DAU | The Contracting Education Academy

May 27, 2011 By AMK

Acquisitions skills could put you on the fast track

We hear that the economy is improving, but we know there are still so many people looking for work. And although people hear that the federal hiring process has improved, many are still finding it a difficult journey. But there may be hope.

Under the Defense Acquisition Workforce Improvement Act, Department of Defense agencies including the Air Force Materiel Command, Defense Information Systems Agency and various entities with the Department of Navy have been using their “expedited-hiring authority” to fill critical acquisition positions.

I know what many of you are saying right now: “I don’t have a background in acquisition, contracting or procurement.”

But the acquisition process in the federal government is so complex that there is a need for people in a range of career fields. The list is long, but it includes auditing, contracting, life-cycle logistics, quality control and assurance, and science and technology management. So you may have a background that is a perfect fit.

Just by doing a quick search on USAJOBS under the acquisition career fields, I found agencies looking for people from biologist to computer scientist to telecommunications specialists.

In accordance with DAWIA, many of these positions require employees achieve a certain level of Acquisition Career Field Certification within two years of being hired. But don’t let that worry you. The government will send you to Defense Acquisition University for training and certification.

If you’re already a federal worker or government contractor with Level I, II or III acquisition certifications or part of the Acquisition Corps, that may expedite things: You would be deemed a highly qualified candidate.

When checking USAJOBS or job-search engines such as Indeed.com, do a keyword search for “expedited hiring authority” or “expedited” on USAJOBS. You can also search for “acquisition.” These positions are nationwide as well as worldwide, so some jobs will no doubt include interesting travel opportunities.

The key is to think outside the box and where your skills, experience, education and other qualifications might apply to the acquisition mission. Sharpen your resume to make your case.

Who knows — this may be your ticket to the fast lane of government employment.

— by Derrick T. Dortch, president of the Diversa Group, is a career counselor who specializes in government job searches and military transition. Published in The Wasington Post on May 25, 2011 at http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/politics/acquisitions-skills-could-put-you-on-the-fast-track/2011/05/25/AG230UBH_story.html.

May 9, 2011 By AMK

DOD pushes contractors into a pricing war

The Defense Department has announced a renewed focus on pricing that could have significant effects across the market. Given the budget climate, that focus is both wise and understandable. If ever there were a time that the government needs to make sure it is spending its money wisely, this would be it. The question is how best to do so.

There are a range of tools available to the government to help achieve that goal: well-run, competitive procurements; solid market research and price analysis; enhanced and accelerated workforce training; good contract management; and more. But recent statements from the department’s acquisition leadership indicate that their pricing initiative will be centered on eliminating existing procurement flexibilities and developing new models and data requirements for determining, even dictating, a reasonable price and profit.

In a recent speech at the Defense Acquisition University, DOD Director of Procurement Policy Shay Assad said, “We’re the only company in the world that tries to spend our money as fast as we can and get nothing for it.”

By any measure, that’s a remarkable and demonstrably false statement.

Although Assad was obviously using provocative rhetoric to make a larger point, the clear message is that the department believes it is getting a raw deal. He’s asserting that contractors are making excessive profits, even though every independent analysis, including public company filings, clearly show that, though generally healthy, this industry’s profits are far from excessive and are often well below standard commercial margins.

Nonetheless, DOD is developing new cash flow models and weighted profit guidelines for services, in the apparent belief that such models will better enable them to dictate price reasonableness. Moreover, DOD has asked Congress to remove from the decades-old statutory definition of a commercial item the crucial phrase “of a type,” which was included to recognize that much of what the government buys is commercial but that the government might need it to be slightly modified to meet its specific needs.

Without rehashing the historic rationale for this important legislative provision, DOD’s efforts to eliminate it are based on its belief that it is not getting adequate pricing information on some commercial procurements and that its workforce doesn’t do the requisite market research and analysis. But neither is a compelling rationale.

The statute does not deprive the government of its right to obtain adequate pricing data. All it prohibits is requiring certified cost and pricing data which, for most commercial firms, is a nonstarter because it requires creating and maintaining parallel accounting systems that can comply with the government’s unique and complex cost accounting standards. Hence, commercial procurements are based on competition, market research and what is known as other than certified cost and pricing data.

