Friday Flash 10/14/2022

Register Now for the 2022 Fall Training Conference

It is already mid-October, which means the Coalition for Government Procurement’s Annual Fall Training Conference – Expectations for Fiscal Year 2023 – is less than five weeks away! Please do consider registering to join us in person on November 16-17 at the Fairview Park Marriott in Falls Church, Virginia, or virtually via Pathable as we live stream every session. This year’s conference highlights the expectations for Federal procurement policies and programs across the government in the new fiscal year. We know you will benefit from hearing timely updates and future developments affecting the procurement community from our speakers and panels that will be comprised of executives and acquisition experts in both government and industry.

Day One – Governmentwide Focus

On November 16, sessions will include a governmentwide focus. Please note this is a departure from previous years where our first day has traditionally had a healthcare focus. Tom Davis, former Congressman and current Holland & Knight Partner, will serve as our morning Keynote and provide analysis of the election results, detailing what happened and what these results mean for the Federal government.
Following Congressman Davis’ remarks, the morning panels will begin with the return of the popular “Rogers Awards,” which will cover recent procurement-related legal matters. Next up is the Acquisition Policy Expectations session, which features an interagency panel of Procurement Executives, including Angela Billups, Executive Director, Office of Acquisition and Logistics, VA; Paul Courtney, Chief Procurement Officer, DHS; Jeff Koses, Senior Procurement Executive, GSA; and John Tenaglia, Director, Defense Pricing and Contracting (DPC), DoD.
During the networking lunch, we have invited GSA Federal Acquisition Service (FAS) Commissioner Sonny Hashmi to deliver a Keynote Address on his vision for FAS in the new fiscal year and thoughts on customer service for both industry and agency partners.

After lunch, attendees will have the opportunity to decide to hear from a panel of GSA FAS Assistant Commissioners on their expectations for FAS procurement programs, or a panel on cybersecurity policies that impact both customer agencies and industry. As always, participants will have various Business Intelligence Panel options to choose from, with sessions that include acquisition system updates, the cloud marketplace, e-commerce, expectations from the Hill, the latest developments on contract vehicles such as SEWP, OASIS+, Alliant, and CIO-SP, and more. Representatives from the Department of Defense (DoD), Department of Homeland Security (DHS), Defense Logistics Agency (DLA), General Services Administration (GSA), National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA), National Institutes of Health (NIH), Small Business Administration (SBA), and Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) have all been invited to participate. The full day one draft agenda can be viewed here.

Day Two – Healthcare Focus

As noted above, day two of the conference will focus specifically on healthcare procurement, with the Defense Health Agency (DHA), Defense Logistics Agency (DLA), Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), and VA sharing their initiatives for fiscal year 2023. Michael Parrish, VA Principal Executive and Chief Acquisition Officer, has been invited to deliver the morning Keynote Address on the VA’s acquisition priorities and programs. Phil Christy, OALC Deputy Executive Director, VA and Andrew Centineo, Executive Director, Procurement and Logistics, VHA will follow up the keynote during the Expectations for VA Logistics and Procurement Panel. Participants can then look forward to learning from agency executives and industry leaders during the Expectations for DHA, DLA, and VA Policy and Healthcare Legal Panels. We are fortunate to have Moshe Schwartz, President of Etherton and Associates, wrap up the networking lunch by providing his insights on the healthcare supply chain and legislation. The afternoon Business Intelligent Panels will dive into a number of topics, such as the medical supply chain, pharmaceutical programs, and DLA and VA Medical Surgical Prime Vendor (MSPV) programs. For additional details, view the full agenda for day two here.

Ask the PMO – Stop by to ask your questions in person!

