Welcome Login

You are here

Welcome to the GSA Furniture Group!

GSA currently has three Schedules for furniture and furnishings, security equipment, and related services. Customers can purchase the furniture directly from GSA Advantage!®. For more information on Schedules, visit the GSA Multiple Award Schedule (MAS) page or visit GSA eLibrary to get more information on different types of Schedules, or a listing of contracts under the Schedules.

 

  • Schedule 71 | Furniture covers furniture and related services for offices, household and quarters, packaged furniture, special use furniture (hospitals, classrooms, etc.), security cabinets, safes, vault doors, map and plan files and accessories, and special access containers.
  • Schedule 72 | Furnishings & Floor Coverings covers floor coverings, carpets, mats and furnishings such as lamps, draperies and coordinating bedding, wall art, artificial plants, and other decorative products.
  • Schedule 71, Part II, Section K | CMFS covers management services related to furniture. The other furniture Schedules include services specifically related to the products covered by the Schedule, such as layout and installation. This Schedule covers services to help federal agencies plan and manage major office upgrades or moves by providing access to professional project managers, designers, asset management systems and furniture maintenance services such as refinishing and reupholsters.

 

The Furniture team encourages you to become part of the discussion on the furniture acquisition process for this solution. Become a member and join this page.  

Groups audience: 
Share

Views: 1909

Comments

sales@therefini...
<p>We applaud the plans by GSA to integrate sustainability and sound environmental practices into sourcing initiatives and welcome steps that encourage cost savings across businesses and help employees strive to improve efficiency. As a long-standing provider of eco-friendly furniture refinishing and remanufacturing services to hotels, universities and government facilities since 1977, we understand the challenges faced by departments to manage furniture asset in a way that is mindful of costs as well as the environment. To echo Randy&#39;s sentiments above, we believe further education is needed to encourage businesses to look practically at where budget is going and if there is a way to decrease the overall spend. If managed correctly businesses can greatly extend return on investment by refinishing existing furniture assets.</p>
RandyJ
<p style="margin-left: 18pt">I&#39;m afraid this very well intended initiative will fall short of the GSA&#39;s goals and expectations.<br /><br />In the 14 years I have been selling furniture to the Federal Government&nbsp;I feel that the price problem of furniture purchasing the GSA hopes to fix is NOT&nbsp;the result of item unit prices not being discounted enough.<br /><br />More likely, the Federal government would find much greater cost savings from changing what they buy and how they buy. The Government tends to by a Mercedes when a Ford would suffice just fine.<br /><br />Anyone who has sold to the Federal Government for more than a couple years could tell stories of wasteful spending decisions that were made only because the Federal buyer had money to spend, or the buyers made unwise product selections for products that cost more than other comparable items might.&nbsp;</p><p style="margin-left: 18pt">In addtion to makeing ill advised purchase decsions, buyers all too frequently buy things purely because they have the money to do so.&nbsp; This is especially true at fiscal year end.&nbsp; The &quot;use it or lose it&quot; spending culture with all Government agencies MUST change.&nbsp;&nbsp; I know, I was once a Federal person and lived in that culture.&nbsp; We were afraid to not spend all of the money we had out of fear we could not justify our requests for the next FY.&nbsp;</p><p style="margin-left: 18pt">In the world of private business, we know very well the important difference between &quot;wants&quot; and &quot;needs.&quot;&nbsp;&nbsp; We may want really nice things, but we buy what we need,&nbsp;can afford and will produce&nbsp;the best return on our investment.&nbsp; The Feds must adopt such a culture.&nbsp; If Federal buyers had more skin in the game, they would quickly change their perceptions about spending tax dollars.</p><p style="margin-left: 18pt">Instead of rewarding agencies for spending all the money they were appropriated, the agencies and individual leaders, should be rewarded for what they &quot;actually&quot; save.&nbsp;&nbsp; The bureaucracies will find ways to manipulate the data to justify their means, so this will require some careful thought, implemention and leadership.&nbsp; That will be tough.<br /><br />I&#39;ve been trying to convince some Government agencies to alter inefficient buying practices for years.&nbsp; Few contracting officers will listen to industry inspite of their organizational vision statements that direct them to do exactly that.&nbsp; I suspect they have their own fears about perceptions of getting too close to businesses and losing their impartiality.