Friday Flash, 04.11.14

FAR and Beyond Blog – Spring Conference 2014

As you know, yesterday The Coalition for Government Procurement held its 2014 Spring Training Conference, “Opportunities for Success in the Federal Market.”  I was overwhelmed by the positive feedback we received from attendees regarding the quality of the event and was pleased so many were able to stay and enjoy the networking reception at the conclusion of the day.  The positive and informative conversations among the procurement community at the Spring Training Conference validate the importance of these types of events regarding procurement policies, procedures, and opportunities across the federal enterprise.  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.

The Coalition would like to thank our Keynote Speaker, Steve Schooner, Nash & Cibinic Professor of Government Procurement Law and Co-Director of the Government Procurement Law School, The George Washington University Law School, and extend our thanks to all speakers who participated and are listed below:

Cameron Leuthy, Senior Budget Analyst at Bloomberg Government

Richard Levi, Counsel to the Inspector General, GSA

Maureen Regan, Counsel to the Inspector General, VA

Jason Workmaster, McKenna Long & Aldridge

David Dowd, Mayer Brown

Harry Hallock, Deputy Assistant Secretary for the US Army

Dr. Angela Billups, Senior Procurement Executive, Associate Deputy Assistant Secretary for Acquisition, HHS

Richard Ginman, Director, Defense Acquisition and Procurement Policy

Jeffrey Koses, Senior Procurement Executive, GSA

Shaloy Castle-Higgins, Director, Greater Southwest Acquisition Center

Janet Haynes, Schedules Acquisition Acting Director, Center for Facilities Maintenance and Hardware

Peter Han, Director, National Administrative Service and Office Supplies Acquisition Center

Brian Knapp, Director, Integrated Workplace Acquisition Center

Tiffany Hixson, Regional Commissioner, Federal Acquisition Service

Geri Watson, Director, Services Acquisition Center

Bruce Spainhour, Director, Center for Innovation Acquisition Development

Jim Ghiloni, Acting Director, Acquisition Operations

David Grant, Head of Contracting Activity, FEMA

Michael Smith, Director, Strategic Sourcing Program Office

Christopher Fornecker, Acting Deputy Assistant Commissioner, Integrated Technology Service GSA

Darlene Coen, Deputy Program Manager, NASA SEWP

Robert Coen, Acting Director, NIH Information Technology Acquisition and Assessment Center (NITAAC)

Kay Ely, Director, IT Schedule Acquisition Center, GSA

Judith Roussel, Director, Office of Government Contracting, Small Business Administration

Magdy Bastawrous, Director, Socio-Economic Programs Branch, Office of Acquisition Management, FAS, GSA

Randal Culpepper, Air Force Program Executive Officer, Combat and Mission Support

Robert Bourne, Division Director, Acquisition Management Center

Mark Lee, Deputy Director, Office of General Services Acquisition Policy, Integrity & Workforce Office of Government-wide Policy

Amanda Fredriksen, Assistant Commissioner for Strategic Business Planning

Beth Foltz, Office of Strategic Planning

 

Also, a sincere thank you once again to all our sponsors:

Bloomberg Government – Title Sponsor

Johnson & Johnson Health Care Systems – Gold Sponsor

Deltek – Silver Sponsor

The George Washington University – Breakfast Sponsor

The Gormley Group and 3M – Refueling Station Sponsor

Deloitte and AMERICAN SYSTEMS – Lunch Sponsor

Berkeley Research Group – Networking Reception Sponsor

 

Lastly, 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!

Sincerely,

Roger Waldron

President

 

GSA IG Brian Miller Leaving Government

The Inspector General for the General Services Administration, Brian Miller, will be leaving his post effective April 19.  “One former inspector general described inspectors general as ‘straddling a barbed wire fence.’ And so, that has been my experience,” wrote Miller in his resignation letter to the President. “I leave confident that the excellent work of my office will continue under the outstanding leadership team of the Office of Inspector General.” An April 8 press release confirmed Miller’s move to become Managing Director at Navigant Consulting, Inc. “With over 25 years of government enforcement and regulatory experience, Miller will be an important resource to Navigant clients in helping manage the risks associated with government investigations and regulatory compliance,” the statement says. The Coalition wishes Brian Miller all the best in his new role in the private sector with Navigant.

