The Contracting Education Academy

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

March 2, 2017 By AMK

Evaluation of subcontractor past performance not required for FSS procurements

For Federal Supply Schedule (FSS) procurements, agencies are not required to evaluate past performance references of subcontractors, unless the solicitation provides otherwise.

As one offeror recently discovered in Atlantic Systems Group, Inc., B-413901 (Jan. 9, 2017), unlike negotiated procurements, where agencies “should” evaluate the past performance of subcontractors that will perform major or critical aspects of the contract, offerors bidding under FSS solicitations should not assume that a subcontractor’s past performance will be considered.

Atlantic Systems involved a solicitation for technical, engineering, management, operation, logistical, and administrative support for the Department of Education’s cybersecurity risk management program. The solicitation was set aside for SDVOSB concerns that held Schedule 70 contracts.

Pursuant to the solicitation, offerors were to be evaluated for both corporate experience and past performance. In order to enable the agency to conduct the past performance/experience evaluation, each “offeror” was to provide evidence of the experience “of the organization” with similar projects or contracts.

Keep reading this article at: http://smallgovcon.com/gaobidprotests/evaluation-of-subcontractor-past-performance-not-required-for-fss-procurements/

Filed Under: Government Contracting News Tagged With: bid protest, Federal Supply Schedule, FSS, GAO, GSA Schedule, past performance, performance, protest, schedule, subcontracting

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

September 23, 2016 By AMK

Georgia Tech climbs in world university rankings

The World University Rankings released today by Times Higher Education show the Georgia Institute of Technology has moved from No. 41 to No. 33, the highest ranking among Georgia’s academic institutions.
Tech Tower (Photo Credit: Ethan Trewhitt)
Tech Tower (Photo Credit: Ethan Trewhitt)

The Institute was 20th among U.S. institutions and fourth among public universities.

The 2016-2017 World University Rankings list the best global universities and are the only international university performance tables to judge world-class universities across all of their core missions — teaching, research, knowledge transfer, and international outlook.

The top universities rankings use 13 performance indicators to provide the most comprehensive and balanced comparisons available. This year’s rankings include 980 universities from 79 countries, compared with 800 universities from 70 countries in last year’s ranking.

This year’s list of the best universities in the world features 148 of the top universities in the U.S. with 63 American universities making the top 200, including the California Institute of Technology (Caltech) as the world’s No. 2 university, followed by Stanford University in third place, the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) in fifth, and Harvard University in sixth.  Oxford University in England was No. 1 overall.

Times Higher Education global rankings feature many performance indicators directly relevant to students and their families to help them choose where to study. This information includes faculty-student ratios, global reputation, total resources, the international mix on campus, and links to business.

This is the first year the rankings data and methodology were subject to an independent audit by PricewaterhouseCoopers.

Source: http://www.news.gatech.edu/2016/09/22/georgia-tech-climbs-world-university-rankings

Filed Under: Georgia Tech News Tagged With: Georgia Tech, performance, Times Higher Education, World University Rankings

April 15, 2016 By AMK

How to design contracts that deliver results

The “pay for success” movement in the non-profit world is starting to take hold at the federal, state, and local levels. But a prerequisite is having some way of measuring success — and ensuring that funding models encourage it.
IBM's Center for the Business of Government has issued a report featuring  State of Tennessee today has one of the nation’s best performance-contracting systems for its child welfare program.
IBM’s Center for the Business of Government has issued a report featuring the State of Tennessee’s performance-contracting system for its child welfare program, one of the nation’s best.

The Urban Institute has launched a new web resource to explain various forms of performance-based contracting aimed at delivering targeted, high-impact preventative social services where an intervention at an early stage could reduce the need for higher-cost services in the future.

Pay for success funding systems can take many different forms and already operate in different policy arenas. “They include value-based payments to hospitals and nursing homes, performance-based contracts with workforce providers, merit-based pay in schools, and performance-based payments to colleges and universities,” according to Patrick Lester, director of the Social Innovation Research Center at the IBM Center for the Business of Government. These involve many billions of dollars in annual public funding.

Two of the most prominent of these outcome-based funding systems are social impact bonds and performance-based contracting. A new IBM Center report by Lester offers a guide to understanding and selecting the best approach—through performance-based contracting or social impact bonds—depending on the situation at hand.

Keep reading this article at: http://www.govexec.com/excellence/promising-practices/2016/04/how-design-contracts-deliver-results/127250

Filed Under: Government Contracting News Tagged With: cost benefit, pay for success, performance, performance based acquisition, social impact bonds, Urban Institute

March 11, 2016 By AMK

Talking with a procurement icon about post-award contract management

Deidre (Dee) Lee entered the government in 1978 as a GS-4 contract specialist buying supplies at the U.S. military base in Okinawa.

post awardFrom there she rose up through the ranks, moving to NASA Johnson Space Center in 1984 and becoming the senior procurement official at NASA in 1992 (where I got to know her during my time as Office of Federal Procurement Policy administrator).

In 1997 she succeeded me as administrator (she was my choice for the job, and I was happy to see this go to a career civil servant), and from there she went back to the Defense Department in 2000. Dee also worked at the General Services Administration, and ultimately retired from the Department of Homeland Security’s Federal Emergency Management Agency in 2008.

During her government career, she twice won a Fed 100 award, in 1998 and 2004. Six years ago she went to work for Fluor as chief for government group compliance and operations, a job from which she retired last year. Dee is now working as an independent consultant focusing on government contracting issues.

Keep reading this article at: https://fcw.com/blogs/lectern/2016/02/kelman-deidre-lee.aspx

 

Filed Under: Government Contracting News Tagged With: acquisition workforce, best practices, CO, contracting officer, contractor performance, COR, performance, post-award, program management

  • « Previous Page
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • …
  • 12
  • 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 © 2022 · Georgia Tech - Enterprise Innovation Institute