FPDS | The Contracting Education Academy

September 26, 2018 By cs

New field in FPDS for contracting actions related to Hurricane Florence

A new field in has been added to the Federal Procurement Data System (FPDS) to allow for the tracking of acquisition costs of federal agencies involved in Hurricane Florence recovery efforts, an incident of great national interest.

The General Services Administration (GSA) created this new National Interest Action (NIA) to the NIA field in the FPDS in conjunction with an agreement between GSA and the Department of Homeland Security.

Effective 9/13/18 through 12/15/18, this new NIA Code will be used strictly for reporting purposes related to Hurricane Florence.

In addition to the date range noted above, FPDS system details for this new NIA are:

NIA Value Name: Hurricane Florence 2018
Web Portal/Graphical User Interface (GUI) service users may select the value Hurricane Florence
2018 in the National Interest Action drop-down field.
Contract Writing Systems (CWS) are to use the code of H18F when creating/updating documents
associated with the Hurricane Florence 2018 through Business Services.

Any FPDS system questions or problems may be directed to the Federal Service Desk (FSD) at https://www.fsd.gov.

September 25, 2018 By cs

3 big problems continue to dog federal procurement

Congress and the executive branch have worked for years to improve the quality of and reduce costs for federal acquisition, but some problems continue to hamper many agencies, according to a Sept. 12 Government Accountability Office report.

“Acquisition reform has been on everyone’s agenda for many, many years, decades. There have been proposals in the Congress, there has been changes to the regulations. This has been a very, very active area for a long time,” said Bill Woods, director on the Contracting and National Security Acquisitions Team at GAO, in an agency podcast.

The report evaluated federal agency acquisition improvements against 89 recommendations made by the Acquisition Advisory Panel in 2007 and divided the areas of improvement into three “buckets” that represent the acquisition life cycle: requirements and definitions; competition and pricing; and contractor oversight.

“One is in the requirements, definition process of actually deciding. What is it does the agency want? What does it need, and what’s the best way of getting what we need?” said Woods.

Keep reading this article at: https://www.federaltimes.com/acquisition/2018/09/17/3-big-problems-continue-to-dog-federal-procurement/

September 13, 2018 By cs

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

November 22, 2017 By cs

The Pentagon’s spending data doesn’t add up

The Defense Department’s $700 billion budget dwarfs that of other federal agencies. Nonetheless, it hasn’t managed to find sufficient resources to accurately report how it spends all its funds.

The department falls well short of requirements under the 2014 Digital Accountability and Transparency Act to show where its money goes.

The Defense Department’s senior accountable official “did not comply with the DATA Act,” the Pentagon’s inspector general said in a Nov. 8 report. “Specifically, for the second quarter of fiscal 2017, the [Defense] comptroller “did not certify and submit complete award data, timely award data, accurate financial and award data, and quality financial and award data for publication on USASpending.gov,” auditors found.

Additionally, the department “did not implement and use the governmentwide award data elements established” by the Office of Management and Budget and the Treasury Department.

Keep reading this article at: http://www.govexec.com/defense/2017/11/pentagons-spending-data-doesnt-add/142473

November 21, 2017 By cs

No surprise: Agencies taking small, slow steps to improve reporting of spending data

The first details of the impact that the three-year-old Data Accountability and Transparency (DATA) Act is having on agencies emerged two weeks ago.

The Government Accountability Office released its first mandated report on data quality and use. GAO found an expected mixed bag of success and struggles when it comes to standardizing and reporting procurement and grants data.

“In the three years since enactment, the Office of Management and Budget, Treasury and federal agencies have made significant strides to address many of the policy and technical challenges presented by the act’s requirements, including standardizing data elements across the federal government, linking data contained in agencies’ financial and award systems, and expanding the type of data reported,” GAO states in its report. “However, our audit of the initial data submitted by agencies and made available to the public on Treasury’s Beta.USAspending.gov website shows that much more needs to be done if the DATA Act’s promise of improving the accuracy and transparency of federal spending data is to be fully realized.”

Auditors say agencies continue to struggle with inconsistencies in their data on acquisition awards, reporting incomplete information and ensuring the data meets the need of the end users.

Keep reading this article at: https://federalnewsradio.com/agency-oversight/2017/11/no-surprise-agencies-taking-small-slow-steps-to-improve-reporting-of-spending-data/