This is the accessible text file for GAO report number GAO-08-160
entitled 'Federal Acquisition: Oversight Plan Needed to Help Implement
Acquisition Advisory Panel Recommendations' which was released on
December 21, 2007.
This text file was formatted by the U.S. Government Accountability
Office (GAO) to be accessible to users with visual impairments, as part
of a longer term project to improve GAO products' accessibility. Every
attempt has been made to maintain the structural and data integrity of
the original printed product. Accessibility features, such as text
descriptions of tables, consecutively numbered footnotes placed at the
end of the file, and the text of agency comment letters, are provided
but may not exactly duplicate the presentation or format of the printed
version. The portable document format (PDF) file is an exact electronic
replica of the printed version. We welcome your feedback. Please E-mail
your comments regarding the contents or accessibility features of this
document to Webmaster@gao.gov.
This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright
protection in the United States. It may be reproduced and distributed
in its entirety without further permission from GAO. Because this work
may contain copyrighted images or other material, permission from the
copyright holder may be necessary if you wish to reproduce this
material separately.
Report to the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, House of
Representatives:
United States Government Accountability Office:
GAO:
December 2007:
Federal Acquisition:
Oversight Plan Needed to Help Implement Acquisition Advisory Panel
Recommendations:
GAO-08-160:
GAO Highlights:
Highlights of GAO-08-160, a report to the Committee on Oversight and
Government Reform, House of Representatives.
Why GAO Did This Study:
A growing portion of federal spending is related to buying services
such as administrative, management, and information technology support.
Services accounted for about 60 percent of total fiscal year 2006
procurement dollars. The Services Acquisition Reform Act (SARA) of 2003
established a Services Acquisition Advisory Panel to make
recommendations for improving acquisition practices. In January 2007,
the panel proposed 89 recommendations to improve federal acquisition
practices.
GAO was asked to determine how the panel recommendations compare to
GAO’s past work and identify how the Office of Federal Procurement
Policy (OFPP) expects the recommendations to be addressed. To do this,
GAO analyzed the panel report and compared its findings and
recommendations to GAO’s past work and recommendations, obtained OFPP’s
views on how it expected the recommendations to be implemented, and
reviewed proposed legislation in Congress to determine if legislative
provisions had the potential to address some recommendations.
What GAO Found:
The SARA Panel, like GAO, has made numerous recommendations to improve
federal government acquisition—from encouraging competition and
adopting commercial practices to improving the accuracy and usefulness
of procurement data. The recommendations in the SARA Panel report are
largely consistent with GAO’s past work and recommendations. The panel
and GAO have both pointed out:
* the importance of a robust requirements definition process and the
need for competition;
* the need to establish clear performance requirements, measurable
performance standards, and a quality assurance plan to improve the use
of performance-based contracting;
* the risks inherent in the use of interagency contracts due to their
rapid growth and their improper management;
* stresses on the federal acquisition workforce and the need for a
strategy to assess these workforce needs;
* concerns about the role of contractors engaged in acquisition program
management and procurement traditionally performed by government
employees and the proper roles of federal employees and contractor
employees in a “blended” workforce; and
* the adverse effects of inaccurate and incomplete federal procurement
data, such as not providing a sound basis for conducting procurement
analyses.
The panel also made recommendations that would change the guidance for
awarding contracts to small businesses. While GAO’s work has addressed
some small business policy issues, GAO has not made recommendations
that would change the guidance to be used for awarding contracts to
small businesses.
OFPP representatives told GAO that OFPP agrees with almost all of the
panel recommendations and expected that most of the 89 panel
recommendations would be implemented through one of the following
means: congressional actions; changes to the Federal Acquisition
Regulation; OFPP actions, such as issuing new or revised policy; and
federal agency actions. OFPP has already acted on some SARA
recommendations, while other actions are pending or under
consideration. Milestones and reporting requirements are in place to
help OFPP gauge the implementation status of some recommendations but
not for others. Moreover, OFPP does not have a strategy or plan to
allow it to exercise oversight and establish accountability for
implementing all of the panel recommendations and to gauge their effect
on federal acquisitions.
What GAO Recommends:
GAO recommends that OFPP develop an oversight strategy or plan with
milestones and reporting requirements to help it ensure the
implementation of the SARA Panel recommendations and to gauge how they
improve federal acquisition. OFPP agreed with GAO’s recommendation.
To view the full product, including the scope and methodology, click on
[hyperlink, http://www.GAO-08-160]. For more information, contact John
Hutton (202) 512-4841 or huttonj@gao.gov.
[End of section]
Contents:
Letter:
Results in Brief:
Background:
Most SARA Panel Recommendations Are Consistent with Our Past Work:
OFPP Plans to Address Most SARA Panel Recommendations:
Conclusions:
Recommendation for Executive Action:
Agency Comments:
Appendix I: Scope and Methodology:
Appendix II: GAO Assessment of SARA Recommendations and OFPP
Implementation Plans:
Appendix III: OFPP Memorandums Responding to SARA Acquisition Advisory
Panel Recommendations:
GAO Products Related to SARA Acquisition Advisory Panel Report by
Chapter:
Tables:
Table 1: OFPP Expectations for SARA Panel Recommendations as of October
2007:
Table 2: Chapter 1 - SARA Recommendations and GAO Assessment of
Consistency with GAO Work Shown as "Consistent, Not Consistent, or No
Basis"
Table 3: Chapter 2 - SARA Recommendations and GAO Assessment of
Consistency with GAO Work Shown as "Consistent, Not Consistent or No
Basis"
Table 4: Chapter 3 - SARA Recommendations and GAO Assessment of
Consistency with GAO Work Shown as "Consistent, Not Consistent or No
Basis"
Table 5: Chapter 4 - SARA Recommendations and GAO Assessment of
Consistency with GAO Work Shown as "Consistent, Not Consistent or No
Basis"
Table 6: Chapter 5 - SARA Recommendations and GAO Assessment of
Consistency with GAO Work Shown as "Consistent, Not Consistent or No
Basis"
Table 7: Chapter 6 - SARA Recommendations and GAO Assessment of
Consistency with GAO Work Shown as "Consistent, Not Consistent or No
Basis"
Table 8: Chapter 7 - SARA Recommendations and GAO Assessment of
Consistency with GAO Work Shown as "Consistent, Not Consistent or No
Basis"
Abbreviations:
A-PART: Acquisition Performance Assessment Rating Tool:
COPR: Contracting Officer Performance Representative:
COTR: Contracting Officer Technical Representative:
DAU: Defense Acquisition University:
DHS: Department of Homeland Security:
DII: Defense Industry Initiative:
DOD: Department of Defense:
FAR: Federal Acquisition Regulations:
FAI: Federal Acquisition Institute:
FPDC: Federal Procurement Data Center:
FPDS-NG: Federal Procurement Data System-Next Generation:
GSA: General Services Administration:
ISSA: interagency service support agreement:
IV&V: Independent Verification and Validation:
NDAA: National Defense Authorization Act:
OCI: organizational conflict of interest:
OFPP: Office of Federal Procurement Policy:
OMB: Office of Management and Budget:
PBA: performance-based acquisition:
PCI: personal conflict of interest:
SARA: Services Acquisition Reform Act:
[End of section]
United States Government Accountability Office: Washington, DC 20548:
December 20, 2007:
The Honorable Henry A. Waxman:
Chairman:
The Honorable Tom Davis:
Ranking Member:
Committee on Oversight and Government Reform: House of Representatives:
Each year the federal government--the single largest buyer in the
world--spends billions of dollars to procure goods and services. In
fiscal year 2006, it spent over $400 billion. A growing portion of this
spending is related to buying services such as administrative,
management, and information technology support. Services now account
for about 60 percent of total procurement dollars. In fiscal year 2006,
for example, the Department of Defense (DOD) obligated more than $151
billion on service contracts, an 82 percent increase since fiscal year
2000. Our prior work has shown that spending on goods and services
requires sound acquisition practices--such as well-defined
requirements, robust competition, effective monitoring of contractor
performance, and the appropriate use of other agencies' contracts and
contracting services--to minimize unnecessary risk and the waste of
government resources.
