Vet-owned small firms received 20 percent of VA FY 2011 contracts

The Department of Veterans Affairs awarded 20 percent of its contract dollars to veteran-owned small businesses in fiscal year 2011, exceeding the department goal set by VA Secretary Eric Shinseki.

According to a VA release, Shinseki set a goal of 12 percent for veteran-owned small businesses.

Keep reading this article at: http://www.executivegov.com/2012/07/vet-owned-small-firms-received-20-of-va-fy-2011-contracts/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+execgov+%28Executive+Gov%29.

VA pushes relationship repair with industry suppliers

When Maurice Stewart arrived at the Veterans Affairs Department a few years ago, he joined a procurement office that was in extreme distress.

VA faced the prospect of running 20 percent over its budget for commodities and IT services in fiscal 2010 due to costly redundancies and other chronic dysfunctions.

Keep reading this article at:  http://fcw.com/articles/2012/04/30/feat-government-industry-relations.aspx.

VA launches probe of reverse auctions

Acquisition officials at the Veterans Affairs Department are drafting a report for top VA officials on how the department has managed its use of reverse auctions, a spokeswoman said March 8.

On March 3, a senior VA acquisition official ordered the Veterans Health Administration to stop using reverse auctions, due to several possible problems. Now, top officials have asked the Office of Acquisition, Logistics and Contracting for an in-depth examination of reverse auctions. Acquisition officials are currently reviewing the VA’s use of the unusual procurement technique by checking 25 randomly selected reverse auction contract files for the report.

“VA acquisition officials have to learn more about the issue, which is why we stopped the reverse auctions, but we are still looking at how wide and deep the problem is, including whether or not any violations occurred in managing the program,” said Jo Schuda, a spokeswoman for the department.

The technique was “causing significant perturbations in the VA supply chain,” Jan Frye, VA’s deputy assistant secretary for acquisition and logistics, wrote in the memo ordering the halt. The disruptions are “at least one protest, potential increased costs, small-business program anomalies, violations of our VA contract hierarchy, and a ground swell of complaints from our suppliers.”

He also wrote that contracting officers, when conducting reverse auctions, have handed over too much of the rein to FedBid, the company that hosts the reverse auctions for the VA, without proper oversight by “cognizant contracting officers.”

“We simply did not think through all of the unintended consequences of reverse auctions when we recently made the decision to allow their use,” Frye also wrote.

A source close to the situation said Frye took an unusual approach in halting the auctions in his memo. Under ordinary circumstances, an agency would conduct a review or an audit and then decide how to proceed.

“Frye has unilaterally violated this governmental best practice by summarily suspending all contract activity without grounds to do so,” the source said.

In a reverse auction, companies bid to sell their products to the government and the price goes down with more competition for an agency’s bid. According to FedBid, small businesses win more than 80 percent of the dollars competed through the auctions.

Frye’s memo’s applies only to the VA, but it could get federal officials elsewhere to think about how their offices manage reverse auctions, experts said.

Even if agencies don’t follow the VA and immediately stop the use of reverse auctions, “it is likely to at least raise an alarm in the contracting offices of other agencies to make sure the use and procedures surrounding reverse auctions are appropriate,” said Gunjan Talati, senior associate at the Reed Smith law firm.

Larry Allen, president of the Allen Federal Business Partners, said the VA’s decision sends a message to all the other agencies. The message is, reverse auctions won’t meet all your acquisition needs, especially for complex procurements. The auctions are best for simple commodities.

“I liken it to using a Phillip’s head screwdriver when you need a flat-head screwdriver instead,” he said.

The effects on industry won’t be fully measurable until the review is done and VA decides how to proceed, Talati said. Nevertheless, Allen said many companies are happy with the VA’s decision. Proponents of reverse auctions have made federal officials see only the potential savings, not the limitations, of using the approach.

He said industry isn’t against reverse auction, but just want it used where it fits best.

“Using reverse auctions for complex procurements tend to drive legitimate suppliers to the sidelines,” he said.

About the Author: Matthew Weigelt is a senior writer covering acquisition and procurement for Federal Computer Week.  This article appeared on Mar. 8, 2012 at http://washingtontechnology.com/articles/2012/03/08/va-reverse-auctions-followup.aspx?s=wtdaily_090312.

VA abruptly cancels key software contract, cites conflicts of interest

The Veterans Affairs Department abruptly terminated a $102.6 million contract awarded to ASM Research in January to develop software vital to an integrated electronic health record system that will serve both VA and the Defense Department.

