Discussion

If you work in the Government acquisition world, this podcast is for you. (not just for Contracting Officers!)

CapitolThis episode is brought to you by Deltek.  https://www.deltek.com/en/products/business-development/govwin

The first event after contract award is usually the contract kickoff meeting.  Learn how this important meeting sets the tone for the entire contract period of performance and why both Government and Industry teams should use the kickoff to gain context.

__________

Kevin Jans and Paul Schauer created the Contracting Officer Podcast to help Government and Industry acquisition professionals understand more about how the other side thinks.  Admittedly, the podcast’s name sounds very limiting.  It is not just for contracting officers or even just for those in the contracting profession.  Anyone with an interest in the Federal acquisition world can benefit from the insight and down-to-earth explanations of complicated topics provided by the hosts.

 

by Vicky Strycharske

When I first read this topic, I thought, “Wow! That’s a really hard question to answer! There are so many variables that affect a company’s ability to win a contract, let alone “enough” government contracts, that it would be nearly impossible to answer this question reasonably. Then I realized that the topic is “Can” not “Will” I win enough, and of course the answer is “Yes!” You can win government contracts if you target your government market properly and then develop and follow a strategy for selling to that market.

Let’s face it – the federal government is literally the richest customer in the world. And they buy pretty much everything! But while they do buy a wide variety of products and services, the approach you use for selling a very unique, new item (a “Flux capacitor” for example) to the government is very different from winning contracts for janitorial services. (For those too young to remember, the flux capacitor was the core component of Dr. Emmett Brown’s time traveling DeLorean time machine in the movie “Back to the Future!”)

Every agency in every building needs their trash emptied and their floors swept, just as every commercial building does. So there are a lot of customers within the federal government for janitorial services. To target this market, as we’ve talked about many times, you’ll need to research www.USASpending.gov (to see which agencies actually do the purchasing of janitorial services) and the Federal Business Opportunities (FBO) website (www.fbo.gov), to see what janitorial opportunities have been announced. But this is also an extremely competitive market, because all of the other janitorial companies want to win those very same contracts. You will need to put together a competitive quote or a proposal for each of these opportunities, submit your best price, and wait to see who is selected.

Selling the flux capacitor (a one-of-a-kind solution to time travel) to the federal government would take a whole different approach. You will need to identify which agencies need your flux capacitor. You might need to look for the agencies that buy very cutting edge technology, such as the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) or the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA), to see if someone there is trying to solve the time travel riddle. (Don’t laugh, there probably is!) Because your item is new and unique, there will be a much smaller government market place, at least until the government starts buying it, and other companies start developing and selling their own flux capacitors, too!

If you’d like further details on targeting your government market, check out the many blogs, podcasts, and webinars we have provided within the Skyway community over the past several years. Now what you do with that information is what will determine how successful you are in winning government business. But let’s get back to the initial question which was “Can I win enough government business to justify my investment?” Let’s look at the numbers. According to USA Spending, the federal government spent $3,703,531,458 (that’s nearly $4 Billion!) in one year (2016)! And DARPA (just one agency), spent $299,013,388 (nearly $300 million) on more than 600 contracts to “…identify and pursue high-risk, high-payoff research initiatives across a broad spectrum of science and engineering disciplines and to transform these initiatives into important, radically new, game-changing technologies…” [from DARPA-BAA-16-46 synopsis, 3Jun16.] So can you make enough to justify your investment? What do you think?

For instant access to over 200 articles like this one (as well as the two new ones we add every week), join the Skyway Community.
Visit http://skywaymember.com for details.

If you work in the Government acquisition world, this podcast is for you. (not just for Contracting Officers!)

One of the best shortcuts to learn and grow is to get perspective from people with different experiences than your own.  We’re happy to welcome David Bartlow back to the podcast to give us the program manager’s perspective.  Dave has 15 years of Government contracting experience with the Department of the Navy and multiple large and small government contractors.  Throughout his career David has taken on the most challenging projects and has developed an expertise in applying programmatic discipline to unstructured initiatives or distressed programs.