Congress passed the Services Acquisition Reform Act of 2003 (SARA),
which provided federal agencies an array of tools to improve how they
acquired services.[Footnote 1] The act also established an acquisition
advisory panel, which began work in February 2005, to review
acquisition laws and regulations and make recommendations to improve
federal acquisition practices. The SARA Acquisition Advisory Panel
issued its final report dated January 2007, making 89 recommendations
to improve the acquisition of services in the following areas:
commercial practices, performance-based acquisitions, interagency
contracting, small business, the federal acquisition workforce, the
role of contractors supporting government, and federal procurement
data.[Footnote 2] Each of these areas is addressed as a separate
chapter in the report. The panel directed most of its recommendations
to the Office of Federal Procurement Policy (OFPP) within the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) for implementation, while the others were
directed to Congress and federal agencies. You asked us to review the
panel's recommendations. To do this, we determined (1) how the
recommendations compare with our past work and recommendations and (2)
how OFPP is addressing the recommendations.
For purposes of our review, we counted the panel recommendations based
on actionable items. For example, the panel report contained 15
separate action items in the chapter on commercial practices, but it
consolidated them into 10 recommendations. We counted 15
recommendations for this chapter. To determine how the panel
recommendations compare to our work and recommendations, we analyzed
the panel report and our related work. We determined whether the
recommendations are consistent with our prior work, based on our broad
institutional knowledge obtained through long-term involvement with the
subject matter and our recommendations. In some cases, we considered
the panel recommendations consistent with our past work if we thought
their implementation would help address broader acquisition issues
covered by our work, even though the panel recommendations were not
identical or similar to our specific recommendations. For
recommendations where we have no relevant work, we had no basis to take
a position on the recommendations. To determine how OFPP is planning on
addressing the panel recommendations, we reviewed OFPP policy
memorandums issued to senior procurement executives and recent Federal
Acquisition Regulatory Council initiatives. We also obtained OFPP views
on how the agency expects each recommendation to be implemented. We
also reviewed pending legislative proposals in the U.S. Senate and
House of Representatives to identify legislative initiatives that could
address some of the panel recommendations. Appendix I includes
additional details about our scope and methodology. We conducted our
review from March 2007 to November 2007 in accordance with generally
accepted government auditing standards.
Results in Brief:
The recommendations in the SARA Panel report are largely consistent
with GAO's past work and recommendations. We have both pointed out:
* the importance of a robust requirements definition process;
* the need for competition, which is a mandate that runs through the
statutes and regulations governing federal procurement;
* the need for clear performance requirements, measurable performance
standards, and a quality assurance plan to improve the use of
performance-based contracting;
* the risks inherent in the use of interagency contracts due to their
rapid growth and their improper management;
* the stresses on the federal acquisition workforce and the need for a
strategic approach to assess workforce needs;
* concerns about the role of contractors engaged in acquisition program
management and other procurement activities traditionally performed by
government employees and the proper roles for contractor employees in a
"blended" workforce; and:
* the adverse effects of inaccurate and incomplete federal procurement
data, which cannot be relied on to conduct procurement analyses.
Like the panel, we have made numerous recommendations to address these
issues and bring improvement to government procurement. The panel also
made recommendations that would change the guidance for awarding
contracts to small businesses. While our work on small business has
addressed a number of these policy issues, we have not made
recommendations that would change the guidance for awarding contracts
to small businesses. Our analysis of each recommendation is shown in
appendix II.
OFPP representatives told us the ofice agrees with almost all of the 89
panel recommendations and has already acted on some SARA
recommendations, while other actions are pending or under
consideration. Generally, efforts to implement the recommendations fall
into the broad categories of (1) legislative action; (2) changes to the
Federal Acquisition Regulations (FAR); (3) OFPP actions, such as
issuing or revising policy; and (4) federal agency action. OFPP noted
that legislative actions and pending FAR cases could address about one-
third of the recommendations. OFPP is expected to address most of the
remaining recommendations and plans to work with the Chief Acquisition
Officer or senior procurement official within each agency to do so.
Based on the information OFPP provided, an overall strategy or plan
with milestones and reporting requirements has not yet been established
to help provide visibility over the progress and results of
implementing the recommendations. Without an overall strategy or plan,
it is unclear how OFPP will gauge the successes and shortcomings in how
the panel recommendations improve federal acquisitions. OFPP is
supportive of all but two panel recommendations--one involving changing
the name Contracting Officer Technical Representative (COTR) to
Contracting Officer Performance Representative (COPR) and one allowing
for protests of task and delivery orders over $5 million that are
awarded under multiple award contracts.[Footnote 3] OFPP does not
consider the name change to add significant value and prefers that the
recommended bid protest threshold be higher.
