Friday Flash 02/07/2025

Government Procurement Efficiency List: Reducing Regulatory Burden

In keeping with prior FAR & Beyond blogs on ways to improve the efficiency of the federal procurement process, this blog will focus on regulatory burdens that impose costs on government contractors and impede entry into the federal market by commercial entities. After all, the current Administration recently issued an executive order calling for the elimination of ten regulations for every new regulation. Regulatory burdens come in varied forms. Overlapping, duplicative rules across the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) and agency supplemental regulations increase administrative costs for government, industry, and the American people. Some regulations impose compliance or administrative costs/burdens that have no relation to the work to be performed under a government contract. In other cases, contract clauses impose significant requirements that are inconsistent with commercial practice. The Government Procurement Efficiency List (GPEL) provides an opportunity to reduce regulations and administrative burdens for all.

The cybersecurity regulatory framework provides a prime example of overlapping yet differing requirements that will unnecessarily increase administrative and compliance costs for all. The Coalition has recently pointed out that if recent proposed rules are finalized there may be different definitions of cyber incidents and cyber incident reporting timelines, depending on the contracting agency. Differing requirements across the federal enterprise increases compliance complexity, thereby increasing performance risk for contractors and the government customers they serve. It also has the knock-on effect of increasing barriers to entry for commercial firms seeking access to the federal market. Less competition from the commercial market means less access to best value, innovative solutions to meet customer agency mission requirements.

Do we really need a FAR clause that requires contractors to report on Executive Compensation and First-Tier Subcontract Awards (52.204-10)? Who uses this information, does a customer agency really care if a contractor does not report it? Do we really need FAR clauses Encouraging Contractor Policies to Ban Text Messaging While Driving (52.223-18) or directing contractors to Print or Copy on Doubled-Sided Postconsumer Fiber Content Paper (52.204-4)? How do these clauses address performance required by the government customer’s statement of work?

Further, exempting commercial providers from new clauses unless required by statute, consistent with the Federal Acquisition Streamlining Act (FASA), would attract new entrants and commercial providers. Consistent with FASA, the Section 809 Panel report identified approximately 100 FAR and Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (DFARS) clauses that the government should determine are not applicable to commercial item contracts. This is a good place to start.

Finally, some clauses or provisions just reflect bad economic and procurement policy. The Price Reduction Clause (PRC), which applies to Federal Supply Schedule (FSS) contracting, is not based on statute, and is a price control mechanism. Simply, it requires contractors to monitor commercial pricing to ensure that if a commercial customer(s) gets a lower price than the agreed to price the government has negotiated, the government is entitled to that price. This outdated, anti-competitive, administratively burdensome requirement is counterproductive. It increases prices for government and commercial customers. Think about it, the General Services Administration (GSA) has a policy requirement in the PRC that, as a condition of the FSS contract, the contractor is restricted from fully and fairly competing in the commercial market. The PRC is not a commercial practice and exposes prospective contractors to burdensome record-keeping requirements and potential criminal and civil liability. Importantly, the PRC reflects a 1980’s policy FSS framework when continuous competition was not part of the FSS program. Today, the FSS is governed by competitive ordering procedures that empower customer agencies to leverage requirements.

Finally, there are thousands and thousands of pages of internal operating guidance that directly and significantly impact the public. Yet, this guidance has not been subject to the transparent rulemaking process. GSA’s Federal Acquisition Service (FAS) Policy and Procedure (PAP) 2021-05, Evaluation of FSS Program Pricing, is not a regulation and was not subject to public review and comment. Yet, it directly and significantly impacts current FSS contractors and potential offerors from the commercial market. The PAP provides FSS contracting officers with direction regarding the analysis and negotiation of contract level pricing. The PAP is inconsistent with the FAR and the General Services Administration Regulation (GSAR). It imposes significant potential data submission requirements on contractors. It also defies common sense, directing contracting officers to ‘leverage the collective buying power of the federal government” through price negotiations when the contract only provides a $2500 guaranteed minimum and the opportunity to compete for customer requirements at the order level.

These are just a few examples of unnecessary regulatory burdens. There are many more regulations that apply to specific industries and types of acquisition that serve as a barrier to entry or burden on existing contractors without providing the government, and ultimately the American taxpayer, with any real value. Please send your GPEL suggestions for removing regulatory burdens to Greg Waldron at gwaldron@thecgp.org by February 12.

