Although there will be no “test” on the homework assignment, there will be plenty of opportunities to engage in a positive dialogue regarding GSA’s new mission statement and priorities.  What does it mean for GSA’s government-wide procurement programs and its contractors?  Are there processes that can be improved to deliver greater efficiency and effectiveness for customers and contractors? What commercial best practices for procurement can contractors share with GSA?  These questions and more will be discussed during the Business Roundtable session entitled “Myth-Busters Discussion Exercise.”

The “Myth-Busters Discussion Exercise” will bring the speakers, panelists and attendees together for group discussions which the Coalition hopes will identify “Great Ideas” for improving GSA’s procurement programs and contracting vehicles.  In addition to the “Myth-Busters Discussion Exercise,” the afternoon portion of the Business Roundtable will consist of breakout sessions.  These breakout sessions will provide an opportunity for focused dialogues on four key GSA program areas/initiatives: (1) Leveraging Government Requirements Through Strategic Acquisition; (2) Acquisition of Services; (3) Cost Saving Strategies for the Federal Workplace: PBS and IWAC Initiatives; and (4) The IT Portfolio. More information on the agenda and the breakout sessions can be found here.

The Coalition and its membership look forward to an engaging Myth-Busters dialogue that focuses on GSA’s mission, priorities and business opportunities.  See you next week!

Roger Waldron

President

Guest blogger Jack Horan, Partner, McKenna Long & Aldridge LLP

Many factors go into a decision of whether to protest after a contractor finds out it was not successful in winning an order or contract:

• Did the agency make a mistake?
• How strong is my evidence?
• Did the mistake affect the award decision?
• How much will a protest cost?
• Will a protest affect my relationship with the agency?
• If I win the protest, what remedy will the General Accountability Office (“GAO”) recommend?

For a contractor to make a reasoned decision on whether to protest, including a schedule contractor competing for commercial items sales, the contractor has to have some measure on the likelihood of success of a protest.  Recent data and analysis provides valuable context on GAO protest decisions that will assist contractors in making this important decision.  An annual report by the GAO, GAO Bid Protest Overview, GAO-13-404SP, Feb 20, 2013, authored by Ralph White, Managing Associate General Counsel, provides useful information on the results of bid protests over the past five years.  An article written by Professor Dan Gordon, Associate Dean for Government Procurement Law Studies at The George Washington University Law School, digs a little deeper into GAO’s statistics, and looks at the number of protestors that actually win the contract after protesting.

According to GAO’s Bid Protest Overview, GAO closed 2,495 bid protest cases in 2012, issuing a decision in 570 cases, or approximately 23% of the closed cases.  Of those cases that go to a decision, GAO sustained 106 protests, or approximately 18.6% of the 570 decisions.  “Sustained” means the GAO agreed with the protestor that the government had made a material error in the procurement, and GAO recommended that the government take action to address its error.

GAO also calculated the success rate of protests, defined by GAO as when the protestor obtains “some form of relief from the agency, as reported to GAO, either as a result of voluntary agency corrective action or our Office sustaining the protest.”  By this measure, protestors achieved success in 42% of the closed protests for that year.  The 2012 success rate was representative of previous years, which ranged from 42% to 45% from 2008 to 2011.  In short, protestors have done fairly well over the past five years according to the GAO’s view of success, achieving either a sustained protest or voluntary corrective action in at least 42% of the cases.

In his article, Bid Protests: The Costs Are Real, But the Benefits Outweigh Them, which will appear in the Spring 2013 issue of the Public Contract Law Journal, Professor Gordon digs a little deeper into GAO’s statistics, analyzing, among other issues, the percentage of protestors that received award of the contested contract after the protest.  Reviewing the protests in 2010 that were sustained, Professor Gordon was able to determine the final results in 40 cases:

• nine contracts awarded to the protester;
• 18 contracts awarded to an offeror other than the protester;
  • one case where the GAO granted the specific relief (other than contract award) requested by protestor;
  • three procurements cancelled; and
  • nine cases where the agency did not take corrective action.

Thus, of 27 cases that ended in the award of a contract, the protestor received the contract in nine cases, or one-third of the awards.  In another case, the GAO recommended, and the government provided, the relief the protestor requested.  Thus, in 25% of the 40 known results, the protestor received the final result it sought – nine contract awards and a tenth case where the protestor received the relief it sought.  In addition, using a broader definition of “success,” protestors received award of the contract in nine of the 31 cases where the government took corrective action of some type (or 29% of the cases).