Given that OFPP agrees with almost all of the panel recommendations and
that they are largely supported by GAO's work, we are recommending that
the Administrator of OFPP develop an oversight strategy or plan that
would include milestones and reporting requirements that OFPP could use
to gauge the progress and effectiveness of implementing the
recommendations. OFPP officials provided oral comments on a draft of
this report. They stated that OFPP generally agreed with our findings
and observations and agreed in principle with our recommendation. They
also noted that they would rely on Chief Acquisition Officers and
senior procurement executives within federal agencies to help implement
the recommendations.
Background:
Section 1423 of the Services Acquisition Reform Act of 2003 directed
the Administrator for Federal Procurement Policy to establish an
acquisition advisory panel to (1) review all federal acquisition laws
and regulations and, to the extent practicable, governmentwide
acquisition policies, with a view toward ensuring effective and
appropriate use of commercial practices, performance-based contracting,
the performance of acquisition functions across agency lines of
responsibility, and the use of governmentwide contracts and (2) make
any recommendations for the modification of laws, regulations, or
policies that are considered necessary to:
* protect the best interests of the federal government;
* ensure the continuing financial and ethical integrity of acquisitions
by the federal government; and:
* enhance effective, efficient, and fair award and administration of
contracts for the acquisition of goods and services.
The Administrator for Federal Procurement Policy appointed the panel
members in February 2005. The panel held 31 public meetings and heard
the testimony of 108 witnesses, representing 86 entities from industry,
government, and public interest organizations. Witnesses included
representatives from GAO. The panel's public deliberations produced
about 7,500 pages of transcript. In addition, the panel received
written public statements from over 50 sources, including associations,
individual companies, and members of the public. The documents and
transcripts associated with the panel's deliberations were available to
the public via a Web site established specifically for the panel's
work. The panel's final report, which was dated January 2007, was
released in its final form in July 2007. The report contains seven
chapters that cover the following areas: commercial practices,
performance-based acquisition, interagency contracting, the federal
acquisition workforce, the appropriate role of contractors supporting
government, the federal procurement data, and small business.[Footnote
4] In all, the panel made 89 recommendations for the modification of
laws, regulations, or policies that it considered necessary as the
result of its review.
Most SARA Panel Recommendations Are Consistent with Our Past Work:
The 89 recommendations in the panel report are largely consistent with
our past work and recommendations. Presented below is a discussion of
the seven areas the panel reviewed, the general thrust of the panel's
recommendations, and our views on them.
Commercial Practices:
According to the panel, the bedrock principle of commercial acquisition
is competition. The panel found that defining requirements is key to
achieving the benefits of competition because procurements with clear
requirements are far more likely to produce competitive, fixed price
offers that meet customer needs. Further, the panel found that
commercial organizations invest the time and resources necessary to
understand and define their requirements. They use multidisciplinary
teams to plan their procurements, conduct competitions for award, and
monitor contract performance. Commercial organizations rely on well-
defined requirements and competitive awards to reduce prices and obtain
innovative, high-quality goods and services. Hence, practices that
enhance and encourage competition were the basis of the panel
recommendations. Among other things, the panel recommended that the
requirements process be improved, competitive procedures be
strengthened, and the definition of commercial services be amended.
Our work is generally consistent with the panel recommendations, and we
have issued numerous products that address the importance of a robust
requirements definition process and the need for competition. For
example, in January 2007, we testified that poorly defined or broadly
described requirements have contributed to undesired service
acquisition outcomes.[Footnote 5] To produce desired outcomes within
available funding and required time frames, our work has shown that DOD
and its contractors need to clearly understand acquisition objectives
and how they translate into the contract's terms and conditions. The
absence of well-defined requirements and clearly understood objectives
complicates efforts to hold DOD and contractors accountable for poor
acquisition outcomes. This has been a long-standing issue. Previously,
in 2000, we reported that DOD was not clearly defining requirements for
most information technology services.[Footnote 6] Requirements were not
clearly defined because the orders for information technology services
covered several years of effort, and officials were uncertain what
support they would need in future years. The 22 orders we reviewed--
with an awarded value of $553 million--typically provided for
reimbursing the contractors' costs, leaving the government bearing most
of the risk of cost growth. Further, a majority of these orders were
awarded without competition. More recently, we testified, in July 2007,
that agencies, among other things, need to translate their true needs
into executable programs by setting realistic and stable
requirements.[Footnote 7] However, agencies too often promise
capabilities they cannot deliver and proceed to development without
adequate knowledge. As a result, programs take significantly longer,
cost more than planned, and deliver different capabilities than
promised.
Regarding competition, we have stated that competition is a fundamental
principle underlying the federal acquisition process.[Footnote 8]
Nevertheless, we have reported numerous times on the lack of
competition in DOD's acquisition of goods and services. For example, we
noted in April 2006 that DOD awarded contracts for security guard
services supporting 57 domestic bases, 46 of which were done on an
authorized sole-source basis.[Footnote 9] The sole-source contracts
were awarded by DOD despite recognizing it was paying about 25 percent
more than previously paid for the contracts awarded competitively. We
also reported in July 2004 that guidance was needed to promote
competition for defense task orders placed against indefinite delivery,
indefinite quantity contracts.[Footnote 10] We found that competition
requirements were waived for nearly half (34 of 74) of the multiple-
award contract and federal supply schedule orders we reviewed.[Footnote
11] Often, contracting officers waived competition based on requests
from the DOD program offices to retain the services of contractors
currently performing the work. In addressing these requests, safeguards
to ensure that waivers were granted only under appropriate
circumstances were lacking. In addition, the requirements for
documenting the basis for waivers were not specific, and there was no
requirement that waivers be approved above the level of the contracting
officer. We made recommendations to the Secretary of Defense to (1)
develop guidance on the conditions under which a waiver of competition
may be used, (2) require detailed documentation to support waivers, and
(3) establish approval authority above the contracting officer level
based on the value of the order. Although these recommendations were
directed at DOD, they are relevant across all federal agencies and
consistent with the panel recommendations to strengthen competitive
procedures across the federal government with respect to policy,
procedures, and training.
As the panel noted, there have also been concerns about the federal
government's definition of a commercial service. The panel finding was
that the current regulatory treatment of commercial items and services
allows for goods and services not sold in substantial quantities in the
commercial market to be classified as "commercial" and purchased using
streamlined procedures under Part 12 of the FAR, which deals with
commercial items.[Footnote 12] The panel noted that the most critical
element of the definition of commercial services is that the service
must be offered and sold competitively, in substantial quantities, in
the commercial marketplace. If the definition is overly broad,
misclassification can result and the government might lack assurances
that the prices of those items and services are reasonable. When
commercial market forces that meet the critical elements do not exist,
the panel noted that more traditional methods, such as negotiated
procurements described under FAR Part 15, should be used. FAR Part 15
describes the procedures to be used when an item or service is
purchased under negotiated procurements.
