Federal Supply Class Review

What happens when the Defense Logistics Agency (DLA) and the General Services Administrations (GSA) get together to increase efficiencies and effectiveness of the national supply chain? You get the first Federal Supply Class (FSC) review in almost 50 years. (Defense Logistics Agency, October 9, 2019)

So why now, you ask? According to Alan Thomas, commissioner of GSA’s Federal Acquisition Service, it is to “optimize the movement of supplies to our nation’s troops and reduce duplication in the federal supply chain.”

FSC’s review involves all 600 FSCs, or about seven million items used by federal and military consumers and categorizes them by similarity. This review will reduce redundancies and improve purchasing efficiencies as well as customer readiness and responsiveness. Checks and balances will keep both organizations compliant with principles of their original agreement. (ibid)

The 1971 Supply Management Relationship Agreement between DLA and GSA gave DLA authority over supplies within assigned FSCs used by the military regardless of their use by civil agencies. GSA manages items used by federal agencies that are commercially available. Today GSA and DLA  maintain contracts with vendors delivering directly to customers. DLA forecasts demand and then supply chain representatives, vendors and DLA Distribution ensure on-time delivery worldwide.

DLA and GSA are working side by side to put together an automated tool that categorizes FSCs for analysis. The tool will produce summary-level data on all items to ultimately determine if a change in acquisition strategy might lead to improved efficiencies and effectiveness for the government, taxpayers, and customers. Both DLA and GSA must be in agreement to transfer logistics management of any items.

“Regardless of item transfer decisions, the process and tools we’ve developed in conducting this review provide an archive of information that supports FSC management determinations beyond the simple criteria identified in the 1971 agreement,” Jay Schaeufele, GSA account manager for DLA Logistics Operation’s Whole of Government Division, said. “This information is important as we navigate government and acquisition reform initiatives and evaluate potential economic efficiencies without losing vision of DLA’a first priority to warfighter readiness. (ibid)

Jeff Thurston, director of GSA’s Office of Supply Chain Management, said: “GSA’s new business model challenges us to identify new ways to serve environments where stocking product was previously the go-to solution.” (ibid)

The Commercial Platforms Program will update how commercial products are bought by federal agencies via partnerships with commercial e-platform providers. Government agencies will access commercial platforms as part of a whole-of-government approach. This approach will give agencies visibility into online spending, thus reducing supply-chain risk while providing more time for focusing on mission-oriented acquisition.

According to Laura Stanton, deputy assistant commissioner for Category Management in GSA’s Office of Information Technology Category, “this three-year proof of concept will offer federal buyers easy access to e-marketplace providers and commercial products. Additionally, agencies will have better visibility and insight on purchasing patterns to bring one-off spending under management. The Commercial Platform’s proof of concept offers a way for agencies to access commercial platforms as part of a whole-of-government approach, strengthening GSA’s commitment to maximize the government’s buying power through economies of scale.” (ibid)

GSA and DLA are consolidating purchasing, tracking, and spending analysis while taking advantage of government-wide and best-in-class acquisition vehicles. In addition, they are working together to communicate supply chain issues such as cybersecurity, fraud, and counterfeit parts while working with the military to determine optimal shipping routing.

Will this translate into possible changes to your current contract or bid? We’re available to discuss.

CMMC RFI

The Department of Defense (DoD) has issued a request for information for the “long-term implementation, functioning, sustainment, and growth” of the Cybersecurity Maturity Model Certification (CMMC). (FedBizOps.gov, October 3, 2019)

Last month, DoD issued version 0.4 of the CMMC. Contractors may now see the cybersecurity standards required when working on projects with controlled but unclassified information. CMMC will assist DoD to secure more than 300,000 organizations. (Fed Scoop, October 4, 2019)

The accreditation body does not directly perform the assessments but manages third-party organizations that do. It is  a nonprofit that utilizes “revenues generated through dues, fees, partner relationships, conferences, etc.” to fund the work.  The deadline to submit feedback is October 21, 2019. (FedBizOps.gov ibid)

We’d be glad to discuss this RFI with you. Just give us a call.

Line Item: Cybersecurity

We knew it would eventually happen. DoD is finally looking to permit cybersecurity costs as “allowable” on certain types of government contracts. (Federal News Network, June 2019)

Katie Arrington, the special assistant to the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Acquisition for Cyber in the Office of the Under Secretary of Acquisition and Sustainment in DoD, recently spoke at the Professional Services Council (PSC) gathering in Virginia. Ms. Arrington is the lead for the DoD effort to develop and institutionalize the new Cybersecurity Maturity Model Certification (CMMC) standard for vendors. She told attendees that she wants to enact a legitimate standard for cybersecurity allowable costs. (ibid)

During a recent webinar, Arrington spoke about cyber attacks and the need for the defense industrial base to defend themselves against nation-state attacks. DoD is aiming at not just it’s 200,000 prime contractors but all vendors (approximately 300,000) that comprise the DoD supply chain. (ibid)

Arrington is working with the Johns Hopkins University Applied Physics Lab and Carnegie Mellon University’s Software Engineering Institute to generate initial requirements. The draft will require DoD vendors to be certified through third-party assessment organizations. The standard incorporates existing requirements from NIST, the Federal Risk Authorization Management Program (FedRAMP), and other models.  (ibid)

Arrington expects DoD to carry out 12 webinars across the country over the summer. She aims to receive feedback from industry experts with a draft standard by the end of summer and third-party assessors to start certifying vendors in January. (CMMC requirements will be added to requests for information by June of 2020 and become a standard in solicitations by September 2020.) (ibid)

According to Alan Chvotkin, senior vice president and general counsel for PSC, the certification of contractors will be a very competitive discriminator in the marketplace. His main concern is whether DoD will only certify the big six contractors and what is going to take place for the prime and a subcontractor. (ibid)

Congress recognizes that risks to the supply chain need to be reduced. The Senate version of the 2020 National Defense Authorization Act, includes a provision requiring DoD to move to a broader cybersecurity standard with its contractors. Currently, DoD mandates defense contractors meet the requirements of NIST Special Publication 800-171; however, there is no current audit for compliance. Oversight of subcontractors by prime contractors is also a reasonable concern as is the lack of information available on subcontractors. The committee feels prime contractors should be held responsible and accountable for securing DoD technology and sensitive information and ultimately delivering uncompromised products and capabilities. This is seen as a first step in securing the supply chain. (ibid)

The Senate Armed Services Committee (SASC) believes DoD should provide direct technical assistance to contractors, based on risk, and in such a way as to not harm the industrial base while at the same time providing incentives/penalties for non-compliance of vendors’ cyber performance. DoD is being asked to provide the SASC with a briefing by March of 2020 and quarterly briefings on how the standard is being implemented by both vendors and the DoD. (ibid)

Although security has always been an allowable overhead cost, it will now be used as an incentive to get vendors to more quickly align themselves to the CMMC standard. The incentive doesn’t force companies to trade off security for other expenses. It appears the government will offer some reimbursement for some share of the cost, hopefully bringing all vendors up to the same level. (Firm-fixed-price contracts do not fall under the allowable cost umbrella in the same manner, as cyber is counted as general overhead in the final cost to the government.) (ibid)

Eager to learn a little more about the cyber standard and how it might affect your current contract or an upcoming bid? Give us a call at 301-913-5000.