If the department is concerned that it is not getting the pricing it deserves, there are far more effective ways to deal with that concern than reversing important procurement flexibilities that will affect the government and thousands of companies. If contracting officers are not exercising their authority to request reasonable levels of pricing information when necessary, the answer is easy — ask for it. If companies refuse to provide it, don’t do business with them. And if the workforce lacks the resources to do the necessary market research and price analyses, accelerate its training and the delivery of support tools.

The department actually gets a lot for its money, but it can always do better. Making regressive policy changes and adding costly, unnecessary processes, rather than focusing on more effective and efficient ways to capitalize on the real benefits of market forces and competition, is simply the wrong answer. And it signals a trend worth worrying about.

About the Author: Stan Soloway is president and chief executive officer of the Professional Services Council. This article was published on 5/6/2011 by Washington Technology at http://washingtontechnology.com/articles/2011/05/02/insights-soloway.aspx?s=wtdaily_090511.

April 13, 2011 By AMK

Legislation would reorganize Federal Acquisition Institute

House and Senate lawmakers have introduced legislation that would dramatically reorganize the Federal Acquisition Institute, the government’s training academy for civilian contracting professionals.

The 2011 Federal Acquisition Institute Improvement Act, introduced last week, would require that the school, through its board of directors, report directly to the Office of Management and Budget’s Office of Federal Procurement Policy.

The FAI director would be appointed by the OFPP administrator and report directly to the office’s associate administrator for acquisition workforce, the bill stated. The current hiring process is less formal, with consultation by General Services Administration, OFPP and FAI’s board of directors.

GSA now oversees the institute, although OFPP has a role choosing its leadership. The new bill would give OFPP a more active management role in running FAI.

All civilian agency training programs at the institute — including acquisition internship programs — would follow OFPP-issued guidelines, ensuring consistency in training standards, according to the legislation. The OFPP administrator would report annually to Congress on FAI’s projected budget needs and expense plans.

Established in 1976 under the Office of Federal Procurement Policy Act, the Federal Acquisition Institute is charged with training and developing the skills of the federal acquisition workforce. Critics say FAI has been underutilized because it lacks organizational clarity, is not funded as well as the more entrenched Defense Acquisition University and is only intermittently used by federal agencies.

“This legislation would make the federal government more efficient and saves tax dollars,” said Rep. Gerry Connolly, D-Va., who introduced the bill in the House. “In the past decade, federal procurement spending grew by 155 percent while the acquisition personnel managing that spending grew by just 10 percent. We just don’t have the workforce to manage large, complex contracts and the Federal Acquisition Institute is not meeting our training demands.”

Sen. Susan Collins, R-Maine, the bill’s lead sponsor in the Senate, noted legislation is needed for the acquisition workforce to keep pace with the massive growth in federal contract spending during the past decade.

“This level of spending requires professionally trained and invested acquisition personnel who can manage these huge expenditures while also guarding against the possibility of waste, fraud and abuse of taxpayer dollars,” Collins said. “The Federal Acquisition Institute Improvement Act would strengthen the FAI, which promotes career development and strategic human capital management for the entire civilian acquisition workforce.”

The Senate measure is co-sponsored by Sens. Daniel Akaka, D-Hawaii; Claire McCaskill, D-Mo.; and Scott Brown, R-Mass. A similar version of the legislation passed the Senate in the 111th Congress last December, but did not receive a vote in the House.

The bill also would provide enhanced and more consistent training for thousands of civilian contracting officers. FAI would be required to keep current governmentwide training standards and certification requirements and modify the programs when core competencies are not covered. In addition, career path information would be developed to encourage contracting officials to stay in federal positions for decades to come. The human capital efforts would be coordinated with the Office of Personnel Management.

To help standardize training for civilian and Defense acquisition employees, the Bush administration in 2005 moved the Federal Acquisition Institute to the campus of the Defense Acquisition University in Fort Belvoir, Va.