While we addressed issues related to commercial items in the past, we
have not specifically made recommendations on the definition of
commercial items or services. However, in July 2006, we reported that
DOD sometimes uses commercial item procedures to procure items that are
misclassified as commercial items and therefore not subject to the
forces of a competitive marketplace.[Footnote 13] When an item is
designated as commercial, the government should be able to determine if
the price is reasonable based on prices found in the commercial
marketplace. However, if the government designates a service (or an
item) as commercial merely because the service is "of a type" that is
sold commercially, but the offered service is not readily available in
the commercial market, the government reduces its ability to assess the
reasonableness of the contractor's price because it does not have
prices derived through the benefit of competition in the commercial
market place.
Another panel recommendation dealt with pricing of commercial services.
The panel reasoned that if the service meets the definition of a
commercial service--in other words, it is sold in the commercial
marketplace in substantial quantities--then an agency should be able to
obtain a reasonable price based on the effects of existing competition,
market research, and analysis of prices for similar commercial sales.
The panel reasoned that even if the agency purchased a commercial
service with no or limited competition, the prices that would be
obtained would reflect market forces. The panel recommended, therefore,
that when an agency buys a commercial service that meets the definition
of a commercial service, a contracting officer may not require
certification of detailed cost breakdowns, nor may contractor costs be
the subject of a postaward audit.
While we recognize the panel's position with regard to limiting the use
of postaward audits with respect to procuring commercial services, our
past work has been supportive of postaward audits as a tool that should
be available to the acquisition workforce in certain other cases to
ensure that the government receives fair and reasonable prices.
Specifically, we reported that the General Services Administration
(GSA) Inspector General found that the postaward audits of acquisitions
using Multiple Award Schedules contracts were a deterrent to vendor
pricing abuse.[Footnote 14] Additionally, they can result in recovery
of money from contractors that have overpriced their products after the
contract was awarded. Both GSA and the Department of Veterans Affairs
have recovered millions of dollars through the use of postaward audits
for their schedule contracts. For example, we found the Department of
Veterans Affairs recovered $90 million from postaward audits during
fiscal years 1999 to 2004.[Footnote 15]
Improving Implementation of Performance-Based Acquisition:
The panel reported that performance-based acquisition (PBA) has not
been fully implemented in the federal government even though OMB has
encouraged greater use of it--setting a general goal in 2001 of making
performance-based contracts 40 percent or more of all eligible service
acquisitions for fiscal year 2006.[Footnote 16] The panel reported that
agencies were not clearly defining requirements, not preparing adequate
statements of work, not identifying meaningful quality measures and
effective incentives, and not effectively managing the contract. The
panel noted that a cultural emphasis on "getting to award" still exists
within the government, which precludes taking the time to clarify
agency needs and adequately define requirements. The panel recommended
that OFPP issue more explicit implementation guidance and create a PBA
"Opportunity Assessment" tool to help agencies identify when they
should consider using PBA contracts.
Like the panel, we have found that agencies have faced a number of
issues when using PBA contracts. For example, we reported in April 2003
that there was inadequate guidance and training, a weak internal
control environment, and limited performance measures and data that
agencies could use to make informed decisions on when to use
PBA.[Footnote 17] We have made recommendations similar to the panel's.
For example, we have recommended that the Administrator of OFPP work
with agencies to periodically evaluate how well agencies understand PBA
and how they can apply it to services that are widely available in the
commercial sector, particularly with more unique and complex
services.[Footnote 18] The panel's concern that agencies are not
properly managing PBA contracts is also consistent with our work on
surveillance of service contracts. In a March 2005 report, we found
that proper surveillance of service contracts, including PBAs, was not
being conducted, leaving DOD at risk of being unable to identify and
correct poor contractor performance.[Footnote 19] Accordingly, we
recommended that the Secretary of Defense ensure the proper
surveillance training of personnel and their assignment to contracts
occur no later than the date of contract award. We further recommended
the development of practices to help ensure accountability for
personnel carrying out surveillance responsibilities. We have also
found that some agencies have attempted to apply PBA to complex and
risky acquisitions, a fact that underscores the need to maintain strong
government surveillance to mitigate risks.[Footnote 20]
Interagency Contracting:
Interagency contracts are designed to leverage the government's
aggregate buying power and provide a simplified method to procure
commonly used goods and services.[Footnote 21] For example, the General
Services Administration provides a wide range of contracts that are
available to all government agencies for purchasing a wide range of
commercially available supplies and services at competitive prices. The
panel found that reliance on interagency contracts is significant.
According to the panel report, 40 percent of the total 2004
obligations, or $142 billion, was obligated through the use of
interagency contracts. The panel also found that a significant reason
for the increased use of these contracts has been reductions in the
acquisition workforce accompanied by increased workloads and pressures
to reduce procurement lead times. Accordingly, the panel made numerous
recommendations to improve the use of interagency contracts with the
intent of enhancing competition, lowering prices, improving the
expertise of the acquisition workforce, and improving guidance for
choosing the most appropriate interagency contract for procurements.
Our work is generally consistent with the panel's recommendations on
interagency contracting. In fact, 15 of our products on interagency
contracting were cited in the panel report. These reports included
numerous recommendations that are consistent with the panel's
recommendations. Our reports recognize that interagency contracts can
provide the advantages of timeliness and efficiency by leveraging the
government's buying power and providing a simplified and expedited
method of procurement. However, a number of factors make these types of
contracts high risk; these factors include their rapid growth in
popularity, their use by some agencies that have limited expertise with
this contracting method, and the number of parties that might be
involved. Taken collectively, these factors contribute to a much more
complex procurement environment--one in which accountability is not
always clearly established.