Professor Gordon did not attempt to extrapolate his findings based on known cases to the bulk of protests where results were not known.  Others have attempted an extrapolation, at least one unsuccessfully and reaching inaccurate results.  See Miller, Protests rarely result in U.S. contract reversals,study shows, Washington Post, March 11, 2013, available at http://goo.gl/iSb2o (concluding that less than one percent of protests filed in 2010 resulted in award to the contractor).  A reasonable extrapolation of Professor Gordon’s analysis demonstrates that protestors have been successful even by Professor Gordon’s measure.  See Papson, Carey and Meier, FEATURE COMMENT: The Odds Of Winning A Contract After Protesting Are Higher Than You Think, The Government Contractor, Vol 55, No. 16 (April 24, 2013).  Applying the 29% success rate of award after corrective action from Professor Gordon’s data to the total number of protests in 2010, protestors won award of the contract after 12.2% of the total protests filed in 2010 (extrapolated).  In light of such factors as the strength of the protest, the level of competition for the final award, and that the government deemed another offer to be the winner in the first instance, a success rate of approximately one in eight seems reasonable.

So, what is the takeaway from all of these numbers.  By any measure, protests are successful.  If the measure of success is ensuring that all offerors had a fair chance of award (my personal view), GAO statistics demonstrate that protests resulted in corrective action – specifically intended to make sure the rules of the procurement are fair and legal – at least 42% of the time in the last five years.  By Professor Gordon’s more narrow measure – whether the protest resulted in the protestor obtaining the contract – more than 12% of protestors achieved success in 2010.  Keep in mind that both of these results are based on all of the protests filed during the respective periods – some terrible, some very strong.  With experience, or the assistance of an experienced protest lawyer, these numbers provide a useful benchmark for analyzing the likelihood of success of a specific protest evaluated on the merits.

• Delivering Better Value and Savings
• Serving our Partners
• Expanding Opportunities for Small Business
• Making a More Sustainable Government
• Leading with Innovation
• Building a Stronger GSA

The Coalition’s May 22^nd GSA Business Roundtable will provide a Myth-Busters forum focusing on GSA’s mission and priorities.  For all industry partners attending, the Coalition we will provide a little homework assignment.  In the week leading up to the roundtable the Coalition will provide all attendees with the link to GSA’s website where the new mission statement and priorities can be found.  The homework assignment will be to review the mission statement and priorities and come prepared to discuss how GSA and its industry partners can work together to ensure best value outcomes for customer agencies and the American people.  In fact for those who wish to get a head start, here is the link.

One of the key discussion areas will be the role of the GSA Multiple Award Schedule (MAS) program in supporting customer agency missions.  The MAS program accounts for approximately $50 billion in government purchases annually (GSA MAS accounts for about $39 billion and VA MAS another $10 billion).  It is the largest commercial item contracting program in the federal government.  It is also one of the most successful small business programs in the federal government.  What accounts for its success?  The program success is twofold.  First, the openness to the commercial market allows customer agencies access to the latest commercial products, services, solutions and innovations (including sustainable/environmental solutions).   Second, the contract and ordering structures allow customer agencies and contractors the flexibility to focus on competing and executing commercial requirements at the task order.  In sum, through the MAS program, GSA provides a vital service to government and the American people by providing an open, competitive, and streamlined contracting framework for the acquisition of commercial services and products.

Moreover, there remains great untapped potential for the MAS program to efficiently and effectively deliver best value outcomes for customer agencies.   Addressing “other direct costs” (ODCs) on MAS contracts would allow customer agencies to compete and acquire total commercial solutions in support of agency missions.  ODCs would also be a great accelerator for growth of the MAS program and address contract duplication government-wide.  Updating the pricing policies to better reflect current commercial practice and the Congressional mandate to drive pricing through the task order competition process has the potential to increase the overall efficiency and effectiveness of the contract negotiation and award process.   Updating the pricing polices also provides a great opportunity to improve the consistency of contract management and negotiation across the MAS program.  Updating Blanket Purchase Agreement (BPA) practices can help agencies achieve real savings—the Coalition has developed a BPA best practices statement that can be found here.  Continuing to invest in key electronic platforms like GSA Advantage! and e-Buy can enhance task order competitions for both customer agencies and contractors.