Paul and Dave discuss the ever present risk that both Government and Industry program managers face during project execution: scope creep. The contract requirements were written with best intentions, but it seems inevitable that more (or slightly different) work is desired than planned.

Learn how to recognize scope creep and why it is hard for Industry to “just say no” to Government requests.

We hope you enjoy the Program Manager’s perspective, joining the proposal manager’s and contract administrator’s perspectives on the podcast in the quest to help make Government contracts better, one contract at a time.

__________

Kevin Jans and Paul Schauer created the Contracting Officer Podcast to help Government and Industry acquisition professionals understand more about how the other side thinks.  Admittedly, the podcast’s name sounds very limiting.  It is not just for contracting officers or even just for those in the contracting profession.  Anyone with an interest in the Federal acquisition world can benefit from the insight and down-to-earth explanations of complicated topics provided by the hosts.

by Tim Griggs

This story provides a good example of how arbitrary and capricious the Government can be.  I was serving in Afghanistan as the Chief of Contracting on one of the major bases in Helmand Province. It was the summer of 2011 and President Obama’s ‘Afghan Surge’ was in full swing. However, the timeline for withdrawal was also proceeding apace and the first troop drawdowns would begin the following spring.

Even though we were deployed in a combat zone, the colors of money still count, and we were obligating mostly O&M (Operations & Maintenance) funds.  Which meant that as summer passed, the end of the fiscal year loomed, and we had to obligate the money or lose it forever, then wait for FY2012 dollars to be released for expenditure.  In a combat zone, the finality of the FY doesn’t carry the same weight as at home station, because budgets are pretty wide open – at most, the lost FY2011 dollars would be replaced by FY2012 dollars in a matter of weeks. At home station, it’s a different story, as the budget officer, comptroller, contracting officer, and various and sundry associates would have to explain why precious dollars expired without obligation, and “how in all that is holy are we going to get that money allocated again?”

In this particular case, the Marine HQs in charge of the camp had decided to execute the ‘Surge’ plan to the full extent, and wanted to expand the camp, construct semi-permanent facilities, and improve the overall quality of life for the camp and its occupants. That plan revolved around four Pre-Engineered Buildings (PEBs), valued at approximately $600,000 apiece. So we are talking about $2.5 Million – in Afghanistan, that was truly a rounding error – the US forces there spent upwards of $1 Billion per week, so a couple million hardly raised an eyebrow. But Marines are known for their combat prowess, not necessarily their procurement savvy. So the process to get the procurement planned, approved, and funded, and then the contract solicited and awarded, took us right up to the end of September. If I recall correctly, the contract was signed on about the 26th. By this time, the writing was on the wall from the higher headquarters in Kabul, and from the Pentagon, that the ‘Surge’ was winding down, withdrawal of forces would commence, and there would be no lasting need for these semi-permanent buildings, because the camp would either soon be closed or turned over to the Afghan forces.

So, on the 3rd of October, literally a week after finally signing the contract that had taken almost 9 months from initial request and requirements definition to contract award, the Marine HQs notified my contracting staff that the PEBs were no longer required, and could we please terminate the contract?

It’s funny now, except for when you consider the fact that US forces are once again increasing in Afghanistan to combat the resurgent Taliban. But at the time, it was pretty disheartening to witness first-hand the lack of coordination of political, military, and financial priorities that wasted hundreds of man-hours on procurement planning and execution.

Of course, what should have happened is the several layers of HQs should have held a huddle and status review on all pending projects, and made the decision before proceeding to contract award.  Fortunately, the contractor had not commenced work, or incurred any costs, so there were no termination costs to negotiate. It all just got erased, and we focused on the new FY and a new slate of requirements aimed at reducing, and eventually eliminating, our presence in that sector. As they say on neighborhood basketball courts, ‘no harm, no foul.’