We are thrilled to share that the very popular ‘Ask the PMO’ table will return at the Fall Training Conference. Ask the PMO, which debuted at the 2022 Spring Training Conference, gives attendees the opportunity to engage in dialogue with Program Managers from GSA’s Multiple Award Schedule Program Management Office and the VA’s Federal Supply Schedule (FSS). Attendees can schedule one-on-one meetings throughout the day to ask questions and have their concerns addressed. On November 16, Stephanie Shutt, MAS PMO Director, Steve Sizemore, MAS PMO Deputy Director, and Stacy Lowe, IT Schedule 70 Contracting Officer will be available at the table. On November 17, the VA FSS program will be available to answer member questions. Bob Satterfield, Chief of Services, and Deborah Zuckswerth, Chief of Med Surg B of VA FSS will be present. We hope that everyone takes the opportunity to get their GSA and VA Schedules questions answered and to say hello to their government colleagues who are participating.

Networking Breakfast and Reception

Please join us for an hour each morning for breakfast and networking, and then make sure to stick around at the conclusion of the afternoon breakout sessions as both days will end with an in-person networking reception to allow for participants to connect with one another and continue their discussions on key acquisition topics from the day.

Registration and Sponsorship Opportunities

Register for the Fall Training Conference here. As a friendly reminder, Keystone Members receive unlimited complimentary registrations; Executive Members receive five complimentary registrations; and Premier Members receive two complimentary registrations.

Additionally, this is a fantastic opportunity to help support the Coalition while also getting name and brand recognition for your company. We have a wide variety of sponsorships available for all budgets and would truly appreciate your support!

Thank you to our current sponsors for Day 1: Raytheon, Gold Sponsor; Sheppard Mullin, Silver Sponsor; and The Center for Procurement Advocacy, Lunch Sponsor. Thank you also to our day two sponsor: AvKARE, Title Sponsor.


If you need assistance with event registration or have sponsorship questions or commitments, please contact Matt Cahill, Vice President of Membership & Marketing, at or 202-315-1054.

GSA OIG Publishes Second Report Urging Cancellation of TDR

The General Services Administration (GSA) Office of Inspector General (OIG) released a report on September 30 entitled FAS Cannot Provide Assurance That MAS Contract Pricing Results in Orders Achieving the Lowest Overall Cost Alternative. The report covers its audit of GSA’s price analysis practices under the Multiple Award Schedule (MAS). The OIG found that the procedures currently used to maintain competitive pricing do not meet the standards of the Competition in Contracting Act (CICA) because they do not assure customer agencies that orders placed against MAS contracts provide the lowest overall cost alternative. The audit analyzed and found deficiencies in contracts that participated in the Transactional Data Reporting (TDR) pilot, in addition to contracts that require Commercial Sales Practices (CSP) disclosures.

In its analysis of Schedule contracts within the TDR pilot, the OIG determined that TDR does not provide Federal Acquisition Service (FAS) personnel with sufficient data to support pricing decisions, leading them to negotiate pricing based on other MAS and government contracts. Regarding contracts subjected to CSP disclosures, the OIG found that FAS personnel frequently accepted inadequate commercial pricing information that was unsupported, outdated or lacked comparable sales information.

The OIG reiterated their recommendations from their previous audit in June 2021 that the TDR pilot should be canceled, and that GSA inform customer agencies that they should perform separate and independent price determinations to ensure the lowest cost alternative. Furthermore, FAS should establish new procedures to ensure that offerors are required to provide detailed information about the sales volumes, terms and conditions of pricing agreements, and any additional transactional discounts or pricing terms offered to individual commercial customers that receive the best pricing for the products and services proposed for the MAS contract. FAS should also establish protocols requiring offerors to submit other data when offerors lack comparable sales outside their MAS contract and cancel policy 2017-02, Updated Procedures for Exercising the Option to Extend the Term of a Federal Supply Schedule Contract. Finally, OIG recommended that FAS explore new pricing methodologies.

FAS Commissioner Sonny Hashmi released a letter in response to the report. Hashmi disagreed with three of the recommendations, stating that the MAS program follows competitive procedures and provides the lowest cost alternative to meet the government’s needs. According to Hashmi, other analyses demonstrate that TDR provides better contract pricing and that GSA pricing is “competitive with the largest commercial sellers in the world.” In addition to pricing benefits, he noted TDR’s benefits in providing tracking data for items that pose a national security risk. He also noted industry support for TDR, as it lowers barriers to entry and reduces regulatory burden by removing the requirement to monitor the Price Reductions Clause, and wrote that the existing requirements provide sufficient information for reasonable price determinations. Finally, Hashmi concurred with the need for the continual development and improvement of GSA’s pricing methodology.