 

FAS Introduces Category Management

This week Commissioner of GSA’s Federal Acquisition Service (FAS), Tom Sharpe, announced a new initiative for the agency—Category Management.  In a GSA Blog, Commissioner Sharpe writes that “category management essentially looks at products or services categories the way a business might look at its own strategic business units, and then works on customizing purchase channels to better meet customer needs and market demands.  [It] also provides deep-dive market analysis and addresses supply chain management.” FAS has already identified a number of core categories focused on specific products and services that GSA offers customer agencies.   The ultimate goal of this approach is to minimize redundancies in purchasing while reducing total cost of ownership to the Government and taxpayers.

The Coalition was fortunate to have Assistant Commissioner for Strategy Management, Amanda Frederickson, and Beth Folz, Director of Strategy Execution, discuss this new initiative with members during a breakout session at the Spring Conference.  Amanda Frederickson described the five “responsibilities” of category management, which are to:

1. Grow/Share Expertise
2. Optimize Contract Vehicles & Manage Landscape
3. Manage Data Collection and Analysis
4. Leverage Supplier Relationships
5. Maximize Customer Relationships

GSA is also looking to develop a Common Acquisition Platform (CAP), as part of the Integrated Acquisition Environment, to support this over-arching business strategy and help guide buyers through the acquisition process.  According to Commissioner Sharpe’s blog, “CAP will provide access and insights into transactional (purchasing/pricing) data from across government and reduce the need for maintaining redundant and duplicative acquisition vehicles, systems and tools.”

FAS plans to engage with multiple stakeholders as Category Management is developed, including customer agencies and the vendor community.  The Coalition looks forward to sharing commercial best practices and other information with GSA relevant to the various product and service categories.

 

GSA Releases RFI for Networx Replacement

The General Services Administration’s Office of Integrated Technology Services (ITS) has released a request for information (RFI) for the development of an acquisition solution to replace the current Networx contacts. The Network Services 2020 (NS2020) Strategy has been developed to provide for the IT/telecommunications requirements of GSA’s agency customers. According to the RFI, a cornerstone of the strategy is the NS2020 Enterprise Infrastructure Solutions (EIS) acquisition initiative. The EIS acquisition will include the requirements for the Networx successor contracts, plus additional capabilities to meet the comprehensive range of Federal Agency IT/telecommunications requirements through 2028. The Coalition will be monitoring this development and will seek feedback from members on the scope of the contract. If you have any feedback, please contact Roy Dicharry at rdicharry@thecgp.org.

 

Contribute to the Future Vision of IAE

GSA has reached out to the Coalition to invite members to contribute to the future vision of the Integrated Award Environment (IAE) through the IAE Focus Group.  GSA is inviting the Coalition to nominate up to five members for the IAE Focus Group that will identify issues around subaward reporting. The information gathered will be used to increase the usability, function, and relevance of future IAE subaward reporting system capabilities. Each potential participant will be asked to contribute 8-12 hours beginning in April 2014 by participating in multiple sessions over the course of three months. If you are interested in this opportunity, please contact Aubrey Woolley at awoolley@thecgp.org by COB Tuesday, April 15th.

 

Compliance Lessons from the Office of Inspector General

By: Jack Horan, Partner, McKenna Long & Aldridge LLP

Effective and compliant contract administration should be a primary goal for all government contractors, including, of course, contractors with the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA).  As with any other business goal, compliance should be attained efficiently.  Within the web of statutory, regulatory, and contractual requirements, VA contractors should understand the areas where noncompliance creates the greatest risk and exposure, and spend their resources accordingly.

As with the Offices of Inspectors General throughout the government, the VA Office of Inspector General (OIG) is a central player in the oversight of contracts, enforcing compliance with all major VA statutory, regulatory, and contractual requirements, and redressing compliance failures.  As part of its responsibilities, the VA OIG reports to Congress twice annually on the audits, reviews, and investigations it conducts.[1]  Although intended for other purposes, these reports can assist VA contractors in identifying the requirements that are of the most importance to the VA, and should be most important to the contractor.  In short, VA OIG’s actions over the prior year serve as a lesson to contractors on where to spend their time and money (and the effect of noncompliance).

