Showing posts with label Department of Defense Inspector General. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Department of Defense Inspector General. Show all posts

Thursday, May 7, 2009

IG finds conflict in the acquisition regulation

The Federal Acquisition Regulation may have conflicting language, Defense Department auditors said in a report.

The FAR requires that small businesses get an advantage over other companies if a contracting officer can find two responsible small companies that can offer reasonable bids. That is known as the Rule of Two, and last year the Government Accountability Office ruled that it applies to task and delivery orders.

Meanwhile, another section of the FAR states: “The contracting officer must provide each awardee a fair opportunity to be considered for each order exceeding $3,000 issued under multiple delivery-order contracts or multiple task-order contracts.”

In a report released May 6, DOD's inspector general’s office found the conflict as it audited the Navy’s SeaPort Enhanced (SeaPort-e) indefinite-delivery/indefinite-quantity contracts.

The IG’s auditors said the SeaPort-e program manager failed to adequately compete 39 of 133 audited task orders when the manager allowed small business set-asides. The 39 orders were worth $469.3 million. The program manager deviated from the FAR by not ensuring contracting officers performed adequate market research on the small business set-aside task order contracts. As a result, Navy officials may not always receive the best value for the SeaPort-e customer, the IG said.

However, the manager argued that the Small Business Administration supported the set-asides and large contractors signed agreements that included language on the set-asides. Nevertheless, the IG wrote, “Neither the SeaPort-e program manager nor the Small Business Administration has the authority to override” the fair opportunity provision of the FAR or the statute on which it's based.

The Defense Acquisition Regulations Council and the Federal Acquisition Regulations Council should determine if the FAR needs more specificity on what’s allowed when setting aside a task order for small businesses, the IG wrote. Navy Department officials intend to bring up the conflict to regulators for a clarification, the report states.

In the IG’s discussions with GAO's General Counsel Office, GAO said its October 2008 decision on the Rule of Two has caused confusion on the topic of small-business set-asides and full competition. GAO officials said legislative action will likely be necessary to clarify the intent of the Rule of Two, according to the IG’s report.

The Rule of Two is in FAR Part 19. The fair opportunity provision is in FAR Part 16.

Read the story: FCW.com News - IG finds conflict in the acquisition regulation

Monday, January 12, 2009

IG: Job competition saps staff

DOD auditor’s report sends clear signal on what the acquisition workforce needs

A team of Defense Department auditors, through a series of surveys at military bases, has determined several foundational acquisition workforce issues that experts say must be priorities for President-elect Barack Obama’s administration.

Officials told auditors from the DOD Inspector General’s Office that competitive sourcing — a process intended to improve efficiency by having federal employees contend with private sector firms for work — saps their employees’ attention from their jobs and leaves offices with insufficient contracting support.

Because competition pulls employees from their regular duties to rigorously gather and analyze data, managers are reluctant to take part in the process. Advocates of competitive sourcing argue that government organizations usually win the competitions and become more efficient in the process.

When the private sector wins, agencies usually lose their experienced workers, according to the IG report released Jan. 5.

More importantly, an Army Contracting Agency official told auditors that the agency faces constant turnover of contracting officers during competitions. Agency leaders worry about getting and keeping competent contracting officers — especially as purchases become more complex — but the practice intended to compel efficiency can drive away talented ones.

OMB’s influence

The IG auditors conducted the review at the request of members of Congress who want to ensure that the Office of Management and Budget has not been influencing DOD’s decisions on whether to conduct a public/private competition. The competitions are possible only for jobs that are not inherently governmental function, which only federal employees can do.

Military officers and the officials in charge of overseeing the competitions told the auditors they felt no pressure from OMB, according to the DOD IG report titled “Office of Management and Budget Influence Over DOD Public-Private Competitions.” The fiscal 2008 National Defense Authorization Act required the report.

The auditors concluded that early in 2008, the Office of the Secretary of Defense (OSD) had put pressure on the Army to conduct the competitions, but the pressure waned by the end of the year. Meanwhile, officials at the Army Materiel Command and Army Installation Management Command said the chain of command pushed them more than OSD or OMB did, according to the report. The two major commands announced their competitions because of pressure to reach a goal that the Army already set.

Wayne Arny, deputy undersecretary of Defense for installations and environment, told the auditors that DOD independently determines its competitive sourcing program.

During the normal program and budget review process, the service branches create plans for public/private competitions.

The defense agencies are expected to carry out those plans, he said.



Arny added that competitive sourcing is an important management tool, and he encourages agencies to continue to use it as much as possible.

“Competitive sourcing consistently results in greater government efficiency and cost-savings to the taxpayer,” he wrote in a March 2008 memo. DOD saved more than $7 billion from competitions completed between fiscal 2000 and 2007, Arny said. The number could top $10 billion after the competitions started in 2008 are finished, he wrote.

A controversial initiative

Competitive sourcing is the second initiative on the Bush administration’s President’s Management Agenda. Administration officials believe the competitions decrease costs and trim a department’s operations.

Setting up the competitions can determine if it’s better to keep the work with federal employees or outsource it to contractors, officials say.

In the last Executive Branch Management Scorecard issued by OMB, released last week, only the Smithsonian Institution improved. Twenty-two of the 24 graded agencies received the top score or an average grade. The Energy Department and National Science Foundation again earned the lowest rating.

The sourcing initiative has never had widespread support: Congress steadily imposes limits on it. Army and Air Force officials said the congressional restrictions on competitive sourcing change every year, making it difficult to keep up with the laws and regulations while in the process of hosting the competition, according to the IG’s report.

