DFARS | The Contracting Education Academy

April 19, 2019 By cs

Senate Armed Services Subcommittee on Cybersecurity holds hearing to discuss responsibilities of the industrial base

On March 26, 2019, the Senate Armed Services’ Subcommittee on Cybersecurity held a hearing to receive testimony assessing how the Department of Defense’s (DoD) cybersecurity policies and regulations have affected the Defense Industrial Base (DIB).

To gain a better understanding of the DIB’s cybersecurity concerns, the Subcommittee invited William LaPlante, Senior Vice President and General Manager of MITRE’s National Security Sector; John Luddy, Vice President For National Security Policy at the Aerospace Industries Association; Christopher Peters, Chief Executive Officer of the Lucrum Group; and Michael MacKay, the Chief Technology Officer of Progeny Systems Corporation.

In their opening remarks, the Chairman of the Subcommittee, Senator Mike Rounds (R-SD), and Ranking Member, Senator Joe Manchin (D-WV), acknowledged industry concerns about the DoD’s lack of clarity and disparate implementation of cybersecurity regulations, such as guidance relating to DFARS 252.204-7012 (DFARS Cyber Rule or Rule) and National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) Special Publication (SP) 800-171.

Senator Rounds stated that he “expects [DoD] to come up with measured policies to make improvements in [cybersecurity]” and he “hope[s] DoD takes seriously the concerns of the DIB.” He further noted that DoD “cannot simply apply increasingly stringent cybersecurity requirements on its contractors” and that “doing so without subsidy or assistance is unlikely to particularly improve cybersecurity [for] the DIB” and would likely drive the most innovative small businesses out of the supply chain. Senator Rounds called for putting a program in place to ensure the best possible protections for contractors regardless of size and referred to the “Achilles heel” of this issue as the desire to use a large number of small contractors while still needing to protect sensitive government information. Later in the hearing, Senator Manchin expressed great concern over the cyber incidents experienced by DoD contractors and urged the witnesses to “tell [the Subcommittee] what you need . . . [the Subcommittee] is here to fix it and you’re here to tell us what’s broken.”

Keep reading this article at: https://www.insidegovernmentcontracts.com/2019/03/senate-armed-services-subcommittee-on-cybersecurity-holds-hearing-to-discuss-the-responsibilities-of-the-defense-industrial-base/

March 27, 2019 By cs

DoD seeking comment on how ‘undefinitized contract actions’ are definitized

In the National Defense Authorization Acts for 2017 and 2018, Congress required the Department of Defense (DoD) to implement certain reforms for issuing and definitizing Undefinitized Contract Actions (UCAs).

After a long delay, DoD has issued a proposed rule and requested comments from industry.

UCAs are meant to be used when the Government has urgent needs that do not leave enough time for the parties to agree on all the terms, conditions, and pricing of a formal contract. In those circumstances, the parties can agree to a general framework that allows work to begin and payments to be made on a modified cost-reimbursement basis under a UCA, and the parties agree to definitize the contract in the near future – aspirationally, no later than 180 days after the UCA award date, or before 50 percent of the work is complete, whichever is earlier. (See: DFARS 217.7404-3)

The Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (DFARS) currently allows the contracting officer to extend that date to 180 days after the date on which the contractor submits a “qualifying proposal” for definitization. In practice, as the GAO repeatedly has highlighted and as Congress has noted, poor acquisition planning has led to the unnecessary use of UCAs, and UCAs often are not definitized within the 180-day time set by regulation.

One particularly inequitable result of the delayed definitization of UCAs is its effect on profit. Because UCAs are cost-type agreements with the contractor bearing minimal cost risk, the DFARS provides guidance for acceptable profit rates when “a substantial portion of the required performance” is completed before definitization. If a contractor completes a large proportion of the work before the contract is belatedly definitized, an agency often will insist on a profit rate that is materially lower than it would have been if the agency had promptly definitized the contract.

Keep reading this article at: http://www.mondaq.com/article.asp?articleid=787536

January 29, 2019 By cs

Domestic sourcing requirement doesn’t fit DoD’s gloves

The Government Accountability Office (GAO) recently issued a bid protest decision regarding the application of the Berry Amendment’s domestic sourcing requirement to a U.S. Department of Defense (DoD) solicitation for leather combat gloves with touchscreen capability.

In that decision, the GAO found that the nonavailability exception to the Berry Amendment applied to the glove’s kidskin leather even though the agency determined, through market research, that this type of leather was available domestically. Importantly, this decision provides an opportunity for stakeholders to consider the nuances associated with the Berry Amendment’s nonavailability exception and to reflect upon the complex regulatory landscape of domestic sourcing requirements.

Federal Government Domestic Sourcing Regimes and the Nonavailability Exception

Over the last 100 years, the U.S. government has enacted myriad domestic sourcing laws. For example, during the Great Depression, Congress enacted the Buy American Act (BAA) to “create jobs for American workers and protect American industry” by requiring the U.S. government, under certain circumstances, to procure items that have been mined, produced or manufactured in the United States. As implemented through the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) and agency supplemental regulations, like the Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (DFARS), the BAA generally requires executive agencies to purchase “domestic end products” unless an exception or waiver applies.

Keep reading this article at: https://www.insidegovernmentcontracts.com/2019/01/domestic-sourcing-requirement-doesnt-fit-dods-gloves/

January 17, 2019 By cs

DoD’s long-awaited LPTA regulations expected in 4th quarter of FY19

For a number of years now, Lowest Price Technically Acceptable (LPTA) source-selection procedures have come under fire for overuse and misuse at the same time budget constraints make LPTA methods more enticing to some cash-strapped agencies.

In an LPTA procurement, the Government evaluates proposals for mere technical acceptability under the solicitation’s stated evaluation criteria. Of the technically acceptable proposals received from eligible offerors, the Government then awards the contract to the lowest-price proposal, without considering any additional value that more expensive proposals may provide. In an LPTA acquisition, it does not matter that the second least expensive proposal may have three times more technical merit than the lowest-price technically acceptable proposal. Even if that technically superior proposal is only a dime more expensive, the Government is required to make the award to the acceptable proposal that is ten cents cheaper.

Some of you may remember that, way back in 2016, Congress passed the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) for 2017, requiring the Department of Defense (DoD) to revise the Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (DFARS) within 120 days to require DoD contracting officers to ensure six criteria are satisfied before issuing a solicitation on an LPTA basis.

Keep reading this article at: http://www.mondaq.com/article.asp?articleid=767110

December 26, 2018 By cs

Pentagon acquisition chief aims to reform business practices in 2019

The Defense Department plans to simplify some of its business practices next year to improve the way it works with industry and acquires new products, the Pentagon’s top weapons buyer said.

One key reform will be creating more commonality in intellectual property policies, Undersecretary of Defense for Acquisition and Sustainment Ellen Lord said. Rules and requirements surrounding IP have long been a major concern for contractors that worry that doing business with the government will harm them if they lose control over their secret sauce.

“We’re writing intellectual property policy for across the department,” Lord said during a meeting with reporters at the Pentagon. “From an industry perspective, we are trying to be consistent across all the services and the agencies so that we don’t have different requirements for similar [acquisition] needs. … We’d like to have the same type of contract language.”

Keep reading this article at: http://www.nationaldefensemagazine.org/articles/2018/12/18/pentagon-acquisition-chief-aims-to-reform-business-practices-in-2019