government requires rethinking more than just systems — it requires rethinking decision making. Technology will only succeed if governance promotes standardization, manages statutory and regulatory constraints intelligently, and prevents scope creep driven by individual agency preferences.
Absent strong governance, modernization will devolve into a high-cost, multi-point, agency-to-vendor negotiation where each agency advocates for its “unique” variations. Commercial vendors, who find arguing with or disappointing their customers to be fruitless and counterproductive, will ultimately optimize toward additional scope, higher complexity and extended timelines — that is, unless the government owns the decision framework.
Why governance is the central challenge
The root causes of this central challenge are structural. Agencies with different missions evolved different HR processes — even for identical tasks such as onboarding, payroll events or personnel actions. Many “requirements” cited today are actually legacy practices, outdated rules or agency preferences. And statutes and regulations are often more flexible than assumed, but in order to avoid any risk of perceived noncompliance or litigation.
Without centralized authority, modernization will replicate fragmentation in a new system rather than reduce it. Governance must therefore act as the strategic filter that determines what is truly required, what can be standardized and what needs legislative or policy reform.
A two-dimensional requirements evaluation framework
Regardless of the rigor associated with the requirements outlined at the outset of the program, implementers will encounter seemingly unique or unaccounted for “requirements” that appear to be critical to agencies as they begin seriously planning for implementation. Any federal HR modernization effort must implement a consistent, transparent and rigorous method for evaluating these new or additional requirements. The framework should classify every proposed “need” across two dimensions:
Applicability (breadth): Is this need specific to a single agency, a cluster of agencies, or the whole of government?
Codification (rigidity): Is the need explicitly required by law/regulation, or is it merely a policy preference or tradition?
This line of thinking leads to a decision matrix of sorts. For instance, identified needs that are found to be universal and well-codified are likely legitimate requirements and solid candidates for productization on the part of the HR IT vendor. For requirements that apply to a group of agencies or a single agency, or that are really based on practice or tradition, there may be a range of outcomes worth considering.
Prior to an engineering discussion, the applicable governance body must ask of any new requirement: Can this objective be achieved by conforming to a recognized commercial best practice? If the answer is yes, the governance process should strongly favor moving in that direction.
This disciplined approach is crucial to keeping modernization aligned with cost savings, simplification and future scalability.
Breaking the statutory chains: A modern exception and reform model
A common pitfall in federal IT is the tendency to view outdated laws and regulations as immutable engineering constraints. There are in fact many government “requirements” — often at a very granular and prescriptive level — embedded in written laws and regulations, that are either out-of-date or that simply do not make sense when viewed in a larger context of how HR gets done. The tendency is to look at these cases and say, “This is in the rule books, so we must build the software this way.”
But this is the wrong answer, for several reasons. And reform typically lags years behind technology. Changing laws or regulations is an arduous and lengthy process, but the government cannot afford to encode obsolete statutes into modern software. Treating every rule as a software requirement guarantees technical debt before launch.
The proposed mechanism: The business case exception
The Office of Management and Budget and the Office of Personnel Management have demonstrated the ability to manage simple, business-case-driven exception processes. This capability should be operationalized as a core component of HR IT modernization governance:
Immediate flexibility: OMB and OPM should grant agencies waivers to bypass outdated procedural requirements if adopting the standard best practice reduces administrative burden and cost.
Batch legislative updates: Rather than waiting for laws to change before modernizing, OPM and OMB can “batch up” these approved exceptions. On a periodic basis, these proven efficiencies through standard processes to modify laws and regulations to match the new, modernized reality.
This approach flips the traditional model. Instead of software lagging behind policy, the modernization effort drives policy evolution.
Avoiding the “corner case” trap: ROI-driven decision-making
In large-scale HR modernization, “corner cases” can become the silent destroyer of budgets and timelines. Every agency can cite dozens of rare events — special pay authorities, unusual personnel actions or unique workforce segments — that occur only infrequently.
The risk is that building system logic for rare events is extraordinarily expensive. These edge cases disproportionately consume design and engineering time. And any customization or productization can increase testing complexity and long-term maintenance cost.
Governance should enforce a strict return-on-investment rule: If a unique scenario occurs infrequently and costs more to automate than to handle manually, it should not be engineered into the system.
For instance, if a unique process occurs only 50 times a year across a 2-million-person workforce, it is cheaper to handle it manually outside the system than to spend millions customizing the software. If the government does not manage this evaluation itself, it will devolve into a “ping-pong” negotiation with vendors, leading to scope creep and vulnerability. The government must hold the reins, deciding what gets built based on value, not just request.
Recommended governance structure
To operationalize the ideas above, the government should implement a three-tiered governance structure designed to separate strategy from technical execution.
The executive steering committee (ESC)
Composition: Senior leadership from OMB, OPM and select agency chief human capital officers and chief information officers (CHCOs/CIOs).
Role: Defines the “North Star.” They hold the authority to approve the “batch exceptions” for policy and regulation. They handle the highest-level escalations where an agency claims a mission-critical need to deviate from the standard.
The ESC establishes the foundation for policy, ensures accountability, and provides air cover for standardization decisions that may challenge entrenched agency preferences.
The functional control board (FCB)
Composition: Functional experts (HR practitioners) and business analysts.
Role: The “gatekeepers.” They utilize the two-dimensional framework to triage requirements. Their primary mandate is to protect the standard commercial best practice. They determine if a request is a true “need” or just a preference.
The FCB prevents the “paving cow paths” phenomenon by rigorously protecting the standard process baseline.
The architecture review board (ARB)
Composition: Technical architects and security experts.
Role: Ensures that even approved variations do not break the data model or introduce technical debt. They enforce the return on investment (ROI) rule on corner cases — if the technical cost of a request exceeds its business value, they reject it.
The ARB enforces discipline on engineering choices and protects the system from fragmentation.
Federal HR IT modernization presents a rare opportunity to reshape not just systems, but the business of human capital management across government. The technology exists. The challenge — and the opportunity — lies in governance.
The path to modernization will not be defined by the software implemented, but by the discipline, authority, and insight of the governance structure that guides it.
Steve Krauss is a principal with SLK Executive Advisory. He spent the last decade working for GSA and OPM, including as the Senior Executive Service (SES) director of the HR Quality Service Management Office (QSMO).
Ed Forst never served in the Navy, but the metaphor he uses to describe the role the General Services Administration would make any admiral proud.
Forst, who has been at the helm of GSA since late December, believes agencies, like ships, have two distinct compartments. One is to focus on the mission. The other is the engine room that makes the mission run.
Ed Forst is the GSA administrator.
“I think in every business, every enterprise, every agency, every department, and what I think makes great sense, and I believe the President does too, is, let’s advance mission and let’s have the engine room, what’s behind the curtain, consolidate and get even better. That’s where I see GSA in the federal government. We’re the engine room,” Forst said at the Coalition for Common Sense in Government Procurement winter conference on Jan. 14. “Now, interestingly, GSA is its own agency, so we happen to have both. We’ve got mission and the engine room as well. So I think because of that, we really do appreciate the mission piece of that and serving our stakeholders and our constituents.”
For GSA, being that engine room in part means making acquisition less burdensome, cheaper and more agile so agency customers can meet their mission needs more quickly.
GSA has been pursuing several initiatives over the last year to fine tune the acquisition piece of the engine room.
