The Contracting Education Academy

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

May 6, 2014 By AMK

GSA’s new contracting policy tackles IG’s concerns about management interference

The General Services Administration is attempting to clarify to managers and vendors alike the proper approach to overseeing the schedules program.

A February memo and policy is part of the way GSA’s Federal Acquisition Service is trying to address a 2013 inspector general report that found examples of improper management interference on decisions by contracting officers under the schedules program.

“We’ve taken a number of actions to reinforce proper procurement while also focusing on doing more for our customers to save them time and money in acquisition,” said Tom Sharpe, commissioner of GSA’s Federal Acquisition Service, in an exclusive interview with Federal News Radio. “We’ve moved out on training. We’ve moved out on providing tools for the multiple award schedules, and we are in the process of standardizing part numbers, instilling horizontal pricing pressure. The schedules are priced vertically, the most favored customer price, so we are looking at comparison across suppliers to provide horizontal pricing pressure, and we’ve taken on initiatives to make the processes within the multiple award schedules faster.”

In June, the GSA IG found FAS managers improperly interfered with negotiations for new schedule contracts for Carahsoft, Deloitte and Oracle. GSA executives ended up suspending one senior official in light of what the IG found and have been taking steps over the last nine months to clarify and reinforce the role of managers in schedule contract negotiations.

Keep reading this article at: http://www.federalnewsradio.com/74/3609018/GSA-contracting-policy-tackles-IG-concerns-over-autonomy

Filed Under: Government Contracting News Tagged With: acquisition workforce, conflict of interest, FAS, GSA, GSA Schedules, IG, influence, oversight, Schedules

December 19, 2013 By AMK

New GSA sourcing plan to include businesses without Multiple Award Schedule

The General Services Administration plans to change the way it sources office supplies by including businesses that don’t have a GSA Multiple Award Schedule onto its strategic sourcing vehicle, among other planned changes, a Dec. 2 GSA statement says.

The FSSI program works by negotiating lower rates from suppliers through bulk purchases.

The updated office supply sourcing plan – named OS3 – will be a full-and-open solicitation, open to all office supply businesses, regardless of whether they have a GSA Multiple Award Schedule.

Among other changes, OS3 will increase the number of awards reserved for small business and add purchasing channel options for agencies.

GSA expects the updated plan to provide savings of $90 million in annual savings through lower office supply prices.

Keep reading this article at: http://www.fiercegovernment.com/story/new-gsa-sourcing-plan-include-businesses-without-multiple-award-schedule/2013-12-03 

Filed Under: Government Contracting News Tagged With: acquisition strategy, GSA, GSA Schedules, OS3, Schedules, strategic sourcing

July 31, 2013 By AMK

Interagency acquisition and GWACs explained, related resources identified

A government-wide acquisition contract (GWAC) is one form of interagency acquisition – the process by which one agency uses the contracts and/or contracting services of other agencies to obtain supplies and services.

Interagency acquisitions typically involve two government agencies: the requesting agency, which is the agency with the requirement, and the servicing agency which provides acquisition support, administers contracts for other agencies’ direct use, or both.   In some cases, more than one servicing agency may be involved in an assisted acquisition.

Requesting agencies benefit from the capabilities or expertise of the servicing agency and the efficiencies and economies associated with leveraging resources and requirements. Servicing agencies benefit from the improved pricing and terms and conditions they can negotiate when consolidating, in a justified manner, other agencies’ needs with their own and among requesting agencies.

Interagency acquisitions are commonly conducted through indefinite delivery vehicles (IDVs), such as task and delivery order contracts. The structure of these vehicles is well-suited to the efficiencies and economies that agencies seek through interagency acquisitions. IDVs permit the issuance of orders for the performance of tasks or the delivery of supplies against prepositioned contracts and agreements during the term of the vehicle. The IDVs used most frequently to support interagency acquisitions are multiple award schedules (MAS), government-wide acquisition contracts (GWACs), and multi-agency contracts (MACs).

Types of Interagency Acquisitions

There are two types of interagency acquisitions: direct acquisitions and assisted acquisitions.

