Jump to content
The Wifcon Forums and Blogs

Sign in to follow this  
  • entries
    130
  • comments
    2
  • views
    4,170

Entries in this blog

Centre Law & Consulting

You've Accepted Transactional Data Reporting (TDR), Now What? | Centre Law & Consulting in Tysons, VA
 
The Transactional Data Reporting (TDR) Rule requires vendors to electronically report the price that the federal government paid for an item or service purchased through GSA acquisition vehicles and other data elements. The rollout of TDR across all pilot schedules is now complete. If you accepted TDR willingly or unwillingly, it’s time to understand the reporting requirements.

When are the TDR Requirements Effective?

Upon acceptance of the TDR pilot bilateral mass modification, the requirement for providing a Commercial Sales Practice (CSP) disclosure to accompany modification requests will be eliminated. In addition, vendors will no longer be required to track price reductions granted to their Basis of Award (BOA) customer or category of customers. Price Reduction Clause liability for current contractors ends with acceptance of the TDR mass modification, which will be effective on the first day of the business quarter following acceptance of the modification.

In order to ease the transition from the current 72A reporting database to the TDR reporting module, the requirement for commencement of reporting will not begin on the date the modification is signed; rather, reporting will begin at the beginning of the next full business quarter as shown below:

Modification Accepted Requirements Effective
 July 1 – September 30  October 1
 October 1 – December 31   January 1
 January 1 – March 31  April 1
 April 1 – June 30  July 1

 
If a current contractor accepts the modification during the last 15 days of a standard business quarter, reporting begins on the first day of the second business quarter following modification acceptance.

What Data Am I Required to Report?

The clause requires contractors to submit the following data elements:

  1. Contract Number
  2. Order Number or Procurement Instrument Identifier (PIID)
  3. Non Federal Entity, if applicable
  4. Description of Deliverable
  5. Manufacturer Name
  6. Manufacturer Part Number
  7. Unit of Measure (each, hour, case, lot, etc.)
  8. Quantity of Item Sold
  9. Universal Product Code (UPC), if applicable
  10. Price Paid per Unit
  11. Total Price Sold

Contractors should report Firm Fixed Price (FFP) orders as single line item representing the lump sum total for the order. For services time-and-materials (T&M) or labor hour orders, reporting should be done by labor categories and rates.

Manufacturer Name is not a mandatory field for service contractors in TDR, but Description of Deliverable is a mandatory field for both products and services. Service providers would place a brief description of the project or service offered in the Description of Deliverable field.

How Can I Complete the Reporting?

FAS Sales Reporting  (Contracts must have a digital certificate to gain access to the reporting system)
Reporting Tutorial

Contractors have multiple options to submit their sales data such as:

  • Form entry – where you fill out a form in your web browser
  • File upload – where you upload an excel or .csv template populated with your sales data
  • Electronic Data Interchange / EDI
  • Web Services / API

In summary, TDR data is reported monthly and there is a 30-day window to report after the end of the month. Your Industrial Funding Fee (IFF) must be paid quarterly. Contractors may, however, choose to remit IFF on a monthly basis when they report their sales if they prefer and must do so through the TDR system. For TDR Pilot contractors under Schedules 70 and the Professional Services Schedule, if TDR SINs are included on a contract alongside non-TDR SINs, the entire contract is subject to TDR terms and conditions, and CSP and PRC requirements are removed for the entire contract. Remember that participation in the TDR Pilot does not exempt the contractor from existing reporting requirements found elsewhere in the contract.

About the Author:

Julia Coon | Centre Law & Consulting in Tysons VA Julia Coon
Consultant

Julia Coon is GSA and VA Contract Consultant at Centre Law & Consulting. Julia works with the GSA/VA team in preparing new schedule proposals and post-award contract administration. She has experience in producing schedule renewal packages, various modification packages, small business subcontracting plans, and updates to GSA pricelists.

 

The post You’ve Accepted Transactional Data Reporting, Now What? appeared first on Centre Law & Consulting.


View the full article

Centre Law & Consulting

Reproduced with permission from Federal Contracts Report, 105 FCR (June 21, 2016). Copyright 2016 by The Bureau of National Affairs, Inc. (800-372-1033) http://www.bna.com

Effective Trade Agreements Act and Pricing Compliance Programs for Federal Supply Schedules

Recent scrutiny by Sen. Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.) and a $75.5 million settlement stemming from allegations of overcharging the U.S. government send a clear message: Vendors must be compliant with their Trade Agreements Act (TAA) and pricing obligations on their Federal Supply Schedules (FSS). This article describes some of the most common TAA and pricing issues and points out some of the best practices.

The U.S. government created the FSS to streamline its acquisition process through volume buying from pre-approved vendors known as schedule contractors. Pursuant to the Federal Property and Administrative Services Act of 1949, 40 U.S.C. 101 et seq., the Government Services Administration (GSA) administers the FSS. This is why the FSS is also known as GSA Schedules or Multiple Award Schedules. In the past 67 years, the FSS have grown into a multibillion-dollar industry of vendors specializing in providing products and services to the U.S. government.

The Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) Parts 8, 12 and 38 govern the FSS. In accordance with FAR Part 12, FSS contracts are “commercial item contracts.” This means they may be awarded with less than full and open competition. When placing an order through the FSS, each agency is exempt from the small-business set-aside programs under FAR Part 19.

Compliance Issue 1: Buy American Statute and Trade Agreement Act

The U.S. government requires that products sold on the FSS are Buy American Statute (formerly the Buy American Act) and Trade Agreements Act compliant. In 1933, Congress passed the Buy American Act, 41 U.S.C. §§ 10a-10d (BAA), which required the U.S. government to give a preference to U.S. made goods over foreign-made goods in federal procurements to protect American workers and businesses.

Congress subsequently passed the Trade Agreements Act, 19 U.S.C. § 2512 (TAA) which allows the president to waive the BAA requirements for eligible products from countries that have signed an international trade agreement with the U.S. The TAA waiver applies only once certain dollar thresholds are met. The GSA has determined that since the estimated dollar value of each schedule it administers exceeds the established TAA thresholds, the TAA is applicable to all schedules. Both acts are discussed in detail in FAR Part 25, Foreign Acquisition.

Schedule contractors must comply with the BAA and TAA requirements. Specifically, the FAR states that schedule contractors must certify that each end product offered to the U.S. government is a U.S.made or designated country end product as defined in the “Trade Agreements” solicitation clause. Many schedule contractors purchase products from European or Asian suppliers or manufacturers and resell them to the U.S. government. Thus, it is critical to ensure that each product sold to the U.S. government has adequate compliance documentation.

The GSA has recently contacted schedule contractors to verify that their products are TAA and BAA compliant. This comes, in part, in response to the recent push from Schumer, who said several schedule contractors were listing products as “Made in America” when they were actually made overseas. So far, the GSA has removed 11 vendors. In addition to being removed from the FSS, schedule contractors risk debarment, financial liability and criminal penalties.

Compliance Issue 2: Pricing Issues and Requirements

The regulation controlling the GSA schedules requires schedule contractors to provide the U.S. government with the most favorable price. General Services Administration Acquisition Regulation (GSAR) Section 552.238-75 Price Reduction Clause, states, in part, that schedule contractors and the contracting officer must agree upon “(1) the customer (or category of customers) which will be basis of award and (2) the Government’s price or discount relationship to the identified customer (or category of customers). This relationship shall be maintained throughout the contract period.

The GSAR requires schedule contractors to provide current, accurate and complete pricing policies and practices to the U.S. government during negotiation. Schedule contractors must also notify the U.S. government when they deviate from their standard written pricing policies.

Compliance with the Price Reduction Clause (PRC) is an ongoing obligation. However, many schedule contractors often change their business partners; their business partners change their points of production; and market prices fluctuate. Thus, it is important to monitor all of the changes affecting pricing — not only from the perspective of profitability, but also compliance.

Failure to comply with the PRC may result in substantially overcharging the U.S. government. This, in turn, could trigger a qui tam action against a schedule contractor and the involvement of the Department of Justice. According to the Justice Department, in 2015, two companies agreed to pay $75.5 million to settle claims that they misrepresented their commercial pricing practices and overcharged the U.S. government. Another company agreed to pay $44.5 million to resolve allegations that it overcharged the U.S. government for storage services. In 2016, the first major PRC noncompliance matter involved a company that agreed to pay $11 million to settle alleged false claims relating to overbilling the U.S. government on a GSA contract for six years.

Compliance Issue 3: Mandatory Disclosures of Violations

The Mandatory Disclosure Rule applies to the FSS and schedule contractors. It requires that schedule contractors report fraud and significant overpayments related to the contracts awarded by the U.S. government to the agency Office of Inspector General when a violation relates to ‘…an order against a Governmentwide acquisition contract, a multi-agency contract, a multiple-award schedule contract such as the Federal Supply Schedule, or any other procurement instrument intended for use by multiple agencies…” and to also copy the contracting officer.

This may often place schedule contractors in a difficult position of notifying all of the ordering U.S. government agencies. Failure to comply with the Mandatory Disclosure Rule is considered a cause for debarment. The GSA Office of Inspector General semiannual reports show TAA violations continue to be reported every year.

Best Practices for FSS Compliance

  • Detail one or two individuals who are directly responsible for BAA and TAA compliance.
  • Establish clear and easy to follow standards and policies.
  • Automation prevents human errors.
  • Invest in comprehensive compliance IT safeguards and internal checks early on.
  • Proper preventive training and decision flowcharts will ensure that your compliance program is responsive to market changes and fluctuating prices.
  • Conduct a third-party review of your policies and compliance practices. For close questions, seek legal advice.
  • Report TAA and pricing noncompliance issues with your FSS. This includes notifying the ordering agency, the agency responsible for the contract, and your contracting officer.
  • It may be best to hire an experienced outside counsel or consultant to handle this.

 
Conclusion

According to the GSA, the FSS are “fast, easy, and effective contracting vehicles for both customers and vendors” and are designed to mirror commercial business practices. Schedule contractors are automatically connected to multiple procurement opportunities across a wide array of U.S. government agencies. In the past six decades, the FSS have become more complex and require greater compliance. While the FSS offer many benefits, recent congressional and Justice Department scrutiny shows that compliance is paramount.

