Just the Facts FAS, Please

Earlier this week, a GSA watchdog discovered erroneous reporting of small business contracts by the Federal Acquisition Service (FAS). (Government Executive September 17, 2020)

The General Service Administration (GSA) inspector general (IG) recently provided a report that focused on the data entered into the Federal Procurement Data System – Next Generation, which is managed by GSA. The Small Business Administration (SBA) uses the system data provided to determine if the federal government is achieving its annual goal of awarding 23 percent of contracts to small businesses. An IG review of FAS procurements from fiscal 2016 and 2017 and shows that small business procurements have been grossly overstated.

“We found that FAS’s reporting of small business procurements contained significant inaccuracies. We identified $89 million in procurements erroneously recorded as small business in the Federal Procurement Data System – Next Generation. Additionally, FAS’ small business procurement reporting does not identify the extent of the work performed by large businesses. We found approximately $120 million of small business procurements in which large businesses performed a portion of the work.” (ibid)

After interviewing small business contractors and GSA officials as well as analyzing agency contracting data, the IG determined many of the issues to be out of GSA’s control. For instance, the IG found that classification codes  often “pre-populate” for task orders; due to the nature of the software, officers cannot override the system to update the task order codes. In addition, no mandate exists for FAS or small businesses to report how much of the work completed on a contract is subcontracted to large businesses. This leads to inaccuracies when assessing FAS’s small business procurements. Many believe the inaccuracies will never be fully fixed due to the competing policy issues and marketplace anomalies. (ibid)

The IG recommended the following:

  • Fix the limitations of the contracting system to enable accurate reporting
  • SBA and the commissioner discuss how subcontracting and reseller agreements are reported

How does this affect your contract or an upcoming proposal? Give us a call.

Leftover BPAs

If you have a Blanket Purchase Agreement (BPA), you may have just been given a bit of a reprieve regarding the merge into the General Services Administrations’ (GSA) consolidated Multiple Award Schedule. (Federal Computer Week, August 31, 2020)

According to GSA Administrator Emily Murphy, GSA is allowing a few BPAs to work through their lifecycles as opposed to forcing them into the consolidated Multiple Award Schedule. Murphy feels it could take up to five years to move completely over to the consolidated schedule but counts on it being much sooner.

As of the end of July GSA moved to Phase 3 of the MAS consolidation. Nearly 100 percent of vendors have updated their contracts and terms and conditions for the new solicitation. Murphy said, “We’ve got 99 percent of them onboard,” and will “work with [the remaining ones] on the best way to transition.” (ibid)

Wondering about your long-standing BPA? Give us a call.

One and Done!

Earlier this week, Phase 3 of the Multiple Award Schedule (MAS) Consolidation began. Each contractor with one or more contracts now has its offerings under one contract or unique entity identifier (UEI) number. (GSA Interact, August 3, 2020)

GSA designed Phase 3 to make sure contract numbers remain the same Blanket Purchase Agreements (BPAs) remain in effect. Contractors affected by Phase 3 received emails from the MAS Program Management Office (PMO) with guidance on consolidating their contracts. All contractors should review the contractor checklist & planning spreadsheet for outlining the elements of their contracts as well as planning for consolidation. (ibid)

Also as of this week, contractors that haven’t signed the Mass Mod are no longer visible on GSA eTools. Contracts are not canceled, but contractor information is hidden from view until the Mass Mod is signed. Additionally, all 24 legacy Schedules are no longer visible in eLibrary, eBuy, or on GSA.gov. (All eBuy changes may be viewed on this resource.) (ibid)

If you are a contractor with multiple contracts, consider joining one of the two training opportunities below:

Monday, August 10th (11:00 AM – 12:00 PM ET): Register here. (please select NON-GSA User if from industry)

Wednesday, August 26th (2:00 PM – 3:00 PM ET): Register here. (please select NON-GSA User if from industry)

Training is recorded for those unable to attend the live training. Information will be provided on the MAS Interact page. (GSA Interact, August 3, 2020)

Through the Multiple Award Schedule, GSA has generated long-term government contracts with the commercial sector that provide nearly 10 million supplies and services for government agencies. To that end, the government spends upwards of $30 billion through the GSA schedule. It is crucial if you have a GSA schedule contract that you sign on for the mass modification immediately. (Nextgov,August 3, 2020)

Questions about the MAS consolidation or your current GSA schedule contract? Give us a call.

GSA Pricing Tools, Untooling

A GSA internal watchdog has found the two comparative labor pricing tools contain flawed data and recommends GSA stop using the pricing tools. GSA however, plans to keep the current pricing tools in place for now. (FCS, January 2, 2020)

This report shows the use of discrepant data in flawed equations, thus arriving at unreliable pricing data. GSA’s Inspector General (IG) said, “the data and calculations are so flawed, they’re dulling the federal government’s buying power edge, as well as possibly resulting in the overpayment on contracts.” (ibid)

Julie Dunne, FAS Acting Commissioner, agrees with the IG that the two tools, Contract-Awarded Labor Category tool (CALC)  and Contract Operations Division Contractors Database (CODCD) used for labor pricing, are not the optimal. She also agrees about a need for pricing comparison capabilities; however, she refrains from wanting to scrap these tools in lieu of something else that might bring even greater inaccuracies. 

Dunne went on to say that without the current tools, labor pricing would be determined by individual searches via the internet resulting in more inaccuracies. She acknowledged that decisions on comparison pricing for labor have always been the judgment of FAS contracting officers. “Disallowing access to aggregated information about previously-awarded MAS contracts does not further our goal of improving pricing. Quality price analyses are the result of training, expertise and appropriate controls. FAS believes our continued focus in these areas will improve how comparative data is used in our MAS award documentation.” (ibid)

Have questions concerning your current labor pricing? Give us a call.