The VA OIG has “a nationwide staff of auditors, investigators, health care inspectors, and support personnel” in six major component “offices” that conduct “independent oversight reviews to improve the economy, efficiency, and effectiveness of VA programs, and to prevent and detect criminal activity, waste, abuse, and fraud.”  For a VA contractor, the three component offices that are of most importance are:  (1) the Immediate Office of the IG; (2) the Office of Counselor to the IG; and (3) Office of Investigations.^[2]

The Immediate Office of the IG is top-tier management, with the Deputy Inspector General operating as the “Chief Operating Officer.”  In addition to planning, directing and monitoring all [IG] operations,” the Immediate Office establishes investigative priorities for the Office, and identifies and promotes legislative initiatives to Congress.

The new year should bring a new IG to the VA.  On November 6, 2013, GeorgeOpfer announced his retirement as IG after more than 44 years of government service.  Mr.Opfer assumed responsibility as Inspector General on November 17, 2005, after being nominated by President GeorgeW.Bush.  Although President Obama has not nominated a replacement, Mr.Opfer’s long-time Deputy, RichardGriffin, is currently serving as Acting Inspector General.  Mr.Griffin has been a Deputy Inspector General since November 23, 2008, and previously served as Inspector General from November 1997 to June 2005.

A change in Inspector General can have a significant effect on the priorities, policies, and procedures of an office – as demonstrated by the GSA’s OIG under the direction of the current IG, Brian Miller.  Given his status as Acting Inspector General and his long service under Mr.Opfer, it would be surprising if Mr.Griffin made dramatic changes to the VA OIG’s policies or procedures.  Significant changes will likely come, if at all, under the next IG.

The Office of Counselor provides counsel to the OIG on False Claims Act cases affecting the VA and serves as liaison to the Department of Justice on False Claims Act cases.  The Office of Counselor also manages the Office of Contract Review, which  provides pre-award and post-award audits of contractors’ proposals and contracts under an agreement with VA’s Office of Acquisition, Logistics and Construction (OALC).[3]  The majority of pre-award audits of proposals for contracts or modifications under the VA’s Federal Supply Schedule (FSS) program.  The Office automatically reviews the pricing for all proposals when the estimated contract or modification exceeds $5,000,000 under Schedule 65IB, Drugs, Pharmaceuticals, and Hematology Related Products, and $3,000,000 for the other VA Schedules.  The Office of Contract Review also reviews pharmaceutical manufacturers’ compliance with the pricing requirements of the Veterans Health Care Act.  Thus, the Office of Contract Review reviews pricing for major VA contracts and ensures the pricing is compliant with contractual, regulatory, and statutory requirements, and provides a recommendation to the contracting officer on the prices the VA should pay for items on large FSS contracts.

So how did the pricing proposed by potential contractors fare with Office of Contract Review?  During fiscal year 2013, the Office conducted 83 pre-award audits of proposals of all types, and identified $655,056,285 in cost savings, or an average of $7.9 million in cost savings per audit.[4]  It’s safe to say that the Office did not routinely accept pricing as proposed by the contractors.

How about proposals for FSS awards, renewals or modifications?  Forty-six of the 83 pre-award audits were of proposals for awards, renewals or modifications under the FSS program^[5] – 32 for initial award, ten for renewals, and four for modifications to add products.[6]  The Office recommended a price reduction for 72% (23 of 32) of the audited proposals for initial award.  The Office recommended a total of $470,428,110 in price reductions, with an average of $14.7 million per audit (including all 32 audits).  Thus, offerors submitting proposals for an initial award of an FSS contract fared worse than the average contractor subject to pre-award audits.

With pricing established by the existing contracts, one would expect that the contractor would fare better in pre-award audits for contract renewals.  Contractors did fare better but the Office frequently challenged the proposed pricing.  The Office recommended a total of $18,577,827 in price reductions, with an average of $1,857,783 per audit.  The OIG recommended a price reduction for 60% (six of ten) renewal proposals.

Contractors seeking product additions fared the best over the past year with the OIG recommending price reductions in only 25% (one of four) of its audits.  The one price reduction was a significant one though — $8,615,256.