Laura Stanton, the deputy commissioner of GSA’s Federal Acquisition Service, said between the Office of Centralized Acquisition Services (OCAS), the OneGov initiative and the implementation of changes from the Federal Acquisition Regulation rewrite, GSA is delivering speed to acquisition like never before.
For example, OCAS now centrally buys for three agencies: the Office of Personnel Management, the Small Business Administration and the Department of Housing and Urban Development. Stanton said GSA brought on OPM and SBA in about a month.
Stanton said OCAS is using an opt-in approach to help agencies and trying to relieve some of the burden on GSA’s Assisted Acquisition Service.
“We’re having conversations with a number of agencies about what are their needs. One of the things that we set up OCAS to be able to support is the buying of common goods and services,” Stanton said. “We also recognize that there are mission critical items that and there’s common things that are mission critical that can be used for governmentwide contracts, and then things where there are specialized contracts. So we’re having those types of conversations with a number of agencies at this point.”
Under the OneGov program, GSA has signed 18 agreements to reduce the price of commonly used software across government. Additionally, 45 agencies have taken advantage specifically of the enterprisewide agreements for artificial intelligence tools.
“This is a radical shift in how we think about it, and how we think about how we come to market, and also how we want you to treat us as a customer,” Stanton said at the conference. “This requires changes, not only on the government side, but it’s also going to require changes on the industry side to make that happen. We want to be better aligned when it comes to terms pricing and performance, when it comes to all aspects of that.”
Forst said he was especially focused on the performance aspects of the equation for GSA.
Measuring performance against peer groups
He said measuring performance, and holding organizations and people accountable are among his key focuses areas.
“We’re putting out some priorities for having deliverables. I’m committing every quarter and I’m going to report on ourselves on that,” he said. “I think we’re all better if we find a way to talk about measurement or metrics, whatever you want to call it. There’s a common language and vocabulary about that, so I am a big proponent.”
Forst said he will be looking at both the performance of FAS in terms of “revenue,” as well as their performance relative to peer organizations.
“If you had a record year, you’d probably beat plan. All that should be good. That’s absolute measurement. That’s you versus you. And I think that’s important. I think it’s also really important to accompany that with who’s in your peer group and how did they do? I think the relative performance matters a ton as well,” he said. “You could be down 7% and on an absolute basis, angst to death over down seven if your peer group’s down 15, that’s a home run. So I think it’s important. But if you had a record year and you’re up 6% and your peer group’s up 12%, I’d say good record, but you underdelivered versus the other side. I think we have to be honest with ourselves and look at both us versus us over the time series, and look at us versus a peer group. That seems to make sense.”
Forst said GSA plans to bring in a peer group analysis to raise their awareness and their overall performance.
The third piece of moving bringing speed to capability is the FAR rewrite. GSA will begin implementing the FAR changes within its own acquisition regulations in the coming weeks. It already issued deviations to the current FAR to begin the process.
Jeff Koses, GSA’s senior procurement executive, said in a post on LinkedIn that they have “limited the issuance of mandatory acquisition policies to my office, the Office of Acquisition Policy. Legacy mandatory policy will have to be reissued at the agency level, converted to discretionary guidance, or cancelled.”
Koses said GSA will begin culling down 500 pages of its acquisition manual, 300 pages of office policy, 500 pages of FAS policy and another 500 pages of Public Buildings Service policy and then 1,000 pages of real property leasing policy.
Reviewing the GSA schedule catalog of items
Larry Allen, the associate administrator in the Office of Governmentwide Policy, said at the CGP conference that GSA, in helping out the FAR Council, is working closely with OFPP to get all of the rulemaking completed by the end of the fiscal year.
“It may be delayed a little bit because we had a little shutdown in the fall, but that tells you exactly what type of timetable we are on. It’s aggressive, and you will see change, and we want you to be part of that change,” Allen said.
Stanton added that GSA understands the FAR rewrite has moved quickly and is addressing complex acquisition issues that will take time for government and industry to wrap their arms around.
“When we think about this year, it’s going to be a year of both adopting and adaptation, and acceleration all at the same time, and that becomes really challenging to do,” she said.
Stanton said another key initiative kicking into gear this year is GSA’s review of its multiple award schedule catalog. She said the driving theory is how can the agency operate it more efficiently and deliver more value to agency customers.
“I look at the at the catalog that we run for the multiple award schedule and it has over 100 million items in it. Only 1% or fewer of those items sell, and so this is putting burden on all of you, making sure that you’re meeting all of our terms and conditions, that those items are Trade Agreements Act (TAA) compliant, that they meet the government standards, and that the pricing is fair and reasonable,” she said. “We have contracting officers who have to evaluate those items, and what is the value that either you or the government is getting for that work? I think that this is a big opportunity for us to truly assess where is the government’s demand. As we’re also moving into making transactional data reporting mandatory, how do we effectively have a catalog that delivers on what the government needs? How do we meet those needs effectively? How do we move quickly if we have something that’s not in the catalog? It’s a lot easier to move quickly if we’re not burdened by putting things in there that are not actually being used.”
Congressional appropriators are seeking less aggressive budget cuts for the IRS than what the Trump administration has proposed.
Members of the House and Senate appropriations committees, in the latest package of spending bills for fiscal 2026, are also renewing efforts to shrink federal office space.
Funding for the State Department remains relatively unchanged, despite a massive reorganization carried out last year.
Meanwhile, lawmakers want agencies to use artificial intelligence tools to speed up the delivery of public-facing benefits and services.
Here are a few highlights from the FY 2026 spending bills on Financial Services and General Government, as well as National Security and the State Department.
Less dramatic cuts for the IRS
The spending package still includes budget cuts for the IRS, but less severe cuts than what the Trump administration and House Republicans proposed.
The minibus would give the IRS an $11.2 billion budget for the rest of fiscal 2026 — a $1.1 billion, or nearly 9% cut from current spending levels. This would be the fourth consecutive year the IRS has seen spending cuts or a flat budget.
Republican appropriators said the spending package “restrains the IRS,” while investing more funds in public-facing taxpayer services.
IRS would spend $3 billion on taxpayer services — about $256 million above current spending levels. But its enforcement budget would shrink to $5 billion — about a $439 million cut compared to current levels.
The Trump administration proposed a $9.8 billion annual budget for the agency — more than a 20% spending cut from current spending levels.
In recent years, the IRS has tapped into a multi-billion-dollar modernization fund from the Inflation Reduction Act to address shrinking annual appropriations. Moving around these funds, however, leaves the IRS with less funding to address long-standing problems with its outdated IT systems.
Democrats on the appropriations committee said the spending deal rejects “poison pill” provisions from earlier proposals. That includes a provision that would block the IRS from creating its own free tax filing software.
The IRS officially shut down Direct File, the agency’s free online tax filing platform that ran for two years, and is exploring alternatives operated by tax preparation companies. The spending bill grants the IRS authority to make new hires more quickly to help address backlogged tax returns.
Under this spending deal, the Small Business Administration would also receive a $1.25 billion budget under this spending deal, rejecting the Trump administration’s plan to cut its funding by over 40%.
GSA funding to offload underutilized office space
Lawmakers are calling on the General Services Administration to accelerate its plans to offload underutilized federal office space. The spending deal, however, falls short of what GSA officials have said is necessary to address a multi-billion-dollar maintenance backlog.
The spending bill allows GSA to spend $9.7 billion from the Federal Buildings Fund. That fund includes rent payments GSA collects from agencies working out of GSA-owned facilities. Included in those funds, GSA receives $166 million in funding for new federal construction projects, and $934 million for federal building repairs.