SBA Updates Small Business Goals for FY25

On January 24, the Small Business Administration (SBA) released updated small business goals for fiscal year 2025. The updated goals require all agencies to award at least five percent of contracts to small disadvantaged (SDB) businesses. Agencies have been assigned the same set of goals for all socioeconomic categories as following:

SDB – five percent (down from fifteen percent in 2024);
Women-owned small business – five percent;
Service-disabled veteran-owned small business – five percent; and
HUBZone – three percent.

The general Prime Small Business goals for agencies have not been adjusted.

TTS Director Shares Vision of AI-Focused GSA

Wired reports that the newly appointed Director of the Technology Transformation Services (TTS) at GSA, Thomas Shedd, plans to pursue an “AI-first strategy” within the agency. Shedd, a former software engineer at Tesla, shared a list of projects that GSA will look to prioritize in the near future, such as developing “AI coding agents” and automating financial tasks. Shedd is also working with other agencies to create a strategy for a centralized data repository. He stated that his vision is a GSA that operates like a “tech startup company” that utilizes automation and centralized data across the government.

White House Seeks Input on AI Action Plan

The White House is seeking input from the public on the development of its Artificial Intelligence (AI) Action Plan, as directed by the President’s January 23 executive order, “Removing Barriers to American Leadership in Artificial Intelligence.” The order set a 180-day timeline for the development of the plan. The request for information (RFI) was issued by the Networking and Information Technology Research and Development National Coordination Office at the National Science Foundation. The RFI asks for input on “priority actions” to include in the plan related to AI policy areas such as application and use (either in the private sector or by government), cybersecurity, data privacy and security throughout the lifecycle of AI system development and deployment, intellectual property, procurement, innovation, and competition. Feedback is due by March 15, 2025.

Sponsorship Opportunities Now Available for the Spring Training Conference!

The Coalition is pleased to announce that sponsorship opportunities are now available for the 2025 Spring Training Conference, June 11-12, to be held at the Fairview Park Marriott in Falls Church, VA! As always, the Coalition’s Spring Training Conference will serve as a unique opportunity to engage with Federal procurement leaders and connect with industry colleagues.

Benefits of sponsoring the Coalition’s flagship event:

Establish your company as a leader in the industry
Associate your company with a well-known event
Promote your company’s brand
Reach new audiences
Generate quality leads
Showcase your products and services
Network and establish new relationships

Join our current lineup of sponsors today and show your support for the Coalition! View the Sponsorship Prospectus here.

Thank you to our current Spring Training Conference Sponsors!

Coalition Launches Presidential Transition Web Page

The Coalition for Common Sense in Government Procurement is pleased to announce a new Presidential Transition web page for contractors on our website at www.thecgp.org. We are posting information for the contractor community on new Executive Orders (EOs) and agency guidance relevant to contractors, as well as analysis on new requirements provided by our member law firms. We hope that you will find this resource helpful. If you have information that you would like the Coalition to consider posting on this site, please contact Joseph Snyderwine at jsnyderwine@thecgp.org.

NASA Issues SEWP VI Amendment 12

On January 24, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) issued Amendment 12 to the SEWP VI RFP. The purpose of the amendment is to remove diversity, equity, inclusion, and accessibility (DEIA) requirements from the RFP. In addition, the amendment removes a typographical error in the Past Performance Questionnaire Category B. The proposal due date remains February 19 at 1:00 PM (ET).

Last Call! Submit Your Feedback for the Coalition’s Government Procurement Efficiency List

Last week’s FAR & Beyond blog discussed the Coalition’s Government Procurement Efficiency List (GPEL) for the federal market. As the new Administration begins with a focus on operational reform (e.g., DOGE), the GPEL is a list of recommendations to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of the procurement system.

The Coalition is seeking your recommendations and thoughts on ways to increase efficiency of processes, programs, systems, and reporting for committee-specific procurements, as well as recommendations on cross-cutting issues. The Coalition will share the GPEL with stakeholders at the appropriate agencies.

Please send your committee-specific or cross-cutting government procurement efficiency recommendations to Greg Waldron at gwaldron@thecgp.org by February 12.

We look forward to the GPEL’s contribution to the dialogue on procurement reform and thank you for your feedback.

