OMB | The Contracting Education Academy

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

September 7, 2018 By cs

Does innovation exist in federal procurement? OFPP is on the look out

Innovation has become one of those words that has lost its meaning, particularly in the federal market.

Think about what is considered “innovative” these days. Reverse industry days? Vendors and agencies are supposed to talk.

Other transaction authority? The Defense Department, NASA and other agencies have had access to OTAs for 25-plus years.

Cloud computing? Ever heard of managed services or alternative service provider (ASP), these were the cloud before “the cloud.”

So does that mean innovation in the federal sector is unattainable? Is it just, in the words of Mark Forman, the former administrator of e-government and IT at the Office of Management and Budget under the President George W. Bush administration, “putting lipstick on the pig?”

Keep reading this article at: https://federalnewsradio.com/reporters-notebook-jason-miller/2018/08/does-innovation-exist-in-federal-procurement-ofpp-is-on-the-look-out/

August 28, 2018 By cs

Program management is much more complex than many leaders understand

The Government Accountability Office has long bemoaned the dearth of effective program management across government.

Its list of high-risk programs, which encompass such disparate management areas as the national flood insurance program, the 2020 Census, Defense contract management and the security clearance process, reflects how widespread the problem is.

A 2015 study by the National Academy of Public Administration reinforces GAO’s concerns, concluding that “institutionalizing the discipline of program management across the federal government should be a top priority.” This included creating an integrated approach to program management, creating a professional community and clarifying roles and responsibilities. But what is the best approach for doing this?

A Career Path

By the end of 2016, Congress adopted legislation reflecting many of the Academy’s recommendations, including the development of a formal job series and career path for federal program managers and a standards-based model for program management. This law, the Program Management Improvement Accountability Act, required the Office of Management and Budget to develop implementation guidance and required agencies to develop specific implementation plans. The OMB guidance was issued this past June, with a timetable for agency plans to be developed by the end of the year.

Keep reading this article at: https://www.govexec.com/excellence/promising-practices/2018/08/program-management-much-more-complex-many-leaders-understand/150373

August 2, 2018 By cs

States to feds: Enough with the red tape already

Representatives from state governments and the financial and hospital industries testified recently that they spend too much time working to comply with a cavalcade of duplicative, outdated or contradictory federal rules, although they stopped short of rejecting regulation in principle.

At the House Oversight and Government Reform subcommittee’s sparsely attended but provocatively titled hearing, “Regulatory Divergence: Failure of the Administrative State,” officials espoused the need for federal agencies to adopt a unified cross-agency framework for developing regulations, rather than the “siloed” fashion in which rules are typically crafted.

“We’re finding that 43 percent of our resources within compliance and cybersecurity are utilized to reach federal compliance,” said James “Bo” Reese, president of the National Association of State Chief Information Officers and the CIO in Oklahoma’s Office of Management and Enterprise Services. “We’re all for federal compliance, but the challenge is we spend so much time, and duplicative time because of multiple audits, the same ones over and over and with differences that we have to go out and map and find the least common denominator across them.”

Keep reading this article at: https://www.govexec.com/management/2018/07/states-to-feds-enough-with-red-tape/149857

May 30, 2018 By cs

OMB wants to strengthen a learning culture in government

Amazon, Apple and Google are examples of Fortune 500 companies that are known as learning organizations. They relentlessly pursue knowledge creation and transfer, leading to improvements in products and practices. By actively managing their institutional learning, they serve their customers’ needs — and their bottom lines.

In government, on the other hand, deliberative strategic planning around learning happens far too rarely. Even though the 1993 Government Performance and Results Act requires agencies to develop strategic plans, its implementation has never met the original expectations. There are good reasons why learning approaches differ between the public and private sectors, but every organization can learn and apply that knowledge to improve results.

A few federal agencies are showing that it can be done. The Labor Department, for example, requires its operating agencies to develop learning agendas that identify high-priority research studies that those agencies would like to have done. The U.S. Agency for International Development launched a learning office with agencywide policies that encourage grantees to develop learning plans. And in just the last two years, the Small Business Administration has made notable progress, launching an evaluation office and creating an agency-wide learning agenda.

Keep reading this article at: https://www.govexec.com/excellence/promising-practices/2018/05/omb-wants-strengthen-learning-culture-government/148350/