  1. In a direct acquisition, the requesting agency places an order directly against the servicing agency’s IDV.   The servicing agency manages the IDV but does not participate in the placement of an order.
  2. In an assisted acquisition, the servicing agency and requesting agency enter into an interagency agreement pursuant to which the servicing agency performs acquisition activities on the requesting agency’s behalf, such as awarding a contract, task order, or delivery order.  In many assisted acquisitions, the servicing agency also manages the IDV against which orders are placed. For example, the General Services Administration’s Federal Acquisition Service will typically place orders against a MAS contract or a GWAC on behalf of its requesting agencies.  Sometimes, a servicing agency may find that another agency’s IDV can better serve the requesting agency’s needs, in which case two servicing agencies would be involved in the interagency acquisition.

Legal Authority

A variety of laws authorize interagency acquisitions. The Economy Act, 31 U.S.C. 1535, provides general authority to undertake interagency acquisitions that is available to agencies when more specific statutory authority does not exist.

An increasing number of interagency acquisitions are falling outside the Economy Act because many of interagency contract vehicles that are widely used today, such as the MAS and GWACs, are not governed by the Economy Act.  Instead, these vehicles are governed by more specific statutory authority.  For example, the MAS is governed by Title III of the Federal Property and Administrative Services Act of 1949 (41 U.S.C. 251, et seq.) and Title 40 U.S.C. 501, Services for Executive Agencies. GWACs are authorized by section 5112(e) of the Clinger-Cohen Act (40 U.S.C. 11302(e)).

As a general matter, laws and regulations give agencies the discretion to determine whether to use an interagency acquisition.

The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) says direct acquisitions from GSA’s GWACs are “in the best interest of the government” in its June 2008 memo, Guidance for Improving the Management and Use of Interagency Acquisitions.  OMB designated GSA as the Executive Agent for GSA-issued GWACs under the Clinger-Cohen Act.

The Office of Federal Procurement Policy (OFPP) also asks agencies to look to interagency contracts like GWACs first for efficiencies and cost savings in its September 2011 memo, Development, Review and Approval of Business Cases for Certain Interagency and Agency-Specific Acquisitions.

The Department of Defense issued a memo on July 14, 2011 encouraging the use of 8(a) STARS II, Alliant Small Business, and VETS to meet DoD’s small business contracting and information technology needs. Read the July 14, 2011 memo.

The Department of Navy issued a memo on April 23, 2012 emphasizing the mandatory use of the GSA Alliant/Alliant Small Business for the acquisition of IT development and support services. Read the April 23, 2012 memo.

The Office of the Secretary of Defense issued a memo on August 16, 2012, stating that the Department of Defense acquisition community is to maximize the use of all available authorities to acquire products and services from small businesses. Read the August 16, 2012 memo.

Using an Indefinite Delivery Vehicle

Before placing an order directly against another agency’s IDV, the requesting agency’s contracting officer, or other official designated in accordance with agency procedure, should ensure that an interagency acquisition is in the best interest of the government, taking into account factors such as:

  • Suitability – whether the IDV that would be used can satisfy the agency’s schedule, performance, and delivery requirements, including any statutory, regulatory, and policy requirements.
  • Value – whether the IDV’s pricing, including vehicle access fees (sometimes referred to as an “industrial funding fee”), is fair and reasonable and comparable to what the agency is likely to secure by creating its own contract, and structured to allow the agency to obtain the best value for its needs.
  • Expertise – whether the agency’s contracting office personnel have the appropriate experience and training to properly place an order on a timely basis, take advantage of beneficial features, such as discounts, and effectively administer the order.

GSA GWACs

GWACs were put in place by the General Services Administration to enable federal agencies to buy cost-effective and innovative solutions for information technology (IT) requirements.

GWACs provide access to IT solutions such as systems design, software engineering, information assurance, and enterprise architecture solutions. Small business set-aside GWACs also provide socioeconomic credit.

