Significant management changes are occurring across government that could affect federal acquisition in general and multiple award contracting specifically. Joe Jordan, previously Associate Administrator for Government Contracting and Business Development at the Small Business Administration will soon be formally sworn in as Administrator, Office of Federal Procurement Policy (OFPP). Dan Tangerlini, previously Treasury’s Assistant Secretary for Management, Chief Financial Officer, and Chief Performance Officer is the acting administrator, GSA. Steve Kemp, Commissioner of GSA’s Federal Acquisition Service (FAS) is temporarily on medical leave. Mary Davie, the FAS Assistant Commissioner for Integrated Technology is acting in his place. So with these management changes combined with an election year what can we expect?
Decreasing budgets and new federal priorities, as well as new leadership make change a certainty; the acquisition community is feeling it already. There are significant federal register notices out affecting multiple award contracts including proposed rules regarding small business set-asides, GSA’s plan for closing certain Schedules to the receipt of new offers and government-wide strategic sourcing efforts. Recurring themes derive from these initiatives:
- The desire for government to lower its costs and drive down prices
- A need for data
- Increased monitoring and oversight
- Emphasis on small business utilization
So we expect change; what we strive for is change that makes the acquisition process better than it was before. One of our members recently shared with me that their corporate philosophy for continuous improvement is “half the bad, double the good.” So I pose the question with respect to the GSA Multiple Award Schedules Program how can government and industry half the bad and double the good.
In a time of significant change it is helpful to concentrate on core values. For GSA it’s important that changes maintain and enhance at least two core values.
1. GSA was established as a centralized acquisition arm of government. GSA must provide effective, efficient and flexible acquisition services so that customer agencies can focus on their missions.
2. Commercial item contracting should remain a robust tool for delivering a vast array of innovative services, products and solutions to federal agencies, with comparatively short lead times.
The GSA Schedules program has been central to delivering on these core values. Schedule contracts are in essence a shared services vehicle that agencies use to accomplish varying acquisition objectives. For example, most of the government’s current strategic sourcing initiatives are built upon Blanket Purchase Agreements against GSA Schedules. The vast majority of Schedule contractors are small; over 30% of these sales go to small business. Agencies that use these vehicles can achieve their acquisition and socio-economic objectives while avoiding the total cost of a full and open competition.
There are opportunities to half the bad and double the good in the GSA Schedules program with a few basic tactics. At a recent Coalition forum on multiple agency contracts, Bloomberg Federal reported that there were more than 1182 multiple agency contracts for the same or similar services and products available on GSA Schedules and GWACs. More than 600 of those contracts were created within the past five years. Each of these vehicles potentially raises the operating costs of government by not taking advantage of a centralized acquisition agency. We continue to hear from members about agencies building duplicative contract vehicles. The Coalition looks forward to working with Joe Jordan, Administrator, OFPP to reduce the number duplicative contracts. Yes, there will be resistance, but this is a great opportunity to realize the administration’s goal of reducing the operating cost of government.
Agencies will benefit by better leveraging the schedules program at the task order level. The GSA Schedule program is designed to establish a reasonable price at the contract level with further discounts available at the task order level. Simply asking for price reductions in an environment where the fundamentals of the acquisition (quantity, location, technical descriptions) are known will yield better pricing. A well-constructed set of requirements will yield even better pricing and achieve various non-pricing agency objectives.. The number of federal buying officials is large and constantly moving. Continuous training and marketing of the GSA Schedules program to federal agencies is essential to assure that agencies get maximum advantage by using the program as intended. GSA Schedule contractors can help in this effort and even increase their value to potential customers by structuring pricelists and marketing materials to provide information on ordering procedures and best practices.
Finally, now is the time for GSA to address the mechanics of its contracting program. Government and industry need a clearly articulated pricing policy that reasonably addresses current market conditions, regulations that mandate competition at the task order level, and technology. Varying interpretation of the pricing policy and increasingly complex procedures are slowing the time from submittal of offers to availability of items on contract. GSA has an opportunity to address these issues as it rewrites the portion of its internal regulations governing GSA Schedule contracting. We hope the new leadership of GSA will make it a priority to both continuously improve and simplify contracting procedures. Let’s make this a mythbuster initiative to lower the total operating cost of government.