A VA spokeswoman confirmed the contract cancellation, but provided no details. Industry sources told Nextgov that VA was concerned about potential organizational conflicts of interest and violations of federal contracting law, due to the fact that one or more ASM subcontractors had inside, nonpublic information about the procurement when it was put out for bid.

ASM has not responded to a request for comment from Nextgov.

VA Chief Information Officer Roger Baker said in an interview with Federal Times in early February that the contract with ASM called for the company to develop a middle layer of software for the integrated electronic health record (iEHR) called an enterprise service bus, which he described as “the heart of the iEHR.” Baker said the ASM software would ensure any application could communicate with any database in the iEHR.

The department awarded ASM the contract as a task order off its $12 billion Transformation Twenty-One Total Technology, or T4, contract for a range of information technology services in July 2011. Industry sources told Nextgov that Harris Corp., HP Enterprise Services, SAIC, SRA International and 7 Delta, a disabled veteran-owned small business, submitted competing bids for the service bus contract.

Top leadership of VA and Defense agreed to develop the iEHR in March 2011. Last Friday, in his monthly press call, Baker said the enterprise service bus contract was the first large contract jointly executed by the two departments for the health record project. “It’s the first major acquisition that we went out and did together to establish a standard piece of the iEHR,” he said.

Industry sources told Nextgov that the organizational conflict of interest that led to the termination of the contract stemmed from officials who worked for the Military Health System at the time the contract went out for bid in October 2011 and who now work for ASM subcontractors.

VA canceled the ASM contract one day after Veterans Affairs Secretary Eric Shinseki and Defense Secretary Leon Panetta met at the Pentagon to discuss joint projects, including the electronic health record. Shinseki said after that meeting, “The vision Secretary Panetta and I share is to provide an integrated, seamless experience to our people across their lifetime — from when they raise their hand to take the oath, to when they leave active service and join the veteran ranks, to when they are laid to rest with final honors . . . Over the past three years, VA and DoD have made significant progress, but more work remains.”

– by Bob Brewin, NextGov, Feb. 29, 2012 at http://www.nextgov.com/nextgov/ng_20120229_5048.php?oref=topnews.

VA accused of excessive outsourcing of vets’ jobs

The Veterans Affairs Department is being accused of undermining its own goal of hiring more veterans by expanding its outsourcing practices that eliminate many federal jobs currently, or historically, held by veterans, according to the union representing 205,000 employees at the VA.

In November, President Barack Obama signed into law the “VOW to Hire Heroes Act,” which included language to set up an expedited process for hiring returning solders for federal jobs.

But the VA’s own outsourcing, which began to grow under the Bush Administration and are continuing to expand, are abolishing many federal jobs currently held by veterans, the American Federation of Government Employees (AFGE), an AFL-CIO union, said in a Feb. 8 news release.

For example, the Veterans Benefits Administration recently entered into a $54 million three-year contract with ACS Government Systems to perform claims processing work.

That work currently is being performed by “large numbers of veterans,” the union said. “To add insult to injury, the VBA employees are being asked to volunteer to train the contractors to do their work.”

“Contract claims processors working for profit will now handle the most personal information of our veterans.” AFGE National President John Gage said in the release.

In several other outsourcing contracts in recent years, the VA also has gotten rid of many government jobs historically held by veterans, AFGE said.

Other jobs recently outsourced by VA medical centers and cemeteries, which historically had been held by veterans, included cemetery caretakers, laundry and food service workers, housekeepers, groundskeepers and transportation assistants.

The VA also has failed to comply with a 2009 law that requires the agency to do a cost-benefit analysis before each outsourcing contract is awarded, to determine whether the contract is cost-effective for taxpayers, the union said.

“The agency continues to violate federal law by contracting out work that has been traditionally performed by veterans,” the union said. “The outsourced jobs include many entry level jobs that disabled veterans rely on to get back on their feet after returning from the battlefield.”

The union also claimed the VA conducts “excessive contracting” of physician and nursing services rather than hiring clinicians from within the military.

“Contract physicians and nurses lack the specialized skills and best practices of clinicians who dedicate their lives to serving the veteran population as VA employees,” said AFGE National VA Council President Alma Lee.

VA officials did not immediately respond to requests for comment on Feb. 9.

Complaints about VA outsourcing have arisen on a regular basis in recent years. In 2009, the president reversed course on a proposed third-party billing initiative for veterans medical care following negative media attention about it.

About the Author

 Alice Lipowicz is a staff writer covering government 2.0, homeland security and other IT policies for Federal Computer Week. This article appeared on Feb. 9, 2012 at http://fcw.com/articles/2012/02/09/va-accused-of-excessive-outsourcing-of-va-jobs-held-by-vets.aspx.