In a joint explanatory statement, appropriators wrote that they are concerned that deferred maintenance costs for federal real estate are “rising at an unsustainable rate.”
The spending deal would require GSA to conduct a study examining the “administrative and regulatory burdens” GSA faces in the real estate disposal process, and to brief the appropriations committees on its findings.
GSA currently has about $24 billion in deferred maintenance projects. Ed Forst, GSA’s newly confirmed administrator, recently told a Senate panel that about $6 billion is “urgently needed” within the next year or two to address the deferred maintenance backlog. The maintenance backlog, he added, is “likely underestimated,” and will only grow if left unaddressed.
The Public Buildings Reform Board, which advises GSA on underutilized federal properties it should sell or offload, recently told a House subcommittee that GSA will need about $50 billion to address a backlog of deferred maintenance and repairs in federal buildings.
GSA currently receives about $600 million annually to address those needs. Given those spending levels, the board estimates GSA’s portfolio would have to shrink by about 80% to keep up with its maintenance backlog.
The spending deal would give $3.6 million to the Public Buildings Reform Board. The board is set to disband by the end of this year. Members of the board, however, say their work is far from finished, and have asked Congress to consider reauthorizing the board.
The spending bill also supports President Donald Trump’s executive order designating classical architectural styles as the preferred style for new construction projects.
AI tools to deliver public-facing services
The spending bill also focused on GSA’s government IT portfolio, and directs GSA to help deliver benefits and services to the public more quickly through AI tools.
The spending bill awards $1.4 million to GSA’s Office of Technology Policy to make federal websites more accessible for people with disabilities, as required by Section 508 of the 1973 Rehabilitation Act.
“As the nation’s population ages, there will be more people with disabilities who rely on accessibility tools to access government resources. This underscores the importance of making Federal websites, apps, kiosks, and other technology accessible in the coming decades,” the joint explanatory statement states.
More than half of all federal websites have at least one accessibility issue, according to data collected in 2024 by GSA and the Office of Management and Budget.
The spending package also directs GSA to help agencies improve their public-facing benefits and services through AI tools. The spending deal, however, doesn’t put any funding behind this goal.
“Congress recognizes the importance of improving customer satisfaction for constituents seeking information about benefits and government resources,” appropriators wrote in their joint explanatory statement. “The agreement encourages the GSA to work with federal agencies to develop improved customer experiences when interfacing with their government on its progress toward issuing this guidance.”
State Department funding intact, spares independent agencies from elimination
Lawmakers are proposing modest budget cuts for the State Department, despite going through its largest reorganization in decades.
The minibus gives the State Department a $9.7 billion operating budget, an essentially flat budget compared to the department’s current $9.8 billion operations budget.
The minibus requires the State Department to give Congress quarterly updates on staffing levels, hiring and attrition for its civil service and Foreign Service ranks. The State Department laid off nearly 1,350 employees last summer. It also eliminated or consolidated hundreds of offices and programs.
The bill also rejects the Trump administration’s deep cuts planned for some independent agencies — including the Millennium Challenge Corporation and the U.S. Agency for Global Media, which includes Voice of America. But it doesn’t address the Trump administration’s dismantling of the U.S. Agency for International Development last year. All USAID programs spared from elimination have been folded into the State Department.
Senate Appropriations Committee Vice Chairwoman Patty Murray (D-Wash.) said the spending package reflects “tough negotiations under extremely challenging circumstances,” but is a “significantly better outcome than another yearlong continuing resolution.”
Senate Appropriations Committee Chairwoman Susan Collins (R-Maine) said the “appropriations process continues to move forward and advance priorities of the American people.”
House Appropriations Committee Ranking Member Rosa DeLauro (D-Conn.) said the minibus rejects “extreme cuts to humanitarian aid programs.”
House Appropriations Committee Chairman Tom Cole (R-Okla.) said that with this spending package, lawmakers “are advancing President Trump’s vision of a golden age defined by security, responsibility, and growth.”
Congress is seeking more in-depth information on staffing numbers, federal contracts, remote work agreements and other federal workforce details, according to several provisions of the two spending bills Senate and House appropriators released over the weekend.
The latest two-bill “minibus,” which has bipartisan, bicameral support, includes appropriations for Financial Services and General Government, as well as National Security and the State Department. The package tees up fiscal 2026 spending levels for the State Department, Treasury Department, Office of Personnel Management, General Services Administration and Small Business Administration, along with many other agencies.
For OPM, lawmakers are now eyeing $167.5 million in appropriations for 2026. That’s about $51.5 million short of OPM’s enacted $219 million appropriation for fiscal 2025. But along with the topline numbers, appropriators also appear to be looking for more details on federal workforce numbers and programs, according to a joint explanatory statement released Sunday alongside the legislation.
For one, the spending minibus includes a provision seeking further data on changes to the federal workforce size over the last year. No later than 60 days after the bill is enacted, OPM would have to publish specific data points on the number of civilian federal employees. That includes the numbers prior to the start of President Donald Trump’s term, as well as the numbers as of Sept. 30, 2025 — the final date of the deferred resignation program (DRP) — and finally, the current federal workforce levels.
The legislation additionally calls for a report from OPM of how many employees opted into the DRP, as well as the agencies, occupations, locations and pay rates for those now-former federal employees.
OPM already recently released some further information on federal workforce numbers. The updated “Federal Workforce Data” website details employee data by geographic location, agency, age, education level, bargaining unit status — and much more. The new platform also reaffirms the significant reshaping the federal workforce experienced over the last year, showing that the current federal workforce size is the lowest it’s been in at least a decade.
In addition to details on federal workforce size, congressional appropriators are also seeking more information about agencies’ use of remote work agreements for federal employees. Within 90 days of enactment, OPM would have to detail how and when employees are deemed eligible for remote work, how often those agreements are reviewed, and how remote work agreements influence locality pay adjustments, according to the legislation.
The policy provision comes shortly after OPM released updated telework and remote work guidance, which now aligns with the Trump administration’s significant curtailing of telework and remote work across the federal workforce. While emphasizing as much on-site presence as possible, OPM’s revised guidance also defined limited exceptions to return-to-office requirements for certain federal employees.
A separate provision of the spending bill would require OPM to report to Congress at least two days before signing any potential sole-source contracts, as well as any contracts worth $2 million or more.
The new provision comes as OPM is working out the details of a federal contract and action plan to modernize and centralize the more than 100 current federal HR systems used across government. During May 2025, OPM initially announced a sole-source contract award to that end, but then quickly canceled the award. OPM later issued a request for proposals (RFP), and agency officials have said they expect to soon award a contract that will eventually result in one cohesive, governmentwide HR system.
Separately, congressional appropriators are also planning to direct OPM to provide quarterly updates on the Postal Service Health Benefits program, “including any gaps in OPM’s capacity to successfully implement the program.”
The provision comes a few years after OPM first established the PSHB program for Postal Service employees. In July 2025, OPM’s inspector general office then reported that the agency’s enrollment platform for PSHB was at risk of an “operational failure” due to staffing reductions within OPM.
Bipartisan, bicameral appropriators agreed to the latest appropriations minibus on Sunday, looking to generally lower spending levels in comparison with enacted appropriations for fiscal 2025. Subcommittee leaders said the agencies that fall under those two bills would see a cumulative total of $9 billion less in spending than last fiscal year.
