contract management | The Contracting Education Academy

June 11, 2013 By AMK

Secret ‘man caves’ found in EPA warehouse

A warehouse maintained by contractors for the Environmental Protection Agency contained secret rooms full of exercise equipment, televisions and couches, according to an internal audit.

EPA’s inspector general found contractors used partitions, screens and piled up boxes to hide the rooms from security cameras in the 70,000 square-foot building located in Landover, Md. The warehouse — used for inventory storage — is owned by the General Services Administration and leased to the EPA for about $750,000 per year.

The EPA has issued a stop work order to Apex Logistics LLC, the responsible contractor, ensuring the company’s workers no longer have access to the site — EPA security officials escorted contractor personnel off the premises on May 17 — and ending all payments on the contract.

Since awarding the contract in May 2007, EPA has paid Apex Logistics about $5.3 million, most of which went to labor costs. Conditions at the facility “raise questions about time charges made by warehouse employees under the contract,” the report said.

“The warehouse contained multiple unauthorized and hidden personal spaces created by and for the workers that included televisions, refrigerators, radios, microwaves, chairs and couches,” the IG report said. “These spaces contained personal items, including photos, pin ups, calendars, clothing, books, magazines and videos.”

Keep reading this article at: http://www.govexec.com/contracting/2013/06/secret-man-caves-found-epa-warehouse/64202/

April 24, 2012 By AMK

In acquisition, more meetings might not be a waste of time

For the past few years, it seems that every conference, seminar and executive session in Washington, D.C., that deals with federal acquisition management dwells, at least in part, on the need for better collaboration and communication between government and industry. Add to that the General Services Administration’s BetterBuy project, the Office of Federal Procurement Policy’s myth-busters initiative, the Obama administration’s 25-point plan for improving IT management — the list goes on and on.

In my opinion, we can’t talk about it enough. However, improving government/industry communication is more difficult than simply saying we need to do it. There are many reasons for the difficulty, but let’s look at two in particular: culture and bandwidth.

At last month’s Acquisition Excellence 2012 conference sponsored by GSA and the American Council for Technology/Industry Advisory Council, Mary Davie, assistant commissioner of GSA’s Office of Integrated Technology Services, posed a great question to the audience: “Has communication between government and industry gotten better in the past couple of years?”

The answers varied widely. On reflection, some organizations are easier to communicate and collaborate with than others, and the difference generally stems from culture, not policy. If agencies don’t encourage employees to reach out — or if they punish them for doing so — employees won’t make the effort.

The culture is beginning to change. In both government and industry, senior acquisition leaders have become more accessible and have begun to beat the drum for better communication and collaboration. Also, the younger generation’s adoption of social media as a method to stay in touch — that is, to communicate and collaborate — is also changing the way we all interact. That’s a good thing. Still, a fear of openly communicating and collaborating is still widespread in the middle ranks of many organizations.

One thing that might help is to keep having events where industry and government can participate at a professional and social level, such as the recent conference. Barriers start to come down when folks can interact in a “safe” environment where they can discuss their challenges and engage one another in dialogue, thus increasing their awareness, understanding and empathy (yes, empathy) for one another. Professional organizations, industry associations and public/private partnerships play a big role in opening communication and encouraging collaboration.

Another big issue is bandwidth. Today, we are all frightfully busy, and it is tough to find any time to meet with people who are not directly involved with our immediate priorities. Additionally, we all spend so much time in meetings already that the thought of having more of them is unappealing. After all, we have “real” work to accomplish.

The problem is that spending time understanding the market, the mission requirements, the technology, the vendor, the agency, etc., is part of our real work. And with extremely tight budgets on the horizon, that understanding is more important than ever. By sharing their experiences, industry and government acquisition professionals might find ways to reduce costs and stretch every dollar, whether taxpayer or corporate, as far as possible. So we need to make the time.

Industry can help by scheduling short, focused meetings with their government contacts and recognizing that none of us have time to waste.

So although communication and collaboration are happening more and more, we need to keep the pressure up, and we need to be patient. Changing culture takes a lot of time and effort. Let’s keep up the good work!

