The Contracting Education Academy

Contracting Academy Logo
  • Home
  • Training & Education
  • Services
  • Contact Us
You are here: Home / Archives for contracting officers

January 18, 2021 By cs

Former Army contractor executive sentenced for role in bribery and kickback schemes

An former executive of a government contractor has been sentenced for his role in a bribery and kickback scheme where he paid bribes to secure U.S. Army contracts.

John Winslett of Bristol, Rhode Island, was sentenced on Jan. 15th to 70 months in prison, followed by three years of supervised release.

According to court documents and information presented in court, Winslett admitted he paid over $100,000 worth of bribes, between 2011 and 2018, to two U.S. Army contracting officials who worked at the Range at Schofield Barracks in Hawaii.

The bribes included cash, automobiles, and firearms.  In return, Army contracting officials used their positions by awarding $19 million in U.S. Army contracts to Winslett’s employer.

Winslett further admitted that he accepted $723,333 in kickbacks from a local subcontractor in exchange for Winslett assigning those contracts to that local subcontractor.

Army-CID, DCIS and the FBI investigated this case.

Source: https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/former-government-contractor-sentenced-role-bribery-and-kickback-scheme

Filed Under: Government Contracting News Tagged With: abuse, ACID, acquisition workforce, Army, bribe, bribery, contracting officers, corruption, DCIS, DOJ, FBI, fraud, Justice Dept., kickback, Schofield Barracks

July 6, 2020 By cs

GAO: Oversight of contractor compliance with subcontracting plans needs improvement

Half of the contracts recently examined by the Government Accountability Office (GAO) didn’t contain evidence of compliance with small business subcontracting requirements.
The subcontracting report submission system is web-based.  Photo credit: GAO file photo

Federal agencies are supposed to notify Small Business Administration (SBA) representatives about proposed contracts that contain small business subcontracting plans for possible review.  But for about half of the 26 contracts we examined, agencies couldn’t show whether that happened.

Agencies also didn’t ensure that contractors submitted subcontracting reports, or that the reports were accurate.

Certain federal contracts that go to large businesses must have small business subcontracting plans.  Under these plans, contractors have to make a good-faith effort to offer subcontracting opportunities to small businesses.

GAO Report Details

GAO, in its report publicly released on June 29, 2020, found that selected agencies did not consistently follow all required procedures for oversight of small business subcontracting plans, both before and after contracts were awarded.  GAO reviewed 26 contracts with a subcontracting plan at four agencies — Defense Logistics Agency (DLA), General Services Administration (GSA), National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA), and the Department of the Navy (Navy).

For about half of the 26 contracts, agencies could not demonstrate that procedures for Procurement Center Representative (PCR) reviews were followed. These SBA representatives may review small business subcontracting plans and provide recommendations for improving small business participation.  When an agency is awarding a contract that includes a subcontracting plan, contracting officers are required to notify these representatives of the opportunity to review the proposed contract.  Without taking steps to ensure these opportunities are provided, agencies may not receive and benefit from suggestions for increasing small business participation.

For 14 of the 26 contracts, contracting officers did not ensure contractors submitted required subcontracting reports.  After a contract is awarded, contracting officers must review reports contractors submit that describe their progress towards meeting approved small business subcontracting goals.  In some cases, contracting officers accepted reports with subcontracting goals different from those in the approved subcontracting plans, with no documentation explaining the difference.  Without complete and accurate information about a contractor’s subcontracting goals, an agency cannot adequately assess a contractor’s performance in meeting its subcontracting plan responsibilities.

The SBA encourages agency compliance with small business subcontracting plan requirements by providing training to contracting officers and contractors, and by conducting reviews.  For instance, SBA Commercial Market Representatives conduct compliance reviews to evaluate a large prime contractor’s compliance with subcontracting program procedures and goal achievement. However, SBA could not provide documentation or information on almost all compliance reviews conducted in fiscal years 2016–2018.  SBA has developed new procedures for conducting compliance reviews, but as of mid-March 2020, had yet to fully implement them.  SBA has conducted fiscal year 2019 compliance reviews that reflect a first phase of their new procedures.  SBA has draft guidance on the new compliance review process, including some specific information regarding what Commercial Market Representatives are to record as part of the compliance review. SBA has begun to conduct compliance reviews in accordance with the guidance, but does not have clearly documented and maintained records for the first phase of these reviews.  Without consistent, clear documentation and records that will be maintained going forward, SBA’s ability to track contractor compliance and agency oversight efforts will be limited.