The Coalition is committed to being a constructive voice for industry in advocating for common sense acquisition change.
The Coalition for Government Procurement welcomes Mary Davie as Acting Commissioner of the Federal Acquisition Service (FAS). In this role, Mary Davie will set the strategic direction and oversees the delivery of more than $50 billion of best-value products, services and solutions to federal customers. Mary Davie has served for more than 20 years in the federal IT community and supported DoD and civilian agencies in this capacity worldwide. She previously served as Assistant Commissioner for Integrated Technology Services. The Coalition looks forward to engaging with Mary Davie in a myth-buster’s dialogue on acquisition policy issues while she serves in her role as commissioner. Mary Davie is serving in the position while Steve Kempf, FAS Commissioner is on medical leave.
GSA published a notice in the Federal Register this week on a new Demand Based Model (DBM) designed to improve the performance of Multiple Award Schedule (MAS) contracts. The goal is to realign MAS suppliers based on the demands of the current Federal market. GSA reports that the MAS program has grown to more than 31 Schedules and over 19,000 contractors in the last 20 years under continuous open “seasons” to receive new offers. In addition, GSA projects that over 50 percent of MAS contacts awarded in 2011 will not have significant sales, and that the Federal Acquisition Service will spend millions of dollars supporting and managing these low/no sales contracts. The concern is that this system results in significant costs and burdens for both Government and industry.
GSA is proposing the Demand Based Model to modernize and enhance the performance of the MAS program. In addition, the plan is intended to maintain the program’s value to Federal agencies as a streamlined vehicle by reducing duplicative contracts, improving contract administration, and increasing the level of GSA customer support.
The Demand Based Model would modify the current practice of a continuous open season for all Schedules. Under the new model, GSA is proposing to-
- Assess each Special Item Number (SIN) level requirements in terms of Federal demand, existing sources, sales performance under existing contracts, changing market dynamics, socio-economic considerations, etc.
- Based on this assessment, GSA would determine whether to-
- Maintain a continuous open season for the entire Schedule
- Maintain a continuous open season for only certain SINS under a Schedule
- Close the Schedule or certain SINS on a temporary basis to new offers
- Publish the decision in FedBizOpps. Options would be to-
- Maintain a continuous open season for the Schedule or SIN
- Temporarily close the Schedule or SIN
- Temporarily re-open after a decision to close the Schedule or SIN temporarily
- Merge the Schedule or SIN into one or more other Schedules or SINs
- Cancel the Schedule or SINs
- Temporary closures would be posted in the Federal Register with at least 30 days notice. No new offers would be accepted after the effective date, except that contractors may submit an offer for a new contract during or after the third year of their third contract option period.
- Schedules or SINS that are closed temporarily would be assessed on a periodic basis and would re-open via an open season at least once every 3 years.
Please review GSA’s notice for more details on the plan. The proposed effective date for the DBM is September 21, 2012.
GSA is seeking public comments on this model, especially from small business. In addition to general feedback, GSA is requesting responses to the following six questions. Please note that GSA is particularly interested in detailed comments that address specific operational implementation recommendations.
- There are a wide range of considerations GSA should employ in determining whether additional capacity is needed on a certain Special Item Number (SIN). This includes considerations such as number of contracts, sales trends, average sales per contractor, geography, socio-economic status on the SIN, degree of innovation in the industry, and views from other Federal Agencies. What else should GSA consider in making this decision?
- How much advance notice should GSA provide before making a decision for temporary closure? What business factors drive the amount of notice needed?
- Once GSA makes an announcement for temporary closure, there is potential for a high number of new offers before the effective date of the temporary closure. It is highly likely that nearly all of these offers will not generate business. What should GSA do with offers received in this window?
- To help industry best plan, should GSA’s reassessment be conducted annually, every two years, or every three years? What actions can GSA take to assist industry with planning? For example, is it better to know with certainty when a schedule or SIN will reopen even if that means the duration of closure is longer, or is it better for GSA to take a shorter term view of the question?
