Today we filed a comment in response to GSAR 552.239-7001, the General Services Administration' proposal for rewriting the contract terms for how every agency buys AI through the government's largest commercial marketplace (the Multiple Award Schedule).

*****

Thank you for the opportunity to comment on GSA's proposed 552.239-7001 clause for artificial intelligence systems sold through the Multiple Award Schedule. To put it simply, we believe GSA is right to seek secure procurement, sound data protections, usable human oversight, and stronger access to American AI. This comment is intended to aid those efforts by answering a narrow question: if GSA decides it is appropriate to proceed with an MAS modification, how should the clause be structured so it sets a workable foundation without shrinking the supplier base by forcing federal-only product forks and pushing role- and use-case-specific requirements into the MAS baseline.

As drafted, this clause is likely to narrow that supplier pool, as well as slow updates and raise prices. It would use a single Government-unique MAS baseline to solve too many distinct issues at once in a market defined by hosted delivery, layered vendor relationships, standard commercial terms, and frequent model change. We suggest several targeted changes to set such a workable baseline while avoiding the provisions most likely to prevent the government from accessing frontier AI technology.

Summary of Requested Revisions

1. Keep a thin non-waivable baseline and preserve targeted order-level tailoring. OMB's AI-use guidance calls for risk management tied to the expected use and scaled to the level of risk. A single MAS clause should preserve core protections for Government data, privacy, logical segregation, and incident reporting while leaving role- and use-case-specific requirements to the order level.
2. Do not turn the MAS baseline into a process-heavy Government overlay that repeats problems the Government has already had to correct. FedRAMP modernization moved away from Federal-only offerings and toward faster, more reusable authorization paths after years of sponsor friction, delay, and process burden, while OMB’s secure software attestation regime was narrowed, extended, and ultimately rescinded in favor of risk-based, agency-tailored assurance.
3. Narrow the provisions that collide with commercial licensing and layered delivery. GAO found increased cloud costs, license repurchase demands, added fees for third-party infrastructure, and reduced provider choice from restrictive licensing practices.
4. Limit oversight and documentation demands to what agencies actually need. OMB's December 11, 2025 memorandum recognizes that agencies often buy through resellers, integrators, and platform operators, and says agencies should avoid compelling disclosure of sensitive technical data such as model weights where practicable.

FAI therefore urges GSA to retain a thin non-waivable baseline, preserve targeted order-level tailoring, and narrow the provisions on precedence, service-provider responsibility, data rights, portability, documentation, evaluation, change management, and American AI.