DLA | The Contracting Education Academy

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.

September 25, 2019 By cs

Are meetings with industry actually accelerating military acquisitions?

Military leaders say they are determined to find faster ways to buy cutting-edge technologies.

“We can’t afford to spend seven years thinking about a requirement,” Army Undersecretary Ryan D. McCarthy said during a 2018 visit to Fort Belvoir, Virginia.

“If it is going to take that long, you are probably not going to get it. So, we need to get these capabilities sooner.”

To that end, the Department of Defense has increased the number of engagements with industry, launched alternative contracting vehicles, and taken other steps to streamline innovation more effectively. Industry officials are often clamoring for that interaction, but some say the Pentagon’s efforts are beginning to bear fruit.

One area where those changes are most visible has been in the Army’s modernization of its battlefield network. David Huisenga, president and chief executive at Klas Telecom Government, said he has noticed a marked difference in the quality and quantity of engagements between industry and the Department of Defense.

Keep reading this article at: https://www.c4isrnet.com/industry/2019/09/19/are-meetings-with-industry-actually-accelerating-military-acquisitions/

April 8, 2019 By AMK

OIG seeks voluntary refund despite contractor’s adherence to TINA requirements

DoD’s Office of Inspector General (OIG) for the Department of Defense (DoD) has recommended that a contractor be requested to provide a refund based on “excessive profits.”

On February 25, 2019, the Office of Inspector General (OIG) for the Department of Defense (DoD) issued an audit report analyzing the prices of spare aviation parts purchased by the Defense Logistics Agency (DLA) and the Army from TransDigm Group, Inc.

The audit was conducted in response to letters from certain Members of Congress, who had inquired whether the spare parts were sold at fair and reasonable prices and in compliance with the Truthful Cost or Pricing Data Act (formerly known as the Truth in Negotiations Act or TINA).

The OIG’s audit confirmed that both TransDigm and the responsible DoD contracting officers fully complied with the Act and related regulations governing the price negotiations, but the OIG nonetheless concluded that the contractor earned excess profit on the majority of parts sold. In a highly unusual move, the OIG recommended that DoD request a “voluntary refund” from TransDigm of its allegedly “excessive” profits, and the OIG also recommended a number of changes to statutory, regulatory, and administrative policies governing the provision of cost or pricing data.

The OIG’s Findings

At the request of U.S. Representatives Ro Khanna and Tim Ryan and Senator Elizabeth Warren, the OIG reviewed the price reasonableness of 47 spare aircraft parts DoD procured from TransDigm between January 2015 and January 2017. Using uncertified cost or pricing data that it collected during the audit, the OIG calculated the apparent profit realized by the contractor on the sale of each part, and concluded that the contractor realized “unreasonable” profits (defined as profits of greater than 15% in the report) on all but one of the parts. (The OIG arrived at the 15 percent profit percentage, in part, by looking at maximum profit percentages allowed in the FAR for three different types of contracts, none of which were fixed price.) The OIG applied this finding to a broader sampling of contracts held by TransDigm, and concluded that the contractor had earned $16.1 million in “excess profit” (i.e., profit over 15 percent) for the parts at issue.

The OIG concluded that a number of factors contributed to these supposedly “excessive” profits.

Keep reading this article at: https://www.insidegovernmentcontracts.com/2019/03/when-compliance-is-not-enough-oig-seeks-voluntary-refund-despite-contractors-adherence-to-tina-requirements/

January 10, 2019 By AMK

DoD says blockchain can help in disaster relief

The U.S. Department of Defense says blockchain technology has “enormous” potential in helping improve disaster relief efforts.

The Troop Support division of the Defense Logistics Agency held a meeting last month in Philadelphia to understand how blockchain could have helped its already “successful” efforts assisting in Puerto Rico after the devastating Hurricane Maria in 2017. The meeting was hosted by Troop Support’s Continuous Process Improvement (CPI) office.

“The potential is absolutely enormous,” said CPI management analyst Elijah Londo, according to a DLA report of the event. “Talk about blockchain, and you’ll hear experts comparing it to transforming trust or transactions in the same way the internet changed communication.”

Currently, the DLA tracks logistics processes through centrally managed systems, which makes it hard for involved parties to synchronize data and ensure they all are tracking correct and up-to-date information. By using blockchain technology, the agency could track data and thereby improve supply chain transaction processes and in-transit visibility of shipments, it said in the report.

Keep reading this article at: https://www.coindesk.com/us-defense-department-says-blockchain-can-help-disaster-relief

December 31, 2018 By AMK

Manufacturer agrees to pay $400,000 to settle False Claims Act violations

The United States Attorney’s Office for the Middle District of Pennsylvania has announced that Arvco Container Corporation of Kalamazoo, MI has agreed to pay $400,000 to settle False Claims Act allegations in connection with a contract with the Defense Logistics Agency (DLA) in New Cumberland, PA.

Arvco Container Corporation (Arvco) violated subcontract limitations imposed by federal regulations and the terms of a contract to provide corrugated boxes to the federal government from August 3, 2010 through August 3, 2014. The contract was awarded by the DLA to Fibre Technologies LLC (Fibre) located in Reading, PA.

The contract was set-aside for eligible HUBZone small businesses in accordance with program requirements administered by the U.S. Small Business Administration (SBA).

Federal regulations and the terms of the contract limited Fibre’s ability to subcontract the manufacturing of the boxes to no more than 50 percent. Arvco performed 100 percent of the manufacturing requirement.

Arvco’s gross profits for the performance of the contract total $246,682 which will be returned to DLA. Arvco also agreed to pay a civil penalty amount of $153,318.

Limitations on subcontracting provisions in federal contracts are designed to ensure that otherwise ineligible businesses do not use small or disadvantaged businesses merely as vehicles to access set-aside contracts.

This case was investigated by the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Middle District of Pennsylvania, the SBA’s Office of Inspector General, and the Defense Criminal Investigative Service.

Readers are reminded that the claims resolved by the settlement are allegations only, and there has been no determination of liability.

Source: https://www.justice.gov/usao-mdpa/pr/michigan-corrugated-manufacturer-agrees-pay-400000-settle-false-claims-act-violations