The Contracting Education Academy

Contracting Academy Logo
You are here: Home / Archives for Schedules

By

GSA Schedule applicants now must demonstrate past performance through CPARS, customer references

The General Services Administration (GSA) no longer utilizes Dun & Bradstreet (D&B) reports to check the performance of companies wishing to sell to the federal government through the multiple award schedules (MAS) program.

Use of the D&B reports — known as Open Ratings Past Performance Evaluations — was discontinued in December.

MAS offerors now demonstrate their performance records through one of two means:

  1. Verifying in their eOffer submittal that they have three or more CPARS assessment reports that meet the solicitation criteria, or
  2. Submitting a past performance narrative and list of customer references as outlined in the solicitation.

If the offeror uses the second option, GSA will contact each customer reference and request they complete a past performance questionnaire.   A copy of the questionnaire can be downloaded here: GSA MAS Past Performance Questionnaire.

Source: https://interact.gsa.gov/document/open-ratings-retirement-and-past-performance-requirements-new-mas-offerors

 

 

 

By

Management imperatives for schedules consolidation

In November, the General Services Administration (GSA) announced that it will be consolidating all its multiple award schedules (MAS) into a single schedule for best value commercial solutions.

As many of you know, the Coalition for Government Procurement has been a strong advocate for the single schedule concept, which will help to reduce costs for both government and industry stakeholders, as well as increase competition and customer access to best value solutions.

The single schedule concept is a game changer, providing GSA with a tremendous opportunity to inject much-needed consistency into the MAS program. Currently, the structure of the schedules program — which features 24 separate schedules and corresponding contract scopes — limits flexibility and hampers the ability of the program to deliver best value solutions consistent with the commercial market. Moreover, these separate contract scopes, which raise artificial barriers and stove-pipes, further promote what is perhaps the most enduring challenge associated with the MAS program: Inconsistent contract negotiation, award and management across GSA’s centers and contracting officers.

Keep reading this article at: https://federalnewsnetwork.com/commentary/2019/03/management-imperatives-for-schedules-consolidation/

By

5 pillars of GSA schedules modernization

The back-to-school season is upon the Nation’s Capital. As local students are wrapping-up their first week of classes today, it is time to start thinking about the end of summer and the end of the fiscal year.

The “experienced hands” at gearing-up for a new school know, and others likely will notice, this season unmistakably is one dominated by lists. Accordingly, as we prepare for the new fiscal year, The Coalition for Government Procurement is providing its, “5 pillars for schedule modernization,” to assist the General Services Administration and the Veterans Affairs Department in their efforts to modernize and enhance the schedules program.

Much like the Coalition has done in the past, each of these 5 pillars will be addressed in more depth through subsequent the Coalition’s “FAR & Beyond” blogs in the coming weeks.

Keep reading this article at: https://federalnewsradio.com/commentary/2018/09/5-pillars-of-gsa-schedules-modernization/

By

Inside CA Technologies’ $45 million false claims settlement

A long-lasting legal dispute between IT contractor CA Technologies and the federal government reached a conclusion last week, as the Justice Department announced the company agreed to pay $45 million to settle allegations that it overcharged and provided false pricing information to the government.

The backstory of this conflict signifies a more aggressive stance taken by the government in dealing with contractors that mislead the government or bilk taxpayers. Public statements by both DOJ and the General Services Administration’s inspector general further suggest they are more willing than ever to prosecute contractors that play ball unfairly—even if it takes years to do so, as it did with CA.

DOJ contends New York-based CA submitted false pricing data in 2007 and again in 2009 regarding products it sold through the GSA’s Schedule 70, a multiple-awards schedule and large acquisition vehicle federal agencies use to purchase various IT products and services.

Keep reading this article at: http://www.nextgov.com/cio-briefing/2017/03/inside-ca-technologies-45-million-false-claims-settlement/136231

See earlier article on this subject at: http://contractingacademy.gatech.edu/2017/03/13/it-firm-agrees-to-pay-45-million-to-settle-alleged-false-claims-on-gsa-contract/

By

IT firm agrees to pay $45 million to settle alleged false claims on GSA contract

CA, Inc. (CA) has agreed to pay $45 million to resolve allegations under the False Claims Act that it made false statements and claims in the negotiation and administration of a General Services Administration (GSA) contract.  

CA is an information technology management software and services company headquartered in New York, New York.  The settlement resolves allegations related to a GSA contract awarded to CA for software licenses and maintenance services.

  • Under Multiple Award Schedule (MAS) contracts like this one, GSA pre-negotiates prices and contract terms for subsequent orders by federal agencies.
  • At the time of CA’s contract, contractors were required to fully and accurately disclose to GSA how they conducted business in the commercial marketplace so that GSA could use that information to negotiate a fair price for government agencies using the GSA contract to purchase CA products and services.
  • The contract also contained a price reduction clause that set forth when the contractor had to reduce the prices it charged to the government if its prices to commercial customers improved.

The settlement between CA and the federal government resolves allegations that CA did not fully and accurately disclose its discounting practices to GSA contracting officers.  Specifically, the agreement resolves claims that CA provided false information about the discounts it gave commercial customers for its software licenses and maintenance services at the time the contract was negotiated in 2002 and was extended in 2007 and 2009. Additionally, the settlement resolves claims that CA violated the price reduction clause in the contract by not providing government customers with additional discounts when commercial discounts improved.

The allegations against CA were first made in a whistleblower lawsuit filed under the False Claims Act by Dani Shemesh, a former employee of CA Software Israel LTD.  Under the False Claims Act, private individuals can sue on behalf of the government and share in any recovery.  The False Claims Act also allows the government to intervene and take over the action, as it did, in part, in this case.  Shemesh’s share of the settlement is $10.195 million.

This case was handled by the Civil Division’s Commercial Litigation Branch, the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the District of Columbia, and the GSA Office of Inspector General.

The Department of Justice (DOJ)  announced this settlement on Friday (Mar. 10, 2017).  The lawsuit is captioned United States ex rel. Shemesh v. CA, Inc., No. 09-1600 (D.D.C.).  The claims resolved by the settlement are allegations only; there has been no determination of liability.

Source: https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/ca-inc-pay-45-million-alleged-false-claims-government-wide-information-technology-contract

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