In 2005, because we found that interagency contracts can pose risks if
they are not properly managed, we designated the management of
interagency contracting a governmentwide high-risk area.[Footnote 22]
Specifically, our prior work has found that agencies involved in the
interagency contracting process have not always obtained required
competition, evaluated contracting alternatives, or conducted adequate
oversight. For example, our 2006 review at the Department of Homeland
Security (DHS), found that DHS did not have comprehensive guidance for
the use of all types contracts, including interagency
contracts.[Footnote 23] DHS relied on this contracting method for speed
and convenience, but did not assess alternatives to ensure good value
when selecting among these contracting options and did not evaluate the
outcomes of this contracting method. Additionally, our 2005 review of
DOD's use of two franchise funds[Footnote 24] had similar
findings.[Footnote 25] For example, DOD did not have clear guidance on
the proper use of interagency contracting services and selected them
based on convenience without analyzing whether this was the best method
meeting its purchasing needs. The franchise fund organizations
providing these services did not always obtain the full benefits of
competitive procedures, did not otherwise ensure fair and reasonable
procedures, and may have missed opportunities to achieve savings on
millions of dollars in purchases. In another review, we found task
orders placed by DOD on a GSA schedule contract did not always satisfy
legal requirements for competition because the work was not within the
scope of the underlying contract.[Footnote 26]
Small Business:
The panel stated that small businesses are recognized as one of the
nation's most valuable economic resources. The report noted that
studies commissioned by the U.S. Small Business Administration Office
of Advocacy reveal that small businesses represent 99.7 percent of
employers and employ about half of all private-sector employees. The
panel reported that recognizing the vital role of small businesses in
the U.S. economy, Congress has emphasized small business contracting as
a fundamental socioeconomic goal underlying federal procurement policy.
For example, Congress established a governmentwide small business
contracting goal of awarding not less than 23 percent of the total
value of all federal prime contracts to small businesses each fiscal
year.
The panel made recommendations to change the guidance to contracting
officers in awarding contracts to small businesses. These
recommendations are intended to improve the policies and, hence,
address the socioeconomic benefits derived from acquiring services from
small businesses. All but one of the recommendations requires
legislation for implementation.[Footnote 27] While our work on small
business has addressed a number of these policy issues, including how
they are implemented,[Footnote 28] we have not made recommendations
that could change the guidance to contracting officers that would
affect the socioeconomic benefits between achieving contract
performance and ensuring opportunities for various categories of small
businesses to participate in federal contracts. We do not usually make
recommendations for statutory and regulatory changes when arguments for
such changes are based on value judgments, such as those related to
setting small business contracting goals.
Federal Acquisition Workforce:
The federal acquisition workforce was not one of the topics Congress
directed the panel to address. The panel reported, however, that it
could not provide the insight and assistance Congress sought without
addressing the problems presented by the federal acquisition workforce.
Specifically, panel members recognized a significant mismatch between
the demands placed on the acquisition workforce and the personnel and
skills available within the workforce to meet those demands. The panel
found, for example, that demands on the federal acquisition workforce
have grown substantially while at the same time, the complexity of the
federal acquisition system as a whole has increased. Accordingly, the
panel made a number of recommendations designed to define, assess,
train, and collect data on the acquisition workforce and to recruit
talented entry-level personnel and retain its senior workforce.
Our work is generally consistent with the panel findings and
recommendations on the acquisition workforce. On the basis of
observations made by acquisition experts from the federal government,
private sector, and academia, we reported in October 2006 that agency
leaders have not recognized or elevated the importance of the
acquisition profession within their organizations.[Footnote 29] The
officials further noted that a strategic approach had not been taken
across government or within agencies to focus on workforce challenges,
such as creating a positive image essential to successfully recruit and
retain a new generation of talented acquisition professionals. In
September 2006, we testified that while the amount, nature, and
complexity of contract activity has increased, DOD's acquisition
workforce, the largest component of the government's acquisition
workforce, has remained relatively unchanged in size and faces certain
skill gaps and serious succession planning challenges.[Footnote 30]
Further, we testified that DOD's acquisition workforce must have the
right skills and capabilities if it is to effectively implement best
practices and properly manage the goods and services it buys. In July
2006 we reported that in the ever-changing DOD contracting environment,
the acquisition workforce must be able to rapidly adapt to increasing
workloads while continuing to improve its knowledge of market
conditions, industry trends, and the technical details of the goods and
services it procures.[Footnote 31] Moreover, we noted that effective
workforce skills were essential for ensuring that DOD receives fair and
reasonable prices for the goods and services it buys and identified a
number of conditions that increased DOD's vulnerabilities to
contracting waste and abuse. We had previously stated in a report
issued in 2002 that procurement reforms, changes in staffing levels and
workload, and the need for new skill sets have placed unprecedented
demands on the acquisition workforce.[Footnote 32] For example, DOD's
civilian acquisition workforce level was downsized in the 1990s.
However, we noted that DOD's approach to acquisition workforce
reduction was not oriented toward shaping the makeup of the workforce;
rather, DOD relied primarily on voluntary turnover and retirements,
freezes on hiring authority, and its authority to offer early
retirements and buyouts to achieve reductions.
Contractors Supporting the Federal Government:
The panel reported that, in some cases, contractors are solely or
predominantly responsible for the performance of mission-critical
functions that were traditionally performed by government employees,
such as acquisition program management and procurement, policy
analysis, and quality assurance. Further, the panel noted that this
development has created issues with respect to the proper roles of, and
relationships between, federal employees and contractor employees in
the "blended" workforce. The panel stated that although federal law
prohibits contracting for activities and functions that are inherently
governmental, uncertainty about the proper scope and application of
this term has led to confusion, particularly with respect to service
contracting outside the scope of OMB's Circular A-76, which provides
guidance on competing work for commercial activities via public-private
competition.[Footnote 33] Moreover, according to the panel, as the
federal workforce shrinks, there is a need to ensure that agencies have
sufficient in-house expertise and experience to perform inherently
governmental functions by being in a position to make critical
decisions regarding policy and program management issues and to manage
the performance of their contractors. The panel recommended that the
FAR Council consider developing a standard organizational conflict-of-
interest clause for solicitations and contracts that set forth a
contractor's responsibility concerning its employees and those of its
subcontractors, partners, and any other affiliated organization or
individual;[Footnote 34] that OFPP update the principles for agencies
to apply in determining which functions government employees must
perform; and that OFPP ensure that the functions identified as those
that must be performed by government employees are adequately
staffed.[Footnote 35]
On the basis of our work, we have similar concerns to those expressed
by the panel, and our work is generally consistent with the panel's
recommendations on the appropriate role of contractors supporting the
federal acquisition workforce. We have testified and reported on the
issues associated with an unclear definition of what constitutes
inherently governmental functions, inadequate government experience and
expertise for overseeing contractor performance, and organizational
conflicts of interest related to contractor responsibilities.[Footnote
36] We found that there is a need for placing greater attention on the
type of functions and activities that could be contracted out and those
that should not, reviewing the current independence and conflict-of-
interest rules relating to contractors, and identifying the factors
that prompt the government to use contractors in circumstances where
the proper choice might be the use of government employees or military
personnel. In our recent work at DHS, we found that more than half of
the 117 statements of work we reviewed provided for services that
closely support the performance of inherently governmental
functions.[Footnote 37] We made recommendations to DHS to improve
control and accountability for decisions resulting in buying services
that closely support inherently governmental functions. Accordingly,
our work is consistent with panel recommendations to update the
principles for agencies to apply in determining which functions
government employees must perform, and ensure that the functions
identified as those that must be performed by government employees are
adequately staffed.
