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

Contract management

New and Improved CPARS. When?

The Office of Federal Procurement Policy recently conducted a survey with a host of agencies regarding contractor performance assessment ratings (CPARs) and if they are completed at all, they are not on time.  (Federal News Network, October 5, 2020)

Working with GovConRx, OFPP found 95 percent of respondents would actually like to take part in contractor self-assessments at agreed-upon intervals throughout the contract performance period. A majority of respondents (84 percent) support a “CPARs Lite” perspective for certain fixed price and commercial item contracts as well as CPARS ratings demonstrating specific objectives and contract outcomes. It appears many agencies are doing their “own thing” right now; for instance, OFPP and DHS have launched pilot programs using artificial intelligence to gather data and complete the ratings. VA also has its own program to review key performance indicators.(ibid)

What does all this mean? Changes to CPARs is necessary and on the horizon. Unfortunately, there is still no timeframe for how soon we will see them.

Questions about CPARs and how they might work to help you with future procurement efforts? Give us a call.

DoD and Software

The Department of Defense is updating its purchasing policies for software acquisition, moving toward an  Adaptive Acquisition Framework. (fedscoop, October 7, 2020)

DoD’s new software purchasing policy includes some big changes: its focus will be on updating software on an “as needed” basis instead of custom coding. In the old model DoD purchased software in the same manner as it bought tanks, which often took years. The new policy, titled 5000.87, allows contracting officers to have the tools they need to buy code while giving them the flexibility to focus on the development and maintenance of programs. (ibid)

According to a DoD spokesperson, “as more parts of the military use similar technology-development stacks, achieving Authorities to Operate (ATOs) will happen much faster.” The goal is to improve cycle time which should now be achieved with the new framework in place.

Are you looking to work with DoD to provide software or code and have questions about how to get started under the new purchasing policy? Give us a call.

 

Waivers for Banned Equipment

Although the purchase of Chinese produced telecommunications equipment is banned, the government is likely to see it in its supply chain for years to come. Since Section 889 law went into effect, contractors have requested waivers to keep their equipment in place and the Office of the Director of National Intelligence has issued them. Many waivers that expired last week (30 September) have been extended for an additional two years. (Federal News Network, October 2, 2020)

One such agency requesting an extension, the U.S. Agency for International Development, requested a waiver from 889 and has been given until the end of fiscal year 2022 to remove Chinese telecom equipment. The waiver states the following, “As of September 30, 2022, the Agency statutory waiver authority ends and the Agency will not enter into any contracts with contractors using covered technology. For contractors that wish to continue to do business with USAID, it is important to phase out the use of covered technology. Recipients should ensure they have alternate funding because costs for covered technology will become unallowable. In regard to assistance (grants/cooperative agreements), the Agency will be revising its policy to extend the period of the allowability of costs for internet and telephone services for new awards made during the duration of the waiver.” (USAID Telcom Waiver, September 30, 2020)

Would you like to know more about the upcoming contracts to trade out Chinese equipment? Give us a call.

Self-Assess No More

Cybersecurity for  Department of Defense (DoD) contractors is an ongoing issue. Now, DoD is issuing an interim rule to implement an Assessment Methodology and Cybersecurity Maturity Model Certification framework. This will assess contractor implementation of cybersecurity requirements and enhance the protection of unclassified information within the DoD supply chain. (Federal Register, DFARS Case 2019-D041 Action: Interim Rule)

The current self-attestation of NIST Special Publication (SP) 800-171 is not working due to a lack of DoD verification. Until the implementation of the interim rule, DoD did not have a mandate to verify contractor basic safeguarding or security requirements prior to contract award.  This regulation changes that. The interim rule adds a process for contractors to  implement cybersecurity requirements. This is to be accomplished while the DoD’s Cybersecurity Maturity Model Certification (CMMC) and the procedures with the Accreditation Body (AB) are solidified. (Meritalk, September 28, 2020)

Questions about how the new rule will affect your contract or upcoming bid and what you can expect? Give us a call.

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.