The post Wojciech Kornacki Writes Article on Pricing Compliance Programs for Bloomberg BNA appeared first on Centre Law & Consulting.


View the full article

Centre Law & Consulting

Reproduced with permission from Federal Contracts Report, 105 FCR (July 27, 2016). Copyright 2016 by The Bureau of National Affairs, Inc. (800-372-1033) http://www.bna.com

HHS Couldn’t Justify IT Competition Cancellation, COFC Says

The Department of Health and Human Services couldn’t justify its cancellation of an IT competition that a protester claimed was tainted by bias, the U.S. Court of Federal Claims said (Starry Assocs. Inc. v. United States, 2016 BL 241279, Fed. Cl., No. 16-44C, 7/27/16).

Judge Eric G. Bruggink set aside the cancellation because there was no evidence the agency meaningfully reviewed its IT needs before making that decision. The court also barred several agency employees from participating in any subsequent competition actions.

The case “shows the recent trend that courts will hold federal agencies accountable for arbitrarily canceling solicitations or failing to take meaningful corrective actions. In this case, we have both,” Wojciech Z. Kornacki of Centre Law & Consulting LLC told Bloomberg BNA.

It was noteworthy that the court granted injunctive relief, Kornacki said. “The court felt that the public interest favored the injunction because the public had an interest in the integrity of the federal procurement,” he said. “The court found that the agency actions reflected ‘a lack of fidelity to the procurement process.’”

This action was necessary for Starry to get access to discovery tools, like depositions, that aren’t available at the Government Accountability Office, said Sandy Hoe, senior of counsel at Covington & Burling LLP. “But that discovery tool in a bid protest is limited to extraordinary situations such as here,” he said. “I would expect to see that tool being used in very few other circumstances.”

Prohibiting the government from canceling a solicitation is unusual, he added.

“The reasoning makes sense given the bias here, but that relief is only a few steps short of the court directing an award to a party, which is virtually never done,” he said. “Another option the court might have exercised was to order the agency to pay Starry’s bid and proposal costs and allow the solicitation to be canceled.

“Apparently, the court was not willing to let the agency off the hook so easily given the agency’s bad conduct,” Hoe said.

Award Affirmed

Incumbent protester Starry Assocs. Inc. filed a protest with the Government Accountability Office (GAO) after the agency awarded a task order to Intellizant LLC. The agency took corrective action by re-evaluating quotations, but then affirmed the award.

Starry filed a second protest that the GAO partially sustained, recommending that the agency re-evaluate Intellizant’s quotation. Shortly thereafter, the agency canceled the solicitation.

Starry protested the cancellation as pretextual and biased because it argued the agency was trying to steer the award toward Intellizant. The GAO rejected the protest, so Starry pursued the matter with the court (105 FCR 22, 1/12/16).

In April, the court granted Starry’s request to depose agency officials because Starry made a strong bias case against an agency official who previously worked for Intellizant (105 FCR 306, 4/12/16).

Reevaluation Not Serious

The court concluded that it didn’t have to reach a decision on the bias claim because the cancellation was clearly arbitrary.

Once agency officials selected Intellizant, any other result was unwelcome and not seriously considered, the court said. Officials told the GAO and Starry they would undertake a serious re-evaluation of Intellizant’s proposal, but the record didn’t reflect such an effort, the court found.

The agency official charged with the cancellation decision said the cancellation was reasonable because other contract vehicles could meet the agency’s needs. However, the record didn’t show that he compared those vehicles, and his supervisor and colleagues didn’t double-check his assertion.

Agency officials also said Starry would have received the award had the GAO’s recommendation been followed. Therefore, the court set aside the cancellation decision, and said the agency should again re-evaluate Intellizant’s proposal, as the GAO said in its second decision.

In addition, the court enjoined certain officials from participating in any subsequent agency actions in this competition.

Depositions with those officials “provide an illuminating, if depressing, window” into how they misrepresented the quality of their evaluation, the court said.

Specifically, one official rated Intellizant as technically acceptable despite having insufficient knowledge of the agency’s software, the court said.
 

The post Wojciech Kornacki Quoted in Bloomberg BNA Article on HHS IT Competition Cancellation appeared first on Centre Law & Consulting.


View the full article

Centre Law & Consulting

As we lead up to Thanksgiving later this week, many of us are in final preparations for the holiday. Some are making last minute trips to the grocery store while others are looking for pants with elastic waistbands.

However you’re celebrating this year, we at Centre Law & Consulting hope you enjoy a feast filled with friends and family. We hope you have many things to be thankful for this holiday season.

happy-thanksgiving
 
About the Author

Barbara Kinosky Barbara Kinosky, Esq.
Managing Partner

Barbara Kinosky has more than twenty-five years of experience in all aspects of federal government contracting and is a nationally known expert on GSA and VA Schedules and the Service Contract Act. She has a proven track record of solving complex issues for clients by providing strategic and business savvy advice. Barbara was named a top attorney for federal contracting by Smart CEO magazine in 2010, 2012, and 2015.

 

The post Wishing You a Happy Thanksgiving appeared first on Centre Law & Consulting.


View the full article

Centre Law & Consulting

In its July 17, 2017, decision the GAO partially sustained a protest after an agency conducted an unreasonable past performance evaluation.

Timberline LLC’s award for the maintenance and deactivation of manufactured housing units in Louisiana was protested by MLU services after MLU noticed an oddity about Timberline LLC’s submitted past performance history. Put simply, the contracts submitted for evaluation were not Timberline LLC’s. In fact, the past contracts were not even the Timberline LLC’s proposed subcontractor’s, its sister company, Timberline Construction Group, LLC.

In its submission, Timberline LLC’s proposal provided seven completed contracts to demonstrate its “proven ability to successfully perform a diverse group of services in response to different kinds of disasters in many different geographical locations.” These submissions simply identified “Timberline” as the performing party. At first, this strategy worked. The agency considered Timberline LLC’s past experience “outstanding.” However, as alleged by the protestor, these contracts were performed by Timberline Home, Inc., a wholly separate corporate entity.

The Agency defended its decision, claiming it had confirmed “key personnel” from Timberline LLC had performed the work under Timberline Home. However the GAO held this was not nearly enough to comply with the solicitation requirements. While an agency is free to consider the experience of key individuals and predecessor companies, Timberline LLC didn’t provide this information in its proposal. As a result, the agency’s reliance on those past contracts to evaluate Timberline LLC was not reasonable, and therefore the protest was sustained.

About the Author:

Tyler Freiberger Headshot | Centre Law & Consulting in Tysons, VA Tyler Freiberger
Associate Attorney

Tyler Freiberger is an associate attorney at Centre Law & Consulting primarily focusing on employment law and litigation. He has successfully litigated employment issues before the EEOC, MSPB, local counties human rights commissions, the United States D.C. District Court, Maryland District Court, and the Eastern District of Virginia.

The post What’s In A Name? appeared first on Centre Law & Consulting.


View the full article

Centre Law & Consulting

Ten Things I Hate About Incurred Cost Proposals | Centre Law & Consulting in Tysons VA
 
If you remember the late 1990’s romantic comedy “10 Things I Hate About You” you might know that it did a lot of great things. It provided the platform for the venerable Heath Ledger’s coming out party, introduced the world to Julia Stiles, reminded us the kid from Third Rock from the Sun was, in fact, still here on Earth, and made more than $50M at the box office. Not too bad.

But as the law of unintended consequences often works, it also inspired this blog article about Incurred Cost Proposals.

With all apologies to the awful heading, the Incurred Cost Proposal does evoke some very specific emotion from those tasked with preparing, auditing, re-auditing, reading, reviewing, negotiating, or most importantly – signing them. They are a necessary evil for most services-based U.S. Government contractors. While the purpose of the Incurred Cost Proposal is a simple enough merit – to settle indirect costs under cost-type contracts between contractors and the U.S. Government – the evolution of the Incurred Cost Proposal has caused pain easily on par with that of Ms. Stiles’ loss of her Australian beau. And while Ms. Stiles was capable of some beautiful poetry to express her torment, I am not as skilled in that trade and so you will simply get an unpoetic list of 10 Things I Hate About Incurred Cost Proposals.