So, here are the lessons learned from the pre-award audits:

• Most obviously, the OIG takes a hard look at proposed pricing, in the past year rejecting 72% of pricing proposed for initial award, 60% for renewals, and 25% for modifications.
• A contractor needs to be prepared to support its pricing not only when it is seeking the initial FSS contract, but also at renewal and for each modification.

Now let’s look at post award audits – audits conducted to determine whether a contractor is complying with its pricing obligations.  The Office reported 33 post-award audits in fiscal year 2013, which resulted in the VA recovering contract overcharges totaling over $17.6 million.  According to the OIG, approximately $11.7 million of that recovery resulted from Veterans Health Care Act compliance with pricing requirements, recalculation of Federal ceiling prices, and appropriate classification of pharmaceutical products.

Fourteen of the post-award audits were of voluntary disclosures.  The Office claimed more than offered by the contractor in nine of 14 voluntary disclosures.  The average recovery to the VA from voluntary disclosures was $1,157,117.[7]

The VA recovered 100 percent of recommended recoveries for post-award audits.

Lessons learned from post-award audits:

• Pay close attention to your Veterans Health Care Act pricing – it is a major compliance area for the OIG, comprising the largest recovery area.
• Be prepared to support your accounting and rationale for any voluntary disclosures.  The disclosure is likely to be audited and the proposed repayment amount is likely to be challenged.
• Your opportunity to affect the government’s view of your liability is through negotiations with the OIG.  The Office has an excellent record – 100% of the time – of recovering what it determines the VA is due.

Now, a look at the focus of the Office of Investigations over the past fiscal year.  The Office of Investigations (OI) investigates crimes committed against programs and operations of the VA.  Within the OI, the Criminal Investigations division investigates all types of crimes (including criminal fraud as well as rape and murder) and civil fraud.  For fiscal year 2013, the OI reported opening 45 cases, making 11 arrests, and obtaining more than $564.1 million[8] in fines, restitution, penalties, and civil judgments “in the area of procurement practices.”

The OI specifically identified twelve criminal cases involving procurement violations by contractors – all twelve involved service-disabled, veteran-owned small business fraud.  In those cases, the SDVOSB business either misrepresented the eligibility of its owner, or the true ownership of the business.

Lessons learned from the OI:

• Exposure under the False Claims Act for VA contracts can be very significant – reaching over $500 million in 2013.
• People get arrested and go to jail for defrauding the VA.
• If you tell the VA that you are a serviced-disabled veteran and own and operate a SDVOSB, you better be a service-disabled veteran and own and operate the SDVOSB.

Finally, one other lesson learned – this one from the structure of the VA OIG.  Contact by the Office of Contract Review and the Office of Investigations can both lead to civil or even criminal liability, but there is a significant difference.  If the contact comes from the Office of Investigations, the issue has already likely been determined to be a potential civil fraud or criminal violation.  There is no doubt that it is time to call your lawyer.

 

Legal Corner 

Cybersecurity Takes The Pole Position in 2014 In Federal Acquisitions 

By: Tom Barletta, Partner, Steptoe & Johnson LLP; Andy Irwin, Partner, Steptoe & Johnson LLP; & George Leris, Associate, Steptoe & Johnson LLP [1]

The Obama Administration has been placing greater emphasis on cybersecurity, including enhancing cybersecurity in the acquisition process.  Three of the Administration’s more recent acquisition related cybersecurity initiatives are discussed below.

Background

On November 18, 2013, the DoD issued a final rule amending the Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (DFARS) to impose requirements on contractors for safeguarding unclassified controlled technical information and reporting cyber incidents.  On the same day, the DoD also issued an interim rule amending the DFARS to address supply chain security in defense contracts.

More recently, DoD and GSA issued a DoD/GSA Final Report on Improving Cybersecurity through Acquisition (“Final Report”) on January 23, 2014, containing recommendations for incorporating cybersecurity standards into the acquisition planning and contract administration process.  Those recommendations include instituting baseline cybersecurity requirements; improving cybersecurity training; developing common cybersecurity definitions; instituting a federal cyber risk management strategy; purchasing from trusted sources; and increasing government accountability for cyber risk management.

Safeguarding Unclassified Controlled Technical Information and Cyber-Reporting

The DoD final rule and implementing contract clause require a contractor who has access to or stores specific types of unclassified “controlled technical information” (UCTI) to implement certain security standards on its computer network and to report certain “cyber incidents” to DoD.  See DFARS 304.734 & 252.204-7012; see also DFARS 204.703 & 212.301 (regarding solicitations and contracts for commercial items).

