Subcontracting | The Contracting Education Academy

December 12, 2017 By cs

Changes to supply chain management and commercial item contracting in FY 2018 NDAA

For Department of Defense (DoD) acquisitions, the Conference Report for Fiscal Year 2018 NDAA includes provisions that simplify and others that complicate contractor responsibilities.

On November 8, 2017, the U.S. Senate and House Armed Services Committees announced that they had reached agreement to reconcile the different versions of the National Defense and Authorization Act (NDAA) for Fiscal Year 2018 passed by the Senate and House earlier in the year.

The Senate unanimously approved the compromise legislation on November 16, sending it to President Trump to sign into law. The 2018 National Defense and Authorization Act Conference Report sent to the President includes proposed changes to supply chain management, to the definition of a “subcontractor” and to commercial item contracting that may impact your business.

Keep reading this article at: https://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=238f078d-5398-4cba-ba7b-8fdb3e308575

September 25, 2017 By cs

Senate passes $700 billion 2018 NDAA, including procurement reforms

On September 18, 2017 the Senate passed its version of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2018.

The Senate version of the NDAA authorizes defense spending at close to $700 billion for Fiscal Year 2018, which begins on October 1. The Senate NDAA’s $700 billion total is more than President Donald Trump requested, and also exceeds the caps set by the Budget Control Act of 2011. In order to provide the authorized $700 billion level through appropriation bills, Congress will need to address the limits of the Budget Control Act and eliminate the threat of sequestration.

As is the case each year, the NDAA will include significant procurement reform provisions. Although it remains to be seen which of these provisions will be included in the final version of the NDAA passed by Congress and signed into law by the president, the Senate and House versions both contain notable reforms that would impact the laws and regulations applicable to government contractors. For example, the Senate version contains reforms to the debriefing and bid protest process and the House version would permit and promote Department of Defense (DoD) purchases through online commercial marketplaces. Both versions contain significant potential reforms to the regulation of commercial items.

In its recent vote, the Senate was acting on H.R. 2810, the House version of the 2018 NDAA, and voted on Amendment #1003, which included the Senate version of the NDAA. This version was further modified by numerous bipartisan amendments, including an amendment that incorporated the Modernizing Government Technology (MGT) Act. The MGT provisions would establish information technology working capital funds at 24 federal agencies and set up a separate $500 million modernization fund within the Department of the Treasury, to be administered by the General Services Administration, for the purpose of improving information technology and cybersecurity across the federal government.

Below is a summary of several significant procurement reform provisions in the Senate and House versions of the NDAA, each of which contain more than 50 separate sections related to procurement policies and reform.

Keep reading this article at: https://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=6e11bc94-e1ca-42a7-ae21-b96f2965ad02

March 2, 2017 By cs

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/

January 24, 2017 By cs

ASBCA shoots down DCAA overreach on responsibility to manage subcontractors

A prime contractor is responsible for managing its subcontractors, but what exactly does that require?

In a recent decision, the answer of the Armed Services Board of Contract Appeals was: not nearly as much as DCAA claimed.

In Lockheed Martin Integrated Sys., Inc., ASBCA Nos. 59508, 59509, the Board ruled on a Government claim seeking more than $100 million from LMIS for allegedly breaching an obligation to manage subcontracts. In DCAA’s reading, this obligation was extensive and required a number of concrete actions by the prime contractor.

After auditing three LMIS contracts, DCAA questioned $103 million in subcontract costs. DCAA claimed that, for the costs to be allowable, LMIS had to provide documents showing it had: (1) reviewed subcontractor resumes to confirm personnel qualifications; (2) reviewed subcontractor timesheets to confirm the accuracy of invoiced hours; and (3) tried to obtain incurred cost submissions from its subcontractors, contacting “the Government” for “assistance” if the subcontractors refused. DCAA claimed it could find no subcontract costs allowable “[w]ithout an incurred cost submission from the subcontractor,” which was the prime contractor’s responsibility to obtain.

Keep reading this article at: https://www.insidegovernmentcontracts.com/2017/01/asbca-shoots-dcaa-overreach-responsibility-manage-subcontractors/

August 17, 2016 By cs

SBA’s ‘universal’ small business mentor-protégé program has impact on other agencies

With the finalization of the new SBA Small Business Mentor Protégé Program, other agencies without statutorily-authorized mentor-protege programs must seek SBA approval of their mentor-protege programs within one year, if they wish those programs to continue.

In a final rule scheduled to be effective August 24, 2016, the SBA questioned the need for other agencies (except the Department of Defense) to continue to operate their own mentor-protege programs, but provided a road map for agencies to preserve their separate mentor-protege programs if they wish.

Keep reading this article at: http://smallgovcon.com/statutes-and-regulations/sbas-universal-small-business-mentor-protege-programs-impact-on-other-agencies/

For Department of Defense (DoD) acquisitions, the Conference Report for Fiscal Year 2018 NDAA includes provisions that simplify and others that complicate contractor responsibilities.

On September 18, 2017 the Senate passed its version of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2018.

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

A prime contractor is responsible for managing its subcontractors, but what exactly does that require?

With the finalization of the new SBA Small Business Mentor Protégé Program, other agencies without statutorily-authorized mentor-protege programs must seek SBA approval of their mentor-protege programs within one year, if they wish those programs to continue.

Search this Website