The Contracting Education Academy

Contracting Academy Logo
You are here: Home / Archives for DoD

By

GAO to DoD: Fix ‘fourth estate’ inefficiencies

The Government Accountability Office is telling the Defense Department to clamp down on inefficiencies in its 19 agencies and 8 field activities — collectively known as the “Fourth Estate.”

While DoD spends billions annually on these defense agencies and DoD field activities to maintain business functions, it “does not comprehensively or routinely assess the continuing need” for them, according to a report published last week by the watchdog agency.

The Defense Department has agreed to act on GAO’s five recommendations to fix the problems. However, the DoD official who signed off — Chief Management Officer John Gibson — is reportedly being terminated by Defense Secretary Jim Mattis for non-performance.

A former U.S. Air Force finance official with a long defense industry resume, Gibson is the first-ever CMO. The job was established last year in the largest reorganization of the DoD since the Goldwater-Nichols Act of 1986.

Keep reading this article at: https://www.defensenews.com/pentagon/2018/09/11/gao-to-dod-fix-fourth-estate-inefficiencies/

By

GAO acknowledges progress in federal acquisition by Congress and Executive branch, but says ‘challenges endure’

Congress established an Acquisition Advisory Panel to review federal acquisition laws, regulations, and policies — and identify opportunities for improvement.  The Government Accountability Office (GAO) just issued an assessment of the progress made since the Panel’s 2007 report.

Here’s what GAO found:

Congress and the executive branch have taken numerous actions to address key issues the Acquisition Advisory Panel identified in its 2007 report, but these actions have not eliminated some enduring challenges. The figure below presents the key issues the Panel addressed in relation to the life cycle of a typical contract as identified by GAO:

Three of the key issues, and the corresponding challenges, align with specific phases in the contracting life cycle:

  • Requirements Definition: The Panel found that fully identifying requirements before a contract is awarded is key to achieving the benefits of competition. GAO has found that unrealistic requirements have contributed to poor program outcomes at the Department of Defense (DoD), and that the Army’s requirements development workforce decreased by 22 percent from 2008 to 2017.
  • Competition and Pricing: The Panel said that competition can help reduce prices. GAO’s work shows that competition rates have remained steady government-wide, and declined at DOD. See figure below.

GAO also found that agencies are sometimes using bridge contracts — which GAO has generally defined as either extensions to existing contracts or new short-term, sole-source contracts — to avoid a lapse in service caused by delay of a follow-on contract award.   In some instances, bridge contract awards delay opportunities for competition and can place the government at risk of paying higher prices for multiple years.  The figure below depicts how an Army bridge contract for computer support services planned for 12 months was extended to 42 months.

Further, GAO’s work shows that agencies have not fully embraced initiatives and techniques intended to reduce the prices they pay, including consolidated purchasing approaches and robust market research.

  • Contractor Oversight: The Panel raised questions about the capacity of federal agencies to oversee contractors.  GAO found that agencies continue to award contracts warranting increased management attention at a steady rate, such as contracts for management support services. With contracts like those for management support services, there is an increased risk that contractors may perform tasks reserved for the government.  Additionally, GAO found that heavy workloads at the Department of Veterans Affairs have made it difficult for officials who oversee contractors to ensure contractors adhere to contract terms.

Three of the key issues, and the corresponding challenges, cut across all the phases of the contracting life cycle:

  • Acquisition Workforce: The Panel found that the federal acquisition workforce faces workload and training challenges. GAO’s work has shown that DoD has enhanced its workforce, but some workforce gaps endure at DoD and across agencies.
  • Federal Procurement Data: The Panel found that the government’s primary repository for acquisition data contained some unreliable data.  Also, GAO found that the system has demonstrated limitations. For example, guidance from the Office of Management Budget (OMB) required that agencies collect specific contract award data, but the system did not have the capability to do so.
  • Small Business Participation: The Panel found a number of challenges hindering agencies’ efforts to meet small business goals. GAO found small business participation has increased, but many agencies are not in full compliance with requirements governing Offices of Small and Disadvantaged Business Utilization (OSDBUs). For example, the directors of these offices should report directly to agency heads or their deputies, but not all agencies have established this type of direct reporting relationship.
What GAO Recommends

GAO did not make any new recommendations in its Sept. 12, 2018 assessment, but it has made numerous recommendations in the past.   Federal agencies have agreed with many of GAO’s recommendations, and have implemented some of them, but not others.  For example, GAO has previously made the following recommendations.

  • The Army should assess the resources needed for the requirements development process. The Army agreed, but it has not yet done so.
  • OMB should provide guidance for agencies to manage bridge contracts. OMB agreed and has drafted management guidance but has not yet finalized it.
  • Certain federal agencies should take steps to document how they conduct market research. The agencies agreed and did so.
  • The Department of Veterans Affairs should develop tools to help oversee contracts. The department agreed and did so.
  • DOD should have issued an updated acquisition workforce plan in fiscal year 2016. DOD agreed and issued the plan.
  • OMB should take steps to improve how agencies collect certain procurement data. OMB generally agreed, but has not yet addressed the recommendation.
  • Certain federal agencies should take steps to comply with OSDBU-related requirements. Most agencies that provided comments agreed or partially agreed. Two agencies — the National Aeronautics and Space Administration, and the U.S. Agency for International Development — have addressed the recommendations.