Senate Votes on FY23 NDAA Amendments, Passage Expected Before End of the Year

The Senate opened debate on the Fiscal Year 2023 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) and adopted seventy-five amendments to the bill on Tuesday, the Federal Times reports. The amendments adopted Tuesday were drawn from more than 900 that have already been submitted to the bill, which passed the House in July. The adopted amendments include twelve amendments addressing U.S. China policy, including portions of the Taiwan Policy Act sponsored by Sen. Bob Menendez (D-NJ), and a provision to ban the procurement of drones from covered foreign entities, including firms associated with the Chinese government. Sen. Jack Reed (D-RI), the Chairman of the Senate Armed Services committee, stated that he expects that a version of the bill will pass this year as it has for the previous 61 years. After Tuesday’s session, the Senate adjourned. Debate on the NDAA will resume in November after the midterm elections.

Imaging Committee Meeting with IWAC Leadership, October 26

The Imaging Committee will be having a virtual meeting on October 26, 2022, from 2:00 PM till 3:00 PM. The meeting will be a dialogue between industry and government on Cybersecurity Supply Chain Risk Management (C-SCRM) requirements and accommodating the office of the future. Kristine Stein, Business Development Director of the Integrated Workplace Acquisition Center (IWAC) and John Breen, Projects Branch Chief at IWAC will be representing the General Services Administration.
If you have any questions, please contact Joseph Snyderwine at
To register, click here.

Join the CMMC 2.0 and Cyber False Claims Act Webinar, October 27

The Coalition is pleased to host attorneys from Crowell & Moring LLP for our next webinar on October 27 at 12 noon EST. Michael Gruden, Tully McLaughlin and Nkechi Kanu will survey the evolution of the Cybersecurity Maturity Model Certification (CMMC) Version 2.0, the concurrent rise of cybersecurity False Claims Act enforcement actions brought by whistleblowers and the Department of Justice, and what these converging developments mean for companies doing business with the Federal Government. To join us for this timely discussion, please click here to register.

VA’s Pharmacy Module, Defense Enrollment Eligibility Reporting System Experiences Unplanned Outages

FedScoop reports that two healthcare systems in the VA experienced outages last Thursday. Veterans and active-duty personnel were “unable to fill prescription orders through Medication Manager Retail (MMR) [an EHR module]” from approximately 8 a.m. until 6 p.m. EST, when contractors managed to resolve an issue with an application package. On the same day, some patients lost access to Defense Enrollment Eligibility Reporting System, a database listing those eligible for the military’s TRICARE health benefits. The issue “resolved without intervention” and the cause of the outage remains unknown. The two outages are the latest in a long line of challenges with the VA’s Electronic Healthcare Records Modernization program that have caused officials to pause further expansion of the system until at least next year.

GSA Publishes RFI on Low-Carbon Construction Materials

GSA published a Request for Information (RFI) last week on to gather information on (i) the current availability of construction materials with substantially lower-than-average embodied carbon (specifically, concrete, steel, asphalt, glass, aluminum, insulation, roofing materials, gypsum board, and structural engineered wood), and (ii) manufacturers’ ability to provide product-specific Environmental Product Declarations for construction materials. The RFI’s nine questions ask companies to describe what low-carbon products they have available, their characteristics, their cost compared to conventional equivalents, how they track greenhouse gas emissions from product manufacturing, and what remaining obstacles they face in reducing embodied carbon. GSA will use the information received to implement the Federal Buy Clean Initiative, which “promote[s] use of low-carbon, made in America“ construction materials, and shape how it uses the $2.15 billion appropriation for low-carbon construction materials it received under the Inflation Reduction Act.
Companies who responded to GSA’s February RFIs on low-carbon concrete and asphalt do not need to respond to the current RFI. Responses may be submitted either via the online form here or by emailing The deadline is midnight EST on Thursday, November 3.