  1. The ICE Model – Using a model that every time you open it tells you “An error has occurred” is not a confidence inspiring event for a document that is supposed to be current, accurate, and complete.
  2. Your Name – Why did the FAR give you one name, the “Indirect Cost Rate Proposal”, but the industry and DCAA give you so many others? The Incurred Cost Proposal, the Incurred Cost Submission, the Indirect Cost Submission, The Indirect Cost Proposal, the ICS, the ICE Model, etc. We are happy to call them anything the government desires – just don’t call them delinquent.
  3. Audits Focused on Direct Costs – While I also hate that audits are untimely, I think I more dislike that the current audit environment is focused on direct costs. We had a recent experience where not a single indirect cost was sampled. For an “Indirect Cost Rate Proposal” audit, it’s a little odd that the indirect cost rate received so little attention. And, of course, forget the fact that all the direct costs have been submitted for government review already on each and every monthly invoice. This trend has found its way into the T&M labor costs specifically through MRDs, which have cost enormous sums of questioned costs to contractors who don’t have labor qualification support in the way of resumes more than 5 years ago.
  4. Unallowable cost sampling – What would this list be without mention unallowable costs. It must be done, but it sure is tedious. Now if we could just get to an agreement on which costs are expressly unallowable.
  5. Schedule J Subcontract Information – How much more information on my supply chain can I provide? Every new iteration of the ICE Model asks for more. It is becoming easier to acquire a subcontractor than monitor and report on them.
  6. Inconsistent Application of the DCAA Adequacy Checklist – The concept is great; however, the execution lacks some consistency. We’re even okay with the annual updating of the checklist to provide even greater comfort that our submissions are in fine shape for an audit. What we do hate is the inconsistent application of what meets adequacy within the checklist. DCAA is provided great liberty to accept or not accept certain elements of adequacy for purposes of commencing with an audit. Some consistency would nice. And, worst of all, the off-checklist item that leads to inadequacy determination takes the prize for most frustrating element of the process.
  7. When Total Cost Absorption reconciliation doesn’t work – Okay, not everything about the Indirect Cost Rate Proposal is a procedural flaw of our friends at the Government. Few accounting frustrations rival completing your proposal and performing the total cost reconciliation only to see that something isn’t working. You can always diagnose them, but not without a strong cup of coffee.
  8. Corporate Home Office “Incurred Cost Proposals” – If you have a corporate home office you may have been asked for one of these. Or maybe you haven’t. It’s impossible to tell since the request for these is not consistent across DCAA offices. In the event you are unfamiliar with what they are, they are a summary of those corporate home office costs allocated to the G&A pools of cost accounting segments. They’re easy to hate since all of this information is already included in the segment-level indirect cost rate proposal. It’s duplicative and with all the work done to be compliant, duplication of effort is not something we like to deal with (or clients like to pay for). However, it has been our experience that if you don’t submit it, you risk being deemed inadequate – even though this isn’t on the adequacy checklist, see # 7 above. They are a particular quagmire for entities with overseas parents where certification of G&A costs for U.S. Government accounting is an unfamiliar task.
  9. Executive Compensation – Figuring out the award dates of contracts in the middle of the year, determining which agencies each contract belongs to, then evaluating which employees the executive compensation applies to. Determining executive compensation limits in the current environment is a game of labyrinth. Once you figure this rubix cube out, you have to get an Advance Agreement with your customer to use blended rates in order to comply. Then once you have the maximum allowable amount determined, you need to evaluate if the labor costs beneath that are “reasonable” through market data searches, surveying, and a host of similar corroborative evidence.
  10. IR&D and B&P costs – These are everyone’s favorite bouncing ball. They’re in the overhead base, but also the G&A pool. This topic dominates almost all new contractors’ first FAR lesson. And when they’re not specifically identified in the project ledger they can become quite tricky. Forget if you’re a major contractor with heavy IR&D expenses and have to now both report on them and get pre-approval from your Contracting Officer or risk them being deemed unallowable.

 
But wait, there’s more!
If you’d like to share your own stories of Incurred Cost Proposals, or – even better – learn more about best practices for handling them, then join us for the “Incurred Cost Proposals: A Year In Review” webinar on January 12. Just one hour of your time now might save you many more if you’re up to speed on these current insights!

AUTHOR’S NOTE: As consultants, we routinely assist clients with the preparation of their Indirect Cost Rate Proposals. Please do not take our poor attempt at humor in this article as a lack of enthusiasm in any way for these services. We just liked the article heading as a forum to illustrate some of the contracting community’s frustrations.

The post What I Hate About Incurred Cost Proposals appeared first on Centre Law & Consulting.


View the full article

Centre Law & Consulting

On Thursday, June 29, 2017, Wayne Simpson will be testifying on behalf of the National Veterans Small Business Coalition (NVSBC), before the U.S. House of Representatives Committee on Veterans Affairs’, Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations.

The subcommittee is holding a legislative hearing on four bills related to strengthening acquisitions at the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA). These bills include H.R. 2006, H.R. 2749, H.R. 2781, and another unnumbered bill currently in draft. The hearing is scheduled for 10:00 AM Eastern Time in Room 334 of the Cannon House Office Building.

FedBizAssist, L.L.C., is a supporting member of NVSBC. NVSBC is the largest not-for-profit organization of its kind representing America’s Veteran-owned small businesses to the Federal government, giving a collective voice to these businesses on legislative, regulatory, and policy issues affecting Federal procurement. NVSBC seeks to enhance procurement opportunities for veteran small business entrepreneurs engaged in, or seeking to enter the Federal Marketplace.

Please support America’s Service-Disabled Veteran-Owned Small Businesses and Veteran-Owned Small Businesses and legislation which enhances Federal procurement opportunities for these firms. Consider joining NVSBC and supporting its Communications Campaign.

The post Wayne Simpson Testifying Before the U.S. House of Representatives Committee on Veterans Affairs appeared first on Centre Law & Consulting.


View the full article

Centre Law & Consulting

Federal Contractor and Subcontractor Labor Reporting Requirements Under the Vietnam Era Veterans Readjustment Assistance Act

This is a reminder to Federal contractors and subcontractors of an important annual Federal labor reporting requirement coming due September 30, 2017.  The Vietnam Era Veterans’ Readjustment Assistance Act (VEVRAA) requires Federal contractors and subcontractors with contracts valued at > $150,000 to annually report employment data for protected Veterans in their employ.

If Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) Clause 52.222-37, Employment Reports on Veterans (Feb 2016) (or earlier versions of this clause) is contained in your Federal contract or has been “flowed down” to your subcontract from the prime contractor, you may have a reporting obligation.

What is a VETS-4212 Report?

The report, known as “VETS-4212” (formerly known as VETS-100 or VETS-100A, and often referred to as such in contracts awarded using earlier versions of FAR Clause 52.222-37) is due for submission to the Veterans Employment Training Service (VETS) at the U.S. Department of Labor, no later than September 30, 2017.  Fiscal Year 2017 reporting opens up Tuesday, August 1, 2017.

Reporting is legislatively mandated under 38 U.S. Code, Section 4212, codified at 41 CFR Section 61-300, respectively, contractors and subcontractors who enter into, or modify a contract or subcontract with the Federal government, and whose contract meets the criteria set forth in the aforementioned legislation/regulations, are required to report annually on their affirmative action efforts in employing veterans. VETS has a legislative requirement to collect, and make available to the Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs (OFCCP), U.S. Department of Labor, reported data contained on the VETS-4212 report for compliance enforcement.

Although the threshold for VETS-4212 reporting shown at 41 C.F.R. § 60-300.4, Coverage and waivers, shows reporting applicability for contracts and subcontracts valued at $100,000 and greater, in 2015 the amount was increased to $150,00 as a result of inflation adjustments to acquisition-related thresholds as required by the  Ronald Reagan National Defense Authorization Act of 2004.  OFCCP adopted the Federal Acquisition Regulation Council’s adjusted thresholds for determining whether a contract or subcontract is covered by VEVRAA regulatory requirements.

Accurate and timely reporting, as well as record keeping is critical to stellar contract administration.  A contractor’s affirmative action obligations in the hiring and retention of Veterans is subject to audit by the OFCCP.

A special note to U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Federal Supply Schedule Contract holders.  VA requires submission of this report to the U.S. Department of Labor regardless of the dollar amount of sales under the contract, and failure to submit can impact processing of modifications, extension packages, and new and ensuing offers.

Just in time for VETS-4212, Centre Law & Consulting is offering an informative “VETS-4212 Reporting” Webinar on August 17, 2017.  This timely webinar is designed for contractor personnel responsible for administering Federal government contracts with values > $150,000, containing FAR Clause 52.222-37, Employment Reports on Veterans, and for subcontracts where the contractor has flowed the clause down to the subcontractor.  The webinar is an excellent refresher for seasoned contract administrators and is ideal for new contractor personnel and for those who are being trained as back-ups or support personnel for contract administrators.  Click here to learn more about the VETS-4212 Reporting Webinar.

 

By Wayne Simpson

The post VETS-4212 Reporting Begins August 1, 2017 appeared first on Centre Law & Consulting.


View the full article

Centre Law & Consulting

In a first for the federal government, Veterans Affairs Secretary David Shulkin has announced that the VA will now publicly post all major disciplinary actions taken against its employees.  This includes all terminations, demotions, and suspensions of more than fourteen days. While the adverse action report does not include employees’ names, the list does and will continue to include the employee’s component, position, specific adverse action taken, date it took effect, and the employee’s region.

In explaining his decision, Shulkin stated: “Under this administration, VA is committed to becoming the most transparent organization in government.” He further added, “Together with the accountability bill the president signed into law recently, this additional step will continue to shine a light on the actions we’re taking to reform the culture at VA.”

The initial adverse action report was posted on the VA website on July 3, 2017 and dates back to January 20, 2017, the day Trump took office.  The report cites 743 disciplinary cases, of which 526 were removals. Interestingly, this would put the VA on pace to only fire 1,169 employees during Trump’s first year in office while the VA fired 2,575 workers in fiscal year 2016. The adverse action report will continue to be updated weekly.

In other federal government news, the Department of Homeland Security inspector general found that DHS has recently spent millions of dollars on a contract that did not meet its needs. In an OIG report released June 30, 2017, the IG found that, despite DHS spending $24.2 million as of February 2017, the performance and learning management system does not “achieve the intended benefits or address the Department’s needs.” The IG further specified that DHS spend more than $5.7 million for subscriptions to the system that either were unused or expired before the system became operational.

About the Author:

Heather Mims | Centre Law & Consulting in Tysons VA Heather Mims
Associate Attorney

Heather Mims is an associate attorney at Centre Law & Consulting. Her practice is primarily focused on government contracts law, employment law, and litigation. Heather graduated magna cum laude from the George Mason School of Law where she was the Senior Research Editor for the Law Review and a Writing Fellow.

The post VA to Publicly List all Disciplined or Fired Employees Plus How DHS Spent $24.2 Million on a System it Did Not Need appeared first on Centre Law & Consulting.


View the full article

Centre Law & Consulting

VA Reduces Administrative Burden on SDVOSBs and VOSBs | Centre Law & Consulting in Tysons, VA
 
The Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) published an Interim Final Rule in the February 21, 2017, edition of the Federal Register, increasing the period for re-verification examination by VA’s Center for Verification and Evaluation (CVE) of Service-Disabled Veteran-Owned Small Business (SDVOSB) and Veteran-Owned Small Business (VOSB) program participants from two years to three years.

Purpose

The purpose of this change, effective February 21, 2017, is to reduce the administrative burden on SDVOSBs and VOSBs participating in VA acquisition set-aside for these types of firms pursuant to the authorities of Public Law 109-461, the Veterans Benefits, Health Care and Information Technology Act of 2006 (the Act), implemented by the VA as the “Veterans First Contracting Program.”

