Experts: Value beats price to avoid fake IT

As government regulators consider tougher ways to block counterfeit information technology products from entering the federal marketplace, they’re restarting an old debate about whether to award contracts based on the lowest bid or the best value.

At a meeting Dec. 11 regarding newly proposed rules on counterfeit IT, Laura Auletta, a procurement policy analyst at the Office of Federal Procurement Policy, said she was surprised to hear that contracting officers believe they should award a contract to the lowest bidder to save money instead of finding the best value.

Contracting officers and acquisition officials often interpret the Federal Acquisition Regulation to mean that the lowest bid should get the award, said James Bockman, a former NASA official who worked closely with the agency’s procurement employees.

“They see that as saving the government money,” said Bockman, who is now a special projects engineer at Aerospace Corp.

The FAR gives civilian agencies broad discretion in making decisions based on price or other best-value parameters, such as the company’s experience and management capabilities. But government and industry experts say acquisition workers are concerned about making a mistake and paying for it with a career-ending embarrassment. With today’s emphasis on curbing waste and abuse, they say contracting officers often choose the vendor with the lowest price.

However, federal officials agree that the government should strive for quality and ensure that agencies don’t buy products that are tainted with malware or poorly made.

The prevalence of counterfeit IT and electronic parts has exploded in the past five years after roughly 20 years of level numbers, officials say.

“The whole supply chain is infected with counterfeit parts,” said Brian Hughitt, manager of quality assurance at NASA’s Safety and Assurance Requirements Division.

The sudden increase has led regulators to add tougher checks to the FAR. Counterfeit IT products lead to financial losses for government agencies and companies, and they pose a threat to national security, the Civilian Agency Acquisition Council and the Defense Acquisition Regulations Council wrote in a Nov. 18 Federal Register notice.

The new rules’ draft language would require agencies to buy all IT products from original equipment manufacturers, software developers, or authorized distributors or resellers. In addition, agencies would have to require companies to offer proof in contract proposals that their products are authentic.

Edward Chambers, a procurement analyst at the General Services Administration who is leading the regulatory proposal, tried to allay initial concerns from industry and government officials by saying the language is preliminary.

At the meeting, government officials disagreed about who’s to blame if an agency buys fake IT or electronic parts. Hughitt said a federal employee should take no blame if an agency buys a phony product because the contractor should know what it’s selling to the government.

However, the government does not use rigorous scrutiny when evaluating products, said Brad Botwin, director of industrial studies at the Commerce Department.

“The sloppiest processes are on this side of the house,” he said, referring to the government, particularly the Defense Logistics Agency. The liability for counterfeit parts rests on contractors and the government.

As the debate continues, officials say they need to find a way to increase scrutiny without putting companies out of business. But the checks are necessary because counterfeit products will continue to be a problem, Botwin said.

Read the story: FCW.com News - Experts: Value beats price to avoid fake IT

Watchdogs make industry leery

Federal contractors must report evidence of crimes to inspectors general under new requirements

Contracting officers and government contractors will soon have someone new in their relationship: a watchdog.

Starting Dec. 12, contractors will be required to tell government officials if they find evidence of criminal activities related to a federal contract or if the government overpays them. The new rules allow federal officials to suspend or even debar a company from government work if the company knowingly fails to inform officials.

Experts say contractors are most concerned about the requirement that they inform two parties: the appropriate contracting officer and the agency’s inspector general.

Most contractors’ mistakes, including accidental overpayments, are minor administrative errors that contracting officers can easily fix, government and industry experts say. But because IGs have different responsibilities from contracting officers, the mandate makes contractors anxious about sharing even minor infractions with IGs.

“The rule goes too far,” said David Drabkin, deputy chief acquisition officer at the General Services Administration, adding that it won’t help relationships among contractors, agencies and IGs.

However, regulators say they wrote the rules with contractors in mind. They offer flexibility and allow companies to find credible evidence of a crime before reporting it. For agencies, reporting requirements will encourage relationships between IGs and contracting officers as they work together to root out fraud, regulators say.

The rules will have “contractors turning square corners and everybody walking with that halo over their head,” said Ernest Woodson, a procurement analyst at GSA who was instrumental in writing the regulations.

The sea change
The revision to the Federal Acquisition Regulation stands as a reversal from long-standing policies of voluntary disclosure.

“There is no doubt that mandatory disclosure is a sea change and major departure,” the Civilian Agency Acquisition Council and the Defense Acquisition Regulations Council wrote in a Federal Register notice outlining the rule.

But the councils said contractors have largely ignored voluntary disclosure policies for the past decade, as the Justice Department and the National Procurement Fraud Task Force have also charged. In May 2007, the department and task force proposed the FAR changes to Robert Burton, then deputy administrator of the Office of Federal Procurement Policy and now a partner at the Venable law firm.

“We believe that if the FAR were more explicit in requiring such notification, it would serve to emphasize the critical importance of integrity in contracting,” they wrote. The new mandates stemmed from that letter.

Burton said the rules will encourage contractors to institute vigorous processes for reporting internal criminal allegations and quickly reviewing the merits of those claims.

