SAP | The Contracting Education Academy

May 21, 2018 By cs

GAO clarifies competition standards for simplified acquisitions

A recent GAO decision has shed light on the question of what an agency must do to adequately promote competition during a simplified acquisition.

There is still no bright line for determining which agency actions meet this threshold. However, the recent decision in Bluehorse Corp., B-415641 et al. (Feb. 6, 2018), established that merely inquiring about a solicitation, without taking further action as recommended by the procuring agency, is not enough to force an agency to include a company in a limited competition.

To promote contracting efficiency, the FAR allows for special simplified acquisition procedures to be applied to certain procurements that do not exceed the regulatory threshold. An agency is not required to use the ordinary full and open competition standards to conduct these simplified acquisition procurements. However, what exactly is required of a federal agency under a simplified acquisition procedure has yet to be clearly defined by the applicable provisions of the FAR and the relevant GAO case law. The FAR requires the agency to “promote competition to the maximum extent practicable” and establishes that this standard can generally be met through the solicitation of at least three sources. See FAR § 13.104.

Keep reading this article at: http://smallgovcon.com/gaobidprotests/gao-clarifies-competition-standards-for-simplified-acquisitions/

November 18, 2016 By cs

Proposed IR&D DFARS rule would competitively punish technology innovators

A proposed Department of Defense rule is causing contractors to evaluate their independent research and development (IR&D) overhead rates and competitive bid strategies.

Understanding that it will punish innovative contractors for engaging in independent research and development (IR&D) and taking on risks that would otherwise be borne by the government, on November 4, 2016, the U.S. Department of Defense (DoD) proposed a rule amending the Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (DFARS) to “ensure that substantial future independent research and development expenses, as a means to reduce evaluated bid prices in competitive sources selections, are evaluated in a uniform way during competitive source selections.”

In essence, DoD wants to ensure that the government’s possible reimbursement of allowable IR&D overhead costs is reflected in a contractor’s total evaluated offer price for competitively awarded contracts to create a level playing field where none, for good reason, has previously existed.

This proposed rule was issued after DoD had requested input on concepts for how to evaluate contracts that relied upon IR&D and the near universal industry condemnation of these concepts. Rejecting industry’s opposition, the proposed rule would significantly reduce contractor incentives to engage in IR&D by reducing the benefits contractors receive from successful IR&D projects. In light of these proposed changes, contractors should immediately evaluate their IR&D and competitive bid strategies on the assumption that this proposed rule will be made final in the near future.

For major defense acquisition programs and major automated information systems acquisitions, the proposed rule would require that contracting officers adjust upward a contractor’s total evaluated offer price to the extent the contractor is expected to rely upon future IR&D costs to reduce its proposed price. Accordingly, in order to support this objective, the proposed rule requires an offeror to “include documentation in its price proposal to support this proposed approach” of using IR&D to meet contract requirements. The rule would apply to contracts above the simplified acquisition threshold, but would not apply to contracts for commercial items.

Keep reading this article at: http://www.mondaq.com/article.asp?articleid=543898

October 24, 2016 By cs

Sticks and stones: How words and terms of art can hurt the contracting profession

Contracting professional need precision in words and terms, as contract interpretation turns on minute differences in terminology and definitions.

mastery-of-words-oct-2016 Misuse of terms of art in the contracting profession leads to confusion, misunderstanding, and pernicious misconceptions. Clarity in contracting language improves professionalism and avoids inefficient or wasteful procedures.

Words, terms of art, and definitions do not get the respect they deserve. People calling themselves contracting professionals blithely misuse them. Seasoned practitioners — who should know better — stay silent and allow bad habits to persist.

This article turns the spotlight on several frequently misused and abused terms of art, but it is not an exhaustive list.

Read on to explore several flagrantly abused terms of art regarding justifications and scope of the contract: http://www.wifcon.com/analy/Sticks_and_Stones.pdf

April 19, 2016 By cs

On RFQs, government can’t have its cake and eat it too

The government wants have its cake and eat it too — by conducting competitions under the General Services Administration (GSA) multiple award schedule contracts using requests for quotations (RFQs), but not abiding by the rules in the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR).

The government seems to think that because RFQs are different from other types of solicitations, the FAR rules don’t apply. Both the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit and the Government Accountability Office (GAO) believe the FAR rules apply.

In Hanel Storage Systems, L.P., the GAO considered a procurement by the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) for vertical storage units at a VA medical center. VA issued an RFQ pursuant to GSA’s multiple award schedule — the Federal Supply Service or FSS program — and the RFQ specified that the extractor system of the storage units [was required] to be “suspended on four corners to allow for uneven loading of pans and access from end of units for service.” VA awarded the order to Kardex, but admitted that its extractor system was suspended centrally and wasnot suspended on four corners, as required by the RFQ.

Keep reading this article at: http://federalnewsradio.com/commentary/2016/04/rfqs-government-cant-cake-eat/

June 5, 2014 By cs

To improve the contracting workforce, improve training

The need for additional staff resources is the most frequently cited response to improving government contracting. In recent years, considerable resources have been invested in hiring and educating our biggest asset, human capital. This additional staffing and education has so far met with mixed results. This is because people are only as effective as the experience and education they have received.

Contracting executives frequently mention the need to develop judgment, reasoning, and analytical skills, as well as to obtain real-world experience. These goals can be met through exposure to diverse acquisition and operational scenarios. Three years of varied contracting experience (simplified acquisition, major systems, source selection, and acquisition planning) is better than 10 years of doing the same, simplified, repetitive tasks over and over, yet still moving up the career ladder. When that situation occurs, specialists get up to senior levels but with limited experience and knowledge, inhibiting their ability to assume the leadership responsibilities they were intended to.

This occurs because agencies want to fill their positions, even though most applicants did not have the opportunity to obtain the necessary variety of experience, which may require moving from one position to another.

Many smaller agencies cannot offer internships or rotations to round out their experience because of the limited nature of their acquisition mission. In some cases, the agency or firm has the overall resources, but is not organized to manage professional development.

Keep reading this article at: http://www.federaltimes.com/article/20140530/BLG06/305300015/To-improve-contracting-workforce-improve-training

A recent GAO decision has shed light on the question of what an agency must do to adequately promote competition during a simplified acquisition.

A proposed Department of Defense rule is causing contractors to evaluate their independent research and development (IR&D) overhead rates and competitive bid strategies.

Contracting professional need precision in words and terms, as contract interpretation turns on minute differences in terminology and definitions.

The government wants have its cake and eat it too — by conducting competitions under the General Services Administration (GSA) multiple award schedule contracts using requests for quotations (RFQs), but not abiding by the rules in the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR).

Search this Website