Fact Sheet: President Donald J. Trump Enforces Requirement of Cost-Effective Commercial Solutions in Federal Contracts

TLDR

This “fact” sheet is for an executive order that enforces the Federal Acquisition Streamlining Act by requiring agencies to prioritize commercial products over custom solutions. It adds new reporting and waiver requirements for non-commercial procurements, claiming to target wasteful spending in IT and defense. While presented as enforcing existing law to save billions in taxpayer money, the EO largely reiterates current requirements while potentially adding administrative burden. The claimed $345 billion IT savings figure is speculative and doesn’t account for the government’s unique security and operational requirements that often necessitate customization.

This is a “fact” sheet for a recent executive order that aims to enforce the Federal Acquisition Streamlining Act of 1994 (FASA) by requiring federal agencies to prioritize the procurement of commercially available products and services, rather than custom-built solutions. The EO mandates reviews, reporting, and stricter waiver requirements for non-commercial procurements, and claims to target wasteful spending, particularly in IT and defense acquisitions.

Claim: The EO enforces existing law (FASA) by prioritizing commercial solutions and requiring reviews and waivers for non-commercial contracts.

• FASA has required agencies to consider commercial products first since 1994. The EO reiterates existing law rather than introducing a new mandate.
• Agencies already conduct market research and price analysis under FASA and the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR).
• The EO’s new reporting and waiver requirements may increase administrative burden and slow down urgent or specialized procurements, especially where commercial products are inadequate or require significant modification.

Claim: Previous administrations “evaded statutory requirements” by overusing custom solutions, costing taxpayers billions.

• The assertion that agencies “evaded” FASA is overstated. Agencies have long been required to justify non-commercial buys, and the FAR enforces this through mandatory market research.
• The $345 billion IT savings figure is based on a 2019 industry report that compared government IT spending to private sector benchmarks. This estimate is highly speculative and does not account for the unique security, integration, and mission requirements of federal systems, which often necessitate custom development.
• Many government needs (e.g., national security, public health) cannot be met by off-the-shelf commercial products without significant customization, which commercial vendors may not provide.

Claim: Trump’s prior EOs modernized defense acquisitions and consolidated procurement to eliminate waste.

• The EO to consolidate procurement within the General Services Administration (GSA) is a significant structural change, but it reduces agency autonomy and could create bottlenecks, especially for agencies with specialized needs.
• While consolidation may eliminate some redundancies, it risks reducing flexibility and responsiveness, particularly for agencies with unique missions or urgent requirements.
• The defense acquisition EO’s preference for commercial solutions is not new; it echoes long-standing DOD policy to use commercial items when possible, but national security often requires custom or classified solutions.

The fact sheet claims that the new policy enforces cost-saving rules, but in reality, it largely reiterates existing law under the Federal Acquisition Streamlining Act (FASA), merely layering on additional administrative procedures rather than offering substantive reform. It also asserts that agencies have wasted $345 billion on custom IT solutions; however, this figure is speculative and overlooks the unique and often necessary customization required by government systems to meet security and operational standards. While the document suggests that consolidation of IT procurement will eliminate waste, centralization may instead introduce inefficiencies and hinder agencies’ ability to respond swiftly to specialized procurement needs. Finally, the fact sheet touts prior executive orders as having modernized defense acquisition, yet the Department of Defense has historically adopted commercial technologies when practical—still, national security imperatives frequently necessitate bespoke systems that commercial offerings simply cannot fulfill.

The EO claims — enforcing cost-effective procurement, curbing waste, and promoting commercial solutions — are largely restatements of existing law and policy, not new initiatives. The fact sheet exaggerates the extent to which previous administrations ignored FASA and overstates potential savings without acknowledging the real complexities of federal procurement. While the EO may increase oversight and reporting, it risks adding bureaucracy and reducing flexibility for agencies with specialized or urgent needs.