The final rule focuses on “controlled technical information” — technical data or computer software, as defined in DFARS 252.227-7013, with a “military or space application” that is subject to restrictions on access, release, and disclosure.  In that regard, the final rule references DoD Directive 5230.24, Distribution Statements on Technical Documents, and (in the preamble) DoD Directive 5230.25, Withholding of Unclassified Technical Data from Public Disclosure.  Those Directives generally deal with sensitive but unclassified information that is subject to marking or release restrictions under U.S. government programs.  Much of this information is likely to be subject to US export control laws and regulations, such as the International Traffic in Arms Regulations (ITAR).  

The final rule imposes three requirements on covered contractors.  First, the contractor must implement certain National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) information systems security procedures in its project, enterprise, or company-wide unclassified information technology (IT) systems to safeguard any UCTI transiting through or residing in its systems.  These procedures, drawn from NIST Special Publication 800-53, Revision 4, cover fourteen areas of information security: access control; awareness and training; accountability; configuration management; contingency planning; identification and authentication; incident response; maintenance; media protection; physical and environmental protection; program management; risk assessment; system and communications protection; and system and information integrity.  Alternate methods of protection may be proposed to the contracting officer, and additional security measures beyond the NIST procedures may be required if warranted by risk/vulnerability assessments.  (In assessing the security of their information systems, contractors may also want to consult NIST’s more recent, February 12, 2014 Framework for Improving Infrastructure Cybersecurity, which sets out guidelines and processes for cybersecurity activities.)

Second, the final rule requires a contractor to report to DoD any cyber incident affecting UCTI information within 72 hours of the incident.  The definition of “cyber incident” in the final rule suggests that the term refers to a deliberate use of a computer network (e.g., “hacking”) that has an adverse effect on a contractor’s IT system or the controlled information residing therein.  However, the final rule may have a broader reach, as a “cyber incident” potentially includes “an adverse release” of controlled information (as set forth in DFARS 252.304-7012(d)(1)(xi)), or “any other activities … that allow unauthorized access to the Contractor’s unclassified information system” (as set forth in DFARS 252.204-7012(d)(2)(ii)).  The final rule also requires contractors to further investigate any cyber incidents after making the initial report and to cooperate in any DoD damage assessment activities, including responding to requests for information.  The reporting requirement also presents difficult parallel export control considerations for contractors, as they may need to consider whether they should file parallel self-disclosures with the export control regulatory agencies.

Third, the final rule’s implementing contract clause includes contains a mandatory flow down to all tiers of subcontractors, including to subcontracts for commercial items.  The final rule does not have a separate definition of “subcontractor” and vendors that may not consider themselves subcontractors may therefore be subject to the new rule.  For example, the preamble to the final rule states that the requirements can apply to Internet service providers (ISPs) and cloud computing vendors.  Furthermore, if a subcontractor experiences a cyber incident, the final rule requires reporting to the Government through the prime contractor.

Interim Rule on Supply Chain Security

This interim DFARS rule grants “pilot” authority to the DoD (to expire on September 30, 2018) to place certain restrictions on IT supply chains in procurements related to “national security systems” (NSS) (as defined in 44 U.S.C. § 3542(b) and including contractor NSS) in order to address supply chain risks.  Specifically, the interim rule authorizes certain DoD officials to exclude a source for IT, whether acquired as a service or a supply, based on certain qualification standards and evaluation procedures.  It also authorizes them to withhold consent to a subcontract with a particular source or to direct a contractor to exclude a particular source from consideration for a subcontract.

The interim rule includes a new solicitation provision and a new contract clause to be included in all solicitations and contracts for the development or delivery of information technology that are subject to the DFARS (i.e. not just for contracts for NSS).  Those provisions give notice that DoD may use its exclusionary authority to manage supply chain risk.  Contractors are required to flow the clause down to “all subcontracts involving the development or delivery of any information technology, whether acquired as a service or supply.”  (Emphasis supplied).