- Currently, over 50 percent of schedule contracts will not meet the sales retention criteria. Is reducing this percentage to 30 percent an appropriately aggressive interim goal?
- Are there other considerations on how to ensure minimum impact to industry with the implementation?
The Coalition will submit comments to GSA on the Demand Based Model due August 22, 2012. We are collecting feedback from members to incorporate into our comments and want to hear from you. Please contact Carolyn Alston at email@example.com or (202) 315-1053 if you have any input or concerns.
On Wednesday, the House Armed Services Committee held a hearing entitled: Sequestration Implementation Options and Effects on National Defense: Administration Perspectives. Jeffrey Zients, Acting Administrator, OMB and Ashton Carter, Deputy Under Secretary for Defense, testified on the possible effects of sequestration on agencies, how the cuts will be carried out, and what OMB is doing to prepare.
During testimony, both Zients and Carter emphasized that sequestration was never designed to be implemented, but rather a forcing mechanism to make Congress pass legislation under threat of mutually disagreeable and catastrophic budget cuts. Zients stated that no amount of planning can mitigate the destructive effects of sequestration, and that its implementation will be devastating to both defense and non-defense programs – such as the public school systems. Carter echoed Zients’ request for Congress to take a realistic and bipartisan approach to avoiding sequestration, as DoD would sustain long-term damage to many programs that would have a devastating effect on DoD’s ability to carry out its mission and national security.
The implementation of the cuts would have little – if no, flexibility. Cuts would be implemented directly as the law states, with no allowance of shifting funds for different programs. All cuts will be implemented evenly, at the program, project and activity (PPA) level- line item by line item. Currently the Administration is taking actions to prepare agencies to implement the cuts if a deal is not reached. Zients assured the Committee that both OMB and agencies will be fully ready to implement cuts on January 2, 2013. Zients stated that specific numbers for programs cannot be predicted because appropriations for FY 2013 have not passed and that any numbers would be based on a series of estimations. In the meantime, OMB has directed agencies to carry on business as usual and continue normal spending levels because OMB does not want agencies and private industry to start detrimental preparations for a law that may not be implemented.
Both witnesses emphasized that money in the budget now is not subject to sequestration and the cuts will not be retroactive. If sequestration is implemented, the cuts will apply to Q2-Q4 of FY 2013 (and onward), money already obligated in Q1 of FY 2013 will not be subject to sequestration. However, unobligated funds will be subject to cuts. Therefore, contracts that have already had funds obligated to them will not be under threat of termination or re-scoping. However, multiyear contracts would be subject to cuts and guidance will be given to industry when the situation arises.
In regards to the Department of Labor notice to contractors and the WARN Act, both Zients and Carter stated that the administration recommendation is to carry on business as usual. However, Zients did state that it is up to individual companies to decide if and how they will prepare- the DoL notice is guidance, and does not necessarily enforce action. Zients recommended that companies have their general counsel review the notice, WARN Act, company policy and past procedures to decide further action.
Chairman McKeon(R-Calif) expressed concern over the ferocity of bipartisan remarks and arguments expressed during the hearing. Despite testimonies from both witnesses and general agreement that sequestration would have devastating consequences, politics is still a barrier to actually making a deal to avoid sequestration.