The proposed budget cuts are more modest than many of the steeper spending reductions the Trump administration requested for fiscal 2026, which now appear to be off the table. The new legislation marks further progress toward Congress reaching a government spending agreement, just weeks away from the Jan. 30 funding deadline.
The latest minibus comes after congressional appropriators teed up a three-bill minibus early last week. The House later passed those three bills, which are now under consideration in the Senate. In total, three of the 12 appropriations bills for 2026 have completely cleared Congress.
Let’s start with the good news: artificial intelligence may NOT be the buzzword for 2026.
What will be the most talked about federal IT and/or acquisition topic for this year remains up for debate. While AI will definitely be part of the conversation, at least some experts believe other topics will emerge over the next 12 months. These range from the Defense Department’s push for “speed to capability” to resilient innovation to workforce transformation.
Federal News Network asked a panel of former federal technology and procurement executives for their opinions what federal IT and acquisition storylines they are following over the next 12 months. If you’re interested in previous years’ predictions, here is what experts said about 2023, 2024 and 2025.
The panelists are:
Jonathan Alboum, federal chief technology officer for ServiceNow and former Agriculture Department CIO.
Melvin Brown, vice president and chief growth officer at CANI and a former deputy CIO at the Office of Personnel Management.
Matthew Cornelius, managing director of federal industry at Workday and former OMB and Senate staff member.
Kevin Cummins, a partner with the Franklin Square Group and former Senate staff member.
Michael Derrios, the new executive director of the Greg and Camille Baroni Center for Government Contracting at George Mason University and former State Department senior procurement executive.
Julie Dunne, a principal with Monument Advocacy and former commissioner of GSA’s Federal Acquisition Service.
Mike Hettinger, founding principal of Hettinger Strategy Group and former House staff member.
Nancy Sieger, a partner at Guidehouse’s Financial Services Sector and a former IRS CIO.
What are two IT or acquisition programs/initiatives that you are watching closely for signs of progress and why?
Brown: Whether AI acquisition governance becomes standard, templates, clauses, evaluation norms, 2026 is where agencies turn OMB AI memos into repeatable acquisition artifacts, through solicitation language, assurance evidence, testing/monitoring expectations and privacy and security gates. The 2025 memos are the anchor texts. I’m watching for signals such as common clause libraries, governmentwide “minimum vendor evidence” and how agencies operationalize “responsible AI” in source selections.
The Cybersecurity Maturity Model Certification (CMMC) phased rollout and how quickly it becomes a de facto barrier to entry. Because the rollout is phased over multiple years starting in November 2025, 2026 is the first full year where you can observe how often contracting officers insert the clause and how primes enforce flow-downs. The watch signals include protest activity, supply-chain impacts and whether smaller firms get crowded out or supported.
Hettinger: Related to the GSA OneGov initiative, there’s continuing pressure on the middleman, that is to say resellers and systems integrators to deliver more value for less. This theme emerged in early 2025, but it will continue to be front and center throughout 2026. How those facing the pressure respond to the government’s interests will tell us a lot about how IT acquisition is going to change in the coming years. I’ll be watching that closely.
Mike Hettinger is president and founding principal of Hettinger Strategy Group and former staff director of the House Oversight and Government Reform Subcommittee on Government Management.
The other place to watch more broadly is how the government is going to leverage AI. If 2025 was about putting the pieces in place to buy AI tools, 2026 is going to be about how agencies are able to leverage those tools to bring efficiency and effectiveness in a host of new areas.
Cornelius: The first is watching the Hill to see if the Senate can finally get the Strengthening Agency Management and Oversight of Software Assets (SAMOSA) Act passed and to the President’s desk. While a lot of great work has already happened — and will continue to happen — at GSA around OneGov, there is only so much they can do on their own. If Congress forces agencies to do the in-depth analysis and reporting required under SAMOSA, it will empower GSA, as well as OMB and Congress, to have the type of data and insights needed to drive OneGov beyond just cost savings to more enterprise transformation outcomes for their agency customers. This would generate value at an order of magnitude beyond what they have achieved thus far.
The second is the implementation of the recent executive order that created the Genesis Mission initiative. The mission is focused on ensuring that the Energy Department and the national labs can hire the right talent and marshal the right resources to help develop the next generation of biotechnology, quantum information science, advanced manufacturing and other critical capabilities empower America’s global leadership for the next few generations. Seeing how DOE and Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP) partner collaboratively with industry to execute this aspirational, but necessary, nationwide effort will be revelatory and insightful.
Cummins: Will Congress reverse its recent failure to reauthorize the Technology Modernization Fund (TMF)? President Donald Trump stood up the TMF during his first term and it saw a significant funding infusion by President Joe Biden. Watching the TMF just die with a whimper will make me pessimistic about reviving the longstanding bipartisan cooperation on modernizing federal IT that existed before the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE).
I will be closely watching how well the recently-announced Tech Force comes together. Its goal of recruiting top engineers to serve in non-partisan roles focused on technology implementation sounds a lot like the U.S. Digital Service started by President Barack Obama, which then became the U.S. DOGE Service. I would like to see Tech Force building a better government with some of the enthusiasm that DOGE showed for cutting it.
Sieger: I’m watching intensely how agencies manage the IT talent exodus triggered by DOGE-mandated workforce reductions and return-to-office requirements. The unintended consequence we’re already observing is the disproportionate loss of mid-career technologists, the people who bridge legacy systems knowledge with modern cloud and AI capabilities.
Agencies are losing their most marketable IT talent first, while retention of personnel managing critical legacy infrastructure creates technical debt time bombs. At Guidehouse, we’re fielding unprecedented requests for cybersecurity, cloud architecture and data engineering services. The question heading into 2026 is whether agencies can rebuild sustainable IT operating models or whether they become permanently dependent on contractor support, fundamentally altering the government’s long-term technology capacity.
My prediction of the real risk is that mission-critical systems are losing institutional knowledge faster than documentation or modernization can compensate. Agencies need to watch and mitigate for increased system outages, security incidents, and failed modernization projects as this workforce disruption cascades through 2026.
Sticking with the above theme, it does bear watching how the new federal Tech Force hiring initiative succeeds. The federal Tech Force initiative signals a major shift in how the federal government sources and deploys modern technology talent. As agencies bring in highly skilled technologists focused on AI, cloud, cybersecurity and agile delivery, the expectations for speed, engineering rigor and product-centric outcomes will rise. This will reshape how agencies engage industry partners, favoring firms that can operate at comparable technical and cultural velocity.
The initiative also introduces private sector thinking into government programs, influencing requirements, architectures and vendor evaluations. This creates both opportunity and pressure. Organizations aligned to modern delivery models will gain advantage, while legacy approaches may struggle to adapt. Federal Tech Force serves as an early indicator of how workforce decisions are beginning to influence acquisition approaches and modernization priorities across government.
Dunne: Title 41 acquisition reform. The House Armed Services Committee and House Oversight Committee worked together to pass a 2026 defense authorization bill out of the House with civilian or governmentwide (Title 41) acquisition reform proposals. These reform proposals in the House NDAA bill included increasing various acquisition thresholds (micro-purchase and simplified acquisition thresholds and cost accounting standards) and language on advance payments to improve buying of cloud solutions. Unfortunately, these governmentwide provisions were left out of the final NDAA agreement, leaving in some cases different rules the civilian and defense sectors. I’m hopeful that Congress will try again on governmentwide acquisition reform.