Legal Corner:

Impact of SBA Proposals on Federal Subcontracting

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

By Samuel S. Finnerty, Partner, PieleroMazza

As PilieroMazza recently noted, SBA released a major proposed rulemaking that will impact government contractors. The proposed rule is focused on SBA’s 8(a) Program (see our client alert highlighting those proposed changes here), but it also impacts the rules for subcontracting on federal projects. This client alert provides contractors with an overview of SBA’s proposals related to the limitations on subcontracting, subcontractor affiliation, and subcontracting plans.

Limitations on Subcontracting (LOS)

SBA’s rules currently provide that the period of time used to determine compliance with the LOS for a total or partial set-aside contract is the base term and then each subsequent option period. SBA thinks this makes sense when one agency oversees and monitors a contract. However, SBA believes that on a multi-agency contract (MAC), under which multiple agencies can issue orders, no one agency can practically monitor and track LOS compliance. Thus, under SBA’s proposed rule, for a set-aside MAC, each ordering agency would be required to measure the contractor’s compliance with the LOS over the period of performance for each order.

If enacted, this proposal could certainly create administrative burden for agencies that are not currently monitoring LOS compliance under these orders. In addition, it could create some concern within the contracting community, as it would require contractors to comply with the LOS for each order issued under their MACs, thereby eliminating the flexibility that comes with measuring LOS compliance over the entire base period and then for each option period. The rule could also create some confusion, at least in the short term, as the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR), which contracting officer’s usually follow, has its own LOS rules that do not include this distinction for MACs.

SBA also proposes adding a rule indicating that if a contracting officer determines that a firm failed to comply with the LOS at the conclusion of contract performance, the contracting officer would not be permitted to give a satisfactory or higher (i.e., a positive) past performance rating to the contractor for the appropriate evaluation factor or subfactor (i.e., small business subcontracting). This proposal would not alter the contracting officer’s discretion to require contractors to demonstrate compliance with the LOS where the contracting officer deems it to be appropriate; it would merely provide consequences (i.e., a negative past performance evaluation) when the contracting officer determines that a contractor did not comply with the LOS at the conclusion of contract performance. This rule would further elevate the importance of LOS compliance.

Affiliation Based on Subcontracting

SBA’s affiliation rules provide that a prime contractor and its ostensible subcontractor are treated as a joint venture (JV) and therefore affiliated for size purposes when the subcontractor is not similarly situated (i.e., does not have the same small business status that the prime needed to qualify for award) and either (1) performs the primary and vital requirements of the contract or (2) the prime contractor is unusually reliant on the subcontractor. The proposed rule would make the following changes related to ostensible subcontractor affiliation:

  • The rule clarifies that so long as each concern is small under the applicable size standard (or the prime contractor is small if the subcontractor is its SBA-approved mentor), the ostensible subcontractor/JV arrangement will still qualify as a small business.
  • The rule explains that an ostensible subcontractor analysis should consider whether the subcontractor’s incumbent managers will transfer to the prime contractor and whether the prime contractor relies on the subcontractor’s experience because it lacks relevant experience of its own. This proposal would partially codify a four-factor test that SBA’s Office of Hearings and Appeals created in the Size Appeal of DoverStaffing, Inc., SBA No. SIZ-5300 (2011), and has been using for several years to determine when a prime contractor’s relationship with a subcontractor is suggestive of unusual reliance under the ostensible subcontractor rule. As with the existing rule, SBA would still consider all aspects of the prime contractor’s relationship with the subcontractor and would not limit its inquiry to the factors outlined in DoverStaffing. SBA seeks public comment on this proposed change to the ostensible subcontracting rule.
  • The rule would also clarify that in a general construction contract, the primary and vital requirements of the contract are the management and oversight of the project, not the actual construction or specialty trade construction work performed. SBA recognizes that on general construction contracts, subcontractors often perform the majority of the actual construction work, as the prime contractor must often engage multiple subcontractors specializing in different trades and disciplines. SBA believes the ostensible subcontractor rule for general construction contracts should be applied to the management and oversight of the project—and not to the actual construction or specialty trade construction performed. In other words, SBA’s proposal would confirm that in a general construction contract, the prime contractor must retain management of the contract but can delegate a large portion of the actual construction work to its subcontractors without violating the ostensible subcontractor rule.
  • The rule would also clarify that when a Small Business Innovation Research (SBIR) or Small Business Technology Transfer (STTR) offeror is determined to be a joint venturer with its ostensible subcontractor, SBA will apply the ownership and control requirements for SBIR/STTR joint ventures to the arrangement. This clarification is consistent with how SBA treats entities that are determined to be joint venturers with their ostensible subcontractor for other small business program set-asides. Visit this link for PilieroMazza’s coverage on the extension of the SBIR/STTR Programs.
  • The proposed rule would add a paragraph to each of the SDVOSB, HUBZone, and WOSB/EDWOSB status protest provisions to clarify that any protests relating to ostensible subcontractor affiliation claims will be reviewed by the SBA Government Contracting Area Office serving the geographic area in which the principal office of the protested concern is located. SBA’s Government Contracting Area Offices decide size protests and render formal size determinations. SBA believes they are best suited to decide ostensible subcontractor issues. So, for example, if a status protest filed in connection with a WOSB contract alleges that the awardee should not qualify as a WOSB because (1) the husband of the firm’s owner actually controls the business and (2) a non-WOSB subcontractor will perform primary and vital requirements of the contract, SBA’s WOSB staff in the Office of Government Contracting would review the control issue and the appropriate SBA Government Contracting Area Office would review the ostensible subcontractor issue.

Subcontracting Plans

  • The rule clarifies that a prime contractor cannot count an award to a joint venture—within which it is a partner—towards its subcontracting goals.
  • The rule deletes bank fees from the list of costs excludable from the subcontracting base when a contractor seeks to comply with its subcontracting plan. SBA believes this exclusion gives large contractors little incentive to work with small banks, of which there are over 900 registered in the Dynamic Small Business Search (DSBS). SBA estimates that after subtracting the amount already spent with small-business banks, the new spending with small business subcontractors under the rule would be $228,000 annually.
  • The rule requires large businesses to include indirect costs in their subcontracting plans. Currently, large businesses have the option of including or excluding indirect costs in their individual subcontracting plans. According to SBA, many large businesses opt to exclude indirect costs and, as a result, small businesses that provide services generally considered to be indirect costs—such as legal services, accounting services, investment banking, and asset management—are often overlooked by large contractors. SBA believes that by requiring indirect costs to be included in individual subcontracting plans, large businesses will have an incentive to give work to small businesses that provide those services.

If you have questions about SBA’s proposed changes or need to discuss a subcontracting issue, please contact the author, Sam Finnerty, or another member of PilieroMazza’s Government Contracts Group. Visit this link to access additional coverage on this major new SBA rulemaking.

If your firm is affected by these proposed changes and would like to submit public comments to SBA, please make sure to do so before the deadline on November 8, 2022.

Healthcare Corner:

Coalition Releases VA Electronic Healthcare Records Modernization Resource for Members

Comprehensive information on the VA’s EHR modernization effort can now be found in the Coalition’s Member Resource Portal. The resource details how the VA aims to improve data access and management, a timeline of the VA’s deployment of the new EHR system, and the VA’s future deployment plans.

The timeline organizes all information regarding the VA’s new EHR system, from its initial announcement and development to the current status of deployments. It includes information on delays in deployments, Government Accountability Office (GAO) reports and the VA’s strategic review, new approaches the VA is incorporating in its deployments, and adjustments to the deployment schedule. The slide deck concludes with maps and tables displaying past and future deployments by Veterans Integrated Services Networks (VISN). Hyperlinks are included throughout the presentation to resources that supplement the content in the slides. Please click here to access the slide deck.