The Act requires VA to verify ownership and control of SDVOSBs and VOSBs in order for those firms to participate in acquisitions VA sets aside for SDVOSBs and VOSBs. VA has continuously administered the verification program since February 2010, at which time re-verification was required annually. In June 2012, the re-examination period was extended to two years.

In changing from a biennial re-examination eligibility period to three years, VA believes it adequately balances maintaining program integrity while reducing the administrative burden on SDVOSBs and VOSBs. In reaching this determination, VA cited statistical data from Fiscal Year 2016, which showed out of 1,109 reverification applications, only ten were denied, ergo, only 0.9 percent of reverification applications were found to be ineligible after two years.

VA relies very heavily on its initial eligibility examination of firms, which it describes as robust, and as such believes the integrity of the program will not be compromised by extending the period for reverification.

Process

As part of its initial examination, VA CVE reviews personal and company documentation to verify ownership and control by Veterans of the business applying for verification. Documents include personal and company financial statements; Federal personal and business income tax returns; personal history statements; articles of incorporation/organization; corporate by-laws or operating agreements; organizational, annual, and board/member meeting records; stock ledgers and certificates; State-issued certificates of good standing; contract, lease, and loan agreements; payroll records; bank account signature cards; and various licenses.

Additionally, VA conducts random, unannounced site examinations of participants in order to examine or further examine a participant’s eligibility, including upon VA’s receipt of specific or credible information that the participant is no longer eligible. Additionally, VA contracting officers and competing SDVOSBs and VOSBs have the right to raise a SDVOSB/VOSB status protest to VA’s Office of Small and Disadvantaged Business Utilization should either have a reasonable basis upon which to challenge the SDVOSB/VOSB status of a VA CVE-verified firm.

VA regulations mandate program participants maintain eligibility during its tenure, and if ownership or control changes occur, participants are required to notify VA’s CVE of any changes which would adversely affect the participant’s eligibility as a VA CVE-verified SDVOSB/VOSB.

VA maintains the Vendor Information Pages (VIP) Database, a database of firms verified by CVE and eligible to receive awards under the Veterans First Contracting Program. As of February 24, 2017, the VIP Database list 9,287 firms (6,917 SDVOSBs and 2,370 VOSBs).

VA’s current Veteran Small Business Regulations are codified at 38 C.F.R. Part 74.

Comments

Written comments on the Interim Final Rule must be submitted on or before April 24, 2017. Comments may be submitted directly to VA at the address shown in the Federal Register Notice or at www.regulations.gov. Comments should indicate they are submitted in response to “RIN 2900-AP93—VA Veteran-Owned Small Business Verification Guidelines.” Note that all comments received will be available for public inspection at VA’s Central Office in Washington, DC.

About the Author:

Wayne Simpson | Centre Law & Consulting Wayne Simpson
Consultant

Wayne Simpson is a seasoned former Federal executive and acquisition professional who is also a highly-motivated and demonstrative small business advocate, with nearly 38 years of Federal Civilian Service with the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs (VA), and its predecessor organization, the Veterans Administration.

 

The post VA Reduces Administrative Burden on SDVOSBs and VOSBs appeared first on Centre Law & Consulting.


View the full article

Centre Law & Consulting

VA National Acquisition Center Issues Updated Small Business Subcontracting Plan Template | Centre Law & Consulting in Tysons, VA
 
Large business prime contractors holding Federal Supply Schedule (FSS) contracts issued by the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) National Acquisition Center (NAC) may want to take note.

Updated Small Business Subcontracting Plan Template
The VA NAC posted an updated Small Business Subcontracting Plan Template to its website in February 2017. This latest version of the template is dated January 26, 2017.

VA NAC also updated its VA FSS Subcontracting Plan Training presentation in January 2017, providing detailed information on how to complete the new VA FSS Subcontracting Plan Template. Current VA NAC contract holders should ensure their new and ensuing subcontracting plans are submitted to the VA NAC for approval no later than 30 calendar days prior to expiration of their current plans.

It should be noted VA does not accept or recognize digital or electronic signatures at this time. It requires the email submission of subcontracting plans contain a scanned wet signature.

VA NAC continues to step-up enforcement of timely submissions. Delinquent submissions of subcontracting plans and Electronic Subcontracting Reporting System (eSRS) data can result in negative Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS) assessments, issuance of Cure Notices, or other contract enforcement actions which could jeopardize continued performance under the contract.

Small Business Size Standards Changed
Federal small business size standards changed significantly effective February 26, 2016, for North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) Codes covering manufacturing (NAICS Sectors 31-33). For example, perhaps one of the most common NAICS Codes used in VA procurements, NAICS 339112, Medical and Surgical Supplies Manufacturing, increased from 500 to 1,000 employees.

Therefore, contract holders should check to see if their size status has changed. Some “large” businesses are now classified as “small” under the new size standards, and small businesses are not required to submit subcontracting plans. If your size status has changed from large to small, contact your contracting officer to determine if a small business subcontracting plan is still required. A subcontracting plan is required until the contracting officer advises it is no longer required.

What Can You Do Next?
Centre provides turn-key Small Business Subcontracting Plan support to large business VA FSS Contractors using best practices to develop commercial subcontracting plans and administer their small business subcontracting program. This includes conducting formal surveys to ascertain size and socioeconomic procurement preference program status of suppliers and subcontractors, eSRS submissions, and preparation of justifications for achievement shortfalls against negotiated small business and socioeconomic procurement preference program category goals.

Contact Wayne Simpson to find out more, get started with your supplier survey, or determine the best next steps for your company.

About the Author:

Wayne Simpson | Centre Law & Consulting Wayne Simpson
Consultant

Wayne Simpson is a seasoned former Federal executive and acquisition professional who is also a highly-motivated and demonstrative small business advocate, with nearly 38 years of Federal Civilian Service with the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs (VA), and its predecessor organization, the Veterans Administration.

 

The post VA National Acquisition Center Issues Updated Small Business Subcontracting Plan Template appeared first on Centre Law & Consulting.


View the full article

Centre Law & Consulting

Small Business Contracting Goals for “Manageable Spend”

On May 25, 2017, with only 128 days remaining in Fiscal Year 2017, the Secretary of Veterans Affairs issued VA’s Fiscal Year 2017 small business goals.  This is actually an improvement over when the Fiscal Year 2014 goals were issued with only 38 days remaining in the fiscal year.  Fiscal Year 2014 was the last time the Secretary of Veterans Affairs issued a Small Business Goaling Memorandum.

In response to a May 24, 2017, Freedom of Information Act request for VA’s Fiscal Year 2015, 2016, and 2017 Secretary of Veterans Affairs Goaling Memorandums, VA provided a copy of the Fiscal Year 2017 Secretary’s Goaling Memorandum, along with a no responsive records response for copies of the Fiscal Year 2015 and Fiscal Year 2016 Secretary’s Small Business Goaling Memorandums.  A no responsive records response can only mean the VA Secretary did not issue the annual goaling memorandum for those years.

VA’s Office of Small and Disadvantaged Business Utilization, an organizational element of the Office of the Secretary, is responsible for preparing and coordinating the Secretary’s annual small business goaling memorandum.  It appears this was not done for Fiscal Years 2015 and 2016.

The VA Secretary’s Fiscal Year 2017 Small Business Goaling Memorandum makes it official:  VA’s department-wide goals for Service-Disabled Veteran-Owned Small Business (SDVOSB) and Veteran-Owned Small Business (VOSB) remain at 10% and 12%, respectively.  These goals have been flatlined since Fiscal Year 2010, despite VA substantially exceeding the goals each year.

Interestingly, the VA Secretary’s Fiscal Year 2017 Small Business Goaling discusses a Fiscal Year 2016 piloted effort to concentrate on spend areas where active goals management is most likely to produce results.  VA identified “manageable spend” areas based on VA-funded contract actions, but excluded major health care contracts, large-dollar major construction actions, and mandatory domestic delivery service contracts under the Federal Strategic Sourcing Initiative.  Since no goaling memorandum was issued by the Secretary in Fiscal Year 2016, it is unlikely many people outside VA would have known of this change.

VA’s Fiscal Year 2017 Small Business Goals are established at the statutory level for Women-Owned Small Business (5%), Small Disadvantaged Business (5%), and HUBZone Small Business (3%).  VA’s Small Business goal was reduced from 32% last fiscal year, to 28.5% for Fiscal Year 2017.  The Secretary’s memorandum also establishes VA’s Fiscal 2017 subcontracting goals.

VA decreased its small business subcontracting goal from 17.5% to 17.0%, while increasing the goals for Service-Disabled Veteran-Owned Small Business and Veteran-Owned Small Business by 2%, from 5% and 3%, respectively, to 7% and 5% respectively.

About the Author:

Wayne Simpson | Centre Law & Consulting Wayne Simpson
Consultant

Wayne Simpson is a seasoned former Federal executive and acquisition professional who is also a highly-motivated and demonstrative small business advocate, with nearly 38 years of Federal Civilian Service with the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs (VA), and its predecessor organization, the Veterans Administration.

 

The post VA Issues Fiscal Year 2017 Small Business Goals appeared first on Centre Law & Consulting.


View the full article

Centre Law & Consulting

Interim Final Rule Adopted as Final Rule Without Change

In the July 12, 2017, edition of the Federal Register, VA published its Final Rule implementing its revisions regarding the length of the eligibility period for inclusion in the VA Vendor Information Pages Database (VIP) (www.vip.vetbiz.gov).  This Final Rule implements an Interim Final Rule published in the Federal Register on February 21, 2017, extending the length of eligibility from two years to three years.  VA invited public comments on or before April 24, 2017.

VA’s Final Rule notice discusses comments received in response to its request for public comment, including comments requesting clarification as to whether currently verified SDVOSBs/VOSBs would be automatically extended.  VA indicates all verified firms in the VIP Database automatically had their eligibility term extended by one year.