VA Issues Return to Office Policy

On February 3, the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) announced its policy directing employees to return to in-person work. The policy, which is in response to the President’s Memorandum, Return to in Person Work, states that eligible employees “must work full-time at their respective duty stations (agency worksites) unless excused due to a disability, qualifying medical condition or other compelling reason.” The new policy’s provisions include:

Political appointees, senior executive service (SES) members, SES equivalents, senior level and scientific and professional employees will no longer be eligible for remote work arrangements. By February 24, 2025, their telework agreements will be terminated, except for ad hoc or situational telework.
Also, by February 24, 2025, remote work and telework arrangements for supervisors with current official duty stations within 50 miles of an agency facility will be terminated, except for ad hoc or situational telework.
By April 28, 2025, remote work and telework arrangements for non-bargaining unit employees with current official duty stations within 50 miles of an agency facility will be terminated, except for ad hoc or situational telework.
Remote work and telework arrangements for supervisors and non-bargaining unit employees with current official duty stations outside 50 miles of an agency facility will not be terminated at this time. Further guidance will be forthcoming regarding these arrangements.
Return to in-person work requirements for bargaining unit employees will be announced at a later date.
VA’s policy allows exceptions for arrangements approved for employees as a reasonable accommodation due to a disability or a qualifying medical condition. Exceptions may also be allowed for military spouses with permanent change of station orders.

Currently, more than 20 percent of the VA’s 479,000 employees have telework or remote work arrangements. To view the policy, click here.

DoD Exempt from Civilian Hiring Freeze

Meritalk reports that according to a memo from the U.S. Air Force, the Department of Defense (DoD) was granted a blanket exemption from the civilian hiring freeze issued by the President. The exemption allows DoD to continue with “normal hiring actions and onboarding” for its civilian workforce. The President’s hiring freeze prevents Federal agencies from filling any “Federal civilian position that is vacant … and no new position may be created except as otherwise provided for in this memorandum or other applicable law.” The order will remain in effect for at least 90 days, after which the Office of Management and Budget, OPM, and DOGE will submit a plan to reduce the Federal workforce “through efficiency and attrition.” While military personnel were exempt from the freeze, it was initially unclear if the exemption applied to DoD civilian positions. The Air Force memo clarified that while DoD is fully exempt, hiring must be closely monitored within allocated budgets. The memo also noted that the exemption does not prevent future targeted hiring freezes.

DHA Provides Flexibilities during T-5 Contract Transition in West Region

The Defense Health Agency (DHA) is taking steps to ensure Tricare beneficiaries receive services in the wake of disruptions connected to the transition of managed care responsibilities to incoming contractor TriWest, reports Military.com. DHA Director Lt. Gen. Telita Crosland has sent a letter to all Tricare beneficiaries acknowledging disruptions within the 26-state Tricare West Region, noting that she “will not rest until I am confident that we [DHA] are delivering on all of our obligations.”

In response to payment information issues, DHA has extended the deadline for beneficiaries to update said information with TriWest to February 28. Tricare stated that beneficiaries that fail to meet this delayed deadline will lose coverage backdated to January 1. DHA also issued a waiver on January 27 making Tricare Prime beneficiaries eligible to receive outpatient specialty care without preapproval from TriWest. Individuals still need a referral for care from their primary care provider, but don’t need TriWest’s approval through March 31. Beneficiaries are directed to continue utilizing their existing providers, even those outside of TriWest’s network, and may use referrals for care that were issued by the previous contractor through June 30. For more information from Tricare, click here.

Legal Corner: Federal Spending Freeze and Executive Orders Blocked by Federal Judge: What Contractors Need to Know

The Legal Corner provides the procurement community with an opportunity to share insights and comments on relevant legal issues of the day. The comments herein do not necessarily reflect the views of The Coalition for Government Procurement.

Authored by Samuel S. Finnerty and Lauren Brier; PilieroMazza

As we recently noted, President Trump has issued a flurry of Executive Orders (EO) since he took office. Among other things, President Trump has sought to eliminate DEI and affirmative action-based programs and has put a 90-day pause on all foreign development assistance funding. More sweepingly, on January 27, 2025, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) issued a directive (Directive) requiring agencies to pause all funding for federal financial assistance and other relevant agency activities that may be implicated by the EOs, including financial assistance for foreign aid, nongovernmental organizations, DEI, woke gender ideology, and the green new deal. Agencies have been responding to these Executive actions swiftly by issuing stop-work orders and modifying, and in some cases terminating, contracts and grants. Although the OMB Directive was ultimately rescinded on January 29, 2025, the policies contained in the Directive have not been effectively rolled back and are the subject of ongoing litigation.