&nbsp; Egos of both buyers and sellers coupled with Government agency and industry representatives own agendas complicate the discussion even further.</p><p style="margin-left: 18pt">Some contracting officers&nbsp;even find it offensive that a contractor who sells to the Feds would even have the nerve to propose such things.&nbsp; One contracting officer once told me, &quot;It is not the vendors job to save the Government money.&quot;&nbsp; Really?</p><p style="margin-left: 18pt">I&#39;ve kept track of a series of Federal contracts our company has been involved in since 2004.&nbsp; In that time on actual contracts awarded to our business for comparable building types serving the same category of end user, I&#39;ve seen the cost the Federal Government spend increase from approximately $2,000 per building occupant to nearly $6,000 without any measurable or practical&nbsp;improvement in the salient features of what has been purchased.&nbsp;</p><p style="margin-left: 18pt">The higher purchase prices did not result in buying better, or more practical furniture.&nbsp; It just ended up buying more expensive furniture.&nbsp; Though some of the incrcease&nbsp;is certainly due to price increases in&nbsp;material costs over that time period.&nbsp; A greater percentage of the increase comes from the choice of what the Government specified that we provide.&nbsp; This increase is also affected by inefficiences of the buying agencies, the bidding processes&nbsp;that burdens the sellers with unneeded overhead that must be covered.&nbsp;</p><p style="margin-left: 18pt">We have one contract with a Fed Agency that is past due for nearly 120 days because that agencies receiving and accounts payable keep messing up our billing.&nbsp; As a business, we must therefore build in additional overhead to cover our costs of cash.</p><p style="margin-left: 18pt">I fear that a FSSI for furniture will focus first on squeezing greater discounts from sellers.&nbsp; That may be the easiest place to start, but in my judgement is the wrong place to start.&nbsp; There is a point where continued consolidation of effort creates more inefficiencies than it was trying to fix. I fear that will happen with FSSI &amp; furniture buying. &nbsp;</p><p style="margin-left: 18pt">The central theme of most of the problems I see come from over centralization of buying and payments.&nbsp; Rather than more centralization, I suggest greater DECENTRALIZATION.&nbsp; Give the agencies a budget.&nbsp; Let those agencies in turn, assign budgets to their suppordinate directorates.&nbsp; Force them to live within it.&nbsp; Then reward them for NOT using all of the money they were appropriated.&nbsp; Let&#39;s start there.&nbsp;</p>
Nancyws
<p>Desk lamps tend to be part of workstation bids, so I feel the discussion below is pertinent to the group:</p><p>As a manufacture and vendor of ENERGY STAR qualified, very efficient and eco-friendly desk lamps made in the USA from recycled e-waste, I have run into frustration when trying to compete against less efficient, less environmentally friendly products offered to agencies. Even though the competing products were not ENERGY STAR qualified, their list price was lower, shutting my company out. &nbsp;This would NOT have been the case if a TRUE cost comparison had been done which took into account the cost of the addtional energy used by the non-ENERGY STAR qualified product and the cost of the addtional greenhouse gases produced as a result of that wasted energy and the high energy cost of MANUFACTURING the other product versus our product that is made from recycled materials, which means 80% less energy used at manufacture time.</p><p>I believe GSA could do a better job meeting its stated goals with regard to environmental stewardship if a method for evaluating true cost of products through their lifecycle were part of the evaluation process. &nbsp;There are models out there to help with this that could be evaluated further.</p><p>&nbsp;</p><p>&nbsp;</p>
GSA Furniture Expert
<p><font color="#222222" face="arial, helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">GSA is integrating green product and sustainability considerations into all of its strategic sourcing initiatives. We appreciate you raising both the issue of specifying Energy Star lighting and the issue of using life cycle costing tools as part of defining the scope of the&nbsp;acquisition. We have incorporated life cycle cost data from Energy Star and other programs into our Green Procurement Compilation tool,&nbsp;</font><a href="http://www.sftool.gov/greenprocurement" style="color: rgb(17, 85, 204); font-family: arial, helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: small;" target="_blank">www.sftool.gov/<wbr>greenprocurement</wbr></a><wbr><wbr><span style="font-family: arial, helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: small;">, and will consider it for the furniture strategic sourcing initiative.</span></wbr></wbr></p>
Collaborations, discussions, networking and sharing before, during and after GSA training and events. Sign up to receive notifications on the latest... More

CLICK HERE to sign-up to get Training email updates.

  • rzxiang
  • devinesolutions
  • lchen