The Final Rule notice also reiterates information contained in the February 21, 2017, where VA sets forth its rationale for extending the eligibility period for re-verification from two to three years.  VA expresses high confidence in the robust examination process conducted by its Center for Verification and Eligibility, citing Fiscal Year 2016 data to support this conclusion.  Moreover, the change reduces the administrative burden on SDVOSBs/VOSBs participating in the Veterans First Contracting Program at VA.

The post VA Adopts Final Rule for Veteran-Owned Small Business Verification Guidelines appeared first on Centre Law & Consulting.


View the full article

Centre Law & Consulting

My granddaughter recently lost a baby tooth in the ‘usual way.’ One morning, she felt the tooth begin to move the slightest bit. She wiggled it back and forth throughout the day and by dinner…Voile! Only one day later, she lost two more courtesy of her dentist to make room for the incoming ‘permanent’ ones. The Tooth Fairy kept the commitment of retrieving the lost teeth from under her pillow in a timely fashion – in this case staying up late on two consecutive nights – and rewarded her for pain and suffering with a selfie stick. (Wow, times have changed!)

This made me wonder, does the Tooth Fairy earn overtime for work performed in excess of a statutory number of ceiling hours or is that position salaried? (I’ve had a long term and continuing relationship with the Tooth Fairy, so I want to proceed carefully.) The question of overtime relates to the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). The FLSA provides for a federal minimum wage, a standard 40-hour workweek, and pay at time-and-a-half rate for all overtime hours. The Act also includes several exemptions under which certain employees are not entitled to overtime pay. Currently to meet most exemptions, in addition to meeting a duties test, an employee must be paid on a salary basis at least $455 per week ($23,600 annually). There is a belief that payment of a salary is the only requirement to avoid overtime pay obligations. This is not correct. Also, a new regulation will more than double this minimum salary threshold later this year, but these are topics for tomorrow!

If the Tooth Fairy is not FLSA-exempt, there is a federal entitlement for a time-and-a-half rate for any hours worked in excess of 40 hours. Conversely, if the Tooth Fairy is FLSA-exempt, hours worked in excess of 40 hours weekly are considered Uncompensated Overtime (UCOT).

I’ve always had nagging concerns about UCOT – that it’s somehow a ‘bad’ thing – so I researched UCOT. The Regulation requires the solicitation provision at FAR 52.237-10 (Identification of Uncompensated Overtime) in requirements for technical or professional services which will be acquired on an hourly basis:

Uncompensated overtime means the hours worked without additional compensation in excess of an average of 40 hours per week by direct charge employees who are exempt from the Fair Labor Standards Act. Compensated personal absences such as holidays, vacations, and sick leave shall be included in the normal work week for purposes of computing uncompensated overtime hours.

FAR goes on to provide this example:

Uncompensated overtime rate is the rate that results from multiplying the hourly rate for a 40-hour work week by 40, and then dividing by the proposed hours per week. For example, 45 hours proposed on a 40-hour work week basis at $20 per hour would be converted to an uncompensated overtime rate of $17.78 per hour ($20.00 × 40 divided by 45 = $17.78)

The key to both the provision and the example might be the term ‘proposal’. If an offeror proposes UCOT, then it is part of its technical and pricing plan that should be evaluated during cost realism. What if a contractor does not propose UCOT yet incurs UCOT? Unforeseen situations requiring additional labor hours or surge efforts are not uncommon in professional service industries. In this situation, can the contractor invoice for these uncompensated hours? Invoicing – always a significant issue – becomes more important when fee is linked to achieving a level of effort. Can the contractor profit on UCOT hours?

UCOT is not illegal. How a contractor motivates its employees, both FLSA and FLSA-exempt, to satisfy employee and customer seems a matter for industry not Government. If you are pondering the loss of revenue on the part of the employee, consider that there may be other opportunities and means to compensate employees, such as additional benefits, compensatory time, or bonuses. As in so many other federal procurement matters, competition will affect retention rates of those who propose intentionally to overwork their employees. UCOT is discussed as a subtopic in Centre’s Federal Contract Basics Course.

As for the Tooth Fairy, there are an increasing number of ‘clients’ for whom Tooth Fairy must provide services. I know from experience that each ‘client’ has at least one parent and probably others (grandparents, for example!) standing by to ensure success. Tooth Fairy and I aren’t so close these days that we can discuss FLSA status, but I’d like to think with all those hours and all those satisfied ‘clients’ Tooth Fairy has earned many overtime hours as a non-exempt worker.

And Tooth Fairy, what’s a selfie stick anyhow?

About the Author:

Rich Zimmerman | Centre Law & Consulting Rich Zimmerman
Project Manager

Richard E. Zimmerman has more than 25 years of experience as a contracts professional both in Government and the private sector. His excellent background in FAR, Agency supplements, and their application over the procurement life cycle make him a critical resource for PMs, prime contractors, and subcontractors.

The post Uncompensated Overtime and the Tooth Fairy appeared first on Centre Law & Consulting.


View the full article

Centre Law & Consulting

Trump’s 2-for-1 Reducing Regulation Order – What Does It Mean? | Centre Law & Consulting in Tysons VA
 
On January 30, 2017, President Trump issued an executive order (EO) entitled Reducing Regulation and Controlling Regulatory Costs. The aim of the EO is to reduce the number of regulations in order to “manage the costs associated with the governmental imposition of private expenditures required to comply with Federal regulations.”

Specifically, the EO requires that whenever an executive department or agency publicly proposes for notice and comment or otherwise promulgates a new regulation, it shall identify at least two existing regulations to be repealed. The EO further dictates that the total incremental costs of all new regulations, including repealed regulations, shall be no greater than zero. The EO defines “regulation” or “rule” as an agency statement of general or particular applicability and future effect designed to implement, interpret, or prescribe law or policy or to describe the procedure or practice requirements of an agency but specifically excludes regulations issued with respect to the military, national security, or foreign affairs function of the United States.

Moving forward, the EO also imposes a regulatory budget for fiscal year 2018, which would limit the amount of new regulatory costs agencies can impose on individuals and businesses each year.

While the regulation seems straightforward, its implementation is likely going to be subject to inherent difficulties. For example, some of the challenges include:

  • The EO does not define what constitutes an “executive department or agency”.
  • It is not entirely clear if independent establishments or government corporations within the executive agency are intended to be included.
  • The definition of regulation contained in the EO is rather vague. If interpreted narrowly, it may only involve a minor set of regulations each year.

In a notable – and rather bold – claim, President Trump stated, “We think we can cut regulations by 75 percent. Maybe more, but by 75 percent.” According to Politico, there are more than 171,000 pages of regulations. So even with Trump’s 2-for-1 regulation, the administration would need to issue 85,000 pages just to cut that number in half. NPR has written that even conservative economists say that cutting regulations by 75% is not believable.

See Politico for the full text of the executive order.

About the Author:

Heather Mims | Centre Law & Consulting in Tysons VA Heather Mims
Associate Attorney

Heather Mims is an associate attorney at Centre Law & Consulting. Her practice is primarily focused on government contracts law, employment law, and litigation. Heather graduated magna cum laude from the George Mason School of Law where she was the Senior Research Editor for the Law Review and a Writing Fellow.

 

The post Trump’s 2-for-1 Reducing Regulation Order – What Does It Mean? appeared first on Centre Law & Consulting.


View the full article

Centre Law & Consulting

Last week, Attorney General Jeff Sessions issued an agency-wide memorandum entitled “Revised Treatment of Transgender Employment Discrimination Claims Under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.” The memorandum expressly withdraws a December 15, 2014 memorandum in which then-current Attorney General Eric Holder opined that Title VII “encompasses discrimination based on gender identity, including transgender status.”

While the new memo is undoubtedly a reversal of the Obama DOJ’s policy (ed., “Elections  have consequences.”), the Sessions’ memo is consistent with the weight of federal case authority that has held that gender identity (as well as sexual orientation) is not covered by the plain language of Title VII. Thus, in many ways, the current policy prescription is less a “reversal” than a return to the status quo ante, circa 2014.

That said, since 2012 the EEOC has consistently taken the position that Title VII does encompass discrimination on the basis of gender identity. The Sessions memo creates clear tension, if not outright conflict, between the respective agencies’ policy positions. And, given that the U.S. Supreme Court has never ruled specifically on the question, the issue will likely not be resolved until the Justices speak on the same. Of course, were it inclined to do so, Congress could resolve the matter by amending Title VII, though such an outcome is unlikely at best.

With respect to federal contractors, it should be understood that the revisions to E.O. 11246, which amended federal EEO requirements to include sexual orientation and gender identity, are not affected by the Sessions memo. That is, even if Congress did not intend to include those criteria within the statutory concept of “sex” – the executive branch has (to date) concluded that companies choosing to do business with the federal government will continue to treat sexual orientation and gender identity as protected characteristics.

 

About the Author:

David Warner | Centre Law & Consulting David Warner
Partner

David Warner is a seasoned legal counselor with extensive experience in the resolution and litigation of complex employment and business disputes. His practice is focused on the government contractor, nonprofit, and hospitality industries. David leads Centre’s audit, investigation, and litigation practices.

The post Trump DOJ Withdraws Obama Administration Memo Regarding Title VII And Gender Identity appeared first on Centre Law & Consulting.


View the full article

Centre Law & Consulting

 
So later today I am hosting a lunch at my house. And unless Desoto (the Spanish explorer who looked for the Fountain of Youth in Florida) has been visiting my family room, I have a major water leak. There is water everywhere. I just lost a small business set-aside contract to an unfathomably low, low, low price bidder, and the cat barfed all over my new carpet. It’s not even noon yet! So in an attempt to turn my day around, I hopped online to see what others are up to in hopes of finding something more interesting and uplifting!

Here is a round up of trending Government Contracting news I found that caught my eye.

SBA Expands Mentor-Protégé to All Small Businesses
Kudos to the Small Business Administration for great rule drafting. The SBA just expanded the mentor-protégé program to include all small businesses. The program is government wide. The primary incentive for large businesses to participate as mentors is the ability to form a joint venture (JV) with their protégé to pursue small business set-aside contracts without worrying about affiliation issues. And that sticky wicket, past performance is addressed in the rule. Agencies must evaluate the past performance of each member of the JV as opposed to just the JV. NextWin posted a great white paper on this. Applications must be submitted through the www.certify.sba.gov.portal. The new rule allows mentors to own up to 40% of their protégé’s. SBA has confirmed that they will be receiving applications starting October 1. And for those of you who suffer from insomnia, here is the complete rule for your late night reading pleasure.