On January 31, 2025, in a lawsuit filed by attorneys general in 22 states and the District of Columbia challenging the EOs and the actions of the OMB, U.S. District Judge John J. McConnell concluded that the plaintiffs in that suit are likely to succeed on their claims that the Executive’s actions violate the Constitution and statutes of the United States. In response, and needing to act “under the ‘worst case scenario’ because the breadth and ambiguity of the Executive’s action makes it impossible to do otherwise[,]” the Judge issued a temporary restraining order (Order) that blocks the federal funding freeze. This ruling has wide-ranging implications for federal contractors that have been impacted by the EOs, including those who have received stop-work orders and termination letters.

In issuing the Order, the court stated: “During the pendency of the Temporary Restraining Order, Defendants shall not pause, freeze, impede, block, cancel, or terminate Defendants’ compliance with awards and obligations to provide federal financial assistance to the States, and Defendants shall not impede the States’ access to such awards and obligations, except on the basis of the applicable authorizing statutes, regulations, and terms.” The Court went on to explain that “Defendants shall also be restrained and prohibited from reissuing, adopting, implementing, or otherwise giving effect to the OMB Directive under any other name or title or through any other Defendants (or agency supervised, administered, or controlled by any Defendant), such as the continued implementation identified by the White House Press Secretary’s statement of January 29, 2025.”

While this Order should put a temporary stop on certain aspects of Trump’s funding freeze and related EOs, it also raises many questions.

Takeaways

Scope of the Order. While the Order blocks any suspension of federal financial assistance to the 22 states that were party to the suit, as well as the District of Columbia, it is unclear whether the Order applies to all contracts and grants impacted by the EOs.
Operating Under a Stop Work Order. In light of the Order, contractors that have already been issued stop-work orders in response to the EOs may be able to challenge those stop-work orders. The Order also raises questions as to what types of costs may be recoverable if and when the stop-work orders are lifted.
Dealing with a Termination for Convenience. Contractors who have had contracts terminated for convenience in response to the EOs may be able to challenge those terminations based on the Order.
Duration of the Order. The Order remains in place until further order of the Court. In future proceedings, the Court will decide whether to convert the temporary restraining order into a preliminary injunction.
Notice Requirement. The executive agencies involved in the lawsuit are required to provide notice of the Order to all contractors and grantees by February 3, 2025, at 9 AM.
Agencies Remain Free to Exercise Other Discretion to Pause Awards. While the Order prevents federal funds being frozen in response to the EOs, the Court acknowledged in its ruling that agencies may exercise their own authority to pause awards or obligations, provided agencies do so purely based on their own discretion—not as a result of the OMB Directive or the EOs.
Scope and Effect on Current Contracts. It is worth contacting your contracting officer in writing to seek clarity on the scope or effect of the Court’s Order on your current Contract, including those that have been suspended, to better understand performance expectations.

These Executive actions have caused significant upheaval for government contractors. If you have questions about this Order or President Trump’s EOs, please contact Sam Finnerty, Lauren Brier, or another member of PilieroMazza’s REAs, Claims, and Appeals or Government Contracts practice groups. Also, register here for the webinar “Government Contracts and New Mandates: Executive Orders and Cost Recovery Strategies Explained” for an in-depth discussion of the EOs and their implications for government contractors.

Healthcare Spotlight: Newly Confirmed VA Secretary Shares Vision for Department

On Wednesday, newly confirmed VA Secretary Doug Collins published a message to veterans and VA employees about his vision for the department. Secretary Collins emphasized his commitment to fulfill the President’s task of “taking great care of America’s Veterans.” He provided a list of six actions that the VA will take to accomplish this goal:

We’re going to deliver timely access to care and benefits for every eligible Veteran, family member, caregiver and survivor.
We’re going to put Veterans at the center of everything VA does, focusing relentlessly on customer service and convenience.
We’re going to challenge the status quo in order to find new and better ways of helping VA beneficiaries.
We’re going to celebrate the vast majority of VA employees who do a great job every day and hold employees accountable when they fall short of the mission.
We’re going to provide Veterans with the health care choices they have earned while maintaining and improving VA’s direct health care capabilities.
And we’re going to do a better job reaching Veterans at risk of homelessness or suicide – especially those who have had no contact with VA.”