In sum, the MAS program is vital to meeting GSA’s six priorities.  No other GSA program has the contract structures, depth and bread of services and products, openness and flexibility to deliver:

• Deliver Better Value and Savings
• Serve GSA’s agency and vender Partners
• Expand Opportunities for Small Business
• Make a More Sustainable Government
• Lead with Innovation
• Build a Stronger GSA

We look forward to having all of our members participate in the GSA Business Roundtable on May 22 to discuss how vendors and the MAS program can meet GSA’s priorities.

Roger Waldron

President

As the central procurement arm of the federal government, the General Services Administration (GSA) is “strategically positioned” to enhance and improve communications among all stakeholders in the procurement system.  GSA provides the framework for customer agencies and contractors to work together to support the mission.  At the intersection between customers and contractors, GSA can have a profound impact on improving communication and outcomes for all.  GSA has been taking steps to increase engagement with its customer base and contractors regarding its new mission statement.

On May 22^nd, the GSA Business Roundtable, hosted by the Coalition, will provide an opportunity for GSA leadership and Coalition members to have a cross-cutting dialogue regarding the new mission statement and GSA’s government-wide acquisition programs.  The Roundtable provides a wonderful opportunity for GSA and its industry partners to engage in a Myth-Busters conversation that does much more than check the box!  It is an opportunity to establish an ongoing conversation that focuses on improving the efficiency, effectiveness and openness of GSA‘s procurement programs.  The Coalition appreciates the overwhelming positive response we have received from GSA and our members regarding the roundtable.  We are looking forward to seeing you there!

There are other examples of Myth-Busters opportunities and examples that are more than just checking the box.  The OASIS team is to be commended for its ongoing Myth-Busters outreach and dialogue regarding the OASIS acquisition strategy and draft RFP.  The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Office of the Chief Procurement Officer is to be commended for including as one its four priorities “Quality Industry-Government Communication” and for acting on this priority with a series of outreach efforts throughout the year.  The Coalition’s 2013 Spring Conference was another Myth-Busters event with speakers from across the federal enterprise.  During the course of the conference Shay Assad, Director of Pricing for the Department of Defense, challenged the audience to provide feedback on how the Department can reduce or eliminate unnecessary procurement costs.  We in the private sector must also do more than check the box.  As such, the Coalition will be reaching out to our members to identify areas of potential cost savings in order to respond to Shay Assad.

(Next week will focus on “Better Buying Power Metrics: how do we measure success?”)

At our 2013 Spring Conference, Shay Assad, Director of Pricing for the Department of Defense, invited the attendees to provide feedback on procurement practices of the Department that are unnecessarily increasing costs (e.g. costs outweigh the benefits).  We applaud and appreciate Shay’s challenge!   It was a Myth-Busters moment! The Coalition will take up Shay’s invitation and will provide comments and feedback to    Defense Procurement and Acquisition Policy (DPAP).  Earlier this year the Coalition provided GSA’s Federal Acquisition Service (FAS) with similar comments and feedback in response to an invitation made by FAS at our 2012 Fall Conference.  These invitations are part of a strategic acquisition dialogue between government and industry that is vital to identifying cost savings while maintaining best value mission support.

Government unique contract and procedural requirements increase the procurement system’s Total Acquisition Cost (TAC).  The last decade has seen a layering on of government unique clauses, regulations and performance requirements on commercial item contracting.   In particular, over the years we have seen a significant increase in additional government clauses on commercial item contracts in the FAR.  In turn, agencies have also added their own unique requirements that are inconsistent with commercial practice.  What is lost to the government customer is the opportunity to leverage the commercial marketplace—the less the government buys like the commercial marketplace the higher the transactional cost.  Strategic acquisition should embrace a return to commercial item contracting as authorized by the Federal Acquisition Streamlining Act of 1994.

Another significant cost driver for the entire federal procurement system is contract duplication.  Simply put, across the federal enterprise there are too many multiple award IDIQ contracts for the same or similar services and products.  Agencies should be looking to pre-existing contract vehicles such as the GSA multiple award schedules (MAS), the IT GWACs managed by NIH, NASA, and GSA and/or long standing enterprise contract programs such as Seaport-E.    Conducting streamlined task order competitions under these contract vehicles will save time and money.  Unfortunately, too often agencies create their own contract vehicles for services and products that are already available under pre-existing contracts—and companies feel compelled to compete for these new contracts for fear of being shut out of a market.  This costly cycle must end!  Government and industry can and will achieve significant savings by reducing unnecessary contract duplication.

