Transactional Data Reporting 101
What is the Transactional Data Reporting Rule?
The Transactional Data Reporting rule is an amendment to the General Services Acquisition Regulation (GSAR) that is intended to enhance the ability of the government to make smarter purchasing decisions through the sharing of information. Specifically, the final rule requires GSA FSS contractor holders, GWAC contract holders, and Government-wide IDIQ contract holders to submit various transactional data points to GSA on a monthly basis.
In addition, the final rule seeks to compensate the additional contractor burden through the elimination of the Commercial Sales Practice (CSP) disclosures and the Price Reduction Clause (PRC) basis of award tracking customer requirement. Note, the rule does not apply to VA FSS Contracts.
The Transactional Data Reporting rule will be rolled out through a voluntary pilot program that will begin within 60 days of the final rule’s release. Significantly, on August 17, 2017, GSA announced that TDR will be voluntary for all Schedule contractors. Any Schedule contractor who was required to accept TDR (due to option extension or a new contract requiring TDR) will be allowed a one-time opportunity to opt out of the TDR pilot. GSA hosted a webinar on September 12, 2017 providing additional details about the change to the TDR pilot. To access GSA’s slide presentation from the webinar, click here. Additional resources will be made available by GSA on the Vendor Support Center and the TDR Portal.
What Transactional Data is to be reported?
The final rule requires contractors to report the following eleven transactional data items on a monthly basis:
- Contract/BPA Number
- Delivery/Task Order Number/Procurement Instrument Identifier
- Non-Federal Entity
- Description of Deliverable
- Manufacturer Name
- Manufacturer Part Number (MPN)
- Unit Measure
- Quantity of Item
- Universal Product Code (UPC)
- Price Paid Per Unit
- Total Price
What is the Pilot Program and How Will It Work?
The voluntary pilot program will begin within 60 days of the final rule’s release (June 23, 2016) and will be required for all new offers and contract extensions. For existing contractors, the reporting requirement will be available through a voluntary bilateral contract modification. The pilot program will operate for one year, after which its effectiveness will be assessed and the future of transactional data reporting will be decided. The following Schedules/SINs are impacted by the pilot:
- Schedule 03FAC — Facilities Maintenance and Management — All SINs
- Schedule 51V — Hardware Superstore — All SINs
- Schedule 58 I –Professional Audio/Video, Telemetry/Tracking, Recording/Reproducing, and Signal Data Solutions — All SINs
- Schedule 72 — Furnishing and Floor Coverings — All SINs
- Schedule 73 — Food Service, Hospitality, Cleaning Equipment and Supplies, Chemicals and Services — All SINs
- Schedule 75 — Office Products — All SINs
- Schedule 00CORP — Professional Services Schedule — Only for the Engineering SINs
- Schedule 70 — General Purpose Information Technology Equipment, Software, and Services — Only for the following SINs: 132 8, 132 32, 132 33, 132 34, 132 54, and 132 55
Note: If a contractor under Schedule 70 or PSS has a contract across multiple SINs, the contractor will be required to report the transactional data elements for all SINs, including the non-pilot SINs, if the contract encompasses one of the effected SINs.
When Will the Pilot Program be Rolled-Out?
|Schedule||Description||SINs||Offerings||Tentative Refresh/Mass Modification Release Date|
|72||Furnishings & Floor Coverings||All||Products and Ancillary Services||August 26, 2016|
|58 I||Professional Audio/Video||All||Products and Ancillary Services||August 26, 2016|
|51V||Hardware Superstore||All||Products and Ancillary Services||September 9, 2016|
|03 FAC||Facilities Management and Maintenance||All||Services and Ancillary Products||September 9, 2016|
|75||Office Products/Supplies||All||Products||October 7, 2016|
|73||Food Service, Hospitality, Cleaning Equipment and Supplies, Chemicals and Services||All||Products and Ancillary Services||November 18, 2016|
|70||IT Equipment, Software, & Services||132-8, 132-32, 132-33, 132-34, 132-54, & 132-55||Products and Services||November 18, 2016|
|00CORP||Professional Engineering Services||871-1, 871-2, 871-3, 871-4, 871-5, 871-6, & 871-7||Services||January 13, 2017|
How does the Transactional Data Final Rule impact existing IFF Reporting Requirements?
Transactional data elements must be reported into the 72A Sales Reporting System within 30 days after the close of each month. GSA is encouraging contractors to remit their IFF on a similar monthly basis, but it is only required on a quarterly basis.
What Will the Government Do with the Data?
The data will be provided to category managers, FSS contracting officers, and agency contracting officers. In the rule, GSA states that it is developing training to ensure that the data is used appropriately and that the focus of ordering activities continues to be best value procurements. An update to the General Services Administration Acquisition Manual (GSAM) containing these changes is expected in the near future.
What Public Statements has the Coalition Made Regarding the Rule?
On July 29, 2019, the Coalition submitted comments regarding GSA’s review of the information collection requirements for Transactional Data Reporting (TDR). The Coalition’s comments focus on whether TDR is necessary and has practical utility as well as if GSA’s estimates of the collection burden are accurate and based on valid assumptions and methodology. To read the full comments, click here.