Only five weeks remain until the 2012 Wounded Veterans Charity Golf Tournament and players are registering quickly! Limited spots remain, so don’t get shut out! Sponsorships are still available and will be integral to raising the necessary funds to promote the hiring of returning wounded service men and women, providing the training necessary to rejoin the workforce. We are still in need of a Title Sponsor and Beverage Sponsors. Become an Honor America Hole sponsor and bring three people to play with one of these deserving American heroes. Join us on August 29th at the Whiskey Creek Golf Club in Ijamsville, MD, for a day of golf in support of a great cause. Register here>>
Our thanks to those companies who have already made a sponsorship commitment: Luncheon & Reception sponsors: Bridgeborn Inc. and Cachendo; Honor Americans Hole Sponsors: CBRE and Integrity Consulting; Hole and Foursome Sponsors: Accenture, Baker, Tilly; Corporate Care; Dynanet Corporation, Koniag Services Inc.; Metters Inc.; Reznick Government; Toro and TWD; Strategic Sponsor: SAP America. A special thanks to our Keystone Members for their support: Allsteel, Booz Allen Hamilton, GDIT, HON, L-3, McKenna, Long & Aldridge, and Northrop Grumman. Consider joining these great supporters by sponsoring today! Become a Sponsor>>
Chris Hood, managing director of Workplace Innovation at CBRE, sat down with Roger Waldron, President of the Coalition for Government Procurement, to discuss alternate strategies for increasing the efficiency and effectiveness of the workplace. Commercial organizations and government are increasingly looking to reduce costs through reductions in their real estate footprint. Workplace innovation can provide solutions to achieve not only cost reduction but can increase employee collaboration, satisfaction and retention. Listen to the interview on this week’s Off the Shelf.
The GAO reviewed eight federal agencies’ cost-estimating policies and procedures, and subsequent IT investments to determine if cost estimates were reliable enough to provide a sound basis for program and budget decision making. The GAO found that most of the agencies did not create reliable estimates for IT projects. The reason for the weakness is due to what GAO described as a lack of “department or agency-level cost-estimating functions.” Many estimates did not include entire life-cycle costs and were neither well-documented nor comprehensive. These weaknesses put the projects at high risk for unreliable program and budget decision making. GAO recommends that agencies update policies to follow best-practices and agency-specific changes are made to address specific weaknesses.
On July 31, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) released a memo to agency heads in anticipation of the potential sequestration. The memo entitled “Issues Raised by Potential Sequestration…” states that because Congress has not yet made progress towards enacting sufficient deficit reduction, OMB will work with agencies over the coming months on issues raised by a sequestration of this magnitude. OMB will consult with agencies on topics including the application of cuts to agency accounts, programs exempt from sequestration as stated in the Budget Control Act (BCA) and other applicable rules. The discussions will be framed by agency General Counsel, taking into account an analysis of how the requirement, amended by the BCA and other statutory authorities, applies to a particular agency issues. Additionally, OMB will coordinate with agencies on the necessary reporting requirements established by Congress that are related to, but separate from the sequestration requirement under the BCA. The memo states that “in the absence of Congressional action on a balanced deficit reduction plan in advance of January 2, 2013, OMB will undertake additional activities related to the implementation of the BCA.” As soon as FY 2013 funding levels are known, OMB will begin collecting information from agencies to identify and “calculate the percentage of reductions necessary to implement sequestration.”
It is important to note that despite this preparation for sequestration, OMB informed agencies that they “should continue normal spending and operations since more than five months remain for Congress to act.”
On Tuesday, Congressional leaders announced a deal to avoid a government shutdown and allow the government to continue running for six months after the end of the end of FY2012 on September 30. Speaker of the House John Boehner (R-Ohio) released a statement on Wednesday announcing that he and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.), who posted a similar press release, “have reached an agreement by which the House and Senate will approve a six-month continuing resolution in September to keep the government operating into next year.” The release went on to say that during the working period in August, committee members and staffers would write the legislation, allowing the House and Senate to pass the bill in September. In his release, Sen. Harry Reid said the agreement “provides stability for the coming months, when we will have to resolve critical issues that directly affect middle class families. The funding levels in the six-month CR will correspond to the top-line funding level of $1.047 trillion.” The $1.047 billion deal is in accordance with the spending caps implemented in last summer’s compromise to raise the debt ceiling.
A July study released by the Association of Government Accountants, reported that the Administration’s Campaign to Cut Waste, may not be as successful in saving money as once thought. The responses to the survey showed a consensus that the campaign underlined accountability, but because waste-cutting goals are not always aligned with agency missions, the program is not contributing to deficit reduction. The study surveyed a total of 300 federal workers, 60 participants were agency CFOs or Deputy CFOs- these participants were interviewed in person. The purpose of the survey was to gather information about current issues in financial management and supply a medium in which concerns and practices could be shared across government and industry. The results of the study showed that CFOs play an important, and challenging, role when the Administration is faced with budget uncertainties, taking on more goal-setting and planning responsibilities. Although more than half of participants reported that agencies had begun implementing waste-cutting initiatives, most of those respondents had seen little financial return so far.