More troubling is the growth of generic Blanket Purchase Agreements (BPAs) under GSA’s MAS program in the name of strategic sourcing.  The result is vertical contract duplication.  GSA establishes the MAS contracts.  GSA (or a lead agency) then competes and awards a set of generic government-wide multiple award BPAs and finally the ultimate agency customer subsequently competes specific task order requirements among the BPA holders.  The generic BPAs are an unnecessary step in the process.  GSA’s MAS contracts are the strategic sourcing/acquisition platform that provide a base for subsequent task order competitions for agency specific requirements.  The task order competition for specific agency requirements drives the prices paid and best value solutions delivered.  The intermediate, generic BPAs are a costly and unnecessary procedural step for government and industry.   With that in mind, the Coalition has developed a set of BPA best practices that can be found here.

Measuring and managing TAC is the key to strategic acquisition.  Contract duplication and a return to commercial item contracting are key opportunities to achieve savings for government, industry and the taxpayer.  The Coalition will respond to Shay’s invitation with additional opportunities for savings.  As a strategic matter, reducing unnecessary cost drivers in the system will provide more competition, innovation and best value solutions.  For more on strategic acquisition, please take a look at this editorial that appeared in the Federal Times. 

By Phil Seckman, Partner, McKenna Long & Aldridge LLP

The Federal Circuit’s recent decision in Sharp Electronics Corporation addresses a quandary familiar to federal supply schedule contractors regarding the proper contracting officer (CO) to whom the contractor must direct its contract claims to ensure jurisdiction.  Sharp Corporation v. McHugh, 2013 WL 646330 (Fed. Cir. 2013).  The Federal Circuit’s decision relates to a 2002 change to the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) and seeks to provide contractors with certainty by announcing a so-called bright-line rule for interpreting the meaning of the disputes provision for schedule contracts.  Despite the Federal Circuit’s intentions, ambiguities remain.

Prior to the 2002 FAR change, the FAR provided that “[t]he ordering office shall refer all unresolved disputes under orders to the schedule contracting officer for action under the Disputes clause of the contract.”  48 C.F.R. § 8.405-7 (2000).  Because only the GSA CO had authority under the Disputes clause, it was clear before the FAR change that any contractor claim relating to an order placed under a schedule contract must be submitted to the GSA CO to ensure jurisdiction under the Contract Disputes Act (CDA).  The FAR also made it clear that the ordering office was to refer any unresolved contractor claims to the GSA CO.

Then, on June 27, 2002, the FAR was amended to incorporate new policies for disputes in schedule contracts.  67 Fed. Reg. 43,514 (the final rule was effective on July 29, 2002).  As the FAR councils noted when publishing the proposed rule, the change was being made to “permit the ordering office contracting officer to issue a final decision regarding disputes pertaining solely to performance of schedule orders.”  65 Fed. Reg. 79,702 (Dec. 19, 2000).

The revised regulation provides:

(a)  Disputes pertaining to the performance of orders under a schedule contract.  (1)  Under the Disputes clause of the schedule contract, the ordering activity contracting officer may —

(i)  Issue final decisions on disputes arising from performance of the order (but see paragraph (b) of this section); or

(ii)  Refer the dispute to the schedule contracting officer.

(2)  The ordering activity contracting officer shall notify the schedule contracting officer promptly of any final decision.

(b)  Disputes pertaining to the terms and conditions of schedule contracts.  The ordering activity contracting officer shall refer all disputes that relate to the contract terms and conditions to the schedule contracting officer for resolution under the Disputes clause of the contract and notify the schedule contractor of the referral.

(c)  Appeals.  Contractors may appeal final decisions to either the Board of Contract Appeals servicing the agency that issued the final decision or the U.S. Court of Federal Claims….48 C.F.R. § 8.406-6 (2004) (the text from the 2002 FAR amendment was renumbered in 2004).

