On February 12, 2026, the U.S. General Services Administration Office of Inspector General released a report titled “Federal Agencies Are at Risk of Overpaying for Products in the Multiple Award Schedule Program Due to Significant Price Variability.”
The audit reviewed four of the highest-demand Multiple Award Schedule categories and analyzed transactions from April 1, 2023 through March 31, 2024. The objective was to determine whether GSA’s Federal Acquisition Service (FAS) is effectively managing pricing differences to ensure agencies receive fair and reasonable pricing.
The findings indicate that current controls leave agencies exposed to unnecessary risk.
The Core Problem: Extreme Price Variability
The audit found substantial price differences for identical or comparable products offered under MAS contracts.
From a sample of 100 products:
- 77 showed price differences greater than 50 percent.
- After correcting data errors, 71 still exceeded 50 percent variance.
- 33 had price differences above 100 percent.
- Some exceeded 1,000 percent.
One water filter ranged from $7.27 to $155.91, a 2,045 percent difference.
While some variation is expected in competitive markets, differences of this magnitude raise serious questions about pricing oversight. Inflation during the review period ranged between roughly 2.7 percent and 4.5 percent and does not explain extreme outliers.
This matters because for many purchases, especially those under $350,000, agencies may buy directly at the awarded contract price. In such cases, the contract-level fair and reasonable determination becomes the actual price paid.
Why the Variability Exists
The OIG identified three main drivers.
1. Inadequate Pricing Evaluation and Documentation
When OIG requested pricing support for 85 transactions, FAS could not provide documentation for 63. Of the remaining 22, only 15 had sufficient support.
Although pricing tools such as horizontal price analysis reports are available, they were not consistently or thoroughly used. In some cases, contracting officers reviewed only a small fraction of large product catalogs yet concluded that all pricing was fair and reasonable, even when certain items exceeded market thresholds by hundreds or over 1,000 percent.
The issue was not the absence of tools, but inconsistent execution and documentation.
2. Inaccurate and Inconsistent Catalog Data
The audit found widespread inaccuracies in product listings.
Out of 100 sampled products, 93 contained errors such as incorrect prices, inconsistent manufacturer names, incorrect part numbers, or mismatched units of measure. Identical products were sometimes listed under slightly different identifiers, preventing accurate comparison.
Pricing analytics depend on clean and consistent data. When data integrity is weak, price comparison tools cannot reliably identify outliers.
3. Underutilization of Existing Oversight Mechanisms
FAS previously launched the Competitive Pricing Initiative to identify and reduce price disparities across contracts. Reviews were conducted in 2015 and 2021, but not since then.
While pricing tools are typically used during contract awards and modifications, they are not consistently applied to reassess products already awarded and active on schedule. As a result, price differences can persist without systematic review.
The audit also identified weak controls over Temporary Price Reductions, including instances where price changes occurred without proper bilateral modifications.
What the OIG Recommended
To address these risks, OIG issued several recommendations aimed at strengthening pricing integrity and oversight.
1. Restart the Competitive Pricing Initiative
OIG recommended that FAS resume program-level reviews to proactively identify and reduce price disparities across contracts. The goal is to systematically address outlier pricing rather than relying solely on actions at the time of award or modification.
2. Improve Policies and Procedures
OIG recommended strengthening internal controls in two key areas:
- Fix inaccurate or inconsistent data in FAS pricing tools to improve the reliability of price analysis.
- Ensure bilateral contract modifications are approved before vendors update catalog pricing, preventing unauthorized changes from appearing on GSA Advantage.
3. Provide Clearer Guidance to Contracting Officers
OIG recommended issuing clearer direction on how to review and sample large product catalogs, ensuring price evaluations are meaningful and adequately documented.
4. Inform Agencies to Conduct Independent Price Reviews
Recognizing the current level of variability and documentation gaps, OIG recommended that federal agencies be informed of the risk and encouraged to conduct their own independent fair and reasonable determinations when placing orders under MAS.
5. Strengthen Controls Over Temporary Price Reductions
OIG recommended enhanced monitoring and stronger controls to prevent misuse of Temporary Price Reductions and to ensure compliance with modification requirements.
FAS Response
FAS agreed with restarting the Competitive Pricing Initiative, providing clearer guidance, and strengthening oversight of Temporary Price Reductions. It partially agreed with ensuring bilateral modifications before catalog updates. However, it disagreed with the recommendation to fix systemic data issues and with advising agencies to perform independent price reviews.
The disagreement reflects differing perspectives on the severity of the risk and the appropriate level of corrective action.
The Bottom Line
The MAS Program plays a central role in federal procurement. Its credibility depends on consistent, well-documented, and data-driven fair and reasonable determinations.
The audit does not suggest that every MAS purchase results in overpayment. However, it clearly demonstrates that large price variability, weak documentation, data inaccuracies, and underused oversight mechanisms increase the risk.
The OIG recommendations aim to close these gaps. Whether and how fully they are implemented will determine how effectively the MAS Program safeguards taxpayer dollars moving forward.
For acquisition professionals, the message is clear. Strong pricing tools and policies matter, but disciplined execution, accurate data, and transparent documentation matter even more. Ultimately, the key focus will be on how GSA enhances its systems and how the GSA MAS process may be overhauled based on the OIG’s recommendations. iQuasar can consistently support in assessing what additions, updates, or changes MAS contractors may need to implement to remain compliant and better position themselves for these evolving requirements.
We would welcome your thoughts on this report – feel free to share your perspective in the comments.