Report on Federal Procurement Data:
The Federal Procurement Data System-Next Generation (FPDS-NG) is the
federal government's primary central database for capturing information
on federal procurement actions. Congress, executive branch agencies,
and the public rely on FPDS-NG for a wide range of information
including agency contracting actions, governmentwide procurement
trends, and how procurement actions support socioeconomic goals and
affect specific geographical areas and markets. The panel reported that
FPDS-NG data, while insightful when aggregated at the highest level,
continue to be inaccurate and incomplete at the detailed level and
cannot be relied on to conduct procurement analyses.[Footnote 38] In
its report, the panel noted its frustration with trying to use FPDS-NG
data for selected detailed analyses. The panel believes the processes
for capturing and reporting FPDS-NG data need to be improved if it is
to meet user requirements. As a result, the panel made 15
recommendations aimed at increasing the accuracy and the timeliness of
the FPDS-NG data. For example, the panel recommended that an
independent verification and validation should be undertaken to ensure
all other validation rules are working properly in FPDS-NG. The panel
also recommended that Congress revise the OFPP Act[Footnote 39] --an
act that required a federal system for collecting and disseminating
procurement statistics--to assign responsibility for timely and
accurate data reporting to FPDS-NG or successor system to the head of
executive agency. The panel recommended that OFPP ensure that FPDS-NG
reports data on orders under interagency and enterprisewide contracts
and make these data publicly available. For example, the panel
recommended that the OFPP Interagency Contracting Working Group address
data entry responsibility as part of the creation and continuation
process for interagency and enterprisewide contracts. The panel expects
its recommendations, if properly implemented, to increase the accuracy
and usefulness of federal procurement data.
Our work has identified similar concerns as those expressed by the
panel and made similar recommendations. The panel cited our work
numerous times in its report. Like the panel, we have pointed out that
FPDS-NG data accuracy has been a long-standing problem and have made
numerous recommendations to address this problem. As early as 1994, we
reported that the usefulness of federal procurement data for conducting
procurement policy analysis was limited.[Footnote 40] We have also had
concerns about the accountability for data accuracy and reported in
fiscal year 2002 that the Federal Procurement Data Center (FPDC) does
not have the knowledge to correct inaccurate data or the authority to
require agencies to do so. More recently, in 2005, we again raised
concerns about the accuracy and timeliness of the data available in
FPDS-NG.[Footnote 41] We have also reported that the use of independent
verification and validation function is recognized as a best business
practice and can help provide reasonable assurance that the system
satisfies its intended use and user needs.[Footnote 42] We also
reported in 2005 that the need for collecting and tracking data on
interagency contracting transactions has become increasingly
important.[Footnote 43] One panel recommendation called for us to
conduct an audit that addresses the quality of FPDS-NG data and agency
compliance in providing accurate and timely data. As our work has
shown, we have already addressed these issues and we believe such an
audit would not be necessary if OFPP implements the other
recommendations related to FPDS-NG data.
OFPP Plans to Address Most SARA Panel Recommendations:
OFPP representatives told us the office agrees with almost all of the
89 panel recommendations and has already acted on some SARA
recommendations, while potential actions are pending on others. OFPP
identified legislative actions and FAR cases that could address over
one-third of the recommendations. OFPP expects to address at least 51
of the remaining recommendations and plans to work with the chief
acquisition officer or senior procurement official within each agency
to do so. In some cases, OFPP has established milestones and reporting
requirements to help provide it with visibility over the progress and
results of implementing the recommendations. Although OFPP has taken
some steps to track the progress of selected recommendations, it does
not have an overall strategy or plan to gauge the successes and
shortcomings in how the panel recommendations are implemented and how
they improve federal acquisitions.
Table 1 shows how OFPP expected the 89 recommendations to be
implemented. This information is presented in detail in appendix II.
Table 1: OFPP Expectations for SARA Panel Recommendations as of October
2007:
Legislative action; Number of recommendations: 23.
Changes to the FAR Initiated by OFPP; Number of recommendations: 9.
OFPP actions; Number of recommendations: 51.
Agency actions; Number of recommendations: 6.
Total; Number of recommendations: 89.
Source: GAO analysis of OFPP data.
Note: One recommendation in the "to be addressed by agencies" category
was directed to GAO. We discussed this in the above section dealing
with FPDS data.
[End of table]
OFPP noted that while the panel directed 17 recommendations to
Congress, legislative actions could address as many as 23 panel
recommendations. Panel recommendations directed to Congress include
such potential legislative changes as authorizing the General Services
Administration to establish a new information technology schedule for
professional services and enacting legislation to strengthen the
preference for awarding contracts to small businesses. An example of
the latter is amending the Small Business Act to remove any statutory
provisions that appear to provide for a hierarchy of small business
programs. According to the panel, this is necessary because an agency
will have difficulty meeting its small business goal if any one small
business program takes a priority over the others. According to OFPP,
the House or Senate versions of the National Defense Authorization Act
(NDAA) for 2008 include provisions that, if passed, will address six of
the panel recommendations. For example, a panel recommendation to
expand the requirements under Section 803 of the NDAA for 2002 to all
federal agencies, which addresses competition for task and delivery
orders, is included in a version of the NDAA for 2008.
However, if Congress does not act on all or some of the recommendations
included in the legislative proposals, responsibility for implementing
more of the recommendations could shift to OFPP. For those that do not
pass, OFPP representatives told us the office could take administrative
actions, such as issuing a policy memorandum or initiating a FAR case,
to implement most of them.