Office of Centralized Acquisition Services (OCAS). GSA launched OCAS late this year to consolidate and streamline contracting for common goods and services in accordance with the March 2025 executive order (14240). Always a good exercise to think about how to best consolidate and streamline contracting vehicles. We’ve been here before and I think OCAS has a tough mission as agencies often want to do their own thing. If given sufficient resources and leadership attention, perhaps it will be different this time.
FedRAMP 20x. Earlier this year, GSA’s FedRAMP program management office launched FedRAMP 20x to reform the process and bring efficiencies through automation and expand the availability of cloud service provider products for agencies. All great intentions, but as we move into the next phase of the effort and into FedRAMP moderate type solutions, I hope the focus remains on the security mission and the original intent to measure once, use many times for the benefit of agencies. Also, FedRAMP authorization expires in December 2027 – which is not that far away in congressional time.
Alboum: In the coming year, I’m paying close attention to how agencies manage AI efficiency and value as they move from pilots to production. As budgets tighten, agencies need a clearer picture of which models are delivering results, which aren’t, and where investments are being duplicated.
I’m also watching enterprise acquisition and software asset management efforts. The Strengthening Agency Management and Oversight of Software Assets (SAMOSA) Act has been floating around Congress for the last few years. I’m curious to see whether it will ultimately become law. Its provisions reflect widely acknowledged best practices for controlling software spending and align with the administration’s PMA objective to “consolidate and standardize systems, while eliminating duplicative ones.” How agencies manage their software portfolios will be a crucial test of whether efficiency goals are turning into lasting structural change, or just short-term fixes.
Derrios: I’ll be watching how GSA’s OneGov initiative shapes up will be important because contract consolidation without an equal focus on demand forecasting, standardization and potential requirements aggregation may not yield the intended results. There needs to be a strong focus on acquisition planning between GSA and their federal agency customers in addition to any movement of contracts.
In 2025, the administration revamped the FAR, which hadn’t been reviewed holistically in 40 years. So in 2026, what IT/acquisition topic(s) would you like to see the administration take on that has long been overlooked and/or underappreciated for the impact change and improvements could have, and why?
Cummins: Despite the recent Trump administration emphasis on commercialization, it is still too hard for innovative companies to break into the federal market. Sometimes agencies will move mountains to urgently acquire a new technology, like we have seen recently with some artificial intelligence and drones initiatives. But a commercial IT company generally has to partner with a reseller and get third-party accreditation (CMMC, FedRAMP, etc.) just to get access to a federal customer. Moving beyond the FAR rewrite, could the government give up some of the intellectual property and other requirements that make it difficult for commercial companies to bid as a prime or sell directly to an agency outside of an other transaction agreement (OTA)? It would also be helpful to see more FedRAMP waivers for low-risk cloud services.
Cornelius: It’s been almost 50 years since foundational law and policy set the parameters we still follow today around IT accessibility. During my time in the Senate, I drafted the provision in the 2023 omnibus appropriations bill that required GSA and federal agencies to perform comprehensive assessments of accessibility compliance across all IT and digital assets throughout the government. Now, with a couple years of analysis and with many thoughtful recommendations from GSA and OMB, it is time for Congress to make critical updates in law to improve the accessibility of any capabilities the government acquires or deploys. 2026 could be a year of rare bipartisan, bicameral collaboration on digital accessibility, which could then underpin the administration’s American by Design initiative and ensure important accessibility outcomes from all vendors serving government customers are delivered and maintained effectively.
Derrios: The federal budgeting process really needs a reboot. Static budgets do not align with multi-year missions where risks are continuous, technology changes at lightning speed, and world events impact aging cost estimates. And without a real “return on investment” mentality incorporated into the budgeting process, under-performing programs with high sunk-costs will continue to be supported. But taxpayers shouldn’t have to sit through a bad movie just because they already paid for the ticket.
Brown: I’m watching how agencies continue to move toward the implementation of zero trust and how the data layer becomes the budget fight. With federal guides emphasizing data security, the 2026 question becomes, do programs converge on fewer, interoperable controls, or do they keep buying overlapping tools? My watch signals include requirements that prioritize data tagging/classification, attribute-based access, encryption/key management and auditability as “must haves” in acquisitions.
Alboum: Over the past few years, the federal government has made significant investments in customer experience and service delivery. The question now is whether those gains can be sustained amid federal staffing reductions.
Jonathan Alboum is a former chief information officer at the Agriculture Department and now federal chief technology officer for ServiceNow.
This challenge is closely tied to the “America by Design” executive order, which calls for redesigned websites where people interact with the government. A beautiful, easy-to-use website is an excellent start. However, the public expects a great end-to-end experience across all channels, which aligns directly with the administration’s PMA objective to build digital services for “real people, not bureaucracy.”
So, I’ll be watching to see if we meet these expectations by investing in AI and other technologies to lock in previous gains and improve the way we serve the public. With the proper focus, I’m confident that we can positively impact the public’s perception and trust in government.
Hettinger: Set aside the know and historic challenges with the TMF, we really do need to figure out how to more effectively buy IT at a pace consistent with the need of agencies. Maybe some of that is addressed in the FAR changes, but those are only going to take us so far (no pun intended). If we think outside the box, maybe we can find a way to make real progress in IT funding and acquisition in a way that gets the right technology tools in the hands of the right people more quickly.
Dunne: I think follow through on the initiatives launched in 2025 will be important to focus on in 2026. The formal rulemaking process for the RFO will launch in 2026 and will be an important part of that follow through. And now that we have a confirmed Office of Federal Procurement Policy administrator, I think 2026 will be an important year for industry engagement on topics like the RFO.
Sieger: If the administration could tackle one long-overlooked issue with transformative impact, it should be the modernization of security clearances are granted, maintained and reciprocally recognized for contractor personnel supporting federal IT initiatives.
The current clearance system regularly creates 6-to-12 month delays in staffing critical IT programs, particularly in cybersecurity and AI. Agencies lose qualified contractors to private sector opportunities during lengthy adjudication periods. The lack of true clearance reciprocity means contractors moving between agency projects often restart the process, wasting resources and creating knowledge gaps on programs.
This is a strategic vulnerability. Federal IT modernization depends on contractor expertise for specialized skills government cannot hire directly. When clearance processes take longer than typical IT project phases, agencies either compromise on talent quality or delay mission-critical initiatives. The opportunity cost is measured in delayed outcomes and increased cyber risk.
Implementing continuous vetting for contractor populations, establishing true cross-agency clearance reciprocity, and creating “clearance portability” would benefit emerging technology areas such as AI, quantum, advanced cybersecurity, where talent competition is fiercest. From Guidehouse’s perspective, we see clients are repeatedly unable to staff approved projects because cleared personnel aren’t available, not because talent doesn’t exist.
This reform would have cascading benefits: faster modernization, better talent retention, reduced costs and improved security through continuous monitoring rather than point-in-time investigations.
If 2025 has been all about cost savings and efficiencies, what do you think will emerge as the buzzword of 2026?
Brown: “Speed to capability” acquisition models spreading beyond DoD. The drone scaling example is a concrete indicator of a broader push. The watch signals for me are increased use of rapid pathways, shorter contract terms, modular contracting and more frequent recompetes to keep pace with technology change.
Cornelius: Governmentwide human resource transformation.
