Skip to content Skip to left sidebar Skip to right sidebar Skip to footer

Contract Awards

Wanna Connect a Hybrid Cloud?

The Department of Defense (DoD) wants a hybrid cloud environment to serve as the cornerstone for department-wide use of artificial intelligence. The Joint Artificial Intelligence Center (JAIC) issued two sources sought notices from all business that can provide system engineering and integration “to support the procurement, implementation, and operation of a hybrid and multi-cloud deployable development and production platform for Artificial Intelligence and Machine Learning (AI/ML) solutions.” (Fedscoop, November 25, 2019)

This hybrid cloud environment will form the basis of the Joint Common Foundation (JCF), a DoD/Government  AI/ML development platform, containing Data, Tools, and Processes. JCF will include shared data, reusable tools, frameworks, and standards. Additionally, it will include cloud and edge services to develop, secure, test and evaluate, deliver, and sustain capabilities. “The JCF will incorporate the architecture and software artifacts of the Enterprise Development, Security and Operations (DevSecOps) initiative and evolve toward enabling the DoD Artificial Intelligence Strategy.” (ibid)

Proposed vendors answer specific questions about past experience integrating multiple cloud providers at scale with continuous development and integration while meeting security compliance standards. A solicitation conference will be held in early 2020, followed by a request for quotation, and award by the end of September 2020.

The award of JCF will move swiftly. Give us a call if we can answer any questions or assist with your proposal efforts.

Network Security Big and Small

As many companies have discovered, the Pentagon has increased network security requirements. Small companies are having a tough time with the new rules, as expected, but it appears larger companies are having issues as well. (Government Executive, December 3, 2019)

Some big companies are providing too much data to small subcontractors, which in turn leaves them at risk to foreign hackers. Foreign hackers look at fifth or sixth tier subs to find information — where the biggest “holes” are. (ibid)

In 2016, hackers stole sensitive data on the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter. This is just one of the many cases that prompted the Pentagon to issue new rules for handling sensitive information. By January 1, 2018, all companies doing business with the Pentagon were required to have a plan in place to meet the new standards. (ibid)

In the past, companies needed to only self-certify that they had a plan in place. Unfortunately, no one checked the plans, hence the hacking ensued.

Multi-factor authentication and FIPS-validated encryption seem to be two areas where companies are having a great deal of trouble. Without these working properly, it is much easier for unauthorized access into secure systems.

The Pentagon warned contractors that they will lose business if they and their subcontractors do not meet the updated rules. However, full compliance does not make a company safe from hackers. Individual companies must have an unobstructed view into their own networks as well as ongoing, updated security measures from their subcontractors in order to stay ahead of hackers.

Wondering if you are meeting the Pentagon’s new security rules? We can help you figure it out, give us a call.

Shared Service QSMOs

The big takeaway from last week’s Association of Government Accountants’ 2019 shared services summit: it will take a few years to standardize shared services, especially for grants management. (FedScoop, November 14, 2019)

In April, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) chose four agencies as Quality Service Management Offices (QSMOs):

  • GSA – to oversee a human resources marketplace
  • Department of Treasury – for financial services
  • Department of Health and Human Services – for grants management
  • Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency – for cybersecurity (FedScoop, April 26, 2019)

QSMOs have started hiring and transitioning from the old payroll system to Software-as-a-Service. This NewPay Initiative tops the list in moving to shared services. GSA awarded a blanket purchase agreement for NewPay in September 2018 to reduce risks and costs and followed up with multi-million dollar task orders. (ibid)

According to Earl Pinto, deputy associate administrator of the Office of Shared Solutions and Performance Improvement within GSA, “these are not short term projects, and I would say that’s probably the biggest challenge because we know we’ve got a process. Standards first … and that has taken, for several mission-support functions, well over a year to get to standards – some over two years.” (ibid)

Some agencies, such as the Interior Business Center are not clear as to whether they will lean towards NewPay or work through current providers, GSA, or a separate appropriation. (ibid)

Some unknown pieces remain. Will agencies always pay for the services delivered or will it be streamlined in some manner? It may be quite some time before we know for sure.