On behalf of our members, the Coalition submitted over sixty questions to GSA regarding TDR pilot implementation and operational mechanics. The questions can be found here. The responses to these questions will be a critical step in improving industry partners’ understanding of the TDR pilot, understanding which will reduce uncertainty in their business operations. The Coalition urged GSA to engage in a series of “in- person” industry days to engage with its industry partners in a robust information exchange and recommended that GSA revise the implementation schedule for the pilot, specifically, moving the initial implementation date to January 2017. GSA’s response to the Coalition can be found here.
On June 25, 2015, Coalition President, Roger Waldron, testified before the Subcommittee on Contracting and Workforce of the Committee on Small Business. Mr. Waldron’s testimony highlighted many of the concerns raised in the Coalition’s comments on the proposed rule, as well as the results of the Coalition’s transactional data survey. Significantly, this survey indicated that the proposed rule’s burden would be approximately 30 times greater than GSA’s estimated burden, and thus, limit government’s access to innovative solutions and drive prices higher.
Read the full testimony here.
A recording of the hearing can be found here.
In response to the final rule, the Coalition put together a one-page resource that details the most pertinent information regarding the rule.
On May 2, 2015, the Coalition submitted comments regarding the proposed Transactional Data Reporting rule and the various concerns raised by members. Specifically, the comments addressed industry’s reservations regarding the proposed rule, which included, but was not limited to, the proposed rule’s burdensome requirements, inadequate protections for proprietary information, and lack of regard for terms and conditions.
It was recommended that GSA take the following actions:
- Compare offered prices for identical products; reject outliers
- Assure that offerors are authorized resellers
- Encourage contractors to update GSA Advantage!
- Increase training to customer agencies
- Pilot test collecting data internally
- Eliminate the PRC
Read the full comments here.
Read a summary of the Coalition comments and Transactional Data Reporting survey here.
FAR and Beyond Blog
This blog examines the final Transactional Data Reporting rule, providing some initial thoughts and observations based on the changes GSA made from the proposed rule. Specifically, the blog discusses the elimination of the CSP format, as well as the move to a voluntary pilot roll-out, regarding how these changes could positively impact the procurement community. In addition, it raises various points of concern with the final rule, such as how proprietary information will be protected, that will require further dialogue between industry and GSA.
This blog explores a recently published Department of Defense (DoD) instruction that establishes policy, assigns responsibilities, and provides direction for the acquisition of services across DoD. Significantly, the instruction establishes data collection and reporting requirements to support annual updates to senior officials and Functional Domain Experts in a seemingly internal approach. This automated capture of data appears to offer an alternative model to the proposed Transactional Data reporting rule for how government can access information.
This blog describes many of the various concerns from industry regarding the proposed Transactional Data Reporting rule. Some concerns addressed in the blog included, GSA’s method of estimating burden, the necessity of the proposed rule, and the security of the collected information.
This blog details the proposed Transactional Data Reporting rule and its possible impact for contractors. Specifically, it includes discussion regarding the proposed rule’s support of horizontal price comparisons to drive down pricing in such a manner that will serve to control wages and prices through a constant drive to lower prices.
From Our Members
Jonathan Aronie, Partner, Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton, analyzes the final Transactional Data Reporting rule and the possible effects that it may have on the Federal contracting community. Mr. Aronie raises significant concerns with specific aspects of the final rule, as well as “first steps” that contractors may want to take in responding to the changes.
Baker Tilly explores the final Transactional Data Reporting rule in this article, detailing key changes, initial concerns, and recommended best practices related to the final rule to assist contractors in ensuring continued compliance in the Federal marketplace moving forward.
Jason Workmaster, Counsel, Covington & Burling LLP; Nooree Lee, Associate, Covington & Burling LLP; and Alex Sarria, Associate, Covington & Burling LLP, detail the final transactional data reporting rule. This article summarizes the significant changes made from the proposed rule, as well as raises initial concerns for contractors.
Authors Phillip Seckman and Tyler Thomas examine the final transactional data reporting rule and the possible consequences it may have on the Federal contracting marketplace. In addition, the authors analyze the final rule’s updates from its proposed version, highlighting concerns that may not have been addressed.
Michael F. Mason, Partner, Hogan Lovells; Joy E. Sturm, Partner, Hogan Lovells; David W. Burgett, Partner, Hogan Lovells; Allison D. Pugsley, Counsel, Hogan Lovells; and Stacy M. Hadeka, Associate, Hogan Lovells, provide an overview of the final transactional data reporting rule, as well as an analysis of some issues that may arise with the rule moving forward.
Originally posted in Law360 on April 24, 2015, author Brian Miller, Managing Director, Navigant Consulting Inc., examines the proposed Transactional Data Reporting rule, with a specific attention to trade-off of transactional data reporting for elimination of the PRC. Miller describes this trade as a “Faustian bargain” for contractors, one which they may not wish to make.
Author Jonathan Aronie, Partner, Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton, examines the PRC and what the proposed Transactional Data Reporting rule may mean for the clause’s future. Aronie cautions contractors that although the proposed rule seems to put an end to the PRC, the clause may not be going away anytime soon.