OFPP identified nine recommendations that it expects to address by
proposing revisions to the FAR, which involve opening FAR cases. FAR
cases follow a process that allows the public, as well as federal
agencies, to comment on proposed changes to the FAR. Five cases have
been opened thus far. For example, one case is addressing a panel
recommendation to improve competition by making the requirements of
Section 803 of the Fiscal Year 2002 National Defense Authorization Act
applicable not just to DOD, but to all agencies. Currently, Section 803
requires DOD to give fair notice to all multiple award contract holders
to ensure that competition is likely to occur when agencies buy from
multiple award contracts.[Footnote 44]
OFPP has identified 51 recommendations that it plans to address.
According to OFPP, it will do this by using administrative mechanisms
such as issuing policy memorandums and completing ongoing initiatives.
According to OFPP, 34 recommendations have been addressed in some
manner while 17 are still under review, as described below:
* According to OFPP, seven recommendations, and a portion of three
others, have been addressed by issuing seven policy memorandums, as
shown in appendix III. The memorandums cover a variety of issues
including enhancing competition, improving the use of PBAs, addressing
workforce shortfalls and capability gaps, and addressing FPDS-NG data
problems. Some of the policy memorandums have reporting requirements
that can provide OFPP some degree of oversight to determine whether
agencies are implementing the policy requirements while some do not.
For those that do, the chief acquisition officer within each federal
agency is accountable for implementing the policy and reporting results
to OFPP.
* OFPP expects to address 22 recommendations by completing
implementation of existing initiatives. For example, several of the
panel acquisition workforce recommendations are directed at getting
federal agencies to accurately define its workforce. OFPP believes this
initiative is being implemented through its existing policy and
reporting requirements, in combination with agencies continuing to
migrate workforce data into the Acquisition Career Management
Information System. This system maintains data on acquisition workforce
personnel such as employment history, education, training,
certifications, grades, series, and retirement eligibility.
* According to OFPP, five recommendations are addressed because
existing policy and regulations already exist. It is a matter of
federal agencies properly adhering to the policy and regulations. For
example, one of the panel recommendations addresses the use of time-
and-material contracts. Specifically, the panel recommended that
current policies limiting the use of time-and-material contracts and
providing for the competitive awards of such contracts should be
enforced. OFPP concurs and believes that, if current time-and-material
policies are enforced by agencies, this panel recommendation will be
implemented. Agencies' not adhering to existing policies and
regulations, however, led to the panel's recommendation. OFPP has not
established milestones and reporting requirements that would provide
help it exercise oversight on agency actions and ensure that all
existing policies and regulations are followed.
* The 17 panel recommendations that are still under OFPP review involve
a wide variety of issues. Examples include updating the principles for
agencies to apply in determining which functions must be performed by
government employees and potentially modifying the FAR by (1) providing
regulatory guidance to improve competition by establishing weights to
be given to evaluation factors, and (2) creating a contract-specific
"Performance Improvement Plan" tailored to specific acquisitions to
improve postaward contract performance management. We have included two
recommendations in this category that OFPP representatives told us they
do not agree with. First, OFPP disagrees with the panel recommendation
to rename Contracting Officer Technical Representatives as Contracting
Officer Performance Representatives. The panel believed that this
recommendation highlights the distinctive nature of the position while
affording those filling it with sufficient education and training to
meet demanding oversight requirements. Together, the name change and
more training could help bring about a culture change in the way PBAs
are dealt with by the acquisition workforce. OFPP does not believe that
the benefit of changing the name from COTR to COPR would add
significant value, given the expense of amending all documents and
training materials, governmentwide that address COTRs. Second, OFPP
disagrees with the panel recommendation dealing with the protest of
task and delivery orders because the recommendation would permit
protests of awards over $5 million under multiple award contracts. The
panel's position was that task and delivery orders over $5 million were
most likely not routine or repetitive purchases; rather, they were in
effect contracts that should be subject to bid protests. The current
bill for the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008
includes a section that provides for bid protests of task and delivery
orders over $10 million.[Footnote 45]
* The six recommendations that OFPP expects agencies to address include
(1) ethics training for contractor employees, regarding which the SARA
Acquisition Advisory Panel report states agencies should consider
whether and how to provide such training; (2) human capital planning
for the acquisition workforce, for which the panel declined to
recommend that OFPP mandate a governmentwide solution; (3) the Federal
Procurement Data System-Next Generation to ensure sufficient and
appropriate personnel are available to test changes to the system and
that sufficient funds are available for its operation. As noted above,
ensuring that the panel's agency-specific recommendations are
implemented requires OFPP oversight through the use of milestones and
reporting requirements, but they have not been put in place for these
agency-specific recommendations.
Conclusions:
The SARA Panel, like GAO, has made numerous recommendations to improve
federal government acquisition--from encouraging competition and
adopting commercial practices to improving the accuracy and usefulness
of procurement data. Our work is largely consistent with the panel's
recommendations, and when they are taken as a whole, we believe the
recommendations, if implemented effectively, can bring needed
improvements in the way the federal government buys goods and services.
OFPP, as the lead office for responding to the report, is now in a key
position to sustain the panel's work by ensuring that panel
recommendations are implemented across the federal government in an
effective and timely manner regardless of whether Congress takes action
through legislation initiatives or responsibility for implementation
eventually shifts to OFPP. To do this, OFPP will need to work with the
chief acquisition officers and senior procurement officials across all
the federal agencies to lay out a strategy or plan that includes
milestones and reporting requirements that OFPP could use to establish
accountability, exercise oversight, and gauge the progress and results
of implementing the recommendations.
Recommendation for Executive Action:
To help ensure timely and effective implementation of SARA Panel
recommendations, we recommend that the Administrator of OFPP develop an
oversight strategy or plan, in conjunction with agency chief
acquisition officers and senior procurement officials, that would
include milestones and reporting requirements OFPP could use to gauge
the status and results of implementing the panel recommendations.
Agency Comments:
OFPP officials provided oral comments on a draft of this report. They
stated that OFPP generally agreed with our findings and observations
and agreed in principle with our recommendation. They also noted that
they would rely on Chief Acquisition Officers and senior procurement
executives within federal agencies to help implement the
recommendations. OFPP provided technical comments, which we
incorporated into the report as appropriate.
As agreed, unless you publicly announce its contents, we plan no
further distribution of this report until 30 days from its issue date.
At that time, we will send copies of this report to the Director of the
Office of Management and Budget and interested congressional
committees. We will also make copies available at no charge on the GAO
Web site at [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov].