Questions on QSMOs? Call us and we can explain it.

Strike Force vs. Collusion

The Justice Department has created a new interagency partnership to battle procurement and antitrust crimes, the Procurement Collusion Strike Force (PCSF). The PCSF is comprised of the Antitrust Division of the U.S. Department of Justice, multiple U.S. Attorneys’ Offices around the country, the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), and the Inspectors General for multiple Federal agencies. (Justice.gov)

The PCSF will “deter, detect, investigate and prosecute antitrust crimes and related criminal schemes,” according to Assistant Attorney General Makan Delrahim. He feels many open investigations are related to procurement crimes. Last year alone, the federal government spent almost $500 billion on contracts for goods and services. The overcharge stemming from illegal actions can be significant not only to the government but to all taxpayers as well.  (Government Executive, November 5, 2019)

Bid-rigging is alive and real. According to the Justice Department, earlier this year five Korean oil companies were prosecuted for bid-rigging contracts to provide fuel to U.S. military bases. The PCSF uses data analytics to identify occurrences of procurement collusion. The website has a complaint form, training materials, and legal resources for anyone who believes they have witnessed suspicious activity. (ibid)

Questions about the new interagency partnership? Give us a call.

BAA TAA SBA Huh?

It appears the Buy American Act (BAA) and the Trade Agreements Act (TAA) may, under certain instances, actually reduce the federal market accessibility for US manufacturers. (Federal News Network, October 28, 2019)

In order to be considered for a small-business set-aside, end-items must be manufactured in the U.S. Or the company can qualify as a non-manufacturer (13 CFR 121.406) if:

  • The company is principally engaged in the retail or wholesale  of the product and normally sells the type of product being supplied
  • The company takes ownership of the item with its personnel, equipment or facilities consistent with industry practice and
  • The company supplies the end item of a small business manufacturer, processor or producer made in the U.S. or obtains a waiver of the requirement. (ibid)

Non-manufacturers may receive an individual waiver if the Small Business Administration (SBA) accepts the contracting officer’s determination that no small business manufacturer “reasonably can be expected to offer a product meeting the solicitation specifications.” Additionally, the SBA Administrator may provide a class waiver if she determines that no small business manufacturer “product or class of products is available to participate in the Federal procurement market.”

Of course, TAA restricts product acquisition to manufacturers in the U.S. and certain “designated countries,” (those companies that have a Free Trade Agreement with the U.S. or participate in the World Trade Organization Government Procurement Agreement (WTO GPA)). Therefore, products from non-signatory countries such as China are ineligible for award.  Per FAR 25.101(a), BAA restricts the purchase of non-domestic end-products as well. Some exceptions provide more access to foreign end-products than under the TAA; for instance, BAA makes exceptions where the domestic offer is not the low offer (FAR 25.103) as well as in certain instances of public interest for non-availability in the U.S., and at an unreasonable cost. (ibid)

TAA does not apply to small business set-asides, FAR 25.401, leaving the BAA in place. The waiver of the non-manufacturer rule for a set-aside gives a somewhat illogical result. This makes the TAA inapplicable to set-asides, and the BAA applicable to set-asides where the non-manufacturer rule has been waived. This might result in the Government purchasing an item, such as a medical/surgical product, manufactured in a non-designated country that has subsidized its price to assure the product’s selection. Therefore, the intended law restricting non-domestic products actually facilitates more access to those products. This includes products of manufacturers from non-designated countries, rather than providing controlled access over non-domestic end-products. (ibid)

Ultimately, this could harm small and non-small manufacturers producing domestically. This may also open up small business set-asides to products made in China that would otherwise be ineligible for purchase if the TAA applied. A good deal more statutory guidance and analysis are warranted. (ibid)

Do you have questions about your compliance obligations under an upcoming proposal or current contract? Give us a call.