View from Main Street: SBA’s December 2024 Final Rule Highlights

On December 17, 2024, the Small Business Administration (SBA) issued a final rule addressing multiple small business contracting programs, including HUBZone, 8(a), size, recertification, and joint ventures. 89 FR 102448. Most of the rule is effective January 16, 2025, with an exception involving recertification for mergers and acquisitions involving large businesses. Here are some highlights:

Minority Owner Protections

The final rule addresses situations where minority owner consent can be required to take certain actions, without jeopardizing the size, 8(a), Service-Disabled Veteran-Owned (SDVO), or Women-Owned Small Business (WOSB) status of the concern. Minority owner consent can be required for adding a new equity stakeholder or increasing the investment amount of an equity stakeholder, dissolution of the company, sale of the company or all assets of the company, the merger of the company, bankruptcy, amendment of the company’s corporate governance documents to remove the minority stakeholder’s authority to block these actions, or any other action intended to protect the investment of the minority owner, and not impede the majority owner’s ability to control the concern’s operations.

Joint Ventures

SBA is clarifying that a joint venture partner that performs 40 percent of the work cannot be found to be unduly reliant on its joint venture partner under the ostensible subcontractor rule.

In light of a great deal if litigation concerning evaluation of past performance and experience in the context of an offer from a mentor protégé joint venture, SBA is clarifying that:

A procuring agency has discretion whether to require a protégé or lead small business member of a joint venture to demonstrate some level of past performance and/or experience;

A procuring agency may rely solely on the past performance and experience of the mentor or non-similarly situated joint venture partner;

Where a procuring agency requires some level of past performance and/or experience of the protégé or lead small business firm, the procuring agency cannot require that firm to individually meet all the same evaluation criteria as that required of other offerors generally; and

Successful performance by the protégé or lead small business firm on the contracts that it identifies shall be rated equivalently to successful performance by the mentor or non-similarly situated partner to the joint venture or any other offeror.

Annual Receipts and Value-Added Technology Resellers

SBA had proposed that it may look beyond a firm’s tax forms when calculating annual receipts, apparently because of confusion over how value-added technology resellers report income for tax purposes. In response to comments, SBA agrees that it will use tax forms and it will not include revenue in calculating size that can be legally excluded for tax purposes. Of course, SBA can look beyond tax forms if there is suspected fraud.

HUBZone

A HUBZone small business must have its principal office in a HUBZone, and 35% of its employees must reside in a HUBZone. A firm’s principal office is the location where the greatest number of its employees work. SBA decided to keep the number of hours that an individual must work to qualify as a HUBZone employee at 40 hours per month but imposed a general requirement of 10 hours per week. An employee must also perform legitimate work for the concern. SBA decided not to create a separate standard for concerns where all employees work remotely, meaning that if there is not a single location where a greater number of a concern’s employees work, an applicant cannot establish that its principal office is in a HUBZone unless all of its employees work in HUBZones. SBA decided to allow firms to count up to four employees as “legacy” HUBZone employee (employees that used to live in a HUBZone but no longer do), as long as the firm employs at least one current HUBZone resident. HUBZone firms must be eligible at the time of offer for a HUBZone contract (like other SBA programs) and must recertify HUBZone program eligibility every three years. Finally, the HUBZone price evaluation preference does not apply in the context of an offer from a mentor protégé joint venture involving a large business.

8(a)

Unlike other SBA certification programs, SBA’s 8(a) program has a good character requirement because it is a developmental program. SBA adopted its proposed clarification that applicants will not be automatically barred from 8(a) certification based on past criminal activity. A denial of 8(a) certification based on a lack of business integrity will be based on conduct that could be grounds for suspension and debarment. Some other clarifications include a non-disadvantaged minority owner’s right of first refusal does not negatively impact a disadvantaged individual’s ability to control the concern; non-disadvantaged individuals or concerns in the same line of business can own up to 20 percent of a concern in the development stage of the program and 30 percent of a concern in the transitional stage; and elimination of consideration of State community property laws when determining ownership.

Highest Compensation

SBA’s 8(a), SDVO and WOSB certification programs generally require that the individual upon whom eligibility is based must be the highest compensated. The 8(a) rules used to require SBA approval before a firm could pay another individual higher compensation. Now, all three programs require notice to SBA of such higher compensation.

