Performance Evaluation | The Contracting Education Academy

April 26, 2017 By AMK

Changes coming to SAM.gov

The General Services Administration (GSA) is planning to test a new version of the System for Award Management (SAM.gov).

This means that plans GSA made as far back as 2001 may be realized sometime in 2018.

At present, SAM.gov is the federal database where vendors register to do business with the government. When it went live in mid-2012, SAM was introduced as portal where, over time, several different government databases would be consolidated. Federal Agency Registration (FedReg), the Online Representations and Certifications Application (ORCA), and the Excluded Parties List System (EPLS) were among the systems to be first consolidated under the SAM umbrella.

The 2012 introduction of SAM initially was delayed and, once launched, many problems were encountered by vendors and government agencies alike. Since then, SAM experienced a data breach in 2013, cost overruns, accessibility issues, and periodic interface difficulties with SBA’s small business database.

GSA now plans to resume work on the original vision for SAM: the consolidation of as many as 10 websites.

A new test site, at beta.sam.gov, reportedly is to launch between July 1 and Sept. 30, 2017.

The objective of the consolidated web site is to reduce the federal contracting burden on contractors and government officials alike by creating a single place to access a range of data, including contractor registration information, contract award data on prime contractors and subcontractors, and information about companies excluded from pursuing government work.

Eventually, the functions of 10 existing sites — including SAM.gov, the Federal Procurement Data System (fpds.gov); Federal Business Opportunities (fbo.gov), the Federal Funding Accountability and Transparency Act Subaward Reporting System (fsrs.gov), and the Federal Awardee Performance and Integrity Information System (fapiis.gov) — will become a part of the SAM beta site. Once testing is completed, all of the added functionality will become a part of a new SAM.gov site. The sites that are merged into SAM.gov then will be retired.

Improvements, such as search features, will continue to be made to existing sites as the new site is being tested, GSA says.

August 12, 2015 By AMK

DoD OIG: Marine Corps program met acquisition guidelines intent, but evaluation plan not in place

Initial production was begun on a Marine Corps acquisition before a test and evaluation plan was in place.

That is the finding of the Office of the Inspector General (OIG) of the Department of Defense (DoD) in an audit report issued August 6, 2015.

The OIG’s audit objective was to determine if the Marine Corps was effectively managing the Ground/Air Task Oriented Radar (G/ATOR) project during the initial production phase. The OIG evaluated the production plan for initial production units and planned developmental testing.

The OIG found the Marine Corps generally managed the G/ATOR program in accordance with Defense acquisition guidelines in that G/ATOR Program Management Office (PMO) officials implemented reliability improvements, planned new semiconductor technology that should reduce costs and improve performance, and obtained the milestone decision authority approval for increased initial production quantities.

However, on March 10, 2014, the milestone decision authority approved the G/ATOR system to begin initial production without an approved Test and Evaluation Master Plan (TEMP). Officials from G/ATOR PMO and the test community stated that they were coordinating to include the test strategy for new semiconductor technology and a clarified operational reliability requirement in the TEMP.

As a result of the audit, G/ATOR PMO officials plan to complete the TEMP before developmental testing begins in the second quarter FY 2017. Until the TEMP is updated to include the test strategy for new semiconductor technology and a clarified operational reliability requirement, the G/ATOR program is not ready for additional testing.

View the full audit report at: http://www.dodig.mil/pubs/documents/DODIG-2015-158.pdf

The Office of the Inspector General (OIG) of the

January 16, 2015 By AMK

Company excluded from competition protests $5 billion Army IT contract

A $5 billion Army contract program for information technology that’s almost two years behind schedule could be delayed even longer, as at least one company excluded from the competition files a protest in a federal court.

MicroTechnologies LLC of Virginia confirmed it filed a protest Jan. 9 in the U.S. Court of Federal Claims against the Army’s decision to exclude the company’s bid for the Information Technology Enterprise Solutions-3 Hardware program, or ITES-3H, to supply the Army commercial IT hardware.

While all documents in the case are sealed, MicroTech General Counsel and Chief Administrative Officer Aaron Drabkin said the grounds mirror those included in its protest filed with the Government Accountability Office (GAO), which was denied in October 2014. The company raised several challenges to the agency’s evaluation of its past performance.

Keep reading this article at: http://www.bizjournals.com/washington/blog/fedbiz_daily/2015/01/microtech-protests-5b-ites-3h-contract-in-federal.html

November 24, 2014 By AMK

Pentagon’s buying managers resist IG’s call for central oversight office

The Defense Department’s acquisition operation would perform better with a central oversight office to improve organizational feedback on supply chain performance trends, the Pentagon inspector general said in a report dated Nov. 3, 2014.

The Office of the Defense Undersecretary for Acquisition, Technology and Logistics “has not established an overarching quality management policy to ensure the consistent application of quality management system requirements across DoD components,” the watchdog wrote. Creation of a central quality management oversight office would help reduce delays and cost overruns on major weapons systems by building in management steps “to evaluate and revise policies, procedures and guidance,” it said.

Citing past investigations and Government Accountability Office reports, the inspector general recited a litany of recent acquisition snafus: assembly of the Expeditionary Fighting Vehicle brought a four-year delay at a cost overrun of $750 million; the Advanced Threat Infrared Counter Measure/Common Missile Warning System came with a five-year delay and a $117 million cost overrun; manufacturing of the F22A Raptor Advanced Tactical Fighter was over budget by $400 million; and building of the Amphibious Transport Dock for the USS San Antonio underwent a three-year delay and a cost overrun of $846 million.

Keep reading this article at: http://www.govexec.com/contracting/2014/11/pentagons-buying-managers-resist-igs-call-central-oversight-office/98249/

November 5, 2014 By AMK

DCMA releases review of Defense procurement functions

The Defense Contract Management Agency (DCMA) issued a summary of the results of its FY14 review of Defense Department (DoD) procurement functions. The purpose of DCMA’s annual reviews is to assess the effectiveness of the contracting function, including the identification of best practices and lessons learned.

Shortcomings identified in DCMA’s Program Management Review report include:

Insufficient documentation in contract files, contrary to instructions in FAR part 4.801.
Over-reliance on checklists and templates, reducing necessary analysis and substance required in particular circumstances.
Technical evaluations lacking critical analysis.
A propensity to accept proposed prices and an aversion to negotiation.
Lack of evidence that Contracting Officers are reviewing the actions and files of Contracting Officer’s Representatives during post-award contract administration.
Minimal documentation supporting contract modifications.
Misalignment of effective dates with periods of performance, funding dates, and signatures.

A copy of the DCMA’s report can be downloaded by clicking here.

Initial production was begun on a Marine Corps acquisition before a test and evaluation plan was in place.

Search this Website