The interim rule includes required procedures for taking exclusion actions and indicates that those actions should only be taken where there is a significant supply chain risk to a particular NSS.  However, the interim rule does not define what qualification standards or evaluation factors DoD officials will use in considering supply chain risks and excluding supply sources.  Furthermore, the interim rule gives DoD authority to limit disclosure of information relating to an exclusion decisions and provides that exclusion actions are not reviewable in a bid protest.

DoD/GSA Final Report on Improving Cybersecurity through Acquisition

The Final Report aims to establish a unified framework to address federal cyber risk management and acquisition processes, and, in particular, cyber risk in the acquisition of commercial information and communications technology.  (The report essentially indicates that it does not apply to acquisition practices applicable to NSS.)

The Final Report identifies several important cyber risk related issues affecting federal acquisitions, and provides joint DoD/GSA recommendations on mitigating them at the federal level.  At the top of the list are intentional or unintentional vulnerabilities that may come from inside or outside the supply chain, but which increase acquisition risk.  The risk of counterfeit, “grey market,” or other nonconforming information and communications technology (ICT) components entering the supply chain also adds to the risk in supply chain management.  Finally, the operations, maintenance, and disposal stages of ICT present significant risks when supervised and/or implemented improperly.  The Final Report indicates that a well-functioning and unified federal acquisition approach to such issues is likely to reduce cybersecurity threats to the supply chain.

To that end, the Final Report lays out six recommendations which aim to reduce exposure to cyber risks in commercial ICT federal acquisition.  First, it recommends establishing “baseline cybersecurity requirements” as a condition to awarding a contract.  These requirements encompass basic protections (e.g., up-to-date virus protection and software patches; multiple-factor logical access; and methods ensuring data confidentiality).  These elements should be expressed as technical requirements, and include performance measures and be clearly described in the relevant contract language.  Importantly, the Final Report recommends that these requirements should be harmonized with other FAR/DFARS rule making actions, including the final rule discussed above on safeguarding UCTI in contractor IT systems.

Second, the Final Report recommends increasing the cybersecurity awareness of employees and entities working in federal acquisitions.  It suggests that additional education and training opportunities for employees involved with procurements will lead to improved cyber risk management, including avoiding over-specifying and under-specifying cybersecurity requirements.  It also proposes a government-sponsored cybersecurity outreach campaign targeting stakeholders to familiarize them with the government’s changing approach to cybersecurity.

Third, the Final Report recommends adopting common cybersecurity definitions for federal acquisitions.  It acknowledges that use of unclear and inconsistently defined terms in the acquisition process (e.g., “cyber incident”) can lead to “suboptimal outcomes for both cybersecurity and efficiency” (e.g., changes, terminations, and disputes).  The Final Report suggests that a having common definitions will reduce problems with, inter alia, cost estimates, solicitations, and award and performance of contracts.

Fourth, the Final Report recommends the creation of an interagency “federal acquisition cyber risk management strategy,” which would identify a unified hierarchy of cyber risks. It would also develop “overlays” – i.e., sets of flexible, risk-based security requirements and supplemental guidance – that an agency would tailor to its specific needs for specific products.  These overlays would, for example, identify different security controls depending on the type of acquisition.  As the Final Report highlights, different acquisitions present different risks and warrant different cybersecurity responses.  Applying standardized but flexible overlays across markets segments and similar types of procurement will, according to the report, reduce the costs and duration associated with an acquisition.

Fifth, the Final Report emphasizes that federal agencies must ensure that the goods they acquire are authentic, as any sub-par goods drastically increase cyber risks (e.g., they may arrive with outdated security updates, or built to different specifications).  Accordingly, it recommends identifying “trusted sources” – manufacturers, suppliers, or resellers, and taking other steps, appropriate to the particular acquisition, to qualify vendors as a means of reducing cyber risks. Further, the Final Report indicates that in cases involving the greatest risk, it may be appropriate for government personnel to determine whether a vendor is a “trusted source,” while in other less risky cases, attestation of company conformance to external standards may be appropriate.

Finally, the Final Report recommends increasing government accountability for cyber risk management.  It details a four-step process for holding key personnel accountable for upholding cyber standards.  Specifically, such personnel should: 1) address cyber risks when a requirement is being defined and a solution is being analyzed; 2) certify that the solicitation includes the appropriate cybersecurity requirements; 3) participate in the proposal evaluation process and provide for consideration of cybersecurity in best value decisions; and 4) continue to monitor post-award performance to the extent relevant to cybersecurity.