It its latest report, GAO reiterates its belief that all agencies should implement all of these recommendations.

See the GAO’s full report here: https://www.gao.gov/assets/700/694457.pdf

By

Turkish man charged with conspiracy to defraud DoD of $7 million, violating Arms Export Control Act

A Turkish man who owns a New Jersey defense contracting business has been charged in a scheme to fraudulently acquire lucrative manufacturing contracts with the U.S. Department of Defense (DoD), and for conspiring to export military technical drawings to Turkey without a license from the State Department, the Justice Department announced last week.

Ferdi Murat Gul, a/k/a “Fred Gul,” of Turkey, was indicted by a federal grand jury on Sept. 5, 2018, on one count of conspiracy to commit wire fraud, six counts of wire fraud, one count of conspiracy to violate the Arms Export Control Act, and one substantive count of violating the Act. He is believed to be currently at large in Turkey.

According to the indictment:

  • Gul is the principal owner, chief executive officer, and general manager of two companies located in the United States: Bright Machinery Manufacturing Group Inc. (BMM), a defense contracting company located in Paterson, New Jersey; and FMG Machinery Group (FMG), a purported manufacturing company in Paterson and Long Island City, New York. Gul also maintains an ownership interest in HFMG Insaat (HFMG), a manufacturing company in Turkey.
  • Over approximately five years, BMM fraudulently obtained hundreds of contracts with the DoD by falsely claiming that the military parts it contracted to produce would be manufactured in the United States. From October 2010 through June 2015, the value of the contracts fraudulently awarded to BMM was approximately $7 million.
  • Gul routinely submitted electronic bids for DoD contracts that contained false representations about BMM’s purported domestic manufacturing operations. He falsely submitted quotes claiming that BMM would provide military goods manufactured in the United States, when in fact the company relied almost exclusively on Gul’s Turkish-based production facilities. In acquiring contracts, Gul routinely and unlawfully exported drawings and technical data, some of which was subject to U.S. export control laws, in order to secretly manufacture military parts in Turkey. Gul and his conspirators then fraudulently supplied those foreign-made parts to unwitting DoD customers in the United States.
  • Gul and his conspirators concealed their illicit manufacturing activities and ongoing fraud by routinely submitting forged certifications and fabricated information by e-mail to DoD representatives in New Jersey. They falsely represented that BMM and its U.S.-based subcontractors performed necessary quality control procedures in their purported domestic manufacture of military parts.

BMM fraudulently acquired 346 contracts from the DoD to domestically manufacture military parts, including parts for torpedoes for the U.S. Navy, bomb ejector racks and armament utilized in U.S. Air Force aircraft, and firearms and mine clearance systems used by U.S. military personnel abroad. Testing by the DoD revealed that some parts had numerous design flaws and non-conformities and were unusable.

The wire fraud counts each carry a maximum penalty of 20 years in prison and a fine of $250,000. The Arms Export Control Act violations each carry a maximum penalty of 20 years in prison and a $1 million fine.  The Arms Export Control Act prohibits the export of defense articles and defense services without first obtaining a license from the U.S. Department of States.

The charges and allegations in the indictment are merely accusations, and the defendant is considered innocent unless and until proven guilty.

Source: https://www.justice.gov/usao-nj/pr/owner-defense-firm-charged-conspiracy-defraud-department-defense-7-million-violate-arms

By

DoD’s micropurchase threshold just increased to $10,000

The Department of Defense has issued a class deviation raising the micro-purchase threshold to $10,000, effective immediately.

The increase implements Section 821 of the 2019 National Defense Authorization Act, which was signed into law last month.

The memo explains that there are a few exceptions to the standard $10,000 threshold.

Keep reading this article at: http://smallgovcon.com/statutes-and-regulations/dod-increases-micro-purchase-threshold-to-10000-effective-immediately/

To see a handy table of current purchasing thresholds, click here: Purchasing Thresholds – September 2018

By

OTAs: Preserving the authority

Other Transaction Authorities are the latest buzzwords in federal contracting, and for good reason.

OTAs have become critical to rapid prototyping in the defense realm, in some cases cutting off years from the time warfighters wait for new systems and capabilities.

OTAs are a business tool that let the government buy products and services using means other than those governed by the Federal Acquisition Regulations. These authorities, initially conceived by NASA in the 1950s and later expanded to the Defense Department in 1994, have recently surged in use and popularity — and praise. However, they also elicit a fair amount of criticism and debate about their future.

Fairness during the award process, soundness of proposals and lack of public information throughout the course of the award are among issues detractors highlight on OTAs. If their supporters want to preserve this acquisition instrument, they must address these concerns.

They’re not small concerns.

Keep reading this article at: https://washingtontechnology.com/articles/2018/08/03/insights-hawk-carlisle-ota.aspx

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