If you have questions about this report or need additional information,
please contact me at (202) 512-4841 or huttonj@gao.gov. Contact points
for our Office of Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be
found on the last page of this report. Key contributors to this report
were James Fuquay, Assistant Director; Julie Hadley; Daniel Hauser;
John Krump; Jean Lee; Robert Miller; and Robert Swierczek.
Singed by:
John P. Hutton:
Director:
Acquisition and Sourcing Management:
[End of section]
Appendix I: Scope and Methodology:
To determine how the Service Acquisition Reform Act (SARA) Acquisition
Advisory Panel recommendations compare to GAO's past work and
recommendations, we reviewed and analyzed the panel report and related
GAO products. We compared the panel recommendations to relevant GAO
products and determined whether each of the panel's recommendations is
consistent with our work or whether we have no basis to take a
position, based on the following criteria:
* The SARA Panel recommendation is consistent with our work and broad
institutional knowledge obtained through long-term involvement with the
subject,
* The SARA Panel recommendation is not consistent with our work and
broad institutional knowledge obtained through long-term involvement
with the subject,
* Our work provided no basis to take a position on the SARA Panel
recommendation.
In some cases, we considered the panel recommendations consistent with
our past work if we thought their implementation would help address
broader acquisition issues covered by our work, even though the panel
recommendations were not identical or similar to our specific
recommendations. As part of our analysis, we also interviewed the chair
of the panel to obtain additional information on the scope of work
associated with some of the report issues and to discuss the rationale
behind some of the panel recommendations.
The number of panel recommendations is dependent upon whether each
actionable item is counted as a separate stand-alone recommendation or
whether several actionable items are consolidated and counted as one
recommendation. For example, the panel report contains 15 separate
actionable items in its chapter on commercial practices. However, they
are consolidated into 10 numbered recommendations. For the purposes of
our review, we counted the actionable items as separate recommendations
when we deemed it appropriate to do so. As a result, we show a total of
89 actionable items or recommendations.
To determine how the panel recommendations will likely be addressed, we
obtained the Office of Federal Procurement Policy's (OFPP) comments on
each recommendation and how OFPP plans or expects them to be
implemented. In addition, we reviewed OFPP policy memorandums issued to
senior procurement executives and recent Federal Acquisition Regulatory
Council initiatives for those recommendations identified by OFPP as its
planned action. We also reviewed pending legislative proposals in the
U.S. Senate and House of Representatives as of October 31, 2007, to
identify legislative initiatives that could address some of the panel
recommendations. As a result, we present the recommendations in the
following categories: (1) legislative action, (2) changes to the FAR,
(3) OFPP actions, and (4) agency actions.
We conducted our review from March 2007 to November 2007 in accordance
with generally accepted government auditing standards.
[End of section]
Appendix II: GAO Assessment of SARA Recommendations and OFPP
Implementation Plans:
Appendix II lists the SARA Acquisition Advisory Panel recommendations
and shows the recommendations that are generally consistent or not
consistent with our past work, or for which we have no basis to take a
position. The number of panel recommendations is dependent upon whether
each actionable item is counted as a separate stand-alone
recommendation or whether several actionable items are consolidated and
counted as one recommendation. For example, the panel report contains
15 separate actionable items in its chapter on commercial practices.
However, they are consolidated into 10 numbered recommendations. For
the purposes of our review, we counted the actionable items as 15
separate recommendations, as shown below. As a result, we show a total
of 89 actionable items or recommendations for all chapters in the
report. We obtained the Office of Federal Procurement Policy's comments
on how each panel recommendation is being addressed and categorized as
shown below.
Table 2: Chapter 1 - SARA Recommendations and GAO Assessment of
Consistency with GAO Work Shown as "Consistent, Not Consistent, or No
Basis"
Rec. #: 1;
Chapter 1 - Commercial Practices: Definition of Commercial Services;
The definition of stand-alone commercial services in FAR 2.101 should
be amended to delete the phrase "of a type" in the first sentence of
the definition. Only those services that are actually sold in
substantial quantities in the commercial marketplace should be deemed
"commercial." The government should acquire all other services under
traditional contracting methods, e.g., FAR Part 15.
Is GAO Work Consistent with SARA Recommendations?: No Basis;
OFPP comments on how SARA Panel recommendations will be addressed:
Under OFPP review.
Rec. #: 2;
Chapter 1 - Commercial Practices: Improving the Requirements Process;
Current policies mandating acquisition planning should be better
enforced. Agencies must place greater emphasis on defining
requirements, structuring solicitations to facilitate competition and
fixed-price offers, and monitoring contract performance. Agencies
should support requirements development by establishing centers of
expertise in requirements analysis and development. Agencies should
then ensure that no acquisition of complex services (e.g., information
technology or management) occurs without express advanced approval of
requirements by the program manager or user and the contracting
officer, regardless of which type of acquisition vehicle is used.
Is GAO Work Consistent with SARA Recommendations?: Consistent;
OFPP comments on how SARA Panel recommendations will be addressed: OFPP
issued policy memorandum dated May 31, 2007 Subject: Enhancing
Competition in Federal Acquisition.
Rec. #: 3;
Chapter 1 - Commercial Practices: Improving Competition;
The requirements of Section 803 of the FY 2002 Defense Authorization
Act regarding orders for services over $100,000 placed against multiple
award contracts, including Federal Supply Service schedules, should
apply uniformly government-wide to all orders valued over the
simplified acquisition threshold. Further, the requirements of Section
803 should apply to all orders, not just orders for services.
Is GAO Work Consistent with SARA Recommendations?: Consistent;
OFPP comments on how SARA Panel recommendations will be addressed: OFPP
opened FAR Case 2007-010.
Rec. #: 4;
Chapter 1 - Commercial Practices: Improving Competition;
Competitive procedures should be strengthened in policy, procedures,
training, and application. For services orders over $5 million
requiring a statement of work under any multiple award contract, in
addition to "fair opportunity," the following competition requirements
as a minimum should be used: (1) a clear statement of the agency's
requirements; (2) a reasonable response period; (3) disclosure of the
significant factors and sub-factors that the agency expects to consider
in evaluating proposals, including cost or price, and their relative
importance; (4) where award is made on a best value basis, a written
statement documenting the basis for award and the trade-off of quality
versus cost or price. The requirements of FAR 15.3 shall not apply.
There is no requirement to synopsize the requirement or solicit or
accept proposals from vendors other than those holding contracts.
Is GAO Work Consistent with SARA Recommendations?: Consistent;
OFPP comments on how SARA Panel recommendations will be addressed: OFPP
opened FAR Case 2007-011.