Anyway, I am writing this to try to offer some insights into how literal the phrase ‘terminate for convenience’ can be, as the US Government changed its mind within days, and yanked the rug out from under a contractor that had landed $2.5 Million worth of work.

For instant access to over 200 articles like this one (as well as the two new ones we add every week), join the Skyway Community.
Visit http://skywaymember.com for details.

If you work in the Government acquisition world, this podcast is for you. (not just for Contracting Officers!)

This episode is brought to you by Deltek.  https://www.deltek.com/en/products/business-development/govwinMemorial

Kevin and Paul discuss the importance of teaming decisions and how these decisions can impact winning and executing Government contracts.

Learn how the Government can drive and should care about Industry teaming decisions and why Industry needs to treat teaming as a critical part of the bid strategy and contract performance process.

__________

Kevin Jans and Paul Schauer created the Contracting Officer Podcast to help Government and Industry acquisition professionals understand more about how the other side thinks.  Admittedly, the podcast’s name sounds very limiting.  It is not just for contracting officers or even just for those in the contracting profession.  Anyone with an interest in the Federal acquisition world can benefit from the insight and down-to-earth explanations of complicated topics provided by the hosts.

If you work in the Government acquisition world, this podcast is for you. (not just for Contracting Officers!)

How does the Government determine that a price is fair and reasonable?  Analysis!

Kevin and Paul discuss the differences between price analysis and cost analysis (FAR 15.404-1) and why it is important to understand the requirements of each.  Learn how the Government can leverage the power of competition and how Industry can help the Government streamline the price/cost analysis process.

__________

Kevin Jans and Paul Schauer created the Contracting Officer Podcast to help Government and Industry acquisition professionals understand more about how the other side thinks.  Admittedly, the podcast’s name sounds very limiting.  It is not just for contracting officers or even just for those in the contracting profession.  Anyone with an interest in the Federal acquisition world can benefit from the insight and down-to-earth explanations of complicated topics provided by the hosts.

by Shelley Hall

During the performance of Government contracts, a contractor may encounter many circumstances that lead them to submit a Request for Equitable Adjustment (REA).  Examples include undisclosed site conditions on a construction contract, new requirements for additional levels of certification on a service contract, and requirement changes.  An REA is submitted to obtain additional compensation and/or time on a contract.

However, there are a few things you need to remember before you submit it:

The REA must be based on at least one contract provision. The REA has to be based on a contract or Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) provision. FAR 52.243-1 Changes – Fixed-Price; FAR 52.236-2 Differing Site Conditions; 52.222-44 Fair Labor Standards Act and Service Contract Labor Standards – Price Adjustment, are all clauses on which a contractor might base an REA.

I used to tell my trainees, “There’s no such thing as too much documentation in a contract file.”  The same applies to REAs.  You need to include all the details of why you are requesting the adjustment.  An REA that has detailed, prepared facts is going to get approved before one that does not.

Attachments can be crucial.  They should support the rest of the documentation.  E-mails, spreadsheets, timelines, etc., can all be valuable back-up for an REA.  Remember that personnel in contracting offices typically have a high turnover so back-up may be important when you are dealing with new folks who were not involved initially in the situation.

Contractors should submit an REA within 30 days of the change that created the REA. Note that once a contract has been officially closed out, no REA can be submitted.

Contract modifications often contain “release” statement that would prevent you from recovering on an REA. It was standard at every contract office I ever worked that you included a blanket release statement in every modification regardless of what it was for.  So review everything in a modification before signing it.

How long will it take to put the info together?  The time it takes you to prepare an REA may be recoverable as contract administration costs.

If you expect you will have a fight from the government (for whatever reason), obtain legal counsel.  Remember legal fees may be recoverable (reference FAR 31.205-33).

The REA process can be very frustrating for both sides.  The agency may fail to respond.  Requests for information may be issued from both sides and get lost in the process.  What if the REA is denied?