GWAC benefits

GSA promotes the use of GWACs by promoting a number of potential benefits, including:

  • Premier IT service providers – Access to exceptionally qualified IT service providers enabling innovative solutions at competitive prices.
  • Worldwide IT solutions – GSA GWACs can be used to develop IT solutions anywhere in the world.
  • Access to ancillary support – GWACs facilitate a total integrated solution on a single task order by providing access to ancillary support, such as products and services that are integral and necessary to an IT effort.
  • Savings in time and money through streamlined contracting – GWACs are pre-competed contracts offering a full range of contract types (all types of fixed-price, cost-reimbursement, labor-hour, and time-and-materials) making procurement planning easier.  GWAC task orders can be issued in considerably less time than conventional open market procurements.
  • Scope compatibility reviews – At no cost to the agency, GSA promises to determine whether an agency’s requirement is within scope of a GWAC within two to five business days.
  • Support from Assisted Acquisition Services – GSA’s Assisted Acquisition Services can provide optional contracting, project management, and financial management expertise and support.

GWAC Resources

The Interagency Contract Directory (ICD) is a central repository of Indefinite Delivery Vehicles (IDV) awarded by federal agencies. The ICD assists in strategic sourcing and identifying existing contract vehicles (including those awarded to small businesses).

The “GWAC Dashboard” is located at: http://www.gsa.gov/portal/category/103435.  This is an interactive tool that allows GWAC stakeholders to view and segment GWAC information to make better business decisions.  Users have the ability to explore GWAC data by contract family, federal agency, and industry partner as well as build customized reports for download.

 

Filed Under: Government Contracting News Tagged With: cost savings, efficiency, GSA, GSA Schedules, GWAC, IDIQ, IDV, indefinite delivery, indefinite quantity, information technology, interagency acquisition, interagency contracts, IT, MAC, MAS, OFPP, Schedules, technology, value

June 13, 2013 By AMK

Tighter budgets mean bigger role for GSA

Dan Tangherlini wants more of your business — a lot more.

Installed by the White House a year ago as acting administrator of the General Services Administration to fix the scandal-rocked agency, Tangherlini ushered in a flurry of reforms to dial back conference spending, employee bonuses and accountability lapses at GSA.

Now, his focus is fixed on overhauling the way federal agencies buy goods and services. His aim is to redirect considerably more federal procurement spending through GSA contracts.

“Frankly, the system we have now, the way we structure ourselves now, the way we invest in certain things now, is not sustainable,” Tangherlini said in an hour-long interview with Federal Times editors and reporters. He said agencies will need to find ways to cut costs as much as possible without sacrificing their missions.

Last year, only about 12 percent of federal procurement spending that could have gone to GSA actually did, according to the agency. Tangherlini said his hope is that, within 10 years, the agency can get that figure closer to 90 percent.

Keep reading this article at: http://www.federaltimes.com/article/20130519/DEPARTMENTS07/305190006/Tangherlini-Tighter-budgets-mean-bigger-role-GSA

Filed Under: Government Contracting News Tagged With: duplication of effort, FAS, GSA, GSA Schedules, inter-agency contracting, interagency contracts, Interior Dept., OASIS, Schedules

June 10, 2013 By AMK

FAS management pressured officers to award contracts

The Federal Acquisition Service overrode its contracting officers and  pressured them to extend or award schedules contracts based on complaints from  contractors, a June 4 General Services Administration office of inspector  general report  (.pdf) says.

FAS management allowed contractors to circumvent contracting officers when  the contractors disagreed with contracting staff determinations and supported  the contractors’ positions, including by reassigning contracts to different  contracting officers, the report says.

In each reassignment case, the new contracting officer awarded or extended  contracts without properly addressing significant issues identified by previous  contracting officers, the report says. The result, auditors add, is that GSA  signed or extended schedules contracts with inflated pricing or unfavorable  terms.

The report focuses on three large information technology schedule contracts  that represented over $900 million in contract sales in calendar year 2011–a  Oracle services contract that garnered $358.4 million worth of business,  Carahsoft Technology with $432 million worth of sales, and a Deloitte Consulting  contract worth $119.5 million that year.

Keep reading this article at: http://www.fiercegovernment.com/story/fas-management-pressured-officers-award-contracts-based/2013-06-04

 

Filed Under: Government Contracting News Tagged With: acquisition workforce, contract administration, FAS, GSA, GSA Schedules, MAS, multiple award, negotiation, oversight, pricing, Schedules

  • « Previous Page
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 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 © 2021 · Georgia Tech - Enterprise Innovation Institute