All Activity

Joel: I was counting on you.

OK, I revised the poll and added I have no clue. Now you have to vote.

No didn’t know.

I cheated and looked it up. I’m fairly knowledgeable about ships being a boater and almost hitting every lighthouse on the Chesapeake Bay but I didn’t know.

Poll would be better with a "no clue" voting option. As for me, I have no clue. N.S. Sherlock? That, I know.

Unfortunately (or fortunately, depending on how you see it) FAC 2024-05's addition of a new FAR Subpart 23.1 on "sustainable procurement" indicates that what you buy can also be very important. (That FAC is 39 pages long in the Federal Register version. As of this morning it has not yet been posted to acquisition.gov.) BTW, see today's Wall Street Journal story, "Biden Races to Trump-Proof His Agenda": Look for more FACs in the coming weeks and months. For instance, look for new rules prohibiting contractor use of employee noncompete agreements based on the recent Federal Trade Commission final rule. The FAR is gonna grow even more.

Two words: Covid clauses. Truly the most bass-ackwards attempt ever to shove a political litmus test down our throats in the form of 'procurement policy'. I'm still waiting for the explanation of how unelected bureaucrats were able to make going to work illegal - my agency actually gave me a "freedom of movement authorization letter" in 2020 (because we were special, AKA, "good enough for thee but not for me").

Clearly, to the rule writers, whom you buy it from (which is I think part of how you buy it) is more important. What you buy (at the end item-level anyway) usually doesn't even figure. And this is hardwired into the procurement system starting at the local office reviewer level up through every level of policy maker by the fact that people move from procurement to oversight/policy and not the other direction, so the people writing the rules are out of the buying business (if they were ever in it). In a perfect world you would have no permanent policy/oversight positions and the rules would be written by people who would rotate back to be subject to the rules they make.

Without searching, do you know the N. S. Savannah?

The word employee/s appears 1,279 times.

Suggests? Suggests??? Acquisition is about spending money, and money is the mother's milk of politics. Go back and look at the FACs that have been issued to implement policies of the current administration. The phrase "small business" appears 1,908 times in FAR. The government spends more on services than on anything else. The phrase "service contract" appears 270 times. The phrase "statement of work" appears 46 times. The phrase "performance work statement" appears 7 times. Makes you wonder. What's more important, what you buy or whom you buy it from.

In addition to what others have written, you can still file a NAICS protest with OHA and if unsuccessful, file an "appeal" with the Court of Federal Claims asserting the proposed order is outside the scope of the contract.

Can the Of Even be measured?

D is the largest subchapter and is the subject of the most open FAR cases. That suggests that the acquisition process is clearly being used to promote political goals.

The FAR is Chapter 1 of Title 48 of the Code of Federal Regulations. It is subdivided into 8 subchapters, A through H. Measuring by page count, either in the CCH baby FAR or in the acquisition.gov pdf FAR, which subchapter is the largest, excluding H (which includes Parts 52 and 53, and is the largest of all)? Now look at the current report of Open FAR Cases (as of 5/3/2024). What are most of them about? What do the answers to my questions suggest to you?

Carl’s answer is probably true. The rule making process requires compilation and publication of several pieces of information and cost and anticipated benefits are part. See this example where both areas are covered towards the end Fed Reg notice of proposed rule But having seen this actually done a couple times at least the cost data isn’t substantiated with throughly documented backup. It’s hard to fantom how benefits could be accurately and objectively compiled either. Nothing is really scrutinized closely. What Carl said is true - I don’t see anyone being able to produce a true cost-benefit analysis if asked.

I don't know exactly how their finances work (not my office, and our agency has complicated funding - 50% appropriations from Congress, 50% fees from industry, both with many strings attached), so I excluded it from consideration here. But yes, it's likely that they could use something like bulk funding if they figure out the timing part. That is a part of FAR 13 I didn't know about! Thanks for the suggestions. I think we will probably consider a short-turn-around FAR 13 BPA for the relatively more expensive items and stay with P-Cards for the little stuff. If we can get a new BPA to be much, much faster than our other BPAs/IDIQs. My agency has many BPAs (we love them, we use them the most in HHS), but they are for far larger and far more complex requirements. BPA Calls for millions of dollars of professional services, not hundreds of dollars of supplies.

I would imagine no where. Yep, "We" the people. Admittedly I am like many to jump to a answer or thought regarding an original post with some convoluted reasoning based on regulation as to why or why not o. As opposed to just picking a logical avenue. I do believe regulations are necessary to allow fair access to the Federal dollar by the likes of someone like me but in truth it would seem what has been created and furthered by regulation might just stiffle me from that access.

I agree. While my prevous posts to this thread will remain. I had this afterthought. I actually think the purchase card is the best method. Why? I have this nagging memory that the purchase card while an industry standard so to speak came to Federal procurement to benefit just in time procurements. Not the type of just in time that your read about today but that where procurement offices were not bogged down by what is defined as micro-purchases and the thought that "supply rooms" as they once looked could be abandoned to something smaller or even not at all. Likewise the first step doing like we all do in our real life - simply, and to better look like a commercial entity. To this latter thought I think about myself. I do not have a BPA, Lab Supplies as a Service, or even IDIQ with Safeway, Home Depot, my local mom and pop establishment and the many other places I frequent on a continual basis. I simply walk in, and in these days, plop down my card and buy what I need. No fear of split procurements or the need for something else because I am a repetitive customer. Also no fear that Xylene-resistant gloves need a waiver. If I need them because they fit the purpose of personal mission then there you go, just plop down the card whenever I run out and need more. My suggestion now, stick to your gut and go with the card.