The bottom line is that the government should NEVER derive undue benefit from a contractor!  However, that does not mean that they will just simply give you the equitable adjustment.  Expect negotiations at the very least.  Be prepared.  Fight for what they owe you!

For instant access to over 200 articles like this one (as well as the two new ones we add every week), join the Skyway Community.
Visit http://skywaymember.com for details.

If you work in the Government acquisition world, this podcast is for you. (not just for Contracting Officers!)

MemorialThis episode is brought to you by Deltek.  https://www.deltek.com/en/products/business-development/govwin

The Government market is constantly evolving.  But some things never change.

Kevin and Paul discuss what won’t change.  Learn why both Government and Industry should be prepared to deal with these axioms.

__________

Kevin Jans and Paul Schauer created the Contracting Officer Podcast to help Government and Industry acquisition professionals understand more about how the other side thinks.  Admittedly, the podcast’s name sounds very limiting.  It is not just for contracting officers or even just for those in the contracting profession.  Anyone with an interest in the Federal acquisition world can benefit from the insight and down-to-earth explanations of complicated topics provided by the hosts.

If you work in the Government acquisition world, this podcast is for you. (not just for Contracting Officers!)

This is an encore presentation of a very early episode.

How much time does Industry need to prepare and submit a proposal? How much is not enough? How much is too much? What is Industry doing with that time?

Failure to communicate can cause Industry to struggle to submit a compliant proposal on time, often leaving the Government with fewer high quality proposals to consider.   Kevin and Paul tackle both sides of the proposal response time question and offer guidance on how to find a balance between the extremes of too little and too much time.

__________

Kevin Jans and Paul Schauer created the Contracting Officer Podcast to help Government and Industry acquisition professionals understand more about how the other side thinks.  Admittedly, the podcast’s name sounds very limiting.  It is not just for contracting officers or even just for those in the contracting profession.  Anyone with an interest in the Federal acquisition world can benefit from the insight and down-to-earth explanations of complicated topics provided by the hosts.

If you work in the Government acquisition world, this podcast is for you. (not just for Contracting Officers!)

CapitolThis episode is brought to you by Deltek.  https://www.deltek.com/en/products/business-development/govwin

Kevin and Paul discuss Small Business Goals.  Learn where the goals come from, what happens when the goals aren’t met, and how both Government and Industry can use small business goals to target and make Government acquisition easier, one contract at a time!

__________

Kevin Jans and Paul Schauer created the Contracting Officer Podcast to help Government and Industry acquisition professionals understand more about how the other side thinks.  Admittedly, the podcast’s name sounds very limiting.  It is not just for contracting officers or even just for those in the contracting profession.  Anyone with an interest in the Federal acquisition world can benefit from the insight and down-to-earth explanations of complicated topics provided by the hosts.

If you work in the Government acquisition world, this podcast is for you. (not just for Contracting Officers!)

What is a Sources Sought Synopsis?  What about a Sources Sought Notice?  Same thing?  What is one of these things used for?  Who uses this tool?  When?

Kevin and Paul discuss one of the market research techniques used by the Government to identify sources (meaning, vendors) who can satisfy Government requirements for a particular need.

__________

Kevin Jans and Paul Schauer created the Contracting Officer Podcast to help Government and Industry acquisition professionals understand more about how the other side thinks.  Admittedly, the podcast’s name sounds very limiting.  It is not just for contracting officers or even just for those in the contracting profession.  Anyone with an interest in the Federal acquisition world can benefit from the insight and down-to-earth explanations of complicated topics provided by the hosts.

by Shelley Hall

Not according to a recent GAO decision on Atlantic Systems Group, Inc., B-413901 (Jan. 9, 2017).

