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

Contract management

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.

Government Contracting Automation?

Recent survey results of federal acquisition senior procurement executives and chief acquisition officers provide a window into the world of government procurement and what should occur over the next few years, according to Kraig Conrad CEO of the National Contract Management Association (NCMA), who conducted the survey. (Federal News Network, January 7, 2020)

According to NCMA, the three major findings from the survey are:

  • The role of the contracting officer is changing
  • The business of contracting is changing.
  • The workforce is changing.

The survey found that respondents are looking to shorten the procurement cycle while giving the Contracting Officer the ability to be less restricted and able to focus on providing solutions as opposed to getting mired in the routine administrative tasks. According to Conrad, the acquisition professional should see their role as a solution maker and not a compliance “police” officer, which ultimately limits the Contracting Officer’s impact. (ibid)

One element that threads itself through all of the findings is the need for top cover from agency executives to allow contracting officers as well as program managers the leeway and freedom to try different things and bring new ideas to the table. Conrad gives the example of the Air Force pitch days, in which 51 contracts were awarded to companies that have little or no experience with the military. The service doled out $3.5 million to those small businesses on a Wednesday — each in 15 minutes or less. The first installments of the companies’ contracts were in their bank accounts almost immediately. (ibid)

Conrad noted, “we heard from a lot of our senior procurement executives that in an environment where they feel they have top cover, the risk aversion conversation is easier to overcome. Otherwise, you will go right back to the same old model where everyone is trying to protect themselves. That top cover really only comes when someone in a leadership structure is not afraid to get in trouble. You run into situations where the senior leadership doesn’t feel they are covered or protected. It will take leaders stepping out and leaning over these challenges to be able to open challenges for their workforce.” (ibid)

Another area of impact on federal acquisition is technology. The survey white paper states “Several senior leaders even described a future in which an encyclopedic knowledge of the rules and regulations will be devalued as artificial intelligence further automates their application to acquisitions or incorporates regulatory provisions and requirements into contracting app algorithms.” (ibid)

According to Conrad, “we need to get better at how we train into the workforce. Those that have data science understanding need to tell a really good story with data. How are the contracting officers the solution makers? That really comes down to competency. What is those balance of skills that will allow someone to be competent as a business leader in this function? That is one of the areas, because of technology advances, that the technical components will soon be outweighed by the software skill needs.” Conrad feels the “softer skills” include a baseline knowledge of the actual problem/mission, products, and their related markets. (ibid)

Most senior leaders interviewed expect a shift from tactical to strategic work as technology is used for repetitive or routine tasks. It’s expected that many administrative tasks, for example, contract modifications, will become fully automated. Some senior leaders look to AI to further automate regulatory provisions and requirements into contracting app algorithms. (ibid)

Conrad expects to meet with federal acquisition leaders to discuss the survey results and begin the process of changing the role of the contracting officer.

Wondering if this will affect how you work with a Contracting Officer? Give us a call.

 

You Are an Unique Entity!

You’ve heard (ad nauseum, probably) about replacing your DUNS number with the unique entity identifier (UEI) by  December 2020. Contractors will request and be assigned the new identifiers through SAM.gov. (To learn more about the transition, click here.) (GSA Interact, December 10, 2019)

Contractor award data, including UEI data, interfaces with many systems outside of the government interface. To assist contractors as well as other agencies, GSA published a first and second set of UEI/EVS specifications. For instance, Group 1 includes:

  • beta.SAM Entity Management. APE has updated schemas for a second version of the API. The second version allows  systems to pull information automatically. Differences between versions are marked as v1 (current version) or v2 (future version). Specs may be found here.
  • New EVS and UEI changes will not be updated to SAM Entity Management Web Services. Users of this web service should migrate to beta.SAM Entity Management API to retrieve UEI and new EVS information. 
  • The SAM public RESTful API will not be updated to incorporate UEI or new EVS changes. Users of RESTful API should migrate to beta.SAM Entity Management API to retrieve new EVS and UEI information.

Group 2 includes:

  • The beta.SAM Exclusions. API has updated schemas for version 2, which allows interfacing systems to pull information about the exclusions automatically.  Differences between the versions are marked as v1 for the current version and v2 for the future version. Specs may be found here.
  • The SAM Exclusions Search Web Services will not be updated to incorporate UEI or new EVS changes. Users of this web service should move to the beta.SAM Exclusions API in order to retrieve UEI and new EVS information concerning exclusions via interface.

The public will continue to receive UEI/EVS specifications as they are updated. IAE will release its testing plan by 30 December 2019. Additionally, IAE will complete the issuance of updated technical specifications interfacing systems. Contractors should start developing plans to allow for the interface changes and begin development for testing with IAE. (ibid)

Users with questions specific to interface testing should contact newsamtesting@gsa.gov. Users with questions specific to the SAM-generated UEI or entity validation services should contact entityvalidation@gsa.gov. (ibid)

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.