Why GAO Did the Review

Certain federal contracts must have a small business subcontracting plan if subcontracting opportunities exist.  But recent Department of Defense Inspector General reports raised concerns about agency oversight of subcontracting requirements.  GAO was asked to review oversight of subcontracting plans.  Among its objectives, GAO’s report discusses: 1) the extent to which selected agencies (DLA, GSA, NASA, and Navy) oversee small business subcontracting plans, and 2) how SBA encourages agency compliance with subcontracting plan requirements.

GAO reviewed data and documentation for a non-generalizable sample of 32 federal contracts (including 26 contracts with a subcontracting plan) at four agencies, selected to include contracts over $1.5 million at both civilian and military agencies awarded in fiscal years 2016–2018.  GAO also reviewed the Federal Acquisition Regulation, SBA and selected agency documentation, and interviewed agency officials.

What GAO Recommends

GAO made 10 recommendations to strengthen oversight of these plans.  GAO’s recommendations address ensuring that procedures for PCR reviews are followed, contractor subcontracting reports are monitored and reviewed for accuracy, and SBA compliance reviews are clearly documented and maintained.  DLA, GSA, NASA, and Navy concurred with all of GAO’s recommendations. SBA partially concurred with the recommendation pertaining to that agency’s operation, although GAO maintains that its recommendation is warranted.

View GAO’s full report at: https://www.gao.gov/assets/710/707231.pdf.

Filed Under: Government Contracting News Tagged With: acquisition workforce, CMR, Commercial Market Representatives, contracting officers, contracting opportunities, DLA, DoD, Electronic Subcontracting Reporting System, eSRS, GAO, good faith, GSA, NASA, Navy, PCR, Procurement Center Representative, SBA, subcontracting, subcontracting goals, subcontracting plan

May 18, 2020 By cs

Effectively communicating the acquisition impact

For far too long Contracting Officers (KOs) have been articulating in a rather underwhelming way the impact their acquisition efforts have on enhancing capabilities, mission success, and ultimately supporting the War­fighter.

The terms that KOs typically use to frame their support to the Warfighter involve detailing the dollars obligated and number or contract actions performed in support of the Warfighter. While this approach is used widely within the acquisition community to describe the efforts of contracting professionals, it does little to effectively illustrate the impact of contracting professionals or their teams’ contributions to the Warfighter. In order to effectively communicate/articulate their support with key stakeholders outside the acquisition community, contracting professionals need to change their words and approach and develop their message.

More specifically, they need to transform their message from a technical one to a dialogue that is relatable outside of the acquisition enterprise.

Operationalizing Contracting

An illustration of the need to change how the acquisition professional’s value is described is the concept of “operationalizing contracting,” which was introduced by Gen. Gustave Perna, Army Materiel Command Commanding General, in 2017.  In an online Army Contracting Command article, Perna shared his vision of operationalizing contracting by describing it as “… integrating and synchronizing contracting across the materiel enterprise in order to meet the Army’s priorities and the combatant commander’s priorities.” He adds, “It’s not about the number of actions and the dollars obligate …” but rather “… it’s about outcomes for the Soldier on the battlefield and for the Army.”

There is very little debate that a complex Base Life Support (BLS) or Logistics Civil Augmentation Program contract, valued at more than $1 billion, undoubtedly provides a significant capability to a combatant commander across all levels of warfare and warfighting functions. However, if contracting professionals continue to express their value to supported units in terms of dollars and actions, they will fail to illuminate the impact of less complex contracts that also greatly enhance a unit’s ability to train, fight, and win at the tactical and operational levels.

Training Environment

In deciding how to effectively communicate to their stakeholders, contracting professionals need to consider several things. One way to build a better framework for their communications to the non-acquisition community is to start with an understanding of the “why, what, and how” associated with the requirement being acquired for the supported unit. Frankly, contracting professionals are well versed in focusing adequate energies and efforts in understanding the what, as well as the how. But how much effort is dedicated to understanding why? Furthermore, are staffs and requirements developers prepared to provide the necessary information about why it is necessary to contract for a requirement or capability? Simply put, the stakeholders are singularly focused on the “what.” Having the information necessary to answer “why” is crucial to further contracting professionals’ communications. Equipped with that vital information, development can begin of an effective communications framework to utilize when interacting with the supported commanders and their staffs on requiring activities. Building an effective communications framework begins with fundamentals and requires an understanding of:

  • The levels of warfare (Field Manual [FM] 3-0, Operations).
  • The Phases of the Operation (FM 3-0).
  • The commander’s key tasks and intent.
  • Operational Contract Support (OCS) (Joint Publication 4-0, Joint Logistics).
  • The Warfighting functions (Army Doctrine Publication 3-0, Operations).