Recertification

SBA consolidated size and status recertification into one section. Under the new rules, if a firm recertifies as other than small due to an acquisition of a small business by another small business, the firm will still be eligible for set-aside orders and options under a small business set-aside contract. If a firm recertifies as other than small due to an acquisition by a large business, the firm is ineligible for set-aside orders under an unrestricted contract and orders or options under a small business multiple award set-aside contract, effective January 17, 2026.

Off the Shelf: Key Procurement Trends in 2025

Bill Gormley, President of the Gormley Group, joined Off the Shelf to discuss key procurement trends from 2024 and insights for 2025. Gormley focuses on interagency contracting, particularly within GSA’s Federal Acquisition Service (FAS). He also evaluates the performance of the Federal Supply Schedules (FSS) in 2024 and shares his outlook for 2025. He highlights how FAS’s systems, structure, and contracting workforce influence both customer agencies and contractors within the FSS marketplace.

Listen to the full interview here.

Seeking Member Feedback on Proposed Rules on OCI, CUI and MAC Small Business Participation & Protests

Proposed Rule: Preventing Organizational Conflicts of Interest in Federal Acquisition

The Coalition is seeking feedback on a proposed rule entitled “Federal Acquisition Regulation: Preventing Organizational Conflicts of Interest in Federal Acquisition.” This rule implements the 2022 Preventing Organizational Conflicts of Interest in Federal Acquisition Act. This Act directs the FAR Council to provide and update:

Definitions, to include those related to specific types of organizational conflicts of interest (OCIs), including unequal access to information, impaired objectivity, and biased ground rules;
Guidance and illustrative examples related to relationships of contractors with public, private, domestic, and foreign entities that may result in OCIs; and
Illustrative examples of situations related to the potential for OCIs.

The proposed rule will “provide agencies with tailorable solicitation provisions and contract clauses to avoid or mitigate organizational conflicts.” In addition, executive agencies will be required to “establish or update agency conflict of interest procedures to implement these revisions to the FAR.”

Please submit your feedback to Greg Waldron at gwaldron@thecgp.org by March 3.

Proposed Rule: Controlled Unclassified Information (CUI)

The Coalition is collecting feedback on a proposed rule entitled “Federal Acquisition Regulation: Controlled Unclassified Information.”

This rule aims to implement the cyber-security requirements in NIST SP 800-171 Rev. 2, for contractors storing or transmitting Controlled Unclassified Information (CUI), as required in 32 CFR part 2002. CUI is defined as as information that does not meet the requirements for classification but still requires safeguarding or dissemination controls.

Contractors receiving CUI will be subject to a new FAR clause, FAR 52.204-XX, which will direct contractors to protect CUI identified in a new form, SF XXX. This form will be completed by agency officials. The new clause includes two new reporting requirements. Suspected “CUI incidents” and suspected failures by the government to identify CUI must each be reported within eight hours. The clause will flow down to all subcontractors who touch CUI. Similar to the CMMC program, purely COTS contracts are exempt from the application of this clause.

Please submit your feedback to Greg Waldron at gwaldron@thecgp.org by March 3.

Proposed Rule: Small Business Participation on Certain Multiple-Award Contracts

The FAR Council published a proposed rule to issue policy on small business participation on certain multiple-award contracts. The policy would “expand the use of small business set-asides for orders against multiple-award contracts; increase coordination with the cognizant small business specialist and the Small Business Administration (SBA) procurement center representative (PCR) during acquisition planning for multiple-award contracts and when placing orders against multiple-award contracts and provide additional criteria to consider or address in documentation.”

Under the proposed rule, contracting officers are directed to set aside an order for small business under a multiple award contract if the contract officer determines that there is a “reasonable expectation of obtaining offers from two or more responsible small business contract awardees that are competitive in terms of fair market price, quality, capability, ability to comply with the delivery or performance schedule, and past performance.”

Please submit your feedback to Joseph Snyderwine at JSnyderwine@thecgp.org by March 14.

Proposed Rule: Protests of Orders Under Certain Multiple-Award Contracts

The FAR Council issued a proposed rule on protests of orders under certain multiple-award contracts. The proposed rule adds text to clarify that a contracting officer’s decision to set aside or not set aside an order for small businesses under a multiple-award contract is not grounds for protest. The rule clarifies that these protests “challenge a discretionary act statutorily committed to agency decision-making and therefore cannot form the basis for a protest seeking to compel an agency to make a different choice.”