Key Person Departs and So Does URS Contract
URS Federal Services protested the loss of a Navy contract. The solicitation required offerors to propose eight key personnel. After proposal submission one of the key staff left URS. As a result, the URS proposal was given a deficiency which cost it the award. URS protested. The GAO held that when an agency has notice of the withdrawal of key personnel during the proposal evaluation process it can either evaluate the proposal as submitted or reopen discussions. Here the Navy evaluated the proposal as having only seven key people instead of the required eight. Read more in the GAO decision.

Update on GSA Transactional Data
GSA just issued an update on the schedule for implementing the transactional data pilot program. This link shows what schedules will be impacted and the roll out date.

Open Source Code
GSA published a good comprehensive blog on open source code. It’s part of the federal government’s big push toward open source development. GSA has a CIO policy that supports releasing GSA software as open source, but this is a very controversial issue with industry.

P.S. – With all the changes that happen in the world of federal contracting, you need a dependable resource to keep you advised on best practices. So keep us in mind for meeting your small business WOSB goals when it comes to acquisition support and training.

About the Author

Barbara Kinosky Barbara Kinosky
Managing Partner

Barbara Kinosky has more than twenty-five years of experience in all aspects of federal government contracting and is a nationally known expert on GSA and VA Schedules and the Service Contract Act. She has a proven track record of solving complex issues for clients by providing strategic and business savvy advice. Barbara was named a top attorney for federal contracting by Smart CEO magazine in 2010, 2012, and 2015.

 

The post Trending Government Contracting News appeared first on Centre Law & Consulting.


View the full article

Centre Law & Consulting

How is your relationship with the government going? Have you heard about the “transformational changes” that are being made to the GSA’s Federal Supply Schedules Program? And do you really know how many moons the Earth has?

Below is a round up of recently trending Federal Contracting issues you should know about.

Overly Restrictive Solicitations.

Nexagen Networks of Aberdeen, Maryland, challenged the terms of a task order request issued by the Army for information technology services. Nexagen argued that the solicitation’s requirements for experience with Oracle Endeca Information Discovery (OEID) was unduly restrictive of competition and created bias in favor of the incumbent contractor. GAO denied the protest. From the decision:

“Moreover, to the extent Nexagen’s premise is that there is no equivalent software available, that alone would not demonstrate that the TOR’s requirement is unduly restrictive. Again, the issue is not whether the specification restricts competition, but whether the specification is reasonably necessary to meet the agency’s actual needs. Even where specifications are based on a particular product – or, as Nexagen alleges here, a particular firm’s capabilities or experience – we have found that this type of requirement is not improper in and of itself; nor will an assertion that a specification was “written around” features offered by a particular firm provide a sustainable basis for protest if the record establishes that the specification is reasonably related to the agency’s minimum needs”.

And so it goes.

Gov Con Marketplace Musings

Elvis lives. The theme song for incumbents this year is “Heartbreak Hotel”. I am seeing fewer incumbent wins as the government cares less about the relationship and more about the cost. I am also seeing agencies take single-award contracts and, instead of the usual recompete for the follow on contract, they are awarding the work as a task or delivery order off a multiple-award contract vehicle. (Side note – usually the one you are not on.) Multiple requirements are also being bundled into single winner-take-all order awards. What are you seeing in the marketplace? Share your thoughts and observations in the comments below.

VA Privatization

Veterans Affairs privatization is moving along on several fronts. Sen. John McCain introduced a bill that will allow veterans to opt out of the VA healthcare system and use local healthcare providers. The VA Commission on Care is expected to issue a final report any day now. The draft report shifted health care to for veterans to more private providers. Most veterans groups oppose privatization.

Old News and the Creation of Mass Hysteria by Law, Accounting, and Consulting Firms

The Supreme Court issued a decision on Escobar holding that the implied false certification theory can be a basis for liability under the False Claims Act (for government contractors) when a defendant submitting a claim makes specific representations about the goods or services provided, but it fails to disclose non-compliance with material statutory, regulatory, or contractual requirements that make those representations misleading with respect to those goods or services; and liability under the FCA for failing to disclose violations of legal requirements does not turn upon whether those requirements were expressly designated as conditions of payment. Key word is material.

Final Rule Released on GSA Transactional Data

According to the U.S. General Services Administration (GSA) website, a final Transactional Data Reporting (TDR) rule will publish in the Federal Register on June 23, 2016. The rule “will reduce unnecessary burdens on contractors and small businesses and potentially save millions of dollars for the American taxpayer…and will be implemented through a pilot program across GSA contract vehicles.” It is seen as one of the most transformational changes to GSA’s Federal Supply Schedules Program in more than two decades.

A Trick Question

Use this when you don’t want to pick up the check. How many moons orbit the earth? Answer: 1.5 moons. NASA has just located a mini moon in our orbit.

About the Author

Barbara Kinosky Barbara Kinosky
Managing Parnter

Barbara Kinosky has more than twenty-five years of experience in all aspects of federal government contracting and is a nationally known expert on GSA and VA Schedules and the Service Contract Act. She has a proven track record of solving complex issues for clients by providing strategic and business savvy advice. Barbara was named a top attorney for federal contracting by Smart CEO magazine in 2010, 2012, and 2015.

 

The post Trending Federal Contracting Issues You Should Know appeared first on Centre Law & Consulting.


View the full article

Centre Law & Consulting

Preparing For A Successful CPSR Audit - training course for federal contractors | Centre Law & Consulting in Tysons VA
 
Let’s face it. We’d all rather be out selling and growing our businesses than having to deal with paperwork and audits, right? So when you hear that you have a Contractor Purchasing System Review (CPSR) coming up, it may cause a little anxiety and leave you wondering if it is really time well spent.

Now the government will tell you that the purpose of a CPSR is to evaluate the efficiency and effectiveness of the way a contractor spends federal funds and complies with federal policy. It provides the Administrative Contracting Officer (ACO) a basis for granting, withholding, or withdrawing approval of the contractor’s purchasing system.

So what does that really mean to you? Here are the Top 5 reasons that having an approved contractor purchasing system is important:

  1. Advance Notification and Consent: The first reason that usually comes to mind is the FAR Part 44 requirement for advance notification and consent to subcontract. If the purchasing system hasn’t been approved or the approval has been withdrawn, then the ACO will be required to perform consent reviews under flexibly price contracts and unpriced contractual actions to insure the Government’s interests are protected. The down side of that is these reviews take time, and while the ACO is performing the review, the subcontract award is delayed. In other words, nobody is happy about it! The client’s program manager and the company program manager want the award made to meet schedule, but the ACO has other things to do and may not put your subcontract award at the top of the list. The result is that you (the buyer/subcontract administrator) are under pressure to somehow make it happen and tensions can rise on all sides.

Consent Doesn’t Mean Approval: Okay, you’ve gone through the gauntlet and the ACO has issued the consent to subcontract notice. But, the notice will have a disclaimer that reserves the Government’s rights to second guess all aspects (i.e. adequate competition, price reasonableness, audit disallowance) of your subcontract award. You feel like you have gained nothing, and the program manager is still upset with you because of the delay in award. You want an approved system, not just a consent to subcontract. So without that approval, you’re just sitting in limbo.

Business System Clause: The Department of Defense added clauses to their contracts – 252.242-7005, Contractor Business Systems and 252.244-7001, Contractor Purchasing System Administration – that have become key components of the CPSR process. In addition, should a “significant deficiency” be identified in your purchasing system, the ACO is obliged to reduce your interim payments (i.e. progress payments, cost-reimbursement vouchers, monthly Time and Materials invoices) by as much as 5% to protect the government’s interests until the deficiency has been corrected and re-audited. The impact for you is that not only is the program manager upset with you, but so is the CFO!

Impact on Other Major Proposals: With subcontracting being a large part of major contracts, the impact of your purchasing system on proposals for new work can be critical. First, having a government approved purchasing system gets you a better rating on the management portion of your major proposals. Second, with subcontracts often accounting for as much as 60% or more of major proposal costs, the ability of an approved purchasing system to provide good quality pricing support can make the difference between winning or losing.

Documentation: Securing approval of your purchasing system relies largely on your documentation. In my earlier article, CPSR Easy As 1-2-3?, all three steps rely on clear and complete documentation. Think of it this way: an approved system by its nature should produce good documentation. So when the government reviews your work product for proposal support, business system adequacy, incurred cost, small business plan efforts, sustainability initiatives, or anything else, you can be confident that your procurement files will clearly demonstrate how efficiently and effectively your purchasing system is spending government funds and implementing government policy.

 
Take the Next Step
If you’d like to dive more in depth to the details of CPSR, learn best practices, and set yourself up for successful CPSR audits, then join us for our upcoming course on March 28-29 at our national training center in Tysons, VA.

 
About the Author

Jack Hott headshot | Centre Law & Consulting in Tysons, VA Jack Hott
Instructor

Jack Hott is an Instructor for Centre Law & Consulting. He has more than two decades of experience as a contracts professional in Government and the private sector. A retired Air Force officer, he served multiple acquisition related assignments where he managed administration, pricing, CAS and overhead approvals, supplier quality, and subcontract management.

 

The post Top Five Reasons To Have an Approved Contractor Purchasing System appeared first on Centre Law & Consulting.


View the full article

Centre Law & Consulting

You are still at risk of Government oversight/review even if you fall below the threshold for the Contractor Purchasing System Review (CPSR).1 While, CPSR is a total business system review, there is a series of other Government activities that will look into your procurement business processes. Some of these other activities include; proposal analysis, interim payment reviews, incurred cost submissions, and compliance reviews with DFARS business system clauses.