Doctrine is the language of our profession while the acquisition policies and regulations are a dialect. A focus on the use of doctrinal language should extend past the confines of Professional Military Education.

Practical Example

Let’s utilize the previously described contract action to help illustrate how to better effectively communicate contracting support in terms that are “operationalized.” Remember the BLS contract described earlier as valued at more than $1 billion? For illustrative purposes, let’s assume you are preparing a message for the Task Force (TF) Commander under a combatant commander. The TF staff described the BLS contract support as being necessary due to the Boots On Ground limitations established by the host nation (the why). Some other background information is necessary before we begin to build the communications framework.  Let’s assume that the audience for the discussion is the TF Commander and, for the purposes of this illustration, he is most interested in the impacts contracted support have in the strategic level of warfare.  Operation X is currently in Phase III, and one of the commander’s key tasks and intent for the current phase is to deny the enemy safe haven and freedom of movement throughout the Joint Operations Area (JOA).  As a contracting professional, you are primarily concerned with the BLS contract acquisition timeline. How do you communicate the significance within the OCS framework?

Based upon the process described above, a more effective method of describing your organization’s impact to the mission might look like this: Regional Contracting Center (RCC)-Operation X utilizes 15 acquisition professionals to provide administrative oversight of the BLS contract in country that provides mission critical contracted support to 10,000 Soldiers across six Camps/Bases. RCC-Operation X’s administrative oversight provides mission partners with secure and sustainable facilities and infrastructure that enhance their capability to plan and provide mission command across the JOA. RCC-Operation X’s support provides a platform to marshal and mobilize forces rapidly through the use of mission enhancing services such as maintenance, logistical resupply, and health services in order to deny the enemy safe haven and freedom of movement throughout the JOA. This contracted capability provides the commander with the ability to rapidly scale operations as necessary.

Value of Effective Communications

While changing the way contracting professionals express their value to the formation is one aspect of the issue, it is only one part. The other facet that requires some attention is the working relationship that contracting professionals have with requiring activities.  There is no denying that there is a continued reliance on contracted support by Army units on both the battlefield and home stations to meet their needs. It is critical that contracting professionals work as closely as possible with supported units from logistics planning to requirements development to help facilitate this reliance on contracted support. A concerted effort from all stakeholders is necessary to more effectively involve contracting professionals in the acquisition process. Increasing the involvement and touch points across staff functions coupled with an expectation of communication from contracting professionals that is grounded in doctrine will help set the conditions for success.

Increasing Opportunities

To develop this critical skill set, it is crucial to create opportunities, and the environment and situations that facilitate the contracting professionals’ use of a more effective framework for communicating their support of the Warfighter.  The cohesion, trust, and communication our maneuver commanders have with the contracting community can be helped significantly by increasing the contracting professionals’ involvement in Warfighter Exercises, Table Top Exercises, training rotations at combat training centers, and logistics planning. Relying on contracting professionals to develop the “language” only when deployed is not an effective training model.  We are, however, in luck, because the acquisition support that is provided to our mission partners at the Camps, Bases, Posts, and Home Stations provides us with an environment that is ripe with opportunities to train.

Conclusion

Finally, a simple example of changing the communications framework contracting professionals use is the pervasive use of the term “customer” when describing the units we support.  The use of the term conjures up images of “take a number and have a seat,” work hours posted on the door, and long lines at “customer service” sections.  This is not the image of a combat enabler that provides a diversity of enhancements, operational flexibility, and reduces vulnerabilities of the Warfighter across all warfighting functions.  More appropriate terms that should be used are, for example, requiring activity, mission partners, stakeholders or support unit.  Knowing when to use and when not to use certain terms can go a long way to better convey our value to the Warfighter as contracting professionals.

In closing, in order to fully articulate the impact contracting professionals have to the mission and Warfighter, it is critical that: 1) contracting professionals develop a relatable lexicon in describing their impact; 2) increase opportunities and touch points with supported units that facilitate practice in utilizing these skills for contracting professionals; and 3) adopt a simple change such as no longer using the term “customers” as the catalyst for change.


