'Major System' definition relies on a mysterious OMB Circular

[General.Zhukov]

 

 

Major systems, 

Some sections of the FAR are specifically applicable or required when an acquisition involves a 'major systems.'  Notably, FAR 34 and FAR 7.106.  Also FAR 15 Make-or-Buy, Should-Cost, some section of FAR 27, and a few other places. 

An acquisition involved a 'major system' under four criteria stated in FAR 2.101 and FAR 34.  One is just for the DoD, which is clear. I'm not DoD.  One is 'when designated as a "major system" by the head of the agency' - also makes sense.  But two criteria for 'major system' rely upon OMB Circular A-109, and what is going on here?  This circular is a ghost.  It seems to be obsolete.  

Two criteria for major system relying upon A-109

• FAR 34.000 Scope of part. This part describes acquisition policies and procedures for use in acquiring major systems consistent with OMB Circular No. A-109
• FAR 2.101 . (2) A civilian agency is responsible for the system and total expenditures for the system are estimated to exceed $2.5 million or the dollar threshold for a "major system" established by the agency pursuant to Office of Management and Budget Circular A-109, entitled "Major System Acquisitions," whichever is greater; 

Ah, so let's go see what OMB Circular A-109 has defined as a 'major system.'  Not so fast.

• This OMB Circular isn't listed by OMB on its official website.
• A-109 probably has been replaced by OMB Circular A-11.  But not the technical phrase 'major system' vs. what A-11 uses, which is 'major acquisition.' These are two distinct concepts, not synonyms.
• I can't even find a full text version of A-109 anywhere.

 

Please explain.

 

[C Culham]

Could it be that since 10 USC 3041 still exists the phrase is still used but the FAR has not been updated?

[Vern Edwards]

On August 22, 2000, OFPP proposed to rescind OMB Circular A-109. See 65 FR 51045:

Quote

OMB issued Circular A-109, “Major System Acquisitions,” in 1976 to the Heads of Executive Departments and Establishments. In recent years, OMB has issued additional, separate guidance on asset acquisition. OMB guidance under Part 3 of Circular A-11 provides information on planning, budgeting, and acquisition of capital assets. The Capital Programming Guide, Supplement to Part 3 of Circular A-11, also provides professionals in the Federal Government a basic reference to principles and techniques for planning, budgeting, acquisition, and management of capital assets. Circular A-130 establishes uniform government-wide information resources management policies as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980, as amended by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, 44 U.S.C. Chapter 35.

In an effort to eliminate duplication of OMB guidance, OMB proposes to rescind Circular A-109, and continue to update Circular A-11 and Circular A-130 with current guidance on planning, budgeting, and acquisition of capital assets. OFPP requests comments on this proposed rescission.

***

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Yvette Garner, Office of Federal Procurement Policy, 202-395-7187. Only hard copies of OMB Circular A-109 are available and can be obtained from Yvette Garner. 

Nothing more was ever said or done. Copies of the circular are available only from subscription archives.

 

 

 

[General.Zhukov]

So 'major systems' and OMB Circular A-109 is...universally ignored and has been for decades, despite of its formal legal and regulatory standing?   

This is what I had suspected, and what I will bring as evidence next time I argue to the policy team that 'while it (note 1) may be required in written acquisition plans per FAR 7.105, nobody actually does it in reality - go ahead, please find the current threshold for 'major systems' per OMB Circular A-109, I'll wait - so we should just blow it off.' 

Note 1: Should-Cost, Pre-award IBR, Make or Buy, all of 7.106, among others.

 

 

 

[Vern Edwards]

3 hours ago, General.Zhukov said:

So 'major systems' and OMB Circular A-109 is...universally ignored and has been for decades, despite of its formal legal and regulatory standing? 

Wrong.

I started out working in major systems for the Air Force in the mid-1970s. We all knew of A-109 when it was sprung on us in 1976, but few ever saw it, because in those days there was no internet distribution of such documents in pdf format. Copies of official documents were hard to come by. Nevertheless, it was very influential top-level policy. It has never  been "ignored." It spawned thousands of pages Congressional hearings, GAO reports and other studies, and agency level guidance.

It was eventually overcome by myriad agency publications, but especially those of DOD, which incorporated its key principles. It spawned the massive DOD 5000 series of policy directives and countless Air Force , Army, and Navy guidance documents. It affected other agencies, too, like NASA and EPA.

I have a copy of it, dated April 5, 1976. It is quite short, only about 10 pages. A copy is included in H.A.S.C. No. 95-76, Hearings on Office of Management and Budget Circular A-109 (1977), pages 4 - 15, which you should be able to find and download by searching in Google Books. It was accompanied by an OFPP Pamphlet.

The definition of "major system" was as follows:

Quote

Major system means that combination of elements that will function together to produce the capabilities required to fulfill mission need. The elements may include , for example , hardware , equipment , software , construction , other improvements or real property . Major system acquisition programs are those programs that ( 1 ) are directed at and critical to fulfilling an agency mission , ( 2) entail the allocation of relatively large resources , and (3) warrant special management attention . Additional criteria and relative dollar thresholds for the determination of agency programs to be considered major systems under the purview of this Circular , may be established at the discretion of the agency head .

If you don't know how to do library research, don't have access to archives, and don't have the tools and skills needed to find old documents, you'd best reserve opinion and judgment.

Current FAR references remain due to editorial neglect and continued references in other official documents.