VA kicks off acquisition training program for wounded vets

The Veterans Affairs department formally launched its new program designed to train wounded vets to become acquisition professionals with a ribbon-cutting ceremony held Jan. 19 at its Frederick, Md., facilities.

The VA Acquisition Academy Acquisition Internship School’s Warriors to Workforce Program places wounded veterans with disabilities into a three-year internship that provides them with the training and education to qualify for a career as a contracting specialist.

The program “prepares them to become trusted business partners capable of exercising sound business judgment to achieve best value solutions that serve the Veteran,” according to the academy’s website.

Veterans Affairs Secretary Eric Shinseki spoke at the ceremony, describing the program’s goals as “something very unique” and urging the inaugural class to take advantage of the opportunity. He also noted that the VA is second only to the Education Department in the amount of education provided to citizens.

The three-year program covers training from basic business principles to more technical contracting-specific education.

The first year includes college business classes taught in cooperation with academic partner Mount St. Mary’s University, as well as basic contracting and mental skills training to help deal with the stress often found in the job.

The second and third years’ curriculum is based on the Federal Acquisition Institute’s general business and technical competencies. The interns begin training as GS-5s and upon completion of the training are promoted to GS-11s and placed within VA contracting organizations around the country.

The inaugural class’ interns come from 10 states and four different branches of the military. Between them, they have seven Purple Hearts, two Bronze Stars and 170 years of military service, according to speakers at the ceremony.

About the Author: Amber Corrin is a staff writer covering defense and national security for Federal Computer Week. This article appeared Jan. 19, 2012 at http://fcw.com/articles/2012/01/19/va-wounded-vet-acquisition-training-program.aspx.

Contractors will remain in limbo during debates over automatic Defense cuts

“Fasten your seat belts,” a panelist told Defense Department contractors ahead of likely sparring between lawmakers and the White House over the details of automatic budget cuts slated to hit the Pentagon in January 2013.

“Defense contractors are hostages in the showdown between the president and Congress over funding decisions on taxing and spending.” John Cooney, a partner at Venable LLP law form and a former Office of Management and Budget general counsel, told a panel convened Tuesday by the Professional Services Council, a contractors trade group.

Despite the failure last fall of a group of lawmakers dubbed the super committee to agree on $1.2 trillion in savings, the Congressional Budget Office and the Office of Management and Budget have determined that no automatic cuts — called sequestration under the 2011 Budget Control Act — are necessary immediately.

But barring legislative intervention, spending related to national security, which in addition to the Pentagon includes the Homeland Security and Veterans Affairs departments and intelligence agencies, could face across-the-board cuts on Jan. 3, 2013.

Robert Keith, former senior specialist at the Congressional Research Service, said in a review of the budget procedures that Defense would be hit with a cut of 9.3 percent in 2013 if the president exercises his discretion to exempt military personnel, or 7.5 percent if he does not exempt them. From 2014-2014, that would translate to cuts of about $55 billion a year, Keith said.

“There have been such cuts in the past, but not of this magnitude,” he said.

In reviewing the legal procedures used in a sequestration, Cooney noted the practice has been invoked only once, following passage of the 1985 Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act, known as the Gramm-Rudman-Hollings budget act. Back then, contractors “got a free ride,” he said, whereas this year the Obama administration negotiated to put many more contractors’ interest on the table. “The only silver lining from Gramm-Rudman,” he said, “was that both Congress and the executive branch figured out that the cuts and revenues generated the intellectual capital for the 1986 reform of the tax code.”

If the sequestration kicks in next January, the details will not be known until there is an analysis from CBO, then a report from OMB and then an order to agencies from the president, the panelists noted. The cuts, technically called “impoundments” and “apportionments,” would be legally binding for every agency, with violators subject to criminal penalties.

“But the president can put his thumb on the scale,” Cooney said, meaning he has some discretion in favoring some programs within line items, though he may chose not to exercise it for fear of alienating Congress. “It’s highly controversial within agencies. The contracting officers will be told of the cuts’ impact relatively late in the process.”

Agencies also will have some discretion, Cooney said, in weighing personnel cuts against contract expenditures, for example. Their least attractive option would be to terminate contracts; their most feasible options would be to lower the cap on existing cost reimbursement contracts by telling contractors, in effect, “Use your best efforts but don’t exceed $Y dollars,” he said. Though prior-year contracts would be exempt, there would likely be few new contracts, and agencies would rely more on indefinite delivery-indefinite quantity contracts.