Conclusion

The three actions discussed above reflect the increased emphasis on cybersecurity in the acquisition process and indicate that cybersecurity will be an important issue for the acquisition community going forward.

 

GSA IL: Documenting Stakeholder Interests

During the Mythbuster’s dialogue at the Spring Conference, there were several references to the GSA Instructional Letter (IL) that was issued following the GSA Inspector General’s report on Improper Management Intervention in Multiple Award Schedule Contracts.  In case you haven’t seen it, the Instructional Letter is posted on the Coalition website at https://thecgp.org/images/FAS_-FAS-P-2800-11.pdf.

 

Take the Strategic Sourcing Survey

The Coalition invites members to take the Strategic Sourcing Survey.  The results will be used as the basis for our Strategic Sourcing White Paper, which will provide feedback to the Government on the current approach to strategic sourcing and recommendations to achieve savings and increase transparency and efficiency.  We are especially interested in hearing from members impacted by current and future FSSI initiatives.

Strategic Sourcing Survey (members only)
www.surveymonkey.com/s/HPM5P8H

We sincerely appreciate your survey responses! The closing date for the survey is COB next Wednesday, April 16. If you have any questions, please contact Roy Dicharry (rdicharry@thecgp.org).

 

CGP Briefing: The New Guidance on Cybersecurity Acquisition – What Contracting Professionals Must Learn Now

The Tower Club, Tysons Corner, VA

May 22, 2014, 8:00AM – 11:00AM, Registration 7:30AM

Registration Fee: Premier Member $95; Standard Member $145; Non-Member $215

The Coalition will be hosting a morning panel discussion and workshop on the implications for contractors of the new DoD and GSA final report and guidance on cybersecurity acquisition – including an overview and update on the Draft Implementation Plan and:

• Improving Cybersecurity and Resilience through Acquisition – Final Report of the Department of Defense and General Services Administration (January 23, 2014)
• Management Strategy Considerations on the Draft Implementation Plan (March 12, 2014)
• Framework for Improving Critical Infrastructure Cybersecurity, the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) (February 12, 2014)
• The DoD (DFARS) Final Rule on enhanced safeguards for unclassified CTI (controlled technical information) (November 18, 2013)
• The President’s Executive Order, EO 13636 (February 12, 2013)
• The Status of Proposed and Pending Federal Legislation

The specific recommendations from the DoD – GSA Final Report include:

• Institute Baseline Cybersecurity Requirements as a Condition of Contract Award for Appropriate Acquisitions
• Address Cybersecurity in Relevant Training
• Develop Common Cybersecurity Definitions for Federal Acquisitions
• Institute a Federal Acquisition Cyber Risk Management Strategy
• Include a Requirement to Purchase from Original Equipment Manufacturers, Their Authorized Resellers, or Other “Trusted” Sources, Whenever Available, In Appropriate Acquisitions
• Increase Government Accountability for Cyber Risk Management

A primary purpose of the DoD – GSA Final Report is to recommend strategic guidelines for acquisition practitioners.  In addition to covering the substantive materials, panelists will discuss the following issues as they relate to the new guidance, NIST Framework, and DFARS rule:

• How government, schedule, and commercial contractors should prepare and respond to the new guidance in proposal efforts
• Is it likely that the new guidance will move from voluntary to mandatory for contractors in the near future?
• With an estimated $46 Billion spent on global critical infrastructure cybersecurity in 2013, how much is enough?
• Are Risk Management principles and Best Practices management sufficient in this current threat and vulnerability environment?
• Are there implications in the new guidance for the certification and qualifications of FedRAMP contractors in providing cloud services?

Discussions will likely include Cloud issues as well as network security and certification, and the two panels will include the following:

Confirmed Speakers Include:

• Jon Boyens, Senior Advisor for Information Security, NIST
• David Z. Bodenheimer, Partner, Crowell & Moring LLP
• Beth Ferrell, Partner, McKenna Long & Aldridge
• Tom Barletta, Partner, Steptoe & Johnson

We are confident that the information, sources, and resources covered will strengthen your cybersecurity efforts and expand your knowledge in this critical area and we look forward to your participation.

To register, click HERE!