Julie Dunne, a former House Oversight and Reform Committee staff member for the Republicans, a former commissioner of the Federal Acquisition Service at the General Services Administration, and now a principal at Monument Advocacy.
Dunne: AI again. How the government uses it to facilitate delivery of citizen services and how AI tools will assist with the acquisition process, and AI-enabled cybersecurity attacks. I know that’s not one word, but it’s a huge risk to watch and only a matter of time before our adversaries find success in attacking federal systems with an AI-enabled cyberattack, and federal contractors will be on the hook to mitigate such risks.
Cummins: Fraud prevention. While combating waste, fraud and abuse is a perennial issue, the industrial scale fraud revealed in Minnesota highlights a danger from how Congress passed COVID pandemic-era spending packages without the same level of checks and balances that were put in place for earlier Obama-era stimulus spending. Federal government programs generally still have a lot of room for improvement when it comes to preventing improper payments, such as by using better identity and access management and other security tools. Stopping fraud is also one of the few remaining areas of bipartisan agreement among policymakers.
Hettinger: DOGE may be gone, or maybe it’s not really gone, but I don’t know that cost savings and efficiencies are going to be pushed to the backburner. This administration comes at everything — at least from an IT perspective — as believing it can be done better, faster and cheaper. I expect that to continue not just into 2026 but for the rest of this administration.
Derrios: I think there will have to be a focus on how government needs and requirements are defined and how the remaining workforce can upskill to use technology as a force multiplier. If you don’t focus on what you’re buying and whether it constitutes a legitimate mission support need, any cost savings gained in 2025 will not be sustainable long-term. Balancing speed-to-contract and innovative buying methodologies with real requirements rigor is critical. And how your federal workforce uses the tools in the toolbox to yield maximum outcomes while trying to do more with less is going to take focused leadership. To me, all of this culminates in one word for 2026, and that’s producing “value” for federal missions.
Sieger: Resilient innovation. While 2025 focused intensely on cost savings and efficiencies, particularly through DOGE-mandated cuts, 2026’s emerging buzzword will be “resilient innovation.” Agencies are recognizing the need to continue advancing technological capabilities while maintaining operational continuity under constrained resources and heightened uncertainty.
The efficiency drives of 2025 exposed real vulnerabilities. Agencies lost institutional knowledge, critical systems became more fragile, and the pace of modernization actually slowed in many cases as talent departed and budgets tightened. Leaders now recognize that efficiency without resilience creates brittleness—systems that work well under ideal conditions but fail catastrophically when stressed.
Resilient innovation captures the dual mandate facing federal IT in 2026: Continue modernizing and adopting transformative technologies like AI, but do so in ways that don’t create new single points of failure, vendor dependencies or operational risks. It’s about building systems and capabilities that can absorb shocks — whether from workforce turnover, budget cuts, cyber incidents or geopolitical disruption — while still moving forward.
Alboum: Looking ahead, governance will take the center stage across government. As AI, data and cybersecurity continue to scale, agencies will need stronger oversight, greater transparency and better coordination to manage complexity and maintain public trust. Governance won’t be a side conversation — it will be the foundation for everything that comes next.
Success will no longer be measured by how much AI is deployed, but by whether it is secure, compliant and delivering tangible mission value. The conversation will shift from “Do we have AI?” to “Is our AI safe, accurate and worth the investment?”
The Office of Personnel Management is addressing what have become growing concerns in Congress over the significant delays in federal retirement processing this year.
In a letter sent Tuesday to a group of House Democrats, OPM Director Scott Kupor touted the benefits of the new online retirement application (ORA) in helping to streamline processing, while at the same time arguing that outdated systems — not staffing levels — are to blame for the current challenges HR employees are facing.
“The main issues with federal HR, we have found, are not low staffing levels, but inefficient and outdated technology and antiquated, cumbersome regulations and processes,” Kupor wrote in the Dec. 30 letter, obtained by Federal News Network. “OPM under the Trump administration has done in a matter of months what the government failed to do for multiple generations: modernize the paper-based federal retirement system.”
Kupor’s comments are a response to a Dec. 22 letter from Democrats on the Oversight and Government Reform Committee, which raised concerns about the significant delays retiring federal employees are currently experiencing. Those delays are largely due to a surge of retirement applications from employees who opted into the deferred resignation program (DRP) earlier this year.
Now two months after thousands of federal employees separated from government on Sept. 30, some retirees have told Federal News Network they are still awaiting any retirement-related payments. Some also expressed frustrations about limited information from their agencies on the status of their applications.
In light of the challenges, a group of Democratic lawmakers last week pressed OPM for more details on retirement processing, and how OPM is helping other agencies manage the high volumes of applications. The Democrats’ letter criticized the DRP-inflicted surge of retirements as a “foreseeable and avoidable administrative failure.”
Kupor, in response, pushed back against the lawmakers’ criticisms that the DRP was not a truly voluntary program for federal employees. He also said OPM is “rapidly fixing” the manual, paper-based processes involved in federal retirement — namely through the launch of the ORA earlier this year. Over the last few months, Kupor said ORA helped expedite the retirement process at agencies where applications had been stalled.
“For example, just recently we were able to fast track 1,500 ORA applications that had been backlogged in the HR department of an executive branch agency to bypass the HR organization and transmit the applications electronically to payroll and then to OPM,” Kupor wrote. “These applications had been sitting for months — and were likely to be sitting for months longer; ORA enabled us to address this challenge.”
This year, OPM has also managed to improve its ability to provide interim annuities to more retirees immediately after their applications reach OPM, according to Kupor.
“This is a massive benefit to our retirees that we designed specifically to address the significant volume of applications we anticipated receiving in the wake of DRP,” Kupor wrote.
Rep. James Walkinshaw (D-Va.), who led the Democrats’ letter to OPM last week, said he appreciated Kupor’s response to their concerns, but added that “the facts remain and are stubborn.”
“First, the Trump administration fired or drove out hundreds of thousands of qualified civil servants. Now they’re facing a historic backlog of retirement applications managed by understaffed HR departments in the midst of a rocky rollout of a new IT system,” Walkinshaw said in a statement to Federal News Network. “I very much hope that Mr. Kupor can succeed in ensuring timely processing of federal retirement applications. But right now, he is failing.”
Due to the Trump administration’s efforts to reduce the federal workforce, HR staffing decreased by about 5%, with agencies losing a cumulative total of about 2,600 employees, according to fiscal 2025 data. That does not include HR employees who took the DRP offer themselves and separated after September.
Despite the reductions, Kupor said federal HR is “hardly understaffed,” and that the main challenge is not with workforce size, but rather with outdated systems. With fully digital retirement applications in the ORA, he said processing times become much faster.
“As of today, ORA applications are being completed in approximately 40 days, compared with 90 days for paper-based applications,” Kupor wrote. “I am fully confident that this 40-day time period will continue to be reduced as we are able to get the payroll providers fully integrated into the new system.”
Kupor said OPM has also been meeting regularly with agency HR offices, payroll providers and the CHCO Council to “provide information about digitalization of the retirement process and offer support on an ongoing basis.”
“Any delays that annuitants are experiencing from HR-related activities should be directed toward these individual agencies,” he added.
Many retiring federal employees have told Federal News Network their applications are stuck in the earlier steps of the retirement process, with progress lagging in their agency HR offices and payroll providers. Some employees who retired in September said their applications have not yet made it to the later part of the process at OPM, where annuity finalization occurs.
