awards | The Contracting Education Academy

August 24, 2012 By AMK

DoD temporarily alters vendor registration rule due to SAM’s launch shortcomings

In order to avoid delays in “the timely processing of awards,” the U.S. Department of Defense (DoD) has ordered the temporary suspension of rules requiring vendor registration in the System for Award Management (SAM).

SAM replaced Central Contractor Registration (CCR), the government’s long-standing vendor database. SAM was launched during the last weekend in July 2012 when CCR vendor data was migrated to the new system.

SAM’s late July implementation included not only CCR but Federal Agency Registration (FedReg), the Online Representation and Certification Application (ORCA), and the Excluded Parties List System (EPLS) as well. “Performance issues” involving the new SAM database prompted DoD’s action to suspend for “a brief period” the requirement that vendors be registered in SAM before being eligible for a contract award.

Since SAM’s launch there have been widespread reports and complaints from vendors and contracting officers alike that they cannot access vendor records or are experiencing slow performance within the on-line system. The General Services Administration (GSA) is responsible for SAM. GSA contracted with IBM to manage the design and implementation of SAM.

In the August 21, 2012 order to temporarily suspend SAM registration requirements, DoD noted that the action would provide “a brief period of time for achieving resolution of the remaining [performance] issues.”

DoD notes that “GSA has been taking aggressive action to resolve these issues promptly.” Earlier news reports indicated that GSA issued IBM a “letter of concern” on Aug. 7. In the official notice, GSA told IBM to develop a plan of action and milestones for how they will make SAM work more smoothly. GSA hired IBM under an eight-year, $74.4 million contract in 2010.

DoD’s order was issued in the form of a “class deviation” which allows the department to suspend Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) and Defense FAR Supplement (DFARS) requirements pertaining to vendor registration and annual representations and certifications.

In its order DoD notes that contractors are still required to be registered in SAM prior to submitting invoices.

Before the DoD order, all contractors were required to be registered in SAM, and all contracting officers were required to check SAM before making a contract award.

Until SAM is functional, DoD’s contracting officials are directed to obtain paper or electronic copies of vendors’ representations and certifications in lieu of accessing this documentation via that portion of SAM that used to be the stand-alone ORCA system.

The EPLS migration to SAM has been reversed, thus restoring that website as a site operating on its own. Because of this action, contracting officers once again have the ability to conduct pre-award checks in EPLS to ensure prospective contractors are not on the list of entities excluded from federal contracts.

DoD’s class deviation remains in effect for an indefinite period of time until rescinded.

The SAM User Guide can be downloaded at: https://www.sam.gov/SAMPortal/img/Download-PDF.png.

For the latest news involving SAM, please visit: http://contractingacademy.gatech.edu/tag/sam

© 2012 The Contracting Education Academy at Georgia Tech. All Rights Reserved. Permission to reprint this article is hereby granted with the stipulations that the article is attributed to The Contracting Education Academy at Georgia Tech and that the following URL is given: http://contractingacademy.gatech.edu/2012/08/dod-temporarily-alters-vendor-registration-rule-due-to-sams-launch-shortcomings

August 24, 2012 – 5:33 am EST

May 16, 2011 By AMK

Opposition builds against Obama on disclosing contractor campaign gifts

House lawmakers are at odds with the Obama administration over whether requiring contractors to disclose campaign contributions would increase transparency in the procurement process while insulating companies from charges that awards are politically motivated.

During a joint committee oversight hearing Thursday, lawmakers criticized a draft executive order, released in April, that would require companies bidding on agency contracts to release a list of contributions or political expenditures that total in excess of $5,000 made on behalf of federal candidates, parties or political action committees. Contractors also would be required to disclose contributions to third-party nonprofit groups — known as a 501(c)(4) organizations — in which the company has the “reasonable expectation” that the funds would be used to pay for electioneering communications such as paid advertisements. The proposal is “shameful” and could have a negative impact on federal procurement, several lawmakers said.

Daniel Gordon, administrator for the Office of Federal Procurement Policy at the Office of Management and Budget, declined at the hearing to discuss the details of draft order, but said the administration is committed to ensuring that acquisition in government is transparent and based solely on the requirements listed in contract solicitations.

“There simply is no place for politics in federal acquisition,” Gordon said. “The process must ensure … that no political considerations are allowed to bear on federal contracting at any point during the acquisition process.”