The agency issued a Request for Quote (RFQ) pursuant to Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) 8.405-2, Ordering Procedures for Services Requiring a Statement of Work.  The procurement was set-aside for service-disabled veteran-owned small business (SDVOSB) concerns holding General Service Administration (GSA) Federal Supply Schedule (FSS) under Schedule 70, General Purpose Commercial Information Technology Equipment, Software, and Services, Special Identification Number 132 51, Information Technology Professional Services.  The requirement was for technical, engineering, management, operation, logistical, and administrative support for the Department of Education’s cybersecurity risk management program.

The solicitation provided for the issuance of an order on a best-value tradeoff basis, considering, in descending order of importance, the following factors:  technical approach, resource plan, management plan, corporate experience, past performance, and price.

According to the GAO, when an agency conducts a competition under the FSS provisions of FAR 8.4, they will review the record to ensure that the agency’s evaluation is reasonable and consistent with the terms of the solicitation.  In reviewing a protest challenging an agency’s technical evaluation, GAO will not reevaluate the quotations, but examine the record to determine whether the agency’s evaluation conclusions were reasonable and consistent with the terms of the solicitation and applicable procurement laws and regulations.

The solicitation requested corporate experience of the organization and past performance information for the offeror, but did not mention subcontractors.  FAR part 8 does not require that an agency to consider the past performance of its proposed subcontractors.  Accordingly, GAO did not find that the solicitation was “ambiguous, and it was reasonable for the agency to consider the experience and past performance of the offeror (i.e., the entity that submitted the offer) and not its subcontractors.”

The protest challenging agency’s evaluation of proposals under technical approach and past performance factors was denied where evaluation is reasonable and in accordance with the solicitation.  Protest that agency was required to consider proposed subcontractor’s past performance was denied where solicitation is conducted under Federal Acquisition Regulation part 8 and where the solicitation only requested past performance information for the “offerors.”

So this is pretty interesting.  If you are bidding on GSA/FSS competitive requirements, you need to understand that your subcontractor’s past performance does not need to be considered unless the RFQ specifically states that the agency will review it.

For instant access to over 200 articles like this one (as well as the two new ones we add every week), join the Skyway Community.
Visit http://skywaymember.com for details.

If you work in the Government acquisition world, this podcast is for you. (not just for Contracting Officers!)

CapitolThis episode is brought to you by Deltek.  https://www.deltek.com/en/products/business-development/govwin

Kevin and Paul discuss the importance of identifying opportunities earlier than you need to.  Learn why both Government and Industry can benefit through open communication early (even earlier than you think) in the acquisition process.

__________

Kevin Jans and Paul Schauer created the Contracting Officer Podcast to help Government and Industry acquisition professionals understand more about how the other side thinks.  Admittedly, the podcast’s name sounds very limiting.  It is not just for contracting officers or even just for those in the contracting profession.  Anyone with an interest in the Federal acquisition world can benefit from the insight and down-to-earth explanations of complicated topics provided by the hosts.

If you work in the Government acquisition world, this podcast is for you. (not just for Contracting Officers!)

Today we welcome special guest Kevin Lothridge, the CEO of the National Forensic Science Technology Center.  Our Kevin Jans discusses teaming with Kevin Lothridge so that you can learn from his experience developing effective partnerships to succeed in this market and achieve better acquisition outcomes for both Government and Industry.

__________

Kevin Jans and Paul Schauer created the Contracting Officer Podcast to help Government and Industry acquisition professionals understand more about how the other side thinks.  Admittedly, the podcast’s name sounds very limiting.  It is not just for contracting officers or even just for those in the contracting profession.  Anyone with an interest in the Federal acquisition world can benefit from the insight and down-to-earth explanations of complicated topics provided by the hosts.

by Shelley Hall

DoD, GSA, and NASA issued are issuing a final rule amending the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) to implement a section of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2016 to raise the simplified acquisition threshold for special emergency procurement authority from $300,000 to $750,000 (within the United States) and from $1 million to $1.5 million (outside the United States).

The proposed rule published June 20, 2016, implemented 816 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2016.