Federal retirement experts have also said more issues appear to be occurring in individual agency HR offices, rather than at OPM — but that both entities are seeing delays. At the IRS, for instance, several retirees told Federal News Network they are still awaiting payments, or any information on the status of their retirement applications, and that phone calls to the HR office often go unanswered.
“It’s all dead ends,” one retiring IRS employee, speaking anonymously for fear of retaliation, told Federal News Network. “As a government employee, and after all the service that I gave, this is how we’re getting treated. People are sitting here with nothing because of the decisions they made. We can’t afford it.”
Still, Kupor pointed again to significant progress with the rollout of ORA earlier this year. The government’s major payroll providers — the National Finance Center (NFC), Defense Finance and Accounting Service (DFAS) and Interior Business Center (IBC) — have been onboarded to the new platform. Additionally, all CFO Act agencies, aside from the State Department, are currently using ORA, according to Kupor.
Smaller payroll providers including those at the General Services Administration and Postal Service are in an “interim adoption status,” Kupor said. OPM expects those providers to be fully onboarded to ORA in early 2026.
The largest remaining challenge with retirement processing delays, according to Kupor, is payroll providers who have not managed to fully automate their processes.
“We will be prevented from full automation until they free up the required resources to integrate with ORA,” Kupor wrote. “This integration will enable us to receive employee payroll information electronically, which will vastly accelerate processing times.”
From the airport to the DMV, government employees are required to provide efficient and accurate services while also verifying identities at several touchpoints with the public. Despite this need, many agencies still rely on physical identification materials, such as driver’s licenses, passports and Social Security cards. As the demand for faster, modernized services grows, this outdated approach limits agencies’ ability to keep pace with mission demands.
However, since the implementation of smartphones and a federal push toward customer experience, agencies are adopting digital identity and biometrics solutions through initiatives like the General Service Administration’s Login.gov, and the Department of Homeland Security and Transportation Security Administration’s REAL ID.
A digital ID is a collection of data that represents an individual or entity in the digital world, often including information like usernames, passwords and personal details. Used for authentication and access control in various online services and systems, a digital ID serves as identity in the palm of a user’s hand. Through initiatives like Login.gov, users have just one account to log in to several federal websites, requiring them to remember fewer passwords, streamlining data integrity, and improving mission efficiency.
Biometrics and digital identity technology utilize unique biological traits, such as fingerprints, facial features and iris patterns, to verify who a person claims to be. By linking a physical identifier to digital credentials, there’s an additional level of assurance and security that traditional identity tools can’t compete with.
However, for biometric technology adoption to be successful, federal agencies must align standards for compliance and interoperability while also focusing on building and maintaining public trust.
Compliance and transparency
As digital identity solutions are adopted, standards that govern the use and transparency of biometric data are not optional add-ons — they’re necessary at a foundational level.
Integrating security and privacy into all identity tools and solutions is equally as vital as standards compliance. Building security and privacy into systems from the beginning helps improve public trust and prevents costly redesigns or necessary additions after vulnerabilities appear. By creating a network of solutions that prioritize security- and privacy-by-design principles, agencies ensure that protections are integrated into every stage of the biometric lifecycle.
Despite these opportunities for increased security, efficiency and progress, much of the public has doubts about data collection, bias and privacy, creating barriers to implementation and adoption. For this reason, transparency is critical to building and maintaining public trust.
Federal agencies must clearly communicate the parameters of biometric technology use, including how biometric data is collected, stored and accessed. Establishing offices like DHS’ Office of Biometric Identity Management provides a centralized point for disseminating pertinent information, like new policies and procedures, or addressing questions about biometric data use and where the public might encounter the technology.
Another opportunity to increase transparency is mandating third-party audits and compliance reporting that align with approved, existing frameworks, like NIST’s Digital Identity Guidelines, to measure compliance.
The digital security landscape is constantly evolving, so federal agencies must prioritize transparency through continuous testing to gain public trust through demonstrated compliance, accuracy and responsible use.
Digital identity is transforming the way governments deliver public services. But technology can’t drive progress alone. Trust is critical for success.
Complying with recognized security standards and improving data transparency lay the groundwork for a thriving digital identity ecosystem in federal government, but its continued success relies on cross-agency and industry collaboration and third-party validation. When combined, these actions will transform operations, creating a unified and secure digital ID future.
Jesús Aragón is the CEO and cofounder of Identy.io.
Multi-Factor Authentication Concept - MFA - Screen with Authentication Factors Surrounded by Digital Access and Identity Elements - Cybersecurity Solutions - 3D Illustration
The hybrid and remote work paradigms spawned by COVID, coupled with the severe downsizing of the federal workforce, are resulting in a surfeit of federal office space, both owned and leased. Add the aging of the federal inventory and the growing cost and impact of decades of deferred maintenance, and literally hundreds of government properties nationwide have the potential to be vacated and disposed of. And yet, in the world of federal real estate, there persists the sense that despite all the alignment on the need for action, the federal government is still struggling to effectuate the changes everyone agrees it so desperately needs. A brief survey of the landscape underscores the challenges the government faces as it continues its halting efforts to modernize and right-size its real property portfolio.
The Office of Management and Budget’s Reduce the Footprint and Freeze the Footprint initiatives of 2012 and 2015, respectively, arguably began the process of reigning in government space requirements and were quite successful at the agency level. But the lack of meaningful change in the size of the portfolio led to great congressional disenchantment, particularly with the General Services Administration’s real property disposal program. That led to the Federal Assets Sale and Transfer Act of 2016, which expedited parts of the disposal process and established the Public Buildings Reform Board to facilitate the identification of properties for disposal. Following COVID, low levels of building utilization further spurred Congress to pass the USE IT Act in 2024, which required agencies to track their space utilization and gave GSA more authority to relocate agencies out of underutilized buildings.
Fast forward to today and there has been meaningful progress. Per USE IT and further direction from OMB, agencies are reporting their utilization data; agencies now are considering sharing space in each other’s buildings; GSA is accelerating the process of preparing buildings for disposal; and GSA now is using commercial real estate brokers, not only to market major properties for disposal, but to actually conduct the sales as well. All of these steps make great sense and represents marked change from past practice.
It seems clear that the structural imbalance between the size of the government’s owned portfolio and the funding available to maintain it now is widely recognized, and the shift of agencies to smaller, leased spaces will continue in earnest. This long-in-the-making alignment between Congress and the administration should be a harbinger of a long overdue, and potentially more rapid, realignment of the federal real estate portfolio.
Unfortunately, the typical headwinds remain. For example, even in the best of times, federal real estate has struggled to gain the attention and focus needed to effect meaningful change. Administrative matters typically take a back seat to program and policy issues, and staffing and funding, both for GSA and the agencies, are more challenging than ever.
But much hard-earned momentum has been built around the needed transformation of the federal real estate portfolio, and there are still opportunities to sustain it. Ideally, GSA, with support from OMB, would work aggressively with agencies to firm up strategic housing plans based on new staffing levels. Centralized funding, perhaps along the lines of a revolving fund paid back by agency rental payments, would enable agencies to conduct the GSA-directed relocations and consolidations necessary to adapt their real estate footprints to their new staffing needs. This would allow for the release of older, inefficient buildings and the acquisition of newer, leased space as necessary. With OMB’s focus and attention (and extensive contract support), GSA could greatly expand use of existing tools like its exchange authority, “administrator’s discretion,” ground leases, negotiated sales and more, to facilitate more private sector-like transactions and trim the portfolio more aggressively.