The plain language of this regulation establishes that when a contractor submits a claim to an ordering activity CO, it is that CO’s responsibility to determine whether a dispute relates solely to the performance of an order or, instead, pertains to the terms and conditions of the schedule contract.  Thus, one might have read the regulation to mean that a contractor could submit a claim to either the ordering activity CO or the GSA CO.  Then, the government would determine which CO possessed authority to issue a final decision.

While such an interpretation is certainly logical and reasonable, it is wrong.  The Federal Circuit’s decision makes it clear that it is the schedule contractor, and not the CO, that is responsible for determining to whom its claims must be submitted.  Failure to identify the correct CO may result in the dismissal of an appeal for lack of CDA jurisdiction.  Choosing the appropriate CO is made all the more critical where a schedule contractor is nearing the CDA six-year statute of limitations.

The Sharp Electronics case involved a contractor’s certified claim requesting fees under the termination provisions of an Army order placed against a schedule contract.  The contractor submitted its claim to the Army CO.  Critically, the Army CO disregarded the clear responsibility under FAR 8.406-6 and ignored the claim.  Thus, the 60-day CDA decision period elapsed and — in the contractor’s view — resulted in a “deemed denial.”

The contractor then appealed to the Armed Services Board of Contract Appeals (ASBCA).  Sharp Elecs. Corp., ASBCA No. 57583, 12-1 B.C.A. 34,903.  Both the contractor and the government believed that their dispute should be decided by the ordering agency CO.  Both parties believed the dispute was based on the order contract performance and not the terms of the schedule contract.  In fact, neither party raised the jurisdictional issue.  The ASBCA raised the issue on its own.

The ASBCA then held that it lacked jurisdiction over the appeal because the dispute did require the interpretation of the schedule contract and, therefore, only could have been decided by the GSA CO.  The contractor’s decision to submit the claim to the Army CO, combined with that CO’s failure to forward the claim, meant there had been no properly submitted claim under the CDA and, therefore, no “deemed denial” from which to appeal.  Id.  The fact that the regulation clearly places the responsibility upon the ordering activity CO to make a determination regarding his/her own authority to resolve the dispute and then to forward claims to the GSA schedule CO when the dispute pertains to the terms and conditions of the schedule contract did not alter the outcome.

In a split decision, the Federal Circuit affirmed the ASBCA decision finding that under FAR 8.406-6 the ordering agency CO did not have the authority to make a determination regarding the contractor’s claim because the dispute involved, at least in part, interpretation of the terms of the schedule contract.  The Federal Circuit’s decision announces a so-called bright-line rule that “all disputes requiring interpretation of the schedule contract go to the [GSA] schedule CO, even if those disputes also require interpretation of the order, or involve issues of performance under the order.”  See Sharp Elec., supra at *6

The Federal Circuit, in highlighting the bright-line, attempts to address the jurisdictional uncertainty under FAR 8.406-6 created by the 2002 rulemaking.  As noted by the dissent, however, the Court has succeeded in, effectively, reinstituting the prior rule that all disputes relating to schedule contracts should be submitted to the GSA CO.  In other words, when in doubt, contractors must submit claims to the GSA CO.

Perhaps being defensive regarding the dissent’s objections, the Court noted that under a schedule contract an ordering agency CO remains authorized to make final determinations regarding performance, the terms of an order or its modifications “as long as the dispute does not involve interpretation of the schedule contract.”  The Court also states that an ordering agency CO may resolve a dispute by “applying the relevant provisions of the schedule contract “as long as their meaning is undisputed.”

Despite these statements, however, the actual effect of this holding, as the dissent properly points out, will be that most contract disputes under schedule contracts will be submitted to the GSA CO and not the ordering agency CO.  Indeed, many disputes can be characterized as requiring interpretation of the schedule contract.  Thus, contractors that submit claims to ordering activity COs who are inclined to disregard the claim, as did the Army CO in the Sharp case, run the risk that what seems to be a “deemed denial” is, in reality, a nullity under the CDA.

For these reasons, prudent schedule contractors will submit claims to GSA COs. GSA COs, however, typically have very little, if any, knowledge regarding the facts of a dispute that primarily relates to performance under an order and only tangentially requires the interpretation of the schedule contract.  This could lead to increased denials or deemed denials of contractor claims.  Nevertheless, after this decision, if a dispute may pertain to interpretation of a schedule contract terms and provisions, a schedule contractor, particularly one with a potential statute of limitations issue, will be wise to submit its certified claim to the GSA CO or risk a similar outcome.