A Significant Expansion of Public Access – Executive Compensation Disclosure Rule Is Finalized
Guest Bloggers: Jay Gallagher & Phil Seckman, McKenna Long & Aldridge LLP
Pursuant to an interim rule, published July 8, 2010, contractors awarded certain prime contracts and first-tier subcontractors under those prime contracts have been obligated to disclose, among other information, details regarding the total compensation of their five most highly compensated executives. The interim rule represented a phased implementation of the 2006 Federal Funding Accountability and Transparency Act (Pub. L. 109-282) and its 2008 adjustments (Pub. L. 110-252). The final rule, published July 26, 2012 and effective August 27, 2012, has made only minor adjustments to the interim rule despite significant public comments.
Absent the applicability of certain exceptions discussed below, based on the phased approach in the interim rule, as of March 1, 2011, any newly awarded prime contract valued at $25,000 or more must contain FAR § 52.204-10. Pursuant to that clause, among other things, a prime contractor must report the names and total compensation (without regard to the limits on amounts treated as allowable costs) of its five most highly compensated executives for its preceding fiscal year. Moreover, the prime contractor must report its first-tier subcontract awards valued at $25,000 or more through the Federal Funding Accountability and Transparency Act Subaward Reporting System (“FSRS”), and for each such subcontract, also must report the names and total compensation for the prior fiscal year of each of the five most highly compensated executives of such first-tier subcontractor.
The standard FAR clause also contains a definition for total compensation. The definition is not necessarily an exhaustive list of sources of compensation, but includes both the cash and noncash executive earnings, including: salary and bonus; stock awards, options, and appreciation rights; earnings for services under non-equity incentive plans; changes in pension value; above-market earnings on deferred compensation that is not tax-qualified; and other compensation such as severance and termination payments that exceed $10,000. Contractors should take care when determining whom in the organization qualifies as its executive and should consider establishing a procedure to ensure that changes in the identity of the highest paid executives are captured and accurately reflected in the required periodic reporting.
There is a change in the final rule that is likely to cause some consternation for contractors awarded classified contracts. The interim rule had made clear, in FAR 4.1403(b), that the standard contract clause at FAR 52.204-10 was not required in classified solicitations and contracts. The final rule makes an important change, now stating that the rule does not require the disclosure of “classified information.” In other words, classified contracts no longer are likely to be exempt from the reporting requirement and, therefore, may include FAR 52.204-10 in the future. Prime contractors facing this circumstance should assess, based on the security agreement for each classified contract, whether any of the information to be disclosed under the rule constitutes classified information. Another consideration would be to seek approval prior to disclosure regarding the information to be released, consistent with DFARS 252.204-7000.
In addition to the foregoing, prime contractors awarded contracts subject to this requirement need to ensure that they flow appropriate requirements down to their first-tier subcontractors. In this regard, prime contractors may wish to seek indemnity from subcontractors to address a subcontractor’s failure to provide accurate and updated information.
There are important exceptions to the requirement imposed on the prime contractor to disclose the compensation information called for by the rule. Specifically, disclosure is required only if the contractor received:
- 80 percent or more of its annual gross revenues, totaling at least $25 million in revenues from federal sources (i.e., contracts, subcontracts, loans, grants, etc.); and
- The public does not have access to the contractor’s compensation information through reports filed with the SEC or IRS.
In addition to the foregoing, if the contractor or first-tier subcontractor had gross income, from all sources, of less than $300,000, the contractor or first-tier subcontractor is exempt from the reporting requirement.
These exceptions may enable some small businesses and private firms with modest government sales to avoid the reporting obligation. Nonetheless, the very low $25,000 threshold for applicability of the rule and the fact that it is applicable to commercial item procurements and small businesses means that executive compensation information will be required from literally hundreds of thousands of contractors. Moreover, this information must be updated whenever it changes, and prime contractors in particular face yet another on-going compliance responsibility, which, given the statutorily-imposed low contract value threshold, would appear to be of questionable value to the U.S. taxpayer.