This article was authored by LTC Kevin P. Shilley, U.S. Army.  Shilley is Battalion Commander of the 902nd Contracting Battalion, Joint Base Lewis-McChord, in Washington State. Simultaneously, he is serving as the Chief of Contracting for Regional Contracting Center-Operation Inherent Resolve, Iraq, and is due to redeploy in March 2020. In 2008, he transitioned to the Army Acquisition Corps. His acquisition assignments include Contract Management Officer, Contracting Team Lead, Contracting Battalion Operations Officer, Program Integrator, Regional Contracting Center (Iraq), Contracting Battalion Commander. He is Defense Acquisition Workforce Improvement Act certified Level III in Contracting, and Level I in Program Management. He earned a master’s degree in Procurement and Acquisitions Management from Webster University.  The author can be contacted at Kevin.P.Shilley.mil@mail.mil.

Filed Under: Government Contracting News Tagged With: acquisition reform, acquisition support, acquisition workforce, communication, contracting officer, contracting officer's representatives, contracting officers, mission support, partnerships, procurement reform, stakeholders

April 7, 2020 By cs

How will COVID-19 impact long term trends in contracting?

COVID-19 presents unique and enduring challenges to business operations and mission fulfillment.

While many “lessons learned” regarding best practices to confront natural disasters can be gleaned from such situations as Hurricane Katrina and 9/11, the unprecedented scope and impact of this pandemic raise troubling issues for legacy business models.  In terms of “big A” acquisition policy, we believe that the current crisis will fundamentally alter existing programmatic assumptions.  Identifying these trends is an important beginning in terms of what lies ahead.

Reading these “tea leaves” allow us to make impacts of recent events upon the broader framework of government IT acquisition. What can we foresee and predict?

From a macro perspective, we believe that the current unprecedented situation has the potential to fundamentally re-align the basic consensus regarding the much-touted benefits of globalization. In terms of government contractors, and IT specifically, we have been discussing the following trends and consequences.

Keep reading this article at: https://federalnewsnetwork.com/commentary/2020/04/how-will-covid-19-impact-long-term-trends-in-contracting/

The Contracting Education Academy at Georgia Tech has established a webpage where all contract-related developments related to the coronavirus (COVID-19) are summarized.  Find the page at: https://contractingacademy.gatech.edu/coronavirus-information-for-contracting-officers-and-contractors/

Filed Under: Government Contracting News Tagged With: acquisition workforce, communication, continuity, contract delays, contracting officers, contractor performance, coronavirus, COVID-19, disruptive, excusable delay, government trends, pandemic, relationships, supplier relations, supply chain, task orders, telework

March 30, 2020 By cs

Pentagon bracing for weapon-delivery delays due to coronavirus

Pentagon officials are bracing for companies being unable to deliver weapons on time as the coronavirus makes its way through company assembly lines and supply chains.
COVID-19 is identified as the cause of a worldwide outbreak of respiratory illness.

In separate briefings with reporters last Wednesday, the top weapons buyers for the Department of Defense and the Navy said that they are working with industry to assess the impact of the virus on their workforces, but that already some aircraft production has been halted.

“I do expect there will be some delay and disruption,” said James “Hondo” Geurts, the Navy’s top weapons buyer, on a Wednesday conference call.  Navy officials have “real-time systems” to track disruptions when they arise, and already they have spotted changes.

“We’re seeing a tightening on the supply base as smaller shops deal with their local situations,” Guerts said.

As for larger sites run by major defense contractors, it depends on where they’re located.

Keep reading this article at: https://www.defenseone.com/business/2020/03/pentagon-bracing-coronavirus-delay-weapons-deliveries/164118/

The Contracting Education Academy at Georgia Tech has established a webpage where all contract-related developments related to the coronavirus (COVID-19) are summarized.  Find the page at: https://contractingacademy.gatech.edu/coronavirus-information-for-contracting-officers-and-contractors/

Filed Under: Government Contracting News Tagged With: acquisition workforce, CO, communication, continuity, contract delays, contracting officer, contracting officers, contractor performance, coronavirus, COVID-19, disruptive, excusable delay, relationships, supplier relations

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • Next Page »

Popular Topics

abuse acquisition reform acquisition strategy acquisition training acquisition workforce Air Force Army AT&L bid protest budget budget cuts competition cybersecurity DAU DFARS DHS DoD DOJ FAR fraud GAO Georgia Tech GSA GSA Schedule GSA Schedules IG industrial base information technology innovation IT Justice Dept. Navy NDAA OFPP OMB OTA Pentagon procurement reform protest SBA sequestration small business spending technology VA
Contracting Academy Logo
75 Fifth Street, NW, Suite 300
Atlanta, GA 30308
info@ContractingAcademy.gatech.edu
Phone: 404-894-6109
Fax: 404-410-6885

RSS Twitter

Search this Website

Copyright © 2023 · Georgia Tech - Enterprise Innovation Institute