Please submit your feedback to Joseph Snyderwine at JSnyderwine@thecgp.org by March 14.

GSA Issues Alliant 3 Amendment 8

GSA has issued Amendment 8 to the Alliant 3 Request for Proposal (RFP). The amendment makes the following updates:

Remove the Meaningful Relationship Commitment Letter (MRCL) project requirement (RFP Section L.5.1.5(f)(5));
Include the requirement to designate a Parent-Company Corporate Official empowered to resolve operational and consensus issues between the entity claiming the MRCL, and its Affiliate, Division or Subsidiary with which it claims a MRCL (RFP Section L.5.1.5(f)(5)); and
Update the previously performed project requirement for SBSubk SBCTAs to claim Organizational Risk Assessment points (L.5.6(b)).

The Alliant 3 proposal due date is February 24, 2025.

MDA Agile Professional Services Solutions (MAPSS) Acquisition Strategy Issued

On February 4, the Missile Defense Agency (MDA) issued a notice that the MDA Agile Professional Services Solutions (MAPSS) Acquisition Strategy has been approved. MDA has provided a white paper outlining tranches, estimated solicitation dates, and NAICS/PSC determinations. The white paper can be found in the “Attachments” section of the notice.

Details within each tranche are subject to adjustment(s) as MDA approaches the window of execution, conducts stakeholder engagements, market research refresh, and acquisition strategy validation. Industry should use the information for business case planning and determinations for future years. MDA will continue to keep Industry updated on the status of – and any changes to – the MAPSS portfolio as it conducts the execution phase.

All inquiries regarding MAPSS should be submitted by email to MAPSS@MDA.mil.

DHA Pharmacy Operations Division Releases FY25 Q1 UFDUR Report

The Department of Defense (DoD) Pharmacy Operations Division has released the Uniform Formulary Drug Utilization Report (UFDUR) for the first quarter of fiscal year 2025. According to the report, “the purpose of UFDUR is to monitor and trend the average adjusted 30-Day equivalent prescription trends for the primary points of service (Military Treatment Facilities (MTF), Retail, and Mail Order) for DoD beneficiaries.”

Coalition Member Referral Program

The Coalition for Government Procurement is excited to announce its new Member Referral Program!

For each new member your organization refers, and then joins the Coalition, you’ll receive a $250 discount toward registration for either the Spring or Fall Training Conference. There’s no limit to how many discounts you can earn!

Start referring today to enjoy the rewards while helping expand the Coalition’s membership base and advancing our mission of promoting common-sense procurement.

To make a referral or if you have questions about the program, please contact Heather Tarpley, Vice President of Business Development & Sales, at HTarpley@thecgp.org.

Thank you for being a valued member of the Coalition. Your support is key to our success!

Join a Coalition Committee

Members participate in various Coalition committees to stay up to date on the latest Federal contracting developments for their particular industry and to provide feedback to the government on contracting programs of interest. The following committees are open to all members:

Business Regulatory Issues Committee (BRIC)
Cyber & Supply Chain Security Committee
Furniture/Furnishings Committee
General/Office Products Committee
GWAC, MAC & Enterprise Committee
Healthcare Committee
Imaging Equipment Committee
Information Technology (IT)/Professional Services Committee
Medical/Surgical Committee
Pharmaceutical Committee
Small Business Committee

Learn more about the Coalition’s committees here. If you are not already on a committee distribution list and would like to sign up, please email Mady Whiting at mwhiting@thecgp.org with which committees you are interested in joining.

FY24 VA Data for Healthcare Members Now Available

To increase the number of valuable tools available for members, the Coalition has compiled several data sets pertaining to VA Medical Centers’ procedures, diagnoses, and product spend. Below is a description of the different VA data reports that the Coalition can provide to healthcare members based on areas of interest to their business:

Diagnosis data by each VA Medical Center: Members can request a report by providing the International Classification of Diseases (ICD)-10 codes of interest to their business.
Procedure data by each VA Medical Center: Members can request a report by providing the Current Procedural Terminology (CPT) codes of interest to their business.
Prosthetic (medical implants, DME) product spend by VA Medical Center: members can request a report by providing the Healthcare Common Procedure Coding System (HCPCS) codes of interest to their business for items managed by VHA Prosthetics.

Diagnosis and procedure data for fiscal year (FY) 2024 is now available. For any data requests or related questions, please contact Michael Hanafin at mhanafin@thecgp.org.