Who’s the boss in government contracting?

he management structure of government procurement, where one of every six federal dollars is spent, has remained generally unchanged for many years, even as the volume and percentage of products and services performed by agencies has evolved to today’s outsourced, dependent model. One continuing characteristic of this model is decentralization.

For example, since its creation in 1971, governmentwide acquisition policy responsibility rests with the Office of Federal Procurement Policy (OFPP), residing within OMB. It helps shape the policy and practices governing over $500 billion of annual contract obligations. It does so with a very small budget and staff and relies on interagency cooperation to develop policy and workforce development planning in the form of memos, circulars, guides, or reports. OFPP chairs the FAR Council, consisting of senior procurement executives from GSA, NASA, and DoD (the largest contracting agencies at its creation), to manage cases (changes to the FAR) from civilian and defense agency councils, extensively relying on agency-provided “teams” for assigned subject areas. In addition, OFPP oversees the Federal Acquisition Institute (FAI), chairing its “board of directors” (agency procurement executives) to ensure training priorities are addressed, including development of a professional acquisition workforce. OFPP’s mandate relies on words like “collaborate,” or “assist” in describing its role over other civilian agencies. FAI itself has a small staff and relies on other, better-funded agencies, to develop training programs and schools, as well as private contractor-approved providers.

Keep reading this article at: http://www.federaltimes.com/story/government/acquisition/blog/2015/01/16/government-contracting-leadership/21858713/

Former security contractor CEO agrees to pay $4.5 million to settle civil claims

Keith Hedman, 55, of Arlington, Virginia, the former chief executive officer of a Virginia-based security contracting firm, Protection Strategies, Inc. has agreed to pay $4.5 million to settle civil claims relating to his involvement in a fraudulent scheme to create a front company to obtain contracts through the Small Business Administration’s Section 8(a) program.  The Section 8(a) program allows qualified small businesses to receive sole-source and competitive-bid contracts set aside for minority-owned and disadvantaged small businesses.

Dana J. Boente, U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia, made the announcement after the settlement agreement was signed by both parties. “The civil settlement illustrates the importance of not stopping at a criminal resolution when a defendant has pled guilty to fraud against the government,” said U.S. Attorney Boente.

The settlement resolves civil claims against Hedman relating to the criminal plea entered by him in U.S. v. Hedman,1:13cr74. According to court records, in or about 2001 Hedman formed PSI, which was approved to participate in the 8(a) program based on the 8(a) eligibility of its listed president and CEO, an African-American female. When the listed president and CEO left PSI in 2003, Hedman became its sole owner, and the company was no longer 8(a)-eligible.

Keep reading this article at: http://www.alexandrianews.org/former-security-contractor-ceo-agrees-to-pay-4-5-million-to-settle-civil-claims/


DoD IG: Some Defense contract audits rely on inaccurate pricing data

The Defense Contract Audit Agency (DCAA), which provides audit and financial advisory services to the Defense Department, hasn’t advised contracting officers on proper cost and pricing data, according to a recently released report from DoD’s inspector general.

As part of the IG’s oversight responsibility of the agency, it evaluated a cross section of 16 DCAA contract audits completed between October 2011 and February 2013.

The review included five audits of forward-pricing proposals as well as 11 audits of incurred cost proposals and other audit types, the report says. The IG identified one or more significant problems associated with 13 of the 16 audits.

Keep reading this article at: http://www.fiercegovernment.com/story/dod-ig-some-defense-contract-audits-rely-inaccurate-pricing-data/2014-11-04

DFARS sets time DoD contractors have to request information release

Defense Department contractors must now submit requests to release  fundamental research from a project 10 days before doing so, an addition to the Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (DFARS) says.

The DFARS says a DoD contractor can’t release to anyone outside its own  organization any unclassified information pertaining to the contract or the  program related to the contract unless the information was already in the public  domain or a request for approval is granted. Requests for approval should  identify the specific DoD information to be released, the medium to be used and  the purpose for the release.

The change regarding fundamental research was previously published as part of  a proposed  rule proposed in 2011 having to with safeguarding unclassified DoD  Information. Under the previously proposed rule, contractors would have had 45  days to submit the request before the information is to be released.

Keep reading this article at: http://www.fiercegovernment.com/story/rule-change-reduces-time-dod-contractors-have-request-information-release/2013-08-12

Boeing told to repay DoD after charging $2,286 for $10 part

The Pentagon’s purchasing agency says Boeing Co. (BA) must refund $13.7 million in excessive prices charged on spare parts, including a $10 device for which the defense contractor charged $2,286 apiece.

The Defense Logistics Agency “is seeking a refund from Boeing,” spokeswoman Michelle McCaskill said in an e-mailed statement. “The refund will be for the full $13.7 million identified” and will be requested by July 31, she said.

The agency overpaid about $1.3 million for 573 of the aluminum “bearing sleeves” used on an aircraft’s main landing-gear door that should have cost $10 each, the Pentagon’s inspector general said in an audit labeled “For Official Use Only.”

Wasteful spending resulted from agency personnel failing to negotiate good deals or to perform adequate oversight, and from Boeing’s failure to pass on savings it won from subcontractors, according to the complete audit report. A summary of the findings was reported by Bloomberg News on June 7.

Keep reading this article at: http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-06-19/boeing-told-to-repay-after-charging-2-286-for-10-part.html