The preamble to the final rule makes clear that prime contractors are obligated to ensure compliance by their first-tier subcontractors. Accordingly, primes will be imposing, by contract, that compliance obligation and any liability associated with non-compliance, on its first-tier subcontractors. This makes sense given that the subcontractor is in the best position to ensure the accuracy of its information reported in FSRS and will also know when a change occurs that warrants updating reported information. For these reasons, to the extent prime contractors have not already done so, they must have methods in place to ensure the required information is reported and periodically updated.
The rule represents a significant expansion of the public’s access to federal award information with the stated goal of reducing ‘‘wasteful and unnecessary spending.’’ From the perspective of the legislation’s drafters, this goal will be achieved by “empowering” the American taxpayer with information that can be used to demand greater fiscal discipline from both executive and legislative branches of the federal government. In other words, government officials ostensibly will be less likely to earmark funds for special projects, because the public will have access to information regarding the transaction.
Avoiding unnecessary federal spending is, of course, a laudable objective. Unfortunately, the cost of this new rule is estimated to exceed $20 million in added reporting costs and the FAR Council concedes the rule could result in anti-competitive behavior. Specifically, contractors can use the information regarding subcontract awards and executive compensation to improve their competitive position in future procurements and to lure away executive talent.
Particularly important, however, is the fact that the rule continues the persistent retrenchment from the reforms in commercial item and commercial-off-the-shelf procurements represented by the Federal Acquisition Streamlining Act. And, while the preambles to the interim and final rules state that 41 U.S.C. §§ 1906, and 1907 (which require affirmative findings by the FAR Council to impose the requirements of new regulations on commercial item or commercially available off-the-shelf item procurements, respectively) were considered when making the decision to impose the reporting requirement on commercial procurement, the actual justifications in the preambles are bereft of any meaningful analysis. 75 Fed. Reg. 39,414 (July 8, 2010).
Only time will tell, but at this point there is no evidence that the taxpayers are using the newly disclosed information to realize the legislators’ vision of greater fiscal discipline from the executive and legislative branches. In its absence, the estimated cost required to implement the rule appears likely to achieve just the opposite of its intended objective, i.e., more, not less, wasteful and unnecessary spending.
After conducting a questionnaire of the Federal Chief Acquisition Council, the GAO reported that agencies need to more clearly define the roles and responsibilities of their chief acquisition officers. The GAO surveyed 16 federal CAOs to determine how their position was filled, involvement in acquisition management functions, and what challenges they face in their role. The majority of responses concluded that CAOs perform financial, information, human capital and other roles, along with acquisition management. Many felt that the additional activities helped to increase involvement levels and better provide oversight. However, GAO determined that because CAO roles and responsibilities are not explicitly stated anywhere, agencies could be overlooking opportunities for CAOs to provide management and oversight. Therefore GAO recommends that the Office of Federal Procurement Policy (OFPP) develop and issue guidance with the CAO Council for agencies to define CAO roles and responsibilities more clearly. GAO’s questionnaire also showed that the most significant challenge CAOs face is a lack of acquisition personnel.
The Senate Appropriations Committee passed two spending bills on Thursday, the Defense Appropriations Act (HR 5856) and funding for the Legislative branch (HR 5882). To date, six appropriations bills for FY 2013 have passed the House— Defense, Energy & Water, Homeland Security, Legislative Branch, Military/Veterans, and Commerce/Justice/Science. Appropriations legislation within the Senate have all passed the Committee level, with the exception of Interior/Environment. There has not been a Senate vote on any of these bills.
Given the upcoming August recess, Congress has already made plans to pass a continuing resolution (CR) to avoid a government shutdown in the fall. The CR is expected to fund the government for a period 6 months.
How does this year’s anticipated delay in FY 2013 funding compare to previous years? Check out some interesting comparison charts by the National Journal at www.nationaljournal.com/where-is-congress-with-appropriations–20120802.