FAR 2.101, 13.003, 19.203, and 19.502-2 are being revised to increase the simplified acquisition threshold for special emergency procurement authority from $300,000 to $750,000 (within the United States) and from $1 million to $1.5 million (outside the United States). The rule would apply to acquisitions of supplies or services that, as determined by the head of the agency, are to be used to support a contingency operation or to facilitate defense against or recovery from nuclear, biological, chemical, or radiological attack.

The primary benefit of increasing these limits is to allow COs in contingency situations to award contracts faster and more efficiently using simplified acquisition procedures (SAP).  These types of acquisitions require significantly less time and documentation and usually special emergency procurements are time-sensitive.

Simplified acquisition procedures are contained in FAR Part 13, and are intended to (a) Reduce administrative costs; (b) Improve opportunities for small, small disadvantaged, women-owned, veteran-owned, HUBZone, and service-disabled veteran-owned small business concerns to obtain a fair proportion of Government contracts; (c) Promote efficiency and economy in contracting; and (d) Avoid unnecessary burdens for agencies and contractors.

For contractors (especially small businesses) who provide the items and services used in special emergency procurements, this is a step in the right direction.

For instant access to over 200 articles like this one (as well as the two new ones we add every week), join the Skyway Community.
Visit http://skywaymember.com for details.

If you work in the Government acquisition world, this podcast is for you. (not just for Contracting Officers!)

Sometimes a contract needs to be modified after award.  Some changes are administrative.   Other changes may impact cost, schedule, or the requirements.  In the Government acquisition world, this kind of change is usually called an Engineering Change Proposal.(ECP)

Learn why ECPs aren’t usually easy or fast and how the relationship between the Government and Industry players can impact the negotiation of an ECP.

_________

Kevin Jans and Paul Schauer created the Contracting Officer Podcast to help Government and Industry acquisition professionals understand more about how the other side thinks.  Admittedly, the podcast’s name sounds very limiting.  It is not just for contracting officers or even just for those in the contracting profession.  Anyone with an interest in the Federal acquisition world can benefit from the insight and down-to-earth explanations of complicated topics provided by the hosts.

by Christi Gilbert

When pricing work for the government, contractors must be aware of which costs are allowable under the FAR (Subpart 31.2).  Allowable costs include both direct (labor, materials, etc.) and indirect (fringe, overhead, G&A) costs. There are specific costs which are not allowable against any government contract, for example costs for alcoholic beverages.

The determination of what is allowable is only the first step in the process. Depending on your accounting system structure, the same type of cost might be direct or indirect. For example, contract administration costs might be a direct charge or might be included in an indirect pool. For a manufacturing company, there might be small supplies (expendables, for example) that could be direct or indirect. How do you decide whether it should be direct or indirect?

Costs that meet the “Single Cost Objective” standard should be direct. Materials ordered for a specific contract for example would be for a single cost objective, i.e. that contract. Similarly, labor that supports a specific contract and only that contract also qualifies as a direct cost for a single cost objective. Indirect costs that are applied to all contracts should not contain costs that are for a single cost objective (contract). It’s important to be consistent in how you allocate direct and indirect costs. It wouldn’t be fair, for example, to have Contract “A” charged direct for its contract administration and have contract administration costs for other programs in an indirect pool that will also be applied to Contract “A” as an indirect burden. Contract “A” would be double-charged then for that function. The same applies to tools and supplies that are used in the production of items that will be sold under multiple contracts. Those costs are not allocable to a single contract and are therefore appropriately included in an indirect cost pool that is applied to all contracts.

As another example, if employees on Contract “A” are required to have specific training, training that is not required or particularly useful on other contracts, the cost of that training is for a single cost objective and should be directly charged to that contract because it does not benefit other contracts. That does not necessarily make it an allowable cost on a cost reimbursable contract. Depending on the terms of the contract, it could be unallowable and therefore would reduce the profit on that contract. On the other hand, training costs for certain classes of employees who support multiple programs to maintain certifications or keep them abreast of developments in their fields can be indirect costs and therefore applied to all contracts through an indirect burden.