The Senate legislation is scheduled for a vote on Wednesday, April 13, by the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee.

— by Robert Brodsky – GovExec.com – published April 11, 2011 at http://www.govexec.com/story_page.cfm?articleid=47576&dcn=e_tma

February 7, 2011 By AMK

“Mission Focused Contracting” is Academy’s inaugural class

The Contracting Education Academy at Georgia Tech is proud to announce that its first course offering is scheduled to be presented three times in 2011 – in May, July and August.

The course, Mission Focused Contracting, is a comprehensive, 10-day course where participants learn – through interactive instruction and case studies – how to:

Complete a market research report
Develop a bid or proposal package
Evaluate proposals and award contracts
Monitor contractor performance, apply remedies, and make proper contract payments
Modify contracts, exercise options, and complete the contract closeout process

Rhonda Lynch, project manager for The Academy, points out that Mission-Focused Contracting is the capstone course for Level I federal contracting professionals as well as all non-contracting personnel who play a role in the acquisition process. “The beauty of this class is that it is applicable to both government and industry purchasing,” states Ms. Lynch. “This course engages the participant in the entire acquisition process, from meeting with the customer to completing the contract closeout process. Contracting officials and members of the contracting community alike will have the unique opportunity in this class to sit side-by-side to learn how the government acquisition process works.”

The class encourages interactive participation through problem-solving and negotiation exercises.

The Contracting Education Academy at Georgia Tech is an approved equivalency training provider to the Defense Acquisition University (DAU) and provides continuing education training to Acquisition and Government Contracting professionals as well as to business professionals working for government contractors or pursuing opportunities in federal contracting.

Registration for The Academy’s inaugural class and subsequent classes can be accomplished by visiting http://www.pe.gatech.edu/courses/con-120-mission-focused-contracting.

For an updated listing of all classes scheduled to be offered soon, please see Course Announcements 02.2011.

February 4, 2011 By AMK

OMB calls for better communication with vendors to bust contracting myths

The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) issued a lengthy memorandum on Feb. 2, 2011 outlining 10 myths commonly-believed by businesses about government contracting. The myths were compiled as a result of outreach sessions held by the Office of Federal Procurement Policy (OFPP) with industry representatives, acquisition professionals, agency procurement attorneys, and others to identify and address core misconceptions about communication between the government and industry during the pre-award acquisition process.

OMB pointed out that it wishes to address these misconceptions as a part of a “myth-busters” educational campaign, one of the key tenets of the OMB’s 25-Point Implementation Plan to Reform Federal IT Management.

OMB is calling for all agencies to develop “vendor communications plans” to provide for “clear, consistent direction to their workforce and industry partners about how to engage with industry prior to the award of contracts.”

OFPP is to work with the Federal Acquisition Institute (FAI), the Defense Acquisition University (DAU), and agency training practitioners to conduct an awareness campaign to eliminate unnecessary barriers to engagement.

Further, OFPP is pledging to work with federal agencies to identify best practices, training opportunities, samples of guidance, and other information that may be helpful in developing these communication plans. Suggested elements of the communications plans are:

1. Statement of agency commitment to: a) Communicate early, frequently, and constructively with industry; b) Include small businesses and subgroups of small businesses in communications with industry; c) Include vendors that the agency has not worked with in the past; d) Identify, in the agency’s published procurement forecast, which procurements are likely to involve opportunity for additional communication with industry; and e) Protect non-public information including vendors’ confidential information and the agency’s source selection information.

2. Identification of senior agency and bureau (if applicable) official responsible for promoting vendor engagement;

3. Brief description of efforts undertaken or planned to reduce barriers and promote engagement;

4. Criteria for identifying which acquisitions must include vendor input in the pre-award phase and the extent of the required engagement as a condition of approval by the agency’s investment review board (or similar body). At a minimum, acquisition plans for high-risk, large-dollar, and complex programs, such as those for major IT systems and for re-competitions that need to attract new entrants to ensure adequate competition, should include a comprehensive vendor engagement strategy that:

includes at least one industry day or a pre-solicitation or pre-proposal conference; and
allows for a reasonable amount of one-on-one engagement; and
allows time for discussions, as needed and in accordance with FAR Part 15, during the proposal evaluation process; or
requires a written justification as to why those steps are unnecessary.