According to Gordon, contributions that are disclosed would not be a factor in contract awards, and such information actually is unnecessary to the procurement process. The idea is to increase public trust in the federal procurement system, which in turn would increase participation, boost competition and lower prices, he said.

Many lawmakers say the draft order is politically motivated and requires businesses to submit unneeded information that could negatively affect the awarding of contracts. “It is not necessary for you to do your job, and your office will not look at it,” said House Oversight and Government Reform Chairman Darrell Issa, R-Calif. “It’s very clear this executive order is outside the procurement process.”

“The agency doesn’t need that information, so I still fail to see what purpose it serves in that determination,” said Rep. Sam Graves, R-Mo., chairman of the Small Business Committee. “Can the public get that information after you’ve awarded the contract? It is fully available. The simple idea that you want that information ahead of time disturbs me in a big way.”

Industry officials also oppose the proposal, arguing that it does not address the realities of the federal procurement system and increases the burden on contractors to collect and submit contribution data.

“This type of political information has been intentionally kept out of source selection to ensure a merit-based evaluation and award process, but the order would make disclosure a condition of award,” said Alan Chvotkin, executive vice president and counsel of the Professional Services Council, a contractor trade group, in written testimony to the joint committee. “The result will be to create the very ‘pay-to-play’ environment on the federal level where none exists.”

The draft order also has drawn ire in the Senate. A bipartisan group of senators Thursday sent a letter to Obama expressing concern that the directive would politicize the award process and place an unnecessary burden on the federal acquisition workforce that oversees the contracting process. Twenty-seven Republican senators in April sent a similar letter asking the president to drop the proposal.

Small business owners, however, have applauded the transparency that would be required by the draft order. In a call with reporters on Thursday, representatives of small business groups said the directive would prevent the awards process from tipping in favor of heavy hitters at the expense of smaller organizations and taxpayers.

“If a new disclosure rule is enacted, it won’t be small businesses that are burdened,” said Frank Knapp, chief executive officer of the South Carolina Small Business Chamber of Commerce and steering committee member of the American Sustainable Business Council. “We aren’t writing big checks, so we won’t have much to disclose . . . The only ones that do are those that have something to hide.”

— by Emily Long – GovExec.com – May 12, 2011 at http://www.govexec.com/story_page_pf.cfm?articleid=47800&printerfriendlyvers=1

January 3, 2011 By AMK

Feds offer peeks at companies’ subcontract relationships

The federal government is the newest occupant in the peep-show district of the business world.

It has moved in with its business partners peep show, a place where anyone — no matter their age — can get a glimpse of what’s happening between government contractors and their partners.

The place where everything’s transparent — the USAspending.gov website — is giving intimate peeks into business relationships with its new subcontracting award information, which went online in December.

To grab people’s attention, the government can advertise that it’s the only place where people have an opportunity to watch company relationships grow closer and then apart as business changes.

The government’s massive website of contracting data posted its first subcontracting award information in December, wrote Jacob Lew, director of the Office of Management and Budget, on the OMB Blog last month. It’s another step toward the ultimate goal of the Federal Funding Accountability and Transparency Act. For the first time, the public can track a government agency’s payments to a contractor and the contractor’s payments to its subcontractors.

Until now, two companies’ relationship was for the two companies alone. Government officials had regarded the details of relationships between contractors and subcontractors as something they shouldn’t release, said Kevin Plexico, senior vice president for research and analysis services at Input.

That has changed now, though, as officials pull back the curtain on companies’ partnerships.

In early December, Lew wrote that USAspending.gov had roughly 930 subcontracting awards posted, accounting to about $750 million in federal funding.

“We expect this number to increase significantly over time, but it represents a critical milestone in our efforts [to provide] the public with unprecedented transparency into how and where tax dollars are spent,” he wrote.

The show will include some veterans who are used to having their spending figures available for all to see. As prime contractors, they’ve had to do it for years. It comes with being a federal contractor. However, there will be some companies who’ve never shown that much information before.

The transparency requirements “may be uncomfortable for the subcontractors, who, by the way, are not typically exposed to this kind of reporting,” Plexico said.

Nevertheless, the data might be good. The peeks at companies could impress other businesses interested in potential partnerships.

As the amount of subcontractor data increases, “it should be a useful tool for companies and agencies to gain insight into partner relationships and patterns,” Plexico said. The data could also help companies find qualified subcontractors and give more insight into their past performance.

– by Matthew Weigelt – Jan. 03, 2011 – Federal Computer Week

Search this Website