Auditors, in reviewing your accounting system, will be looking at whether you are appropriately and consistently allocating your direct and indirect costs in a manner that treats all contracts fairly. Where reasonable and allocable, they expect costs incurred for a single cost objective to be charged to that objective (contract).

For instant access to over 200 articles like this one (as well as the two new ones we add every week), join the Skyway Community.
Visit http://skywaymember.com for details.

If you work in the Government acquisition world, this podcast is for you. (not just for Contracting Officers!)

200off_250x285This episode is brought to you by the Government Contract Pricing Summit. www.GCPSummit.com/podcast

What is the difference between a Firm Fixed Price contract and a Cost Reimbursable contract?  If you’ve ever asked this question, this podcast is for you.  We provide an overview of the 2 basic contract types used by the Government with examples of when they may be used and the risks each party assumes.

(this is an encore presentation of one of our earliest episodes…enjoy!)

———————————

Kevin Jans and Paul Schauer created the Contracting Officer Podcast to help Government and Industry acquisition professionals understand more about how the other side thinks.  Admittedly, the podcast’s name sounds very limiting.  It is not just for contracting officers or even just for those in the contracting profession.  Anyone with an interest in the Federal acquisition world can benefit from the insight and down-to-earth explanations of complicated topics provided by the hosts.

If you work in the Government acquisition world, this podcast is for you. (not just for Contracting Officers!)

200off_250x285This episode is brought to you by the Government Contract Pricing Summit. www.GCPSummit.com/podcast

Commercial Off the Shelf? (COTS) Is that the same as a Commercial Item?  Good question!

Kevin and Paul explain COTS and how the already streamlined ruleset for commercial acquisition in FAR Part 12 is further streamlined if you’re buying (or selling) COTS.

———————————

Kevin Jans and Paul Schauer created the Contracting Officer Podcast to help Government and Industry acquisition professionals understand more about how the other side thinks.  Admittedly, the podcast’s name sounds very limiting.  It is not just for contracting officers or even just for those in the contracting profession.  Anyone with an interest in the Federal acquisition world can benefit from the insight and down-to-earth explanations of complicated topics provided by the hosts.

by Shelley Hall

DoD, GSA, and NASA issued are issuing a final rule amending the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) to implement a section of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2016 to raise the simplified acquisition threshold for special emergency procurement authority from $300,000 to $750,000 (within the United States) and from $1 million to $1.5 million (outside the United States).

The proposed rule published June 20, 2016, implemented 816 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2016.

FAR 2.101, 13.003, 19.203, and 19.502-2 are being revised to increase the simplified acquisition threshold for special emergency procurement authority from $300,000 to $750,000 (within the United States) and from $1 million to $1.5 million (outside the United States). The rule would apply to acquisitions of supplies or services that, as determined by the head of the agency, are to be used to support a contingency operation or to facilitate defense against or recovery from nuclear, biological, chemical, or radiological attack.

The primary benefit of increasing these limits is to allow COs in contingency situations to award contracts faster and more efficiently using simplified acquisition procedures (SAP).  These types of acquisitions require significantly less time and documentation and usually special emergency procurements are time-sensitive.

Simplified acquisition procedures are contained in FAR Part 13, and are intended to (a) Reduce administrative costs; (b) Improve opportunities for small, small disadvantaged, women-owned, veteran-owned, HUBZone, and service-disabled veteran-owned small business concerns to obtain a fair proportion of Government contracts; (c) Promote efficiency and economy in contracting; and (d) Avoid unnecessary burdens for agencies and contractors.

For contractors (especially small businesses) who provide the items and services used in special emergency procurements, this is a step in the right direction.

For instant access to over 200 articles like this one (as well as the two new ones we add every week), join the Skyway Community.
Visit http://skywaymember.com for details.