COMMENTARY:
The United States government is both the regulator of the largest economy in the world, and the single largest marketplace within it — a trillion-dollar marketplace. Today, this marketplace is undergoing one of the most significant transformations in decades: purchasing power is increasingly consolidating under the executive branch. Federal digital systems procurement, long a decentralized process where agencies pursued their own paths, is inevitably subject to and being reshaped by the same trend. For both original equipment manufacturers (OEMs) and federal buyers, the rules of engagement are being rewritten at the highest level.
This shift is seen clearly in contracting. The President’s
March 2025 executive order on procurement consolidation called for “eliminating waste” through centralized agreements. Soon after, the Department of Homeland Security required
Secretary-level approval for all contract actions over $100,000, further demonstrating how authority over the contracting apparatus is being drawn closer to political leadership.
Congress, traditionally a check on executive power, has been deferential in this moment, allowing the White House to consolidate authority with limited oversight. The result is an empowered executive branch able to redefine how the federal government buys technology.
At the center of this transformation sits the General Services Administration (
GSA) and its new initiative:
OneGov.OneGov: A new model for government IT procurement
Launched in April 2025, OneGov is GSA’s
strategy to treat the entire federal government as one enterprise buyer rather than a collection of individual agencies. Instead of hundreds of agencies negotiating separately, GSA now secures enterprise-wide agreements that cover multiple departments under uniform terms.
Key Features of OneGov:- Direct Engagement: GSA negotiates directly with technology providers/OEMs, reducing reliance on resellers and system integrators.
- Standardized Pricing and Terms: Agencies benefit from GSA’s pre-negotiated discounts.
- Faster Acquisition: With terms cleared in advance, agencies can place orders quickly through familiar contract vehicles such as the Multiple Award Schedule (MAS).
- Shift from Customization to Configuration: OneGov pushes agencies toward commercial off-the-shelf software and cloud platforms rather than bespoke builds.
- Built-in Security and Interoperability: FedRAMP authorization, zero-trust architectures, and open API requirements help ensure compliance and multi-vendor operability.
This “one government, one buyer” approach reflects GSA’s vision of securing deep discounts, ensuring standardized security, and accelerating modernization across agencies.
How contracting worked before and how it works under OneGov
Traditionally, federal IT contracting was decentralized. Agencies received appropriated funds from Congress, negotiated directly with resellers or system integrators, and procured solutions that often varied widely across government. Prices and terms were inconsistent, and smaller agencies lacked the leverage to negotiate enterprise-class deals.
Under OneGov, GSA is set to become the government’s IT broker. Agencies can now opt into centrally negotiated agreements with technology providers, gaining access to volume pricing and standard terms. This change reduces procurement complexity and shortens acquisition timelines, but may result in less suitable platforms for each agency.
The difference is stark: where once each agency was an island, negotiating its own technology stack, today OneGov offers a uniform platform for IT purchasing at scale.
Unknowns and open questions
Despite its promise, OneGov raises significant questions that remain unresolved.
Impact on Congressional Authority: Normally, Congress authorizes and appropriates funds that flow directly to agencies, which then negotiate with vendors. With GSA negotiating centrally, it is unclear whether appropriations will shift in structure and amount — and how congressional oversight will adapt.
Open Competition: Federal
procurement law requires
open competitive opportunities. OneGov’s model of pre-negotiated agreements directly between GSA and OEMs raises questions about how open competition
requirements will be satisfied, especially if agencies are funneled toward a small set of enterprise contracts from large companies.
Sustainability of Discounts: Many OneGov deals feature steep, time-limited
discounts. Agencies may face “budget cliffs” when those discounts expire.
Small Business Challenges: Small and Medium Enterprises (SMEs) face steep hurdles under OneGov. Large technology firms can afford to offer long, deeply discounted—or even free—trials to secure a place on the government’s centralized procurement list. For them, a low-margin contract is a strategic investment to win future business. Meanwhile, smaller firms lack that financial cushion, leaving them unable to match such offers and at
risk of exclusion. This dynamic risks creating a winner-take-all environment dominated by the largest vendors. While OneGov’s tiered model is intended to provide entry points for SMEs, the prioritization of Tier 1 enterprises and the undefined timelines for lower tiers may ultimately entrench incumbents while smaller firms await a viable path to participation.
Adoption and Compliance: Agencies must choose to opt in, and as such uptake may lag without strong champions, migration support, and clarity on how OneGov integrates with existing systems. Additionally, rapidly evolving regulations around AI, cybersecurity, and data sovereignty could complicate compliance.
Although OneGov represents a bold restructuring of procurement, its long-term effects on oversight, competition, and budgeting remain unsettled.
Takeaways
Federal IT contracting is undergoing massive change. Driven by an empowered executive branch and a deferential Congress, the government is centralizing authority over a trillion-dollar marketplace. OneGov, GSA’s new initiative, embodies this shift by negotiating enterprise-wide IT agreements on behalf of all agencies.
What we know is clear: OneGov has the potential to lower costs, streamline procurement, and accelerate modernization. What we do not yet know may be even more important: how it will impact congressional oversight, statutory requirements for competition, small and medium enterprises (SMEs), and the sustainability of agency budgets.
For companies seeking to sell digital platforms to the federal government, OneGov represents both an opportunity and a challenge. It simplifies federal IT sales by turning a plethora of agencies into a single point of engagement, but accessibility can remain a hurdle for smaller firms, and success requires capabilities robust enough to serve the
government as a whole. For policymakers, it also raises fundamental questions about oversight, competition, and the balance of power.
As this initiative unfolds, OneGov is poised to redefine not only how the government buys technology, but also how power and authority is exercised within the federal marketplace itself.