Communication between and among government and industry professionals is vital to ensuring our procurement system delivers best value outcomes for customer agencies, the taxpayers and the private sector.  Communication fosters understanding between government and industry that better informs decision making for everyone.

The Coalition thanks Joe Jordan, Administrator for Federal Procurement Policy; Shay Assad, Director of Pricing, Defense Procurement and Acquisition Policy; Tom Sharpe, FAS Commissioner; Iris Cooper, Executive Director, Office of Acquisition Operation, Department of Veterans Affairs; Elliot Branch, Deputy Assistant Secretary, Department of the Navy; and Michael Smith, Director of Strategic Sourcing Programs, Department of Homeland Security for participating in the Spring Training Conference.  The Coalition extends our thanks to all our speakers:

Ray Bjorklund, President, BirchGrove Consulting LLP

Jon Etherton, President, Etherton and Associates, Inc.

Cameron Leuthy, Analyst, Bloomberg Government

Joe Jordan, Administrator, Office of Federal Procurement Policy

Elliott Branch, Deputy Assistant Secretary, US Department of the Navy

Michael Smith, Director of Strategic Sourcing Program Office – DHS

Iris Cooper, Executive Director, Office of Acquisition Operation, US Department of Veterans Affairs

Tom Sharpe, FAS Commissioner, General Services Administration

Jonathan Aronie, Partner, Sheppard Mullin Richter & Howe, LLP

David Dowd, Partner, Mayer Brown

Jack Horan, Partner, McKenna Long & Aldridge

Shay D. Assad, Director of Defense Pricing, Defense Procurement and Acquisition Policy

Robert Namejko, DHS Industry Liaison – DHS

Jose Arrieta, DHS Procurement Ombudsman – DHS

Jeff Koses, Director of Acquisition Operations – GSA

Mark Lee, Policy Branch Chief, MAS Program Office – GSA

Kay Ely, Director, IT Schedule Programs – GSA

Mark Day, Director, Office of Strategic Programs – GSA

Robert Coen, Acting Program Director, CIO-SP3, CIO-SP3 Small Business and ECS III GWAC Program, NITAAC

Alexandra Rouse, Program Manager for FSSI MRO  - GSA        

Jim Ghiloni, Director of the OASIS Program Management Office – GSA

Joanne Woytek, Program Manager, SEWP – NASA

Michael Canales, Senior Procurement Analyst – Defense Procurement and Acquisition Policy

Thank you to everyone who attended the Spring Training Conference.  The Coalition truly appreciates your participation!   We will continue to work harder than ever to deliver value to our membership and the procurement community as a whole!  With that in mind, attendees have received a survey on the conference—please take the time to provide us with your feedback on the event.  Remember communication is the key to understanding and best value!

Thank you to the members who moderated the breakout sessions.  Finally, thank you to my staff!  Aubrey, Athena, Roy, Denise, Sandy and Rob—great job!  You guys are the best!  A special thank you to Carolyn Alston for her tireless work in successfully pulling together and coordinating the agenda!

We look forward to seeing you all at the GSA Business Roundtable on May 22^nd.

• Shay Assad, Director of Defense Pricing, Defense Procurement and Acquisition Policy (DPAP)
• Joe Jordan, Administrator, Office of Federal Procurement Policy, OMB
• Tom Sharpe, FAS Commissioner, GSA
• Elliott Branch, Deputy Assistant Secretary, Navy
• Iris Cooper, Executive Director of Acquisition Operation, VA
• Rob Coen, Acting Program Director, CIO-SP3, NITAAC
• Joanne Woytek, Program Manager, SEWP, NASA
• Mike Canales, Senior Procurement Analyst, DPAP
• Mark Day, Director, Office of Strategic Programs, GSA
• Jim Ghiloni, Director, OASIS Program Management Office, GSA

The conference includes breakout sessions focusing on the latest Strategic Sourcing procurement plans, OASIS, the GSA IT GWACs, CIOSP-3, NASA SEWP, Defense Procurement and Acquisition Policy (DPAP), and the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Programs and Priorities.  The conference will kick off with a panel of experts addressing the 2014 Budget and Market Outlook—a “must hear” for business development, financial managers and government and industry executives charged with executing federal programs and contracts in support of federal programs.  And, of course, what Spring Conference would be complete without our in-person Coalition Legal Corner focusing on “Recent Developments in Case Law and Regulation” providing the latest legal news regarding contract compliance and oversight, disputes, and bid protests.

