The Contracting Education Academy

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

March 16, 2017 By AMK

GAO weighs in on the state of federal contracting

Contractors working with major federal agencies delivered $438 billion in products and services in fiscal 2015, a 24 percent decrease from fiscal 2011, according to a wide-ranging roundup from the Government Accountability Office.

The 66-page report titled “Contracting Data Analysis: Assessment of Government-wide Trends” said the drop-off occurred mostly at the Defense Department, which saw contracting go down by 31 percent in that timeframe.

Services contracts have now risen to 60 percent of total government obligations — 50 percent of Pentagon awards and 80 percent of those let by civilian agencies over the past five years, GAO said.

Such services as professional and management support to information technology needs were used most by the Air Force and Army, while the top civilian agencies procuring services (worth at least $10 billion) were the departments of Energy, Health and Human Services, NASA, Homeland Security and Veterans Affairs.

 

 

Keep reading this article at: http://www.govexec.com/contracting/2017/03/gao-weighs-state-federal-contracting/136082/

 

 

Filed Under: Government Contracting News Tagged With: Air Force, Army, budget, DHS, DoD, DOE, federal contracting, fixed price, GAO, HHS, NASA, OFPP, service contracts, spending, VA

March 10, 2017 By AMK

Report looks at how Trump’s policies, expiring contracts will impact competitiveness

The departments of Education, State and the Army are among those with the most documented bids for contracts expiring in 2017, providing industry with actionable insight on just how competitive the procurement process will be.

This and other facets of vendor competition are examined in a new report by government market analysts Govini, looking at the contracting environment as the Trump administration reveals its new defense agency-centric budget request.

Assigning agencies a “Competitiveness Score,” Govini aims to offer its report to assist vendors in anticipating recompetes, allowing them to craft strategies that align to their competitive strengths.

President Trump’s pledge to expand the military signals there will be a rebuilding effort including new weapons platforms for the Army, but also plenty of opportunities funded through the operations and maintenance budget account. Logistics and base operations are part of the mission readiness and war fighter-focused orders set to expire.

Keep reading this article at: http://www.federaltimes.com/articles/report-looks-at-how-trumps-policies-expiring-contracts-will-impact-competitiveness

Filed Under: Government Contracting News Tagged With: Army, competitiveness, DoD, DOE, State Dept.

February 27, 2017 By AMK

Energy Dept. updates its acquisition guide for management and operating contracts

The U.S. Dept. of Energy (DOE) has updated its guidance for the administration of management and operating (M&O) contracts.

M&O contracts are unique to DOE and central to the department’s business model.  The term was first adopted in 1983 by the Secretary of Energy.  In actuality, M&O contracts predate the formal adoption of the term by more than thirty-five years, dating to contracts awarded by the Army Corps of Engineers during World War II as well as other contracts awarded by the Atomic Energy Commission (AEC).

M&O contracts are often referred to as on-site contracts, operating contracts, major cost-type contracts, or other comparable terms.

Over the years, the Government Accountability Office (GAO) has criticized DOE for its management of M&O contracts, in particular for not holding the M&O contractors accountable for their performance. As a result, DOE previously published an accountability rule intended to hold contractors liable for negligent acts under the contract.  DOE undertook a “contract reform” initiative in 1994 (entitled “Making Contracting Work Better and Cost Less”) to improve its management of M&O contracts.  That initiative included nearly 50 reforms including: 1) using performance-based contracts, 2) increasing competition for contracts, 3) improving management and cost controls, and 4) making performance-based criteria and other incentives part of DOE contracts.

FAR 17.601 defines an M&O contract as “an agreement under which the Government contracts for the operation, maintenance, or support, on its behalf, of a Government-owned or -controlled research, development, special production, or testing establishment wholly or principally devoted to one or more major programs of the contracting Federal agency.”

FAR 17.604 provides a list of basic criteria to be used in identifying a requirement that is appropriate for use of the M&O form of contract. Among the criteria are the use of Government-owned or -controlled facilities and the necessity of a special, close relationship with the contractor and the contractor’s personnel in important functions.  Examples of this includes factors such as safety, security, cost control, site conditions, the performance of the contract is substantially separate from the contractor’s other business, the work is closely related to the agency’s mission and is of a long-term or continuing nature, and for special protection covering the orderly transition of personnel and work in the event of a change in contractors.