About the Author: Peter G. Tuttle, CPCM, is senior procurement policy analyst for Distributed Solutions Inc., an acquisition consulting firm, and a fellow at the National Contract Management Association. This article was published by Federal Computer Week on Apr. 6, 2012 at http://fcw.com/articles/2012/05/15/comment-peter-tuttle-acquisition-collaboration-communication.aspx?s=fcwdaily_100412.

April 20, 2012 By AMK

What acquisition officials can learn from ‘Real Housewives’

Reality TV shows provide ample evidence that relationships can fall apart very quickly because of a single ill-considered remark. A battle erupts. One person defends the remark, the other person lashes out in anger. It’s brutal to watch.

The relationships between agencies and contractors can be as delicate as those on TV.

Consider the case of a federal contracting officer, program manager or contracting officer’s representative giving a company a negative performance review. Friction can easily develop if the facts of the situation are open to interpretation or if the two parties have different views about what happened.

A recently introduced bill could change those dynamics, but not necessarily for the better.

The Comprehensive Contingency Contracting Reform Act (S. 2139), which Sens. Claire McCaskill (D-Mo.) and Jim Webb (D-Va.) introduced in February, would revise language in the Federal Acquisition Regulation that requires agencies to provide contractors with copies of performance evaluations and give them 30 days to comment, provide additional information or rebut an official’s assessment before it is considered final.

Under a provision of the new bill, agencies would not be required to share performance evaluations with contractors ahead of time. The bill, which is focused on wartime-related contracting, is intended to make it easier for agencies to identify and suspend poorly performing contractors. Although other provisions apply only to wartime contracting, this one would be instituted across the board.

Vendors and acquisition experts say silencing contractors in that way would damage relations between government and industry, creating distrust and leading to more litigation. Given no opportunity to review performance evaluations before they are finalized, contractors are likely to take some tough protective action.

“If a contractor’s remedy to correct the record is taken away from them, there is no safety valve for them other than the courts,” said Peter Tuttle, a former Army contracting officer and now vice president of Distributed Solutions, a consulting company.

Companies must be able to guard themselves against errors, unexpected bombshells and bias in past-performance reviews. “A contractor needs the right to defend itself from either baseless attacks or misinformation that is often a surprise or should have never been a negative rating in the first place,” said Jaime Gracia, president and CEO of Seville Government Consulting. Such inaccurate reviews happen all too often, he added.

However, acquisition experts say the evaluation process is only one aspect of the agency/contractor relationship. Just as in personal interactions, conflicts are more likely to develop if a relationship is already weak.

“I think someone who believes the past-performance review is the basis for a trusting relationship is putting up smoke and mirrors,” said Elaine Duke, former undersecretary for management at the Homeland Security Department and now president of consulting firm Elaine Duke and Associates.

Tips for avoiding a breakup

Duke offered some pointers for industry and agency officials. First of all, the two sides should be talking constantly throughout the contractual relationship to share feedback about expectations and results. That becomes even more important as the contract work progresses, especially when there are personnel changes among managers or contracting officers.

“Contract management should be a daily occurrence,” Duke said.

Government officials must tell the contractor right away if they aren’t pleased with the work. By the same token, a company must identify problems early and work them out with agency officials before they get out of hand. “Shame on you if you don’t,” Duke said.

Whether or not they have the opportunity to defend their comments, agency officials must take the time to prepare accurate performance reviews. They should take detailed notes for their contract files so they have proof of poor performance. According to Duke, officials will have trouble writing a solid review without such documentation.

Furthermore, federal employees need support from higher-level managers. Their bosses must stand up for them, even when they give a company a bad review.

In the end, Duke said a negative past-performance review should not be the cause of a breakup. As with any relationship, both sides must be fully engaged.

About the Author: Matthew Weigelt is a senior writer covering acquisition and procurement for Federal Computer Week. This article appeared on Apr. 9, 2012 at http://fcw.com/Articles/2012/04/15/HOME-PAGE-Acquisition-relationships.aspx?s=fcwdaily_100412&Page=2.