In this ideal world, GSA would also proactively expand its coordination with local governments, especially in Washington, D.C., to understand the likely future use and zoning of these now-surplus properties. That would enable GSA to address its statutory obligations for historic preservation and environmental mitigation from a “best value” standpoint. From there, GSA could then perform its due diligence to ensure that the sales maximize values while avoiding market saturation and other negative community impacts. With top-down direction, focus and resources, the potential exists to finally get to a leaner and more productive portfolio for government agencies, better outcomes for the communities, and better values for taxpayers.
Adam Bodner is a principal at ABodner Consulting and is vice president of the Federal Real Property Association. The views expressed are his own.
At the recent Professional Services Council’s Vision Conference, one of the presentations on acquisition trends highlighted as many as 10 agency specific multi-award technology contracts that have been cancelled or put on indefinite hold.
These included COMET 2 from the General Services Administration, the Army’s Modern Software contract and the IRS’s digital services blanket purchase agreement.
The leaders of the vision team said agencies made the decision to cancel these and other contracts based on the requirements outlined in President Donald Trump’s executive order from March calling for the consolidation of contracts.
One of those acquisition programs that is bucking the cancellation trend is the Army’s huge multiple award contract for professional services.
The service said in a Dec. 19 posting on SAM.gov that it will proceed with the Marketplace for the Acquisition of Professional Services (MAPS) contract after all.
The Army had shelved the program back in March when the White House issued the EO.
“We are pleased to announce that after careful consideration the Government has decided to PROCEED forward with the MAPS acquisition!” the Army Contracting Command at Aberdeen Proving Ground wrote.
MAPS would bring together two existing contracts, IT Enterprise Solutions-3 Services (ITES-3S) and Responsive Strategic Sourcing for Services 3 (RS3), and would have a 10-year life with a $50 billion ceiling.
The Army planned to combine the two contracts in MAPS back in 2024. Instead of recompeting its RS3 as a vehicle called Ascend and moving to version four of ITES-3S, the Army wanted to create its own broad-based professional services contract. Baker Tilly says in a blog post that the Army awarded RS3 in multiple phases between 2017 and 2019, with 260 companies currently participating in the $37.4 billion vehicle. The advisory firm says the service awarded ITES-3S in 2018 and includes 135 companies, and it has a $12 billion ceiling.
The Army had considered moving its requirements that MAPS will address to OASIS+ since there is some overlap of professional services requirements. Under MAPS, the Army is looking for a wide variety of IT and engineering professional services, including program management, business process reengineering, cybersecurity and many others. Baker Tilly says while more details are coming, it believes “MAPS is currently proposed as a full and open competition with small business reserves. The government intends to make 100 awards in total, 20 awards per domain with an unknown number of small business reserves for each of the five domains.”
Now MAPS is back on tap and the Army will hold an industry day on Jan. 28 at Aberdeen Proving Ground in Maryland to discuss the rebooted solicitation.
The Army’s decision comes as the General Services Administration is opening an on-ramp and expanding its OASIS+ contract.
GSA to expand OASIS+
GSA said it will enter phase 2 of OASIS+ on Dec. 4. This means the updated multiple award professional services contract will add five new service domains across all six current contracts. OASIS+ eventually will have 13 total domains. The five news ones are:
Business administration
Financial services
Human capital
Marketing and public relations
Social services
GSA says this expansion is a direct response to the market research and feedback it received from federal and industry partners.
“Through in-depth spend analysis, customer engagement and a formal request for information (RFI) that was posted on June 17, 2025, GSA identified critical service areas that represent a significant portion of unmanaged government spending,” GSA said in a release.
GSA expects to release the RFP for OASIS+ phase 2 on our about Jan. 12. Additionally, on Dec. 16 the agency posted draft scorecards outlining the evaluation criteria for all 13 domains combined under the six solicitations.
In its first year, OASIS+ saw agencies obligate more than $366 million through 102 task orders, according to GSA’s data-to-decisions dashboard.
The Department of Homeland Security and the Air Force accounted for the biggest agency customers based on total task orders, awarding 31 and 29, respectively, in fiscal 2025.
Deloitte Consulting won the most task orders with four, and Leidos won the largest task order for $219 million.
And speaking of GSA contracts, its Polaris small business governmentwide acquisition contract is moving forward. As of Dec. 3, agencies can place task orders against Polaris service-disabled veteran-owned small business (SDVOSB) and Historically Underutilized Business Zone (HUBZone) pools.
Among the IT services included on Polaris are:
Artificial intelligence and automation
Cloud and edge computing
Distributed ledger technologies
Immersive and emerging technologies
“More awards in both pools are expected in Fiscal year 2026. Through this approach, GSA can ensure strong program oversight, manage vendor onboarding effectively and create room for additional opportunities,” wrote Larry Hale, GSA’s assistant commissioner in the Federal Acquisition Service’s Office of Information Technology Category (ITC), in a blog post. “Polaris was built from the start with flexibility in mind. The contract includes key features that help it stay current and responsive, such as on-ramps, no contract ceiling, and technology refresh capabilities.”
GSA still is reviewing bids for the small business and women-owned small business pools.
GAO dismisses AI contract protests
Another program that has garnered a lot of interest and attention received some good news last week as well.
The Government Accountability Office dismissed the protest by AskSage of GSA’s awards to artificial intelligence providers under its OneGov initiative.
GAO rejected the complaint not on its merits, but because it doesn’t have jurisdiction over contract modifications. GSA modified its schedule contracts with Carahsoft to offer access to AI providers for $1 or less.
“Under the Competition in Contracting Act (CICA) and our bid protest regulations, we review protests of alleged violations of procurement statutes and regulations by federal agencies in the award or proposed award of contracts for the procurement of goods and services, and solicitations leading to such awards,” GAO wrote in its decision. “Once a contract is awarded, our office will generally not review protests of allegedly improper contract modifications because such matters are related to contract administration and therefore not subject to review pursuant to our bid protest function.”
GAO says because AskSage challenges the reasonableness of the modification of the schedule contract between GSA and Carahsoft, “AskSage’s protest raises matters of contract administration and therefore is not subject to review pursuant to our bid protest function.”
GAO also determined that AskSage isn’t an “interested party” and therefore not in a position to challenge the modifications.
“To challenge the scope of a contract modification, a protester must demonstrate its direct economic interest with respect to its status as an actual or prospective offeror,” GAO stated. “Here, AskSage is a subcontractor or supplier to Carahsoft, not an actual or prospective offeror for the FSS contract between GSA and Carahsoft that has been modified.”
Nic Chaillan, the founder of AskSage, wrote LinkedIN that there are always loopholes when it comes to federal acquisition rules.
“We are obviously right on the merits. Sad day for America. Now [F]ortune 500 can build a $1 dollar unlimited offering in a contract modification for 12 [months], get agencies locked in and charge billions [in] year 2. Uncompeted. Sad day,” Chaillan wrote in response to others’ comments. “Sad to watch the administration letting those shenanigans happen.”
AskSage filed protests with GAO in August, claiming the awards for access to Anthropic and OpenAI tools violated several laws and regulations, including the commercial item pricing requirements under FAR Part 12 and CICA.
GSA said at least 43 agencies have taken advantage of the low-cost OneGov agreements for AI tools.
Login