Contractors were encouraged to be proactive and “engage their customers” by staying in touch with contracting officers despite the limits on what they will know about future cuts.

Alan Chvotkin, PSC’s executive vice president and counsel, said agencies likely will reduce mandatory contracting commitments, maximize discretionary commitments and defer contract award decisions. That means adjusting acquisition strategies for new awards based on available funds, he said, and looking at “long-term agency mission flexibility.”

He predicted greater use of General Services Administration schedules for products and services, and he counseled contractors to review their past performance records in federal databases.

– by Charles S. Clark – Government Executive – January 18, 2012 – http://www.govexec.com/story_page.cfm?articleid=49790&dcn=e_gvet

SBA’s elevation to Cabinet-level is a symbolic move, experts say

President Obama’s announcement Friday that he was “elevating the Small Business Administration to a Cabinet-level agency” was a largely symbolic gesture, government scholars say.

“The president has the ability to designate his Cabinet and the SBA will be now part of his Cabinet,” Federal Chief Performance Officer Jeffrey Zients reiterated during the White House press briefing, after Obama’s remarks.

There is a distinction to be made, however, between the president inviting the head of an agency to his Cabinet, as Obama will do with SBA Administrator Karen Mills, and elevating the entire agency to “Cabinet-level status,” according to Paul Light, Paulette Goddard Professor of Public Service at New York University.

Light described Cabinet-level status as “a formal designation that only Congress can make by giving the individual and the agency a particular level in the executive pay structure.” He explained that Mills’ future attendance at Cabinet meetings is purely symbolic and will in no way affect her pay grade unless Congress passes additional legislation.

“He’s basically saying, ‘I’m going to call this person a BFF . . . and I’m going to invite this person to our clubhouse for our quarterly Cabinet meetings,’ ” Light said, comparing the process to the ceremonial act of knighthood.

Don Kettl, dean of the University of Maryland School of Public Policy, also sees the act as mostly symbolic.

“Whether an agency is Cabinet rank or not, in terms of getting the job done, doesn’t really matter a whole lot,” Kettl said. “It has much more to do with political symbolism.”

SBA has been on and off the presidential guest list for nearly two decades. President Clinton first extended an invitation to the agency head to join his Cabinet in 1994, when, according to Light, he also misused the legislative term “elevate.” President Bush rescinded the Cabinet invitation after he took office.

In 1988, Congress elevated the Veteran Affairs Department to Cabinet-level status. At the time, President George H.W. Bush remarked, “There is only one place for the veterans of America: in the Cabinet room, at the table with the president of the United States of America.”

VA’s promotion may have been a mixed blessing: “They got the name change, they got the accoutrements of Cabinet status, the limousine,” Light said. But the department couldn’t get additional employees or funding for new signs, thanks to provisions in the elevation legislation that prohibited such expenditures.

Light said in the grand scheme of things, federal agencies are “probably better off” not receiving Cabinet-level status. “That table’s not very important anymore — we don’t have Cabinet government as presidents once imagined,” he said.

SBA’s seat at the table is likely temporary. The president’s full reorganization plan, which must be approved by Congress, would roll SBA and five other trade-related entities into one, still-unnamed agency.

– by Andrew Lapin - Government Executive - January 13, 2012 at http://www.govexec.com/story_page.cfm?articleid=49775&dcn=e_gvet

IG: VA structured $133 million security contract to favor incumbent

The Veterans Affairs Department structured the requirements for a 2010 information security contract to give the incumbent a leg up, VA’s inspector general found in a report released Wednesday, Dec. 21, 2012.

The Office of Acquisition, Logistics and Construction used a technical evaluation process for the Sept. 28, 2010, award that favored “the incumbent, Booz Allen Hamilton, based on its performance as the VA’s Information Assurance and Information Technology contractor,” the IG said.

Booz Allen submitted a $133 million bid for providing support services to the chief information security officer, 22 percent above the least expensive competing proposal of $108.9 million and 16 percent higher than the other bid of $115 million, auditors said.

The acquisition office decided to forgo lower cost in favor of inside knowledge of VA’s procedures and practices, the report said. Organizational knowledge can be a key factor in evaluation of contract proposals, the watchdog added. But Federal Acquisition Regulations state, “such knowledge should not be a justification for assigning strengths and weaknesses without first identifying the criteria as a significant evaluation factor” in procurement documents.

In their evaluation of the competing bids, acquisition officials credited Booz Allen with nine significant strengths, six of which related to its knowledge of VA practices and procedures. Lack of such knowledge was assessed as a weakness in evaluation of the other proposals, the IG report said.