Market intelligence, contracting and procurement planning, procurement policy updates, and legal updates—the Spring Conference is comprehensive.  Government and industry contracting personnel, program and contract managers, in-house counsel, compliance personnel, and financial managers will all benefit from attending.

The Spring Conference agenda reflects an integrated world of federal procurement. The subject matter areas to be discussed are interrelated and have impacts across the federal enterprise.  Understanding the cross-cutting initiatives, issues and impact on our procurement system will better inform decision making for government and industry.    The Spring Conference will “continue the Myth-Busters dialogue” across the procurement community!  Dialogue and communication supports a procurement system that delivers best value outcomes for customer agencies, taxpayers and the private sector.

To register click this link.  We look forward to seeing you and your associates next Wednesday!

The waiver of the PRC raises the practical, real life impact of the clause on commercial firms.  The clause, by its terms, can restrict the ability of MAS contractors to compete in the federal and commercial market places.  At the same time, the government and industry spend millions of dollars a year negotiating, reviewing, auditing, and monitoring compliance with the clause.  This cost is unnecessary given the current statutory and regulatory MAS competition requirements for task orders exceeding $150,000.  Indeed, the PRC dates from a time when the MAS program was a mandatory source before the current competitive framework became law.

The unintended consequence of the waiver of the PRC was to create a double standard.  The PRC was waived to foster competition for specific Air Force set of requirements.  However, the potential impact of the clause remains the same for all other MAS contractors seeking to compete for federal work and/or commercial work.  The PRC’s limitations on a contractor’s ability to compete ultimately affect job growth.  It is a costly, oversight mechanism that is no longer required to assure good pricing at the task order level.

Given changes in technology, the economy and the regulatory framework, it is time for review and reform of the MAS pricing policies, including the PRC.  We look forward to engaging GSA in a Myth-Busters dialogue addressing MAS pricing policy.  The Coalition letter to FAS’s Office of Acquisition Management regarding implications of the PRC waiver begins that dialogue.

Next week the blog post will address “Thought No. 7: From Strategic Sourcing to Strategic Acquisition” of the “Thirteen Thoughts for 2013.”

Our visits to the Halls of Fame got me thinking about excellence.  How do we achieve excellence in acquisition?  Part of the answer, in my view, is teamwork and communication.  The Halls of Fame honor excellence—and for all those individuals, teams or bands inducted into the Halls, they would not be there were it not for outstanding teamwork.  Football is all about teamwork and communication.  A musical group or band is a team.  Even solo artists would not be successful without a team (manager, agent, musicians, writers, publishers, etc.) behind them.

Communication and teamwork are vital to ensuring our procurement system delivers best value mission outcomes for customer agencies and the taxpayer.   Unfortunately the current environment, with the overwhelming focus on oversight, does not lend itself to communication or even partnership between government and industry.  That must change.  Now more than ever, the public and private procurement sectors must work together to address the systematic and budgetary challenges we are facing.  That is why the “Myth-Busters” campaign remains so vitally important.  That is why the Coalition supports FAS Commissioner Tom Sharpe’s recent comments that FAS will focus on improving supplier satisfaction based on the feedback GSA received from its annual contractor survey.  That is why the Coalition supports the Department of Homeland Security’s strategic plan for procurement which includes as one of four strategic goals, quality communications with industry.   That is why the Coalition appreciates the open dialogue GSA has conducted around the OASIS procurement and our members look forward to continuing that dialogue.  That is why the willingness of the Office of Defense Procurement and Acquisition Policy (DPAP) to engage in an ongoing dialogue regarding the Better Buying Initiative is so important.

Robust communication leads to better understanding of government requirements and commercial practices.   This improved understanding leads to best value outcomes for customer agencies, taxpayers and contractors.  For example, a review of the total acquisition cycle would provide an opportunity for GSA and its MAS contractors to partner together to identify potential improvements in the efficiency and effectiveness of the MAS program. “Partnership” between government and industry is not a dirty word.  Rather, it is vital to successful mission performance on behalf of the American people.

Next week, Thought No. 7 of the Thirteen Thoughts for 2013, “From Strategic Sourcing to Strategic Acquisition”!