5. Publication of engagement events to include industry days, small business outreach sessions, pre-solicitation conferences, RFP question and answer sessions, etc. These shall be posted and updated regularly using the existing “special notices” function on www.fedbizopps.gov and on other sites as identified by the agency.

6. Brief description of roles and responsibilities of the: a) Contracting Officer; b) Program Manager; c) COR/COTR; d) General Counsel; e) Ethics Officers; f) OSDBU; and g) Other Officials.

7. Training and awareness efforts for employees and contractors.

8. Links to existing policies.

9. Plans to follow-up with employees and industry representatives within 6 months of posting the vendor engagement plan, to further refine and improve communication, (e.g., post-award surveys of the contracting officers, program managers, and offerors for large, complex procurements, focus group meetings for general feedback).

A recap of the “Top 10 Contracting Myths” compiled by OMB appears below:

Misconception #1 – “We can’t meet one-on-one with a potential offeror.”

Fact – Government officials can generally meet one-on-one with potential offerors as long as no vendor receives preferential treatment.

Misconception #2 – “Since communication with contractors is like communication with registered lobbyists, and since contact with lobbyists must be disclosed, additional communication with contractors will involve a substantial additional disclosure burden, so we should avoid these meetings.”

Fact – Disclosure is required only in certain circumstances, such as for meetings with registered lobbyists. Many contractors do not fall into this category, and even when disclosure is required, it is normally a minimal burden that should not prevent a useful meeting from taking place.

Misconception #3 – “A protest is something to be avoided at all costs – even if it means the government limits conversations with industry.”

Fact – Restricting communication won’t prevent a protest, and limiting communication might actually increase the chance of a protest – in addition to depriving the government of potentially useful information.

Misconception #4 – “Conducting discussions/negotiations after receipt of proposals will add too much time to the schedule.”

Fact –Whether discussions should be conducted is a key decision for contracting officers to make. Avoiding discussions solely because of schedule concerns may be counter-productive, and may cause delays and other problems during contract performance.

Misconception #5 – “If the government meets with vendors, that may cause them to submit an unsolicited proposal and that will delay the procurement process.”

Fact – Submission of an unsolicited proposal should not affect the schedule. Generally, the unsolicited proposal process is separate from the process for a known agency requirement that can be acquired using competitive methods.

Misconception #6 – “When the government awards a task or delivery order using the Federal Supply Schedules, debriefing the offerors isn’t required so it shouldn’t be done.”

Fact – Providing feedback is important, both for offerors and the government, so agencies should generally provide feedback whenever possible.

Misconception #7 – “Industry days and similar events attended by multiple vendors are of low value to industry and the government because industry won’t provide useful information in front of competitors, and the government doesn’t release new information.”

Fact – Well-organized industry days, as well as pre-solicitation and pre-proposal conferences, are valuable opportunities for the government and for potential vendors – both prime contractors and subcontractors, many of whom are small businesses.

Misconception #8 – “The program manager already talked to industry to develop the technical requirements, so the contracting officer doesn’t need to do anything else before issuing the RFP.”

Fact – The technical requirements are only part of the acquisition; getting feedback on terms and conditions, pricing structure, performance metrics, evaluation criteria, and contract administration matters will improve the award and implementation process.

Misconception #9 – “Giving industry only a few days to respond to an RFP is OK since the government has been talking to industry about this procurement for over a year.”

Fact – Providing only short response times may result in the government receiving fewer proposals and the ones received may not be as well-developed – which can lead to a flawed contract. This approach signals that the government isn’t really interested in competition.

Misconception #10 – “Getting broad participation by many different vendors is too difficult; we’re better off dealing with the established companies we know.”

Fact – The government loses when we limit ourselves to the companies we already work with. Instead, we need to look for opportunities to increase competition and ensure that all vendors, including small businesses, get fair consideration.

— compiled and published by The Contracting Education Academy at Georgia Tech, Feb. 3, 2011.

Search this Website