Inconsistencies in proposal evaluation also “appeared to promote the [contract] award in favor” of Booz Allen, the IG report said. Another bidder suggested using of a suite of network monitoring tools that included Sourcefire, Netwitness and Arcsite, and was penalized because VA did not use such tools and officials deemed them a risk to the department’s networks, the IG report said. Yet Booz Allen included the same network monitoring systems in its proposal and the “technical evaluation panel did not identify these tools as potential risks” the report said.

The acquisition office also did not provide a labor-cost rate analysis to justify the premium price paid to Booz Allen. “Such an analysis would have compared the labor rates of all proposals and determined whether Booz Allen Hamilton’s labor rates were reasonable,” the report stated.

The IG concluded, “while the award decision may have resulted in a low risk to the government and a decreased learning curve . . . VA should not have paid a premium price for the incumbent’s knowledge. In our opinion, favoring the incumbent during the selection process did not promote full and open competition in accordance with the Federal Acquisition Regulation. This practice puts VA at risk of awarding future ‘de facto’ sole source contracts at greater expense to the Government because of reduced competition.”

Belinda Finn, assistant VA inspector general, said the IG “will evaluate VA’s contract award decisions in future audits to determine if evaluation panels assess vendor proposals based solely on evaluation factors stated in the solicitations.”

Glenn Haggstrom, executive director of VA’s Office of Acquisition, Logistics and Construction, said in a reply to the IG report that Booz Allen was selected for the contract because it received an “outstanding” rating on its technical proposals, which justified the price premium. He added that seven of the nine significant strengths for Booz Allen made limited or no mention of its experience with VA.

James Fisher, a Booz Allen spokesman said, “the OIG report was not directly focused on actions by Booz Allen itself, and we have no comment on its conclusions.”

– by By Bob Brewin – NextGov.com –  12/21/11 – http://www.nextgov.com/nextgov/ng_20111221_6590.php?oref=rss?zone=NGtoday

Man indicted for fraudulently winning gov’t contracts set-aside for service disabled vets

A federal grand jury indicted a Luthersville man this week on charges of getting $2.85 million in government contracts by fraudulently claiming his business was controlled by a veteran.

Arthur Wayne Singleton, a 62-year old construction contractor, defrauded programs that set aside certain government contracts for businesses owned and controlled by disabled veterans, according to a federal indictment.

“This defendant allegedly took advantage of a service-disabled veteran of the Vietnam War, using the veteran’s name and disabled status to gain millions of dollars in federal contracts,” U.S. Attorney Sally Quillian Yates said. “Fraud like this deprives legitimate disabled veteran-owned small businesses of the opportunity to enter into construction contracts with the government.”

Attempts to reach Singleton or his lawyer Brian Steel for comment were unsuccessful.

The contract program is an important resource for disabled vets because they are often discriminated against in employment and business opportunities, said David Autry, spokesman for the Disabled American Veterans in Washington DC.

“For whatever reason,” he said, “people prefer not to do business with them.”

Singleton approached a bed-ridden Vietnam vet, identified in the indictment only as “GT”, in 2007 and proposed they form a joint venture called GMT Mechanical that could take advantage of set-aside construction contracts from the federal government, according to the indictment. GT suffers from severe knee injuries and other health issues as a result of his service. Singleton, who had more than 30 years of construction and federal contract experience, completely controlled the enterprise, the indictment said, and federal rules required the disabled veteran to control the business and own 51 percent.

Singleton secured contracts from the Department of Veterans Affairs, the Department of Agriculture, the U.S. Coast Guard and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers for construction projects around the country. According to the indictment, Singleton paid GT $17,964 because he said he had “to make it look as though GT was part of the business.”

The U.S. Attorney’s office has not indicted GT but declined to say whether he was a cooperating witness.

The payment to GT followed an inquiry by the VA, which sent a letter in February 2008 stating GMT Mechanical wasn’t eligible for “service-disabled veteran-owned contracts” because GT didn’t control the business or own 51 percent of it. But Singleton went ahead and submitted bids for a $290,000 contract in Iowa with the Agriculture Department, a $96,000 contract in Wyoming with the Homeland Security Department and a $1.375 million contract in North Dakota with the Defense Department and forged GT’s signature on the bids, according to the indictment.

– by Steve Visser, The Atlanta Journal-Constitution, 5:41 p.m. Thursday, November 10, 2011. Find this article at: http://www.ajc.com/news/atlanta/man-accused-of-defrauding-1222311.html