The Cybersecurity Act introduced by Senator Joe Lieberman (I-Conn) was filibustered Thursday and fell eight votes short of the 60 votes needed to end debate. The Cybersecurity Act was designed to protect the security of computer systems and critical infrastructure, including transportation, the electric grid, and water systems. The original bill, introduced in February 2012, was criticized due its regulation of critical infrastructure. As a result, the legislation was refined to incentivize industry to voluntarily adopt security standards in exchange for certain liability protections in the case of a cyber attack. In the end, these concessions were not enough to gain support for the Cybersecurity Act in the Senate. As a result, the passage of any comprehensive cybersecurity legislation is unlikely in 2012 and is an issue for Congress to continue to work on in 2013.
Prioritizing for the Future: The DHS Strategic Plan
September 26, 7:15 a.m.
What’s to come in FY2013 – A Conversation with Joe Jordan
September 11, 7:15 a.m.
Prioritizing for the Future: The DHS Strategic Plan
In the current fiscal climate, the procurement community faces significant challenges, as uncertainty weighs heavily on agencies, contractors and acquisition stakeholders; agencies are deciding how to adapt to budget and market concerns.
Join the Coalition on September 26, 7:15 a.m., at the City Club for a forum featuring Nick Nayak, DHS Chief Procurement Officer, providing insight into how DHS plans to meet contracting goals over the next three years.
Learn firsthand about the Department’s initiatives:
- Promoting small business opportunities
- Improving workforce training
- Standardizing policy & oversight
- Leveraging buying power through strategic sourcing
Gain insight into the future strategic plan:
- Enhancing contract efficiency through the lifecycle
- Increasing fiscal responsibility
- Providing outstanding program support
- Increasing government & industry communications
What’s to Come in FY2013 – A Conversation with Joe Jordan
Join the Coalition for a dialogue with new OFPP Administrator, Joe Jordan, on September 11, 7:15 a.m. at the City Club, for an in-depth look at the Office of Federal Procurement Policy’s initiatives for FY 2013 and a conversation about the potential impact on contractors.
After being appointed as Administrator, Office of Federal Procurement Policy in May, Joe Jordan introduced a set of agency goals to buy smarter, lead the federal government in strategic sourcing, provide small business opportunities and streamline the procurement process.
Become part of the conversation and learn more about how OFPP plans to address the challenges facing Federal agencies and what that means for agencies, contractors and acquisition stakeholders.
Mark your calendars now! The Coalition introduces a monthly Educational Webinar Series to address issues relevant to our membership. Join us the 2nd Tuesday of each month for a 1 hour lunchtime webinar featuring topics of interest to Coalition members presented by a number of industry experts.
The series kicks off Tuesday, September 11th at 12:30 PM. Join Cherry, Bekaert & Holland for an educational webinar to discuss Limited Scope Audits, with a focus on Labor, to include a summary discussion of:
- Overview of what Limited Scope Audits entail
- Explanation of the different audit objectives between Department of Defense Limited Scope Audits and the Department of Labor limited-scope audit exemption option under ERISA
- Why do these audits occur?
- Potential Impacts of Limited Scope Audits on your business and business systems
Brad Smith, CPA and Chris Wade, PMP, CFCM from Cherry, Bekaert & Holland’s Government Contractor Services Group will be presenting.
Registration details coming soon.
GSA Office of Governmentwide Policy will hold an Industry Day on Tuesday, August 7, 2012 (9am – 12:30pm EST) at GSA OCS, 1275 First Street NE, Washington DC, Room 1201B to gather more information and answer questions from industry vendors regarding the Federal Cloud Credential Exchange (FCCX) initiative. Earlier this year, the White House convened the FCCX Tiger Team comprised of several federal agencies that have a vital need to better assist the public and reduce Federal costs by moving more services online. In alignment with President Obama’s National Strategy for Trusted Identities in Cyberspace, the FCCX Tiger Team’s objective is to facilitate the Federal government’s early adoption of secure, privacy-enhancing, efficient, easy-to-use, and interoperable identity solutions.
GSA is looking for input from product or solutions providers that have the ability to offer these capabilities by August 13th. More details are available here.