“What we’ve done in the name of innovation of process is we have created way too many rules, and those rules have added a level of complexity that often gets our workforces to the wrong answer,” said Navy Deputy Assistant Secretary for Acquisition Elliot Branch at the Acquire show last week in Washington. Branch’s comments came as part of a panel on how agencies can better shape acquisition processes to drive better and faster outcomes. Executives from GSA, Read more
Federal Chief Acquisition Officers and their colleagues continue to rank workforce training as their number one priority, according to a recent Federal News Radio survey. While that’s no surprise, there may be reason for optimism that it will actually start to take place as more forums, like federal shows that feature training, re-emerge. Running a close second and third were finding greater efficiencies in the acquisition process and making use of new tools to make acquisitions easier. Each of the top three areas can be potential targets for industry, Read more
While it is still technically possible that Congress could pass full-year appropriations bills for the next fiscal year, history and the calendar do not hold out much hope. Congress will leave town early both this summer, for the Presidential conventions, and in the fall, for their own re-election, substantially shortening the time available to pass appropriations measures. It is quite likely that FY’17 will start under a Continuing Resolution, perhaps lasting as long as 5 months. This possibility makes it particularly important to get new projects on the books by September 30th. Once a new project is initiated, it becomes an “existing” project in the new FY and, thus, can continue even if there is a CR.
Those familiar with government business will remember that CR’s do not allow for “new” spending. That could place a substantial damper on vital government projects like cyber implementation and the acquisition of new IT systems. If your government customers haven’t thought that far ahead, it’s time for you to help them understand that starting a project now, even if most funding will come later, is especially important in an election year. Starting “early” this year is really the same thing as starting on time.
The GSA Multiple Award Schedule program is supposed to be for the acquisition of commercial solutions, maximizing the benefits of commercial business practices. This has been a hallmark of the program since its inception and industry frequently uses the phrase “commercial terms for commercial items” to defend this position. Such a position would be deemed quaint now with the issuance of a proposed rule last week that will essentially obviate any commercial term that conflicts, or appears to conflict with, a government rule. GSA is moving beyond its established software EULA project and is now seeking to remove or subordinate any commercial terms that might conflict with a government mandate.
To be fair, commercial terms that conflict with statutorily-based rules may have to go. The proposed rule, however, goes further than that to assume that any and all regulations take precedence over any and all commercial terms. The proposed rule seeks a “one size fits all” solution that would take away an individual customer’s ability to negotiate special terms at the task order level. Customers may decide, for instance, that a specific term can be altered, or a one-time waiver granted, because it is one small part of a total solution that is otherwise in the best interest of the government. This would be a more flexible approach. Instead, the proposed rule tells contractors, “Your best price, on our own terms, take it or leave it.” It would be no surprise if some chose to “leave it” as the agency increasingly creates a business environment that imposes great, and ever-newer, costs on Schedule contractors, while at the same time using flawed pricing tools that, in turn, spur demands for lower prices.
Established, experienced government contractors could have an edge in supplying IT solutions over classically commercial companies if secure supply chain requirements contemplated in a recent GSA RFI become actual requirements. The May 9th RFI would require end-to-end monitoring for all components placed in finished IT products sold through GSA’s IT Schedule, and perhaps other IT contracts as well. Though such tracking processes are expensive, traditional government contractors have likely already developed such programs in order to business with DOD.
Congress required DOD to ensure that its contractors had secure supply chains over two years ago. In fact, the GSA RFI was likely issued so that GSA can take steps to satisfy the requirements of its largest customer. Still, the Schedules program is inherently a commercial item contract vehicle and most companies holding Schedule contracts are not government-only or even “government-mostly” firms. As such, the GSA RFI has been the topic of much discussion. Whatever the outcome of that dialog is, however, anyone wanting to do IT business with DOD needs to have secure supply chain mechanisms in place. The contract vehicle can be an afterthought.