Proposal analysis by the Government can include subcontracted effort, especially when cost analysis is performed. Your procurement procedures on solicitation, cost/price analysis, competition, flow down requirements, procurement file organization and others will form the basis for developing and documenting the information the Government will want to review. Does your current documented process produce adequate analysis and documentation to support your proposals?

Interim payment reviews start in with your Accounting Department’s invoice, but can quickly move to the Procurement Department for backup on subcontract billing terms, invoice review and approval, evidence of adequate funding, basis for indirect billing rates and subcontractor hours and timesheets. What do your post-award administration procedures say about administration of payments to subcontractors, and do your records support your due diligence when approving subcontractor invoices?

The annual incurred cost submission (ICS pronounced “ICE”) seems like a cost accounting exercise, but the Government auditors will find their way into procurement records! In addition to the due diligence of invoice review in the preceding paragraph, be prepared to provide closeout documentation that supports; successful completion of subcontracted work, proper subcontract final billing/payment, and deobligation of excess funds. Do you procurement procedures cover when and how these steps will be taken? Do you know where the documentation is located?

The DFARS clause 252.244-2001, Contractor Purchasing System Administration, isn’t just for the big guys. The DFARS clause will be included in all defense contracts containing FAR 52.244-2, Subcontracts. This FAR clause can be found in cost-reimbursement contracts and most other contracts exceeding the simplified acquisition threshold, currently $150,000. The one break you may get is DFARS 252.242-7005, Contractor Business Systems, (this is the one that requires withholds for “significant deficiencies”) only goes in your contract if you are subject to Cost Accounting Standards.2 The DFARS 252.244-2001 clause lists 24 system criteria, covering what Defense Contract Management Agency sees as 29 major purchasing areas. These areas cover everything from make or buyer decisions, funding authorization, solicitation, competition, cost/price analysis, small business, and all other points up through and including closeout!3 Are your company policies, procedures and records up to the task of proving you meet the requirements of this business system clause?

As you can see, just because you fall below the radar for a formal CPSR, you are not off the hook! You are still vulnerable for withholds, delayed payments, cost disallowance, and poor performance ratings effecting new awards. The best protection against these vulnerabilities is good procedures that adequately cover requirements, and a well trained staff that documents compliance with your procedures.

 

1 On October 7, 2016, DCMA executed a Class Deviation raising the CPSR threshold to $50M effective through December 31, 2017. The rationale is the current $25M threshold has not changed since 1996.

2 However, the Contracting Officer can still take measures to protect the Government’s interest if problems are thought to exist within your procurement system.

3 See DCMA CPSR Guidebook

 

About the Author

Jack Hott headshot | Centre Law & Consulting in Tysons, VA Jack Holt
Jack R. Hott has more than four decades of experience as a contracts professional in Government and the private sector.

The post Too Small For Contractor Purchasing System Review? You’re Still at Risk! appeared first on Centre Law & Consulting.


View the full article

Centre Law & Consulting

Many “small” businesses listed in Federal Procurement Data Systems find themselves in a paradox—they’re at once too small to compete with large contractors, but also too large to benefit from small business set-asides. These growing firms have achieved what every small business owner hopes for—start small, gain market traction, and grow. But when a firm graduates from the benefits of small business set-asides, they enter the “mid-tier” — a murky limbo that can leave them vulnerable and, potentially, unable to compete.

The government should, as a matter of policy, continue to support and foster the growth of firms that enter the mid-tier. Research suggests maturing small businesses produce more jobs than established companies or startups. But today, these mid-tier firms have nowhere to “grow” in the federal marketplace. It’s a double-edged sword that’s not good for the economy or the federal agencies that rely on relationships with maturing small businesses.

Size Does Matter…

When it comes to professional services, mid-tier contractors simply cannot compete with the large contractors that dominate the space. Larger firms have several competitive advantages that make true competition between mid-tier firms and the largest firms illusory.

Multi-billion dollar companies have the resources to commit the talents of well-paid business development and marketing staffers solely to proposal development across multiple industries. This increases the competitiveness of the largest companies in the bidding process — potentially freezing out emergent smaller companies. In contrast, mid-size companies have limited bid and proposal budgets and typically do not have teams of individuals solely dedicated to business development and marketing. This lack of infrastructure at mid-size companies constrains their ability to compete successfully against larger actors.

What can a mid-size firm do? Often, they’re forced to sell. Competition is stifled when multi-billion dollar companies force these businesses into their supply chain through acquisition once these companies have become ineligible for small business awards. If not acquired, an advanced small or mid-size company may have to modify its business model to focus on subcontractor relationships with other large or small companies. Being limited to subcontractor roles impairs the mid-tier firm’s ability to gain project management experience essential for further growth.

…Especially in a Shrinking Market

Over the last decade, the competitive dynamics of the federal procurement market – and in particular the federal professional services industry – have changed drastically. The federal market continues to shrink in the short-term, along with the diversity of companies that supply government customers. Industry consolidation appears to have run its course in terms of efficiency, and now it simply means fewer choices for government managers.

Uncertain procurement strategies by government agencies — owed partially to congressional gridlock — challenge agencies and industry to see and prepare for future requirements. This uncertainty has adverse effects on competition and deprives the federal government of the opportunity to realize a return on its initial investment in emergent small businesses.

As in any market, there are winners and losers. But for today’s small contractors, winning might just be what sets them up to be losers. Finding opportunities to help mid-tier companies mature into strong businesses is essential — both for the competitiveness of the market and the ability of agencies to meet their mission with the most innovative solutions.

Advanced small firms have done what we all want to do. They began small, became seasoned, and grew. The government should as a matter of policy, support and foster such growth since previous data from Christopher Yukins and other researchers suggest that maturing small businesses produce more jobs than either very large or new companies. Presently, these advanced small firms have nowhere to “grow” in the federal marketplace. That is not good for the economy or federal agencies that have derived benefits from their relationships with growing small contractors.

Sizing Up the Competition

Increased concentration of Federal Professional Services Industry contract awards being performed by large companies stifles competition because advanced small companies simply cannot successfully compete with the largest players. Larger firms have several advantages that make competition between advanced small and the largest firms illusory. Multi-billion dollar companies leverage the talent of well-paid business development and marketing staff as well as teams of professional technical writers and graphic artists that can dedicate their efforts solely to proposal development. Additionally, large size companies can use their expertise to operate in multiple industries. This increases the relative competitiveness of the largest companies in the bidding process. In contrast, mid-size companies have limited bid and proposal budgets and typically do not have teams of individuals solely dedicated to business development and marketing. This lack of infrastructure at mid-size companies constrains their ability to compete successfully against larger actors.

Competition is stifled when multi-billion dollar companies force these businesses into their supply chain through acquisition after these companies have become ineligible for small business awards. If not acquired, an advanced small or mid-size company may have to modify its business model to focus on subcontractor relationships with other large or small companies. Being limited to subcontractor roles impairs the advanced small firm’s ability to gain project management experience essential for further growth.

The Government Market is Shrinking

The federal market continues to shrink in the short-term, along with the diversity of industry choices that supplies those customers. Industry consolidation appears to have run its course in terms of efficiency, and now simply means fewer choices for government managers. Uncertain strategies by government agencies — owed partially to congressional gridlock -challenges agencies and industry to see and prepare for future requirements. This uncertainty, however, has an adverse impact that shuts down competition and deprives the Federal Government from realizing any return on its initial investment in advanced small companies during their early growth.

While significant policy change will occur next year regardless of who takes control of various levels of government is an easy prediction to make, those working within today’s contracting community can expect to be asked to get things done faster and more effectively. Within federal contracting, all its many constituencies define success differently (whether you are a small, advanced small, mid-sized, or large business) and almost never achieving a consensus. As in all business, there are winners and losers. “Where you stand depends on where you sit.” In the worst-case scenario, an Advanced Small firm will fail.

To learn even more, plan to attend “Federal Procurement Opportunities for Small Businesses and Middle Market Contractors“, a breakfast seminar hosted in partnership with Mid-Tier Advocacy on June 23 in Tysons Corner, VA.

Register Now | Centre Law & Consulting

Mid-Tier Advocacy, Inc. (MTA) is a 501(c) 3 non-profit organization was established to work toward the elimination of the competitive disadvantage facing mid-tier government support service companies. A nonpartisan organization, MTA provides resources and public awareness through issue forums and structured branded events. As such, we leverage the collective voice for mid-tier firms in response to federal policies that impact their growth and sustainability. MTA hosts scheduled business events “MTA Business Focused Breakfast” in the DMV area where industry meets policy.

About the Author:

Tonya Saunders, Founder of Mid Tier Advocacy | Centre Law & Consulting Tonya M. Saunders
Founder of Mid-Tier Advocacy, Inc.

Tonya Saunders is the founder and principal for Washington Premier Consulting and Washington Premier Group. Among her accomplishments is founding and directing Mid-Tier Advocacy, a national coalition of small, emerging, and medium-sized businesses.

 

The post Too Big to Be Small, Too Small to Be Big appeared first on Centre Law & Consulting.


View the full article

Centre Law & Consulting

This Blog is Subject to Change in a Twitter Moment | Centre Law & Consulting in Tysons VA
 
How many of you now go to bed wondering, “What presidential tweet am I going to wake up to next?” The federal contracting space has been shaken, not stirred.

In the old news department, President Trump instituted an immediate hiring freeze this Monday, signing a presidential memorandum that would affect a large swath of the executive branch. There are exemptions, of course, for those working in the military, national security, and public safety.

In my discussions with officials at several federal agencies, it appears that the language is vague enough that different agencies are interpreting this in different ways. If your entire team is on the airplane that has the “water landing” does this mean that no one can be hired to do the work? Maybe it will become more clear in the next couple of months. The executive order directs the Director of OMB, in consultation with the Director of OPM, to recommend a long-term plan to reduce the size of the Federal Government’s workforce through attrition. The order does say that contractors cannot be hired to circumvent the intent of the order.

However, a big problem is that the federal workforce has not been growing. Federal News Radio is reporting that the size of the federal workforce has been decreasing, not increasing. The size of the federal workforce has steadily declined over the past 50 years. Approximately 2 million people worked for civilian agencies in 2015—nearly a 10 percent decline since 1967.