“The rule will add weight to the arguments inside a corporation that good business practices in the long run favor compliance and disclosure,” the councils wrote.

Lesley Field, acting OFPP administrator, said mandatory reporting is a sound business ethic and should already be part of companies’ standards.

Contractors might be more comfortable leaving the IG out of the process, but regulators say disclosing a crime to the contracting officer isn’t enough because he or she is in no position to evaluate criminal actions.

“Contracting officers truly wouldn’t know what to do,” Woodson said. “We don’t want the contracting officer interfering with an investigation that the IG or the Department of Justice may have to get involved with.”

Essentially, regulators want those crimes referred immediately to people with badges.

In a speech in November, James Graham, a trial lawyer in the Justice's Criminal Division, said the proposal should improve procurement oversight when mistakes or criminal activities happen. Graham later told reporters that notifying the IG would make the contracting officer and IG work more closely together.

Graham, who also helped craft the regulations, said that although most contractors are honest, fraud is always possible, and the tendency toward corruption is constant.

“It’s the human condition,” he said.

Altering relationships
In public comments on the rule, many people disagreed with the mandate. One wrote that in 1986 a proposal from the Defense Department to make fraud disclosures mandatory foundered. In 1989, then-Defense Secretary Dick Cheney withdrew a proposed mandatory reporting rule on the grounds that “to be meaningful, corporate codes of conduct must be adopted by contractors voluntarily, not mandated in procurement regulations.”

Similarly, Elliott Branch, executive director of contracts at the Naval Sea Systems Command, said there must be a cultural shift in contractors’ thinking or the rules could be meaningless.

Many observers also say the new rules would likely keep the parties at a distance so they can avoid the appearance of wrongdoing.

“It could have a chilling effect on relationships between the contracting officer and the contractor,” Burton said.

Contracting officers and IGs view contractors through different lenses, said Michael Mason, a partner at the Hogan and Hartson law firm. For instance, contracting officers see companies as business partners that are trying to accomplish a contractual job for the agency. But IGs are the government’s watchdogs. They’re trained to sniff out fraud, waste and abuse and expose it. Experts say that focus will strain government/industry relations.

In public comments to the Federal Register, some industry representatives said reporting activities to the IG would take the ability to settle and resolve issues away from the contracting officer and agency. It undercuts the contracting officer’s right to handle a contract, they argued.

Furthermore, IGs have limited resources and staff, and disclosures will slow the procurement process, some commenters said.

Flexibilities
Regulators say they realized that the rules would place more burdens on contractors. Therefore, they granted contractors flexibilities within the rules in an attempt to strike a balance.

“We want disclosure,” said a Bush administration official who requested anonymity. “On the other hand, we want to show some semblance of fairness where there’s uncertainty.”

When learning of an alleged crime, contractors can investigate the credibility of the allegation before telling the government, the official said, adding that “rumors are not enough to trigger the disclosure requirement.”

Until the contractor has determined the allegation’s credibility, federal officials can’t charge the contractor with knowingly failing to inform government officials. Regulators also declined to set specific timelines, saying they would be arbitrary and cause more problems than they would solve.

Despite regulators’ efforts to ease the burden on contractors, the industry remains unenthusiastic, said Richard Bednar, senior counsel at the Washington office of law firm Crowell and Moring and coordinator of the Defense Industry Initiative on Business Ethics and Conduct. In the end, contractors might focus on the rule’s loopholes and report fewer incidents.

But Bednar said the councils clarified many of the uncertainties when they published the final version of the proposed rule. Contractors can respond to the rules by “pulling up their socks and being responsible contractors,” he said.

"I do think it’s digestible,” he added.

Read the story: FCW.com News - Watchdogs make industry leery

Ruling buttresses small businesses

Yet favorable 'Rule of Two' decision could come at a high cost

Ed Driscoll, president and chief executive officer of Delex Systems Inc., was forced into an awkward position last spring. His customer of 40 years, the Navy, was disregarding small-business acquisition rules. Delex risked losing a lot of potential business if the problem continued.

On a $75 million contract, the Navy decided against setting aside orders for small businesses as acquisition rules require when at least two small companies can handle the work and can offer reasonable prices.

Driscoll, a former Navy officer, had invested millions of dollars just to earn a spot to compete for the orders on the Navy’s Training Systems Contract II. Given the size of his investment and the contract, he had to consider a protest. At the same time, he did not want to wreck a relationship he had spent years building.

Ultimately, he had no choice. “This was an opportunities issue and an investment issue,” he said.

After hearing Delex’s case, the Government Accountability Office decided Oct. 8 that agencies must set aside some task orders if at least two small businesses could do the work, which is known as the “rule of two.” The Federal Acquisition Regulation requires a contracting officer to reserve any order of more than $100,000 if at least two responsible small businesses could enter bids. The regulation was the foundation for GAO’s ruling.

Driscoll won the protest, and the result might give small businesses such as Delex a new edge in government contracting. By ruling that agencies must set aside work for small businesses if they find two such companies that are capable of meeting the agencies’ needs, the GAO buttressed rules that agencies have often disregarded.