FAR 1.102-2(b): “Minimize administrative operating costs. (1) In order to ensure that maximum efficiency is obtained, rules, regulations, and policies should be promulgated only when their benefits clearly exceed the costs of their development, implementation, administration, and enforcement. This applies to internal administrative processes, including reviews, and to rules and procedures applied to the contractor community.” Where can the public find the cost-benefit analysis?

I agree. The funny thing is people talk about streamlining, innovation, adoption of best practices particularly from the commercial side, benchmarking against best in class, and on and on. But when new acquisition concepts come up with minimal guidance, no one wants to try them. They wait for more detailed guidance, step by step instructions, and blessing all the way down the management chain to their immediate supervisors. The FAR, which may be the bulk of what’s really needed, will continue to grow especially along with FAR supplements, agency guidance and policy documents so everything gets done using approved uniform approaches. That gives both management and employees the comfortable way to do work.

Happy Friday! And just like that, it’s May! Hope you had a wonderful week and have some fun plans this weekend. This week in federal government contracting news included updates about small business federal contracting dollars (see our blog here) as well as new contracting bills coming out of Congress. Ernst Celebrates National Small Business Week White House: Small Businesses Awarded Record-Breaking $179B in FY23 SBA: Federal Government Awarded 28% of FY23 Contracting Dollars to Small Businesses US appeals court upholds Biden’s $15 minimum wage for recreational contractors AbilityOne contracts for workers with disabilities opens to competition IRA update: Federal government works to decarbonize construction materials FTC rule on non-compete employees has contractors worried GSA Issues Resource Guide for Federal Generative AI Tech Acquisition Supreme Court to hear another major veterans benefits case this fall GSA receives A+ rating for 14th consecutive year for working with small business contractors Contracting Bills Pass House; FEMA Workplace Planning Measure Offered in Senate Staffing Company to Pay $2.7M for Alleged Failure to Provide Adequate Cybersecurity for COVID-19 Contact Tracing Data Mentor-Protégé Program Resources Former Defense Contractor Pleads Guilty to Attempted Espionage The post SmallGovCon Week in Review: April 29-May 3, 2024 first appeared on SmallGovCon - Government Contracts Law Blog.View the full article

Unfortunately, that's not in FPDS, my data source. However, the FAR goes on at length about things that aren't commonly done anymore. To wit, last year HHS awarded as reported by FPDS: 23,330 New Contract Actions (not modifications nor "other" like OTAs) 22,270 Orders (Delivery Orders, Purchase Orders, BPA Calls) 1,000 Definitive contracts 297 definitive contracts which had >1 offer received. That is 1%. 1 multiple award IDIQ, which was awarded by the CDC. 0 Basic Ordering Agreements 0 Price evaluation preference for HUBZone per FAR 19.13 0 Partial set-asides of multiple-award contracts per FAR 19.13 Now the caveat is that the data in FPDS is of varying quality and reliability, so these numbers are approximations. Someone in HHS other than the CDC did a multiple-award IDIQ last year, surely. Interpret only 1 multiple-award IDIQ in HHS as meaning this type of contract is very rare, but not literally 1/23,330. The point is twofold, first is that the FAR is full of stuff that, at least for HHS, is irrelevant and nobody would even notice if those sections of the regulations disappeared, and second, this is a fact which everyone already knows but nobody can do anything about.

Thank you for your patience while awaiting the extension of CIO-SP3. We value you as our customer and want to make sure your IT mission objectives can be awarded better – faster – cheaper with our suite of IT contracting vehicles. It is no secret that the award of the CIO-SP4 GWAC has been delayed for some time. The reality is the predicament around CIO-SP4 is nothing new. In recent years, several GWACs, as well as agency specific multiple award contracts, have faced similar challenges with lingering protests, and some of those solicitations have been canceled altogether. This is the reality of federal contracting. But, here is the good news. I have full faith in the integrity of our solicitation and believe that we are nearing the end of the CIO-SP4 award process. I am pleased to announce that earlier this week, NITAAC received an extension for the CIO-SP3 and CIO-SP3 Small Business GWACs through October 29, 2024, with the option to extend even further until April 29, 2025, should that become necessary. The timing of this extension could not be better. As we approach the end of the fiscal year, this latest extension will allow for no disruption of service during the busiest time of year. I encourage you to continue to submit your task orders with confidence, knowing that any task or delivery order placed by October 29 can go out 5 years in period of performance. As you make your acquisition plans and begin to think of your end of the year IT needs, choose NITAAC. For over 25 years, we have provided quality acquisition support to virtually every agency, department, and program in the federal government and despite the status of CIO-SP4, that commitment has not changed. We are still your one stop shop for everything IT. We are still the GWAC to call no matter how large or complex your IT needs may be. We are still the GWAC to rely on when you need your task order fulfilled quickly. From laptops and desktops to operations and maintenance of legacy systems to complex, emerging technologies like Cybersecurity and Artificial Intelligence, we are the GWAC to call when your agency wants to excel. If you have questions or concerns about CIO-SP4 and what it might mean for your acquisition, call me. I am open to having the conversation and will be quick to assure you that it has no impact. What’s more, I will personally talk with you about your IT needs. Our three GWACs, CIO-CS, CIO-SP3 and CIO-SP3 Small Business have everything you need to get IT done, from a pool of highly qualified contractors to robust labor categories, multiple task areas and a multitude of socioeconomic categories to help you meet your goals. NITAAC is open for business and ready to help you keep your mission critical IT needs on track. Nobody does IT or customer service like we do. To learn more about all the ways NITAAC can help you exceed your IT goals, contact our customer support team at NITAACsupport@nih.gov or give me a call.

You pique my interest. How many were LPTA?