FAR 17.603 places certain limitations on the types of functions M&O contractor personnel may perform, e.g., the employees may not supervise or control Government personnel or determine basic Government policies.

Subsequent to 1994 acquisition reforms, DOE undertook a detailed review of the then existing M&O contracts to determine if the requirements remained appropriate for use of the M&O form of contract. The result of that review was that the M&O list was reduced from approximately 52 contracts to 29.  Among those contracts dropped from the M&O list were many tracing their histories to early in the AEC’s operations.

In the guidance issued February 2017, an evaluation of the history of DOE’s M&O contracts resulted in the identification of the following  indicators for their use:

  • Generally, the contractor assumes multi-program scientific and technical responsibilities and work under a broad statement of work.
  • The requirement is continuing with no foreseeable end.
  • The contractor is responsible for integration of scientific and technical and infrastructure functions.
  • The contractor performs the substantial portion of scientific and technical responsibilities with its own workforce.
  • The contractor’s workforce is large, remaining at the site despite change of contractors. This results in the need for DOE to assume stewardship of employee relations and workplace labor conditions.
  • DOE oversees security, health, and safety at the site.
  • Work takes place at very large, Government-owned reservations and facilities.
  • DOE requires the successful offeror to form a corporate entity specifically for and dedicated to the performance of the DOE M&O contract. The contractor may accept work only directly from DOE or as allowed specifically under the M&O contract.
  • The contractor must link its accounting system with the Department’s, and integrate its budget process with the Department’s; usually the budgets for M&O contracts are line items in the Department’s budget.

DOE’s updated guidance includes this historically-fascinating description of the origin of M&O contracting:

What today are known as DOE’s Management and Operating contracts began during World War II. The Manhattan Engineer District was the governmental entity responsible for the design, development, and production of the first atomic bombs, an undertaking, to that time, without precedent. This massive effort achieved its challenging objective on a schedule that was almost unimaginable. Over a two year period the theoretical science was advanced, the technology necessary to produce the necessary components was developed and applied, and some of the most complex and largest manufacturing facilities the world had known were designed, constructed, and brought into full operation in remote, and previously undeveloped, locales within the United States. The successful completion of the Manhattan Project resulted from the Government’s substantial reliance upon private industry and educational and other nonprofit institutions for the critical scientific and business expertise.

In 1946, following on the success of the Manhattan Project, Congress created the Atomic Energy Commission to design and produce nuclear weapons, to develop nuclear energy as a source of electricity, and to research the use of nuclear energy in medicine. The legislative history of the Atomic Energy Act of 1946 indicates the basic principle that underlies M&O contracts was that the AEC, a predecessor of DOE, was to employ highly capable companies and educational institutions to carry out the actual performance of the agency’s mission; that is, these contractors were to perform the agency’s mission as opposed to the agency’s using civil servants. “Wherever possible, the committee endeavors to reconcile Government monopoly of the production of fissionable material with our traditional free-enterprise system. Thus, the bill permits management contracts for the operation of Government-owned plants so as to gain the full advantage of the skill and experience of American industry.”

Thus — based on the Corps of Engineers role as project manager, reliance on scientists from academia, and the engineering and construction skills of industry — the Manhattan Engineer District successfully concluded the production of atomic bombs, and Congress decided to carry that scientific, technical, and business model forward into the AEC and today’s DOE.

View the DOE’s updated guidance on M&O contract administration at: https://energy.gov/sites/prod/files/2017/02/f34/Acq%20Guide%2017-602%20Origin%20Characteristics%20and%20Significance%20of%20DOE%20Management%20and%20Operating%20Contracts%20Feb%202017.pdf

Filed Under: Government Contracting News Tagged With: AEC, Atomic Energy Commission, contractor performance, cost, cost-type contract, DOE, Energy Dept., M&O, major cost-type contracts, management and operating contracts, Manhattan Project, on-site contracts, operating contracts, performance, performance based acquisition, performance-based contracts

January 9, 2017 By AMK

Bonneville Power Administration faulted for lax oversight of contractors

The Energy Department’s Bonneville Power Administration, which employs more contractors than federal workers out of its Portland, Ore., headquarters, has fallen short in monitoring the outsourcing of tasks that may be inherently governmental, a watchdog found.

FINAL_Updated BPA Logo 2015 - BW--color & text.epsIn a Dec. 29 audit, acting Energy Department inspector general Rickey Hass—responding to a 2015 hotline complaint—said Bonneville’s administration of 1,921 active service contracts worth $2.6 billion in some cases “created prohibited personal services contracts by establishing improper employer/employee relationships with supplemental labor workers.”