March 27, 2012 By AMK

Former OFPP chief cites progress in federal acquisition and workforce

Daniel I. Gordon, who served as the Administrator for Federal Procurement Policy from 2009 through 2011, has authored a paper on his tenure in at the Office of Federal Procurement Policy (OFPP).

The paper, published in the Government Contractor, presents reflections on his three goals while Administrator: strengthening the federal acquisition workforce, driving fiscal responsibility in federal acquisition, and rebalancing the relationship with contractors.

Gordon points to reversal of several negative trends, in particular, decline in the size of the federal acquisition workforce during the years 1992-2009, unsustainable annual increases in procurement spending during those years, and an unhealthy overreliance on contractors in performance of key government functions. In each of those key areas, Gordon reports on the progress made — increasing the size of the federal acquisition workforce, buying less and buying smarter (particularly through the strategic sourcing initiative), and a better balance in relations with contractors, with more clarity about the proper role of contractors and improved oversight, as well as efforts to increase communication with vendors.

A full copy of the article can be downloaded here: Reflections on the Federal Procurement Landscape – February 2012.

January 10, 2012 By AMK

What every acquisition shop should know

Dan Gordon, former administrator of the Office of Federal Procurement Policy, said contract management—or post-award oversight—is essential to ensuring that the government gets exactly what it pays for.

The contracting officer’s representative (COR) is a key part of that management. However, after reviewing 20 task orders that were worth about $235.1 million, the Defense Department’s inspector general found that contracting officers and their representatives at the U.S. Army Medical Research Acquisition Activity missed the mark of good oversight.

As a result, the agency had no assurance that it got what it paid for or even that contractors were not overpaid. It’s a good bet that the Army office isn’t the only place in government where CORs are falling short.

The IG gave a few tips that all contracting officers and contracting officer’s representatives could put to use:

Contracting officers and the CORs need to specify how they will assess contractors. They should note how they will evaluate the quality of their work and how often they will write the assessments. Those plans should also identify who’s responsible for the reports and how much detail each one needs.

CORs need to write their reports on contractors’ work. The CORs did not keep written approval of deliverables on 18 task orders, which were worth $202.5 million.

“Verbal approval by the COR does not provide for a sound basis to identify what type of assessment was made in determining whether to accept or reject a deliverable,” the IG wrote.

Contracting officers need a good COR. CORs need to take their jobs seriously. The COR overseeing one of the task orders, which was worth $12.5 million, prepared a quality assurance surveillance plan only because auditors asked for one. Such a plan should be a standard practice.

“When asked why the QASP was not prepared before the task order was awarded, the COR stated that he was busy and the QASP was not a high priority for him,” the report states. “Based on the COR’s statement, he was not diligent in performing his COR tasks.”

Contracting officers need to tailor COR designation letters to each task order. The letter should lay out what is expected of a COR for each task order. The IG found a general letter for each of the orders though.

CORs needs to review invoices on orders. They need to check specifically on “other direct costs,” which are costs that are not defined as material or labor. They can include things such as consultant services or travel. CORs should make sure all other direct costs are fully supported before approving the invoices and they should keep supporting documentation in the contract file.

The CORs did not conduct adequate reviews because they limited their review to the invoice charges submitted by the contractor or relied on detailed contractor cost reports without obtaining receipts, the IG found.

CORs should request and maintain receipts to verify charges billed for ODCs. Under three fixed-price task orders, the CORs approved six invoices with unsupported ODCs totaling $139,916.

The lack of supporting documentation for invoices increased the risk for improper payment. Army officials should get supporting documentation or recover the unsupported ODCs that have been paid to the contractors, the audit states.

In the report, Army officials agreed with the recommendations and plan to make policy changes.

— by Matthew Weigelt – Washington Technology – Jan. 03, 2012 at http://washingtontechnology.com/blogs/acquisitive-mind/2012/01/contracting-officers-representatives-to-dos.aspx.

Search this Website