However, the decision could stress relationships between companies and agencies. Agency officials expect more time-consuming protests for not setting aside work. And they’re frustrated by the prospect.

“Delex hints at some of the angst people haven’t had since” acquisition reforms in the 1990s, said Ray Bjorklund, senior vice president and chief knowledge officer at FedSources Inc., a market research firm.

When they solicited the task order under the training contract, Navy officials decided not to set it aside for small businesses. Instead, they opened the competition to large and small companies on the multiple-award contract.

“GAO tipped the playing field in favor of small-business contract-holders,” said Alan Chvotkin, executive vice president and counsel at the Professional Services Council, an industry group. GAO has significantly changed how agencies and contractors plan their acquisition strategies, especially when it comes to multiple-award contracts that have a mixture of small and large companies, he added.

As a result of the decision, program managers and contracting officers will likely give more weight to small-business set-asides in their initial acquisition strategies, Bjorklund said. When agency officials need to buy something quickly, the greater possibility of a protest by a small company on a task or delivery order would make them keep set-asides in mind.

“Small businesses should capitalize on this opportunity,” said Andy McCann, vice president and geographic sales leader at EDS Corp.’s U.S. Government and Public Sector business.

ASSESSING THE DECISION
At this point, though, many companies and industry observers are still trying to understand what effect the ruling will have. An executive at a major systems integrator who asked to remain anonymous said large companies aren’t enthusiastic about the ruling, but the outcome depends on how a contracting officer interprets GAO’s decision. Integrators are waiting to see how to set up bidding strategies and partner with small businesses, especially on mixed indefinitedelivery, indefinite-quantity contracts.

The ruling could cause small businesses to consider new ways of working with integrators to ensure that they offer the best services and win future government contracts, McCann said.

“This ruling creates an incentive for small businesses to strive to be selected on IDIQ contract vehicles or to team with a large integrator on an IDIQ contract,” McCann said. It might also encourage companies to put more emphasis on their mentor/protégé programs.

Nevertheless, other experts say GAO’s decision doesn’t give advantages to small companies.

“On the surface, this may seem to be a benefit to small businesses, but the price may be too high,” said Guy Timberlake, chief visionary and chief executive officer at the American Small Business Coalition.

Timberlake said he is concerned that the decision might strain the already tense relationship between agencies and small businesses.

Officials and experts agree that the ruling could increase the distrust between industry and government. Agencies might suspect contractors of planning protests and including those projected costs in their bids.

Karen Kopf, operations director at the General Services Administration’s Federal Systems Integration and Management Center, said she feared becoming bogged down in protests, especially now that companies can protest task and delivery orders and be heard by GAO.

Lee Harvey, the Army’s deputy program executive officer for enterprise information systems, said that a decade ago, fewer companies protested award decisions because they wanted good relationships with the government. But today’s larger orders encourage people to protest, he said, because companies have more at stake.

“Frustration sums up our feelings,” Harvey said about GAO’s decision and its likely effects.

KEEPING TABS ON ORDERS
The crux of the issue was the Navy’s contention that Delex’s protest was against a delivery order and not a contract, making it exempt from the rule of two. But changes by Congress opened the orders to protests. In January, lawmakers decided that task and delivery orders were growing so large and complex that they equaled traditional contracts. They decided orders needed more regulation because agencies have been using task-order contracts for more than 50 percent of their procurements, compared with 14 percent in 1990, experts said. In the 1990s, the government viewed task orders as distinct from contracts and put those orders outside GAO’s jurisdiction.

GAO will keep its new authority to review task-order protests for three years. Legislators plan to evaluate the effects before then and make any necessary changes.

In the meantime, the new authority is changing the acquisition field, and GAO’s ruling could further alter how agencies view orders and contracts.

“More of these multiple-award opportunities might be issued as full-and- open [competitions] with no setaside components, creating a more prohibitive competition environment for the average small business,” Timberlake said.

Agencies will reassess the advantages of multiple-award contracts because of GAO’s ruling, Bjorklund said. They might ask themselves why they should go through the hassle of awarding an IDIQ and then go through another competition for task orders.

However, some experts say GAO’s decision won’t affect multiple-award contracts that separate small and large businesses.

The ruling will have little effect on NASA’s Solutions for Enterprisewide Procurement, a governmentwide acquisition contract, said Joanne Woytek, NASA’s SEWP program manager.

SEWP is organized into four groups of multiple-award contracts. Two are exclusively for small businesses with one of the two set-asides for small companies owned by service-disabled veterans. The other two groups are primarily for large businesses, though a few small companies are in the group.

Woytek said the ruling might affect a few orders in those groups that lack set-asides, but the small businesses in those groups are generally winning orders when they submit a reasonable bid.

“We have always encouraged contracting officers to provide a small-business preference, and now it will be more targeted if two of the small companies in the open groups can and want to provide a reasonable quote,” she said.

Whether the ruling opens an advantage for small businesses, it has left the contracting community in limbo. Ultimately, though, the rules are nothing new, and GAO has simply reinforced them, Driscoll said.

Read the story: Washington Technology - Ruling buttresses small businesses