For questions about how to access the VA EHR resource on the Member Portal, contact Ian Bell at

A View From Main Street
This week’s A View From Main Street features guest author Ken Dodds of Live Oak Bank. The comments herein do not necessarily reflect the views of The Coalition for Government Procurement.

SBA’s Size Rules in Action

Effective November 16, 2020, SBA addressed how size will be determined where an order or blanket purchase agreement (BPA) is set aside for small business under a multiple award contract.[1] If the underlying contract was unrestricted or full and open, size was not a relevant consideration for award of the contract. Consequently, size certifications must be requested for the set aside order and size will be determined at the time of offer for the order.[2] SBA’s size protest timeliness rules were adjusted to make them consistent with the size protest timeliness rules that apply to contracts. Size protests in connection with an order that is set aside for small business under a full and open contract must be filed within 5 business days of notification of the prospective awardee.[3]

Size protests must also be filed within 5 business days of notification of the prospective awardee of an order under a multiple award contract where the procuring agency requested size certifications in connection with the order.[4] Contracts under GSA’s Federal Supply Schedule/Multiple Award Schedule (Schedule) program are awarded to both large and small businesses and the contracts are considered to be full and open.[5] Nevertheless, SBA exempted the GSA Schedule program from the requirement that size certification must be requested in connection with an order set aside for small business.[6] In a size protest involving an order that was set aside for small business under the Schedule, the protester filed a size protest within one day of notice of the awardee and the Area Office accepted the size protest as timely. The awardee did not provide all requested information to the Area Office, so the Area Office drew an adverse inference and found the awardee to be other small. On appeal, SBA’s Office of Hearings and Appeals (OHA) granted the appeal and vacated the size determination because the size protest was untimely.[7] The contracting officer had not requested size certifications in connection with the order. Consequently, the awardee’s size for the order is based on its size certification in connection with the offer for the Schedule contract. A size protest in connection with a contract, including a Schedule contract, must be filed within 5 business days of notice of the prospective award of the contract.[8] The protester was not challenging the awardee’s size for the Schedule contract, nor could it timely do so.

In a size protest involving an 8(a) procurement, the Area Office found the apparent successful offeror, a joint venture, to be small. Under SBA’s rules, the 8(a) concern must be the managing member of a limited liability company (LLC) joint venture.[9] Here, the joint venture claimed that under Michigan state law it did not have to designate a managing member, but under Michigan state law if no member is designated as the managing member, management is vested in all members. Under SBA’s rules, an 8(a) concern must own at least 51% of an 8(a) joint venture LLC.[10] Further, a joint venture is a combination of two or more business concerns, not individuals.[11] The protested concern submitted information that appeared to indicate it was owned by two individuals. If the protested concern is a not a joint venture, it is not a certified 8(a) concern and would not be eligible for award. Finally, under SBA’s rules an 8(a) concern must control the management and administration of the joint venture.[12] The bylaws submitted by the protested concern indicate it is managed by two directors and a majority is required to form a quorum, giving the minority owner negative control. Further, the bylaws provide the minority owner with the power to prevent removal of a director through cumulative voting. SBA’s OHA granted the appeal and remanded to the Area Office for a new size determination.[13]
Have a topic you wish to be covered or a question on how Live Oak Bank can support your business? Email me at

[1] 85 FR 66146.
[2] 13 CFR 121.404(a)(1)(i)(A), (a)(1)(ii)(A).
[3] 13 CFR 121.1004(a)(2)(iii).
[4] 13 CFR 121.1004(a)(2)(ii).
[5] FAR 6.102(d)(3).
[6] 13 CFR 121.404(a)(1)(i)(A), (a)(1)(ii)(A).
[7] Pacific Lighting Management, Inc., SBA No. SIZ-6169 (August 31, 2022).
[8] 13 CFR 121.1004(a)(3)(i).
[9] 13 CFR 124.513(c)(2).
[10] 13 CFR 124.513(c)(3).
[11] 13 CFR 121.103(h)(1)(i), 124.513(a)(1), (b)(1), 125.8(a).
[12] 13 CFR 121.103(h)(1)(i), 124.513(c)(2)(i).
[13] SysCom, Inc., SBA No. SIZ-6171 (September 8, 2022).