Only one of several allegations in the hotline complaint was substantiated in the audit of a judgmental sample of 20 of the 3,117 contract workers. But “the issues we identified occurred, in part, because of problems with the manner in which Bonneville managed and implemented its supplemental labor category of contract workers, lack of a strategic workforce plan, insufficient management and oversight of its contractor workforce, and an inadequate procurement control environment,” the IG wrote.

Keep reading this article at: http://www.govexec.com/contracting/2017/01/bonneville-power-administration-faulted-lax-oversight-contractors/134342/

Filed Under: Government Contracting News Tagged With: Bonneville Power Administration, contract administration, contracting-out, DOE, Energy Dept., hotline, IG, outsourcing

December 2, 2016 By AMK

Energy Dept. contractors agree to pay $125 million to settle false claims charges

The Department of Justice (DOJ) has announced a settlement in the amount of $125 million to resolve allegations against four contractors under the False Claims Act.

energy-deptBechtel National Inc., Bechtel Corp., URS Corp. (predecessor in interest to AECOM Global II LLC) and URS Energy and Construction Inc. (now known as AECOM Energy and Construction Inc.) were charged with making false statements and claims to the Department of Energy (DOE).   Specifically, the contractors were cited for supplying deficient nuclear quality materials, services, and testing at the Waste Treatment Plant (WTP) at DOE’s Hanford Site near Richland, Washington.

The settlement also resolves allegations that Bechtel National Inc. and Bechtel Corp. improperly used federal contract funds to pay for a comprehensive, multi-year lobbying campaign of Congress and other federal officials for continued funding at the WTP.

“The money allocated by Congress for the Waste Treatment Plant is intended to fund the Department of Energy’s important mission to clean up the contaminated Hanford nuclear site, and this mission is undermined if funds are wasted on goods or services that are not nuclear compliant or to further lobbying activities,” said Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General Benjamin C. Mizer, head of the Justice Department’s Civil Division. “This settlement demonstrates that the Justice Department will work to ensure that public funds are used for the important purposes for which they are intended.”

Between 2002 and 2016, DOE paid billions of dollars to the cited contractors to design and build the WTP, which is to be used to treat dangerous radioactive wastes that are currently stored at DOE’s Hanford Site.  The contract required materials, testing and services to meet certain nuclear quality standards.  The DOJ alleged that the defendants violated the False Claims Act by charging the government the cost of complying with these standards when they failed to do so.

  • In particular, it was alleged that the defendants improperly billed the government for materials and services from vendors that did not meet quality control requirements, for piping and waste vessels that did not meet quality standards and for testing from vendors who did not have compliant quality programs.
  • In addition, Bechtel National Inc. and Bechtel Corp. were charged with improperly claiming and receiving government funding for lobbying activities in violation of the Byrd Amendment, and applicable contractual and regulatory requirements, all of which prohibit the use of federal funds for lobbying activities.

Justice Dept. sealThe allegations resolved by the settlement were initially brought in a lawsuit filed under the qui tam, or whistleblower, provisions of the False Claims Act by three individuals — Gary Brunson, Donna Busche, and Walter Tamosaitis — who worked on the WTP project.  The False Claims Act permits private parties to sue on behalf of the United States when they believe that a party has submitted false claims for government funds, and to receive a share of any recovery.  The Act also permits the government to intervene in such a lawsuit, as it did in part in this case.  The whistleblowers’ reward has not yet been determined.

This matter was handled by the Civil Division’s Commercial Litigation Branch, the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Eastern District of Washington, the DOE Office of the Inspector General and the FBI.

The claims asserted against defendants are allegations only, and there has been no determination of liability.  The case is United States ex rel. Brunson, Busche, and Tamosaitis v. Bechtel National, Inc., Bechtel Corp., URS Corp., and URS Energy & Construction, Inc., Case No. 2:13-cv-05013-EFS (E.D. Wash.).

Source: https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/united-states-settles-lawsuit-against-energy-department-contractors-knowingly-mischarging

Filed Under: Government Contracting News Tagged With: abuse, DOE, DOJ, Energy Dept., false claims, False Claims Act, FBI. fraud, IG, Justice Dept., lobbying, overbilling, qui tam, whistleblower, WTP

  • « Previous Page
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 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