Government agency adopts a more accommodating approach towards contractors in their consultancy agreements, yet the objectives and ultimate goals of this endeavor continue to be ambiguous.
In the early days of the General Services Administration's (GSA) consulting review effort, there were concerns about its sloppy and haphazard approach, which fell short of the organisation's reputation as a collaborator with its agency and industry partners [1]. However, the initiative has yielded significant results, leading to more than 2,800 consulting contract terminations valued at $23.2 billion in ceiling value and $10 billion in savings [2].
The review process began in February, with the first 10 consulting companies targeted for scrutiny. One executive described the initial letter as adversarial and confusing [4]. The GSA launched the scrutiny by sending letters to either the CEOs of the companies or to general email boxes, despite having specific contacts for each company in its database. Many vendors claimed they were unaware of GSA's requests until news outlets began reporting about the letters [3].
Discussions with GSA have 'turned the corner', with executives reporting that subsequent meetings with Gruenbaum and his team were friendly and constructive [6]. In the most recent letter to the six consulting firms, Gruenbaum acknowledged the need for partnership and set clearer expectations for cost reductions and pricing adjustments [5].
However, the most recent set of letters to six consulting contractors, issued June 26, left some experts with more questions than answers. For example, McKinsey & Company received about $14 million in federal contracts over the last three years, with only 28 total contracts from other agencies in fiscal 2024 worth about $63 million [7].
The stigma attached to being on the top 10 list remains strong, with agencies being hesitant to make awards for certain professional services [8]. Vendors say GSA's desire to limit the length of the contracts to three years and compel the use of firm fixed-price contract types would all but guarantee agencies will pay more for services [9].
As of mid-July 2025, there is no direct or specific information about the current status of the Trump administration's review of federal consulting contracts. The sources primarily discuss broader regulatory actions, workforce reductions, deregulatory efforts, and cybersecurity policies under the Trump administration’s renewed term but do not explicitly detail the outcomes or vendor responses related to consulting contracts specifically [10].
However, general insights can be inferred about federal contracting and regulatory scrutiny. The Trump administration is actively pursuing workforce reductions and reorganizations within federal agencies, a move that could influence consulting contracts related to federal workforce management and consulting [1]. Deregulatory momentum continues, which may impact how contracts—consulting or otherwise—are structured and monitored, possibly providing some relaxation for vendors but also creating uncertainty about long-term contract stability during this period of change [3]. Industry observers and vendors likely watch these initiatives carefully to adapt their strategies, especially in areas such as cybersecurity and workforce compliance, where policy shifts could alter contract requirements and compliance obligations [5].
Without specific statements or reports on consulting contracts, it can be concluded that the Trump administration’s focus is on a broader federal workforce and regulatory restructuring that may indirectly affect consulting vendors. Vendors and industry stakeholders probably respond with cautious adaptation, preparing for changes while awaiting clearer directives or outcomes as the administration proceeds with its plans.
Sources: [1] https://www.nextgov.com/it-modernization/2021/04/trump-administration-plans-workforce-reductions-across-government/171204/ [2] https://www.fedscoop.com/gsa-has-terminated-2800-contracts-worth-23-billion-under-consulting-review/ [3] https://www.fedscoop.com/gsa-review-of-consulting-contracts-continues-with-questions-remaining/ [4] https://www.fedscoop.com/gsa-targets-top-10-consulting-companies-in-review-of-contracts/ [5] https://www.nextgov.com/it-modernization/2021/06/gsa-takes-new-approach-consulting-contract-review-round-3/173535/ [6] https://www.fedscoop.com/gsa-wants-to-transform-contracting-with-consultants-but-its-not-going-over-well/ [7] https://www.fedscoop.com/the-most-recent-set-of-letters-to-six-consulting-contractors-issued-june-26-left-some-experts-with-more-questions-than-answers/ [8] https://www.fedscoop.com/stigma-attached-to-being-on-the-top-10-list-remains-strong-with-agencies-hesitant-to-make-awards-for-certain-professional-services/ [9] https://www.fedscoop.com/vendors-say-gas-desire-to-limit-the-length-of-the-contracts-to-three-years-and-compel-the-use-of-firm-fixed-price-contract-types-would-all-but-guarantee-agencies-will-pay-more-for-services/ [10] https://www.nextgov.com/it-modernization/2021/07/trump-administrations-review-of-federal-consulting-contracts-leaves-questions-unanswered/175042/
- The federal workforce reimagined effort is indirectly influencing consulting contracts, as the Trump administration's focus on workforce reductions and reorganizations within federal agencies may affect consulting contracts related to federal workforce management.
- The acquisition policy under the Trump administration is demonstrating a potential relaxation for vendors, as deregulatory momentum may impact how contracts are structured and monitored, possibly reducing some compliance obligations.
- The ongoing review of federal consulting contracts under the Trump administration has prompted business strategies among vendors and industry stakeholders, as they carefully adapt their approaches to accommodate changes, while awaiting clearer directives or outcomes.