Technology Management Fund Announces Three Additional Awards

FCW reported that the Technology Modernization Fund (TMF) has announced three additional awards totaling $36.4 million. These investments were awarded to the Office of Personnel Management (OPM), the Federal Housing Administration (FHA), and the Army. These awards increased the TMF’s portfolio to 31 investments. Since receiving a $1 billion boost in the 2021 American Rescue Act, TMF has received more than 150 proposals from 70 agencies. OPM is using its investment of over $6 million to revamp the user experience on its website. OPM plans to utilize a content management system in its cloud environment to help update content and remove dead links. FHA, which is part of the Department of Housing and Urban Development, received a $14.8 million investment to help replace legacy systems “with a cloud-based platform that will integrate certain systems with GSA’s shared sign-on service,” Currently, the FHA’s legacy systems do not meet Federal requirements for identity credential access management. has been a component of two other TMF awards, including one for the Department of Veterans Affairs and another for the platform itself. The Army received a $15.5 million investment to modernize operational tech at Organic Industrial Bases that make equipment, vehicles, and ammunition. Many of the Army’s operational tech systems have outdated operating systems and security methods. The Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Agency (CISA) expanded the Joint Cyber Defense Collaborative in April to include several organizations that deal with operational technology.

DHA Welcomes New Small Market and Stand-Alone MTF Director

On September 29, the Defense Health Agency (DHA) welcomed a new Director within its Health Care Market Structure during a ceremony at Port San Antonio, Texas. Army Brig. Gen. Darrin Cox will lead the Small Market and Stand-Alone Military Medical Treatment Facility Organization (SSO) which consists of 17 small markets and 68 stand-alone military medical treatment facilities (MTFs) across 32 states and Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. According to DHA, the small markets center on “inpatient community hospitals, focused on providing ambulatory and some specialty and inpatient care across their regions.” For a list of SSO MTFs and more on DHA’s Military Health Service Market Structure, click here.

Army Aims to Award $1B Cloud Contract in FY2023

Federal News Network reported that the Army plans to award its Enterprise Application Migration and Modernization (EAMM) contract vehicle in the third quarter of fiscal year 2023. EAMM is expected to be a $1 billion indefinite-delivery-indefinite quantity (IDIQ) contract with multiple vendors. The contract will be used to help the Army migrate its systems to the cloud. The Army believes that EAMM will significantly reduce award time, with task orders for all cloud migration services being issued in four weeks. The contract will operate out of the Enterprise Cloud Management Agency, which will help to simplify the contracting process and assist the commands with migration. According to Defense Scoop, the Army will also utilize the Joint Warfighting Cloud Capability (JWCC), DoD’s cloud vehicle that was designed to replace the Joint Enterprise Defense Infrastructure (JEDI) contract, together with EAMM. Raj Iyer, the Army’s Chief Information Officer, said that “JWCC will be an avenue for DOD to actually procure, compute and store directly from the cloud service providers…What EAMM does is [it’s] the vehicle to actually modernize your application, get it to be cloud native and then migrate it to the cloud.” DoD is aiming to award JWCC in December.

SBA Adopts 2022 NAICS Size Standards

The U.S. Small Business Administration (SBA) released an amendment to its small business size regulations to incorporate the U.S. Office of Management and Budget’s (OMB) North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) revision for 2022, identified as NAICS 2022, into its table of small business size standards. The NAICS 2022 revision establishes 111 new industries by changing 156 NAICS 2017 industries as seen in the tables below.

For more information on the updates in industry classification from NAICS 2017 to NAICS 2022, visit the U.S. Census Bureau page here. The general guidelines for establishing size standards within industries still follow NAICS standards, as they have since 1999. The guidelines state that new industries will follow the size standards of their larger predecessor industry, with the caveat that the larger size standard does not include “dominant or potentially dominant firms.”