Regarding the workforce, and in specific the federal contracting workforce, the Obama Executive Orders are in the twilight zone. Executive Order 13673, Fair Pay and Safe Workplaces, was stopped cold by a Texas federal district court in 2016. Since this was a unilateral act by the President, it will most likely be undone along with the Executive Order on Sick Leave.

On the minor but still need to know information, a final rule came out on Privacy Act training. At a minimum, contractors must educate employees about:

  • The provisions of the Privacy Act of 1974, including penalties for violations
  • The appropriate handling and safeguarding of personally identifiable information
  • The authorized and official use of a system of records or any other personally identifiable information
  • The restriction on the use of unauthorized equipment to create, collect, use, process, store, maintain, disseminate, disclose, dispose, or otherwise access personally identifiable information
  • The prohibition against the unauthorized use of a system of records or unauthorized disclosure, access, handling, or use of personally identifiable information
  • Procedures to be followed in the event of a suspected or confirmed breach of a system of records or unauthorized disclosure, access, handling, or use of personally identifiable information

Those are today’s latest updates, but we’ll see what Twitter has to say about it in the coming days.
 
About the Author

Barbara Kinosky Barbara Kinosky
Managing Partner

Barbara Kinosky has more than twenty-five years of experience in all aspects of federal government contracting and is a nationally known expert on GSA and VA Schedules and the Service Contract Act. She has a proven track record of solving complex issues for clients by providing strategic and business savvy advice. Barbara was named a top attorney for federal contracting by Smart CEO magazine in 2010, 2012, and 2015.

 

The post This Blog Is Subject to Change in a Twitter Moment appeared first on Centre Law & Consulting.


View the full article

Centre Law & Consulting

In its July 28, 2017 decision, the GAO denied a protest and found an agency’s decision to negotiate a sole-source contract with a Historically Underutilized Business Zone (HUBZone) to be reasonable based on the agency’s lack of progress in meeting its HUBZone goals. JRS Staffing Services, B-414630, B414630.2 (July 28, 2017).

The original solicitation process from the Department of Justice, Bureau of Prisons (BOP), underwent several rounds. The BOP originally issued a solicitation without any restriction on competition. However, following a protest from JRS, they agency canceled the solicitation in order to conduct market research to determine whether it would be feasible to set the contract aside for small businesses. Several months later, the BOP awarded a HUBZone sole-source contract to ProHill. JRS subsequently protested that award, challenging the BOP’s failure to post a notice of its intent to award a sole-source contract on the FedBizOpps website. The BOP subsequently terminated the sole-source contract in order to being the procurement process over. One month later, the BOP posted a statement of work and a sources sought notice for the requirement on the FedBizOpps website, which included a market research questionnaire. One more month later, BOP posted a notice of the agency’s intent to negotiate a sole-source contract with ProHill, a HUBZone. JRS subsequently filed its third protest regarding this BOP contract.

In challenging the BOP’s decision to negotiate a HUBZone sole-source award with ProHill, JRS argued that the award was based on flawed market research as the solicitation could have been competed as a WOSB set aside as both JRS and ProHill are WOSBs. In denying JRS’s protest, the GAO noted that the FAR expressly provides that there is no order of precedence between the WOSB and HUBZone programs and agencies may consider both the results of their market research and their progress in fulfilling their small business goals. Here, it was reasonable that the agency’s decision to use the HUBZone program was based primarily on its lack of progress in meeting its HUBZone goals whereas the agency had already exceeded its WOSB goals. Therefore, the GAO dismissed JRS’s protest.

 

About the Author:

Heather Mims | Centre Law & Consulting in Tysons VA Heather Mims
Associate Attorney

Heather Mims is an associate attorney at Centre Law & Consulting. Her practice is primarily focused on government contracts law, employment law, and litigation. Heather graduated magna cum laude from the George Mason School of Law where she was the Senior Research Editor for the Law Review and a Writing Fellow.

The post Third Time’s the Charm? Not so Much for this Protester appeared first on Centre Law & Consulting.


View the full article

Centre Law & Consulting

Last week the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee approved the Promoting Value Based Procurement Act of 2017 on a voice vote without any dissent, meaning the bill now proceeds to the House floor.

The Act, which was initially introduced in June, substantially limits the number of federal contracts that may use the lowest-priced bid as the major deciding factor – this means a severe limit on lowest price technically acceptable, or LPTA, contracts.

In fact, the current text of the bill requires revision of the FAR to require that LPTA source selection criteria are only used in six specified situations. Further, the bill mandates that, to the maximum extent practicable, the use of LPTA should be avoided in a procurement that is predominately for the acquisition of (1) information technology services, cybersecurity services, systems engineering and technical assistance services, advanced electronic testing, audit or audit readiness services, or other knowledge-based professional services; (2) personal protective equipment; or (3) knowledge-based training or logistics services in contingency operations or other operations outside the United States, including in Afghanistan or Iraq.

Rep. Gerry Connolly, D-Va., one of the bill’s co-sponsors, said during the markup that the use of LPTA contracts has become too rigidly applied and has “started to calcify some large chunks of contracting in the federal sphere.” He continued, “When an agency seeks the assistance of a company to help it analyze and address cybersecurity needs, for example, it might not know the extent of services that will eventually be needed,” and “quality and innovation must be considered.”

About the Author:

Heather Mims | Centre Law & Consulting in Tysons VA Heather Mims
Associate Attorney

Heather Mims is an associate attorney at Centre Law & Consulting. Her practice is primarily focused on government contracts law, employment law, and litigation. Heather graduated magna cum laude from the George Mason School of Law where she was the Senior Research Editor for the Law Review and a Writing Fellow.

The post The Promoting Value Based Procurement Act of 2017 Approved by House Oversight Committee appeared first on Centre Law & Consulting.


View the full article

Centre Law & Consulting

The Federal Marketplace can be challenging and risky for the uninitiated, and even for seasoned contractors. The Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) alone contains 53 parts over 1,903 pages, including nearly 590 provisions and clauses (some with alternates), and many of which will ultimately find their way into your contracts. And this doesn’t even include Agency-specific acquisition regulations which supplement and implement the FAR.

As if securing and administering government contracts were not challenging enough, how about trying to figure out the puzzle of who buys your supplies and services, where and how they buy them, and who do they buy from?

Unfortunately, some folks still rely exclusively on agencies’ Forecasts of Contracting Opportunities (FCO) thinking this is all they need for identifying upcoming procurement opportunities. While Federal Law (P.L. 100-656) requires all Federal agencies with procurement budgets of $50+ Million (almost all of them these days) to publish an FCO, the FCOs from most agencies are unfortunately not robust, are hardly all-inclusive with their information, and only tell part of the story.

Fortunately putting together the Who—What—When—Where and How puzzle pieces is much easier than securing and administering a contract thanks to the Federal Procurement Data System — Next Generation, commonly known as FPDS-NG or FPDS.

A Better Solution

A great way to know where procurements are going is to see where they’ve been. That’s where Federal Procurement Data System comes in. It is the real-time relational database serving the government acquisition community as the authoritative source of contract information, which contains summary level data and is used at all levels of the Federal government for policy and trend analysis. The numbers and data in FPDS change every hour of every workday. The system contains millions of transactions, and there are millions of permeations for extracting various combinations of data elements to suit your unique needs.

Unlike FPDS, the USAspending.gov website uses a static approach to capturing and reporting data, meaning the data is presented and simple charts and graphs which do not change until the next update, which is required every 30 days under the Federal Funding Accountability and Transparency Act. This makes access to current and real-time data through FPDS is invaluable, and knowing how to put the pieces of this puzzle together can help competitively position your company and help boost your federal sales.

Hands-On Learning

Don’t be overwhelmed by the idea of learning a system that might new to you though! On August 16, 2016, learn the intricacies of FPDS in one-day course, “Introduction to the Federal Procurement Data System”.

This hands-on, dynamic course unlocks the mysteries and power of FPDS for your company’s competitive benefit and includes content such as:

  • Providing an overview and requirements of FPDS reporting by Federal agencies
  • Detailing what transactions are required to be reported along with what is available and what is not available through FPDS
  • Learning who buys what, how they buy, and whether these procurements are conducted through the Federal Supply Schedules Program, Other Government Agency Contracts, or on the open market
  • Identifying when your competitors’ contracts will expire or when other contracts in your commercial line of endeavor are due to expire and be re-competed
  • Discovering if set-asides are used in acquiring the products and services you offer and how you may qualify
  • Explaining the distinct advantages of using FPDS vs. USAspending.gov

This course will use a combination of both lecture and hands-on laboratory, whereby participants will create individual FPDS accounts and actually create and run reports using standard reporting as well as the system’s invaluable and powerful ad hoc reporting capabilities. The critical knowledge, skills, and abilities gained from this intense one-day training class can be taken back to the workplace, along with reports ready to be run and re-run to meet your company’s needs.

What’s In It for You?

Enhance your company’s competitive position in the Federal market place by harnessing the power of procurement data. Stop wasting scarce marketing resources targeting agencies where opportunities do not exist. Instead, use data from FPDS to focus, target, and hone your marketing efforts in areas which will offer the best potential returns on your marketing investment. You’ll also save time by eliminating the need for time-consuming and often costly Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests for data.

Your competitors have this information and use it to their competitive benefit and advantage, why shouldn’t you? If you want to be the “go-to-person” at your company for this type of data and you want your company to be more competitive, then this course is for you.

We look forward to seeing you on August 16, so we can put the puzzle pieces together!

About the Author

Wayne Simpson | Centre Law & Consulting Wayne Simpson, CSCM
Wayne Simpson is a seasoned former Federal executive and acquisition professional who is also a highly-motivated and demonstrative small business advocate, with nearly 38 years of Federal Civilian Service with the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs (VA), and its predecessor organization, the Veterans Administration.

 

The post The Procurement Puzzle: Putting the Pieces Together to Boost Federal Sales appeared first on Centre Law & Consulting.


View the full article

Sign in to follow this  
×