Numerous laws have restricted the use of competitive sourcing, effectively stopping the practice. The fiscal 2008 National Defense Authorization Act restricted OMB and the defense secretary from influencing DOD regarding competitive sourcing, and it also required the IG review.

The competitive sourcing initiative is now called commercial services management and includes business process re-engineering along with the competitions.

Some experts have questioned whether the initiative would survive during the Obama administration, but the president-elect is looking for areas where he can cut costs and save money.

“Change and reform can’t just be election-year slogans,” Obama said. “They must become fundamental principles of government.”

Challenges for Obama

Competitive sourcing is only one issue that awaits Obama’s pick for the administrator of the Office of Federal Procurement Policy, experts say.

“The need for an acquisition workforce that can navigate the government’s contracting process, translate it for government buyers and private-sector contractors, and ensure the taxpayers get what they pay for has never been greater,” said Diane Denholm, a principal at Grant Thornton.

She recommended that the new administrator work with agencies to find ways to fill gaps with available resources. The administrator also should work with chief acquisition officers to learn what skills employees need, then maintain those skills with regular training.

A survey conducted by the Professional Services Council and Grant Thornton, which was released in December, showed the acquisition workforce’s continued concerns about recruiting, training and retaining the right people.

Stan Soloway, the council’s president, said the survey provided no surprises or raised new issues but showed lingering concerns that need a resolution.

The council and Grant Thornton said the Obama administration should view its procurement policy initiatives through the lens of strategic human capital planning.

“The future workforce needs to have the capability to provide innovative risk-based approaches to assist the agencies [as they] acquire products and services in a way that maximizes performance and minimizes costs,” said Denholm, who was involved in analyzing the survey’s results.

The need for a larger, better trained workforce is obvious, said Trey Hodgkins, vice president of federal government programs for the Information Technology Association of America.

“It’s a broader set of skills that we need to attract and retain,” he said. However, the broken hiring system is a major hindrance to bringing people in.

The system is another challenge awaiting the OFPP administrator, who will have to work with other agency officials to solve that problem.

A simple request

Many people in government acquisition consider success to be hiring the right people and training them well. Denholm said the survey respondents described success in terms of day-to-day operations rather than the rare award of a major contract.

According to many respondents, the workforce might be unprepared for the changing environment.

Acquisition is becoming more complex, and the volume of procurements has put new demands on contracting officers. Several interviewees stressed the need for better training in areas of business, analytical and management skills, the survey states.

“The current acquisition workforce doesn’t have sophisticated business judgment,” an oversight official said in the survey. “They are good at following the rules, but when the rules lead you to an illogical conclusion, you need judgment. Acquisition is more of an art than a science."

Read the story: FCW.com News - IG: Job competition saps staff

Tuesday, November 27, 2007

IG: DOD fails on competition

The Defense Department awarded numerous task orders without competition, and it failed to justify why officials went outside of the department for acquisition services, a new report found.

The DOD inspector general audited 98 task orders worth $33.2 million in commercial supplies purchased through the National Institutes of Health’s Electronic Commodities Store III governmentwide acquisition contract. Of those orders, 95 failed to afford all contractors a chance to bid. And on 31 of the orders, contracting officers did not document their reasons for the award, the report states.

“Competition was limited, and DOD did not have assurance it received the best value when procuring goods,” the IG concludes.

Read the rest of the story: FCW.com News - IG: DOD fails on competition

Thursday, November 8, 2007

GSA lashes back at DOD IG

A top General Services Administration official said today he was very disappointed by a report from the Defense Department’s inspector general condemning the Air Force for wasting money by using GSA’s assisted-acquisition services.

The report states that DOD wasted $607,000 when it turned to GSA for help in placing 91 orders on an Air Force task-order contract known as Network-Centric Solutions. Officials should have used DOD resources to handle the work and put the money to better use supporting the warfighters, the report states.

“Frankly I take great offense at that.... I don’t appreciate it, and I think they got it dead wrong,” said Jim Williams, commissioner of GSA’s Federal Acquisition Service.

Williams said the Air Force had three options in such a circumstance: It could have failed its mission by not doing the work; the service could have handled the work in-house despite its already overworked acquisition staff and still faced failure; or the Air Force could have gone to GSA for help.

Read the rest of the story: FCW.com News - GSA lashes back at DOD IG

Friday, November 2, 2007

IG: DOD wasted money by placing orders with GSA

The Defense Department wasted more than $600,000 when it turned to the General Services Administration for help in placing orders on an Air Force task-order contract, according to a new report from DOD’s inspector general.

The IG said the officials should have sought assistance from DOD’s procurement officers, not GSA, for the orders placed under the Network-Centric Solutions (NetCents) contract.

Read the rest of the story: FCW.com News - IG: DOD wasted money by placing orders with GSA

Friday, August 10, 2007

IG: ITES-2S restricts small biz

The Army tied too many contracts together to form a $20 billion contract without justifying it, restricting small businesses from competing for the contract, a new audit found.

The Defense Department’s Office of the Inspector General determined that the Army Contracting Agency coded its Information Technology Enterprise Solutions-2 Services (ITES-2S) contract too liberally. The Army should have selected an industry classification system code that better describes the principal nature of the services it wants to buy, the IG said. The miscoding led to a bundled contract unsuitable for small businesses, according to the Aug. 9 audit.

Read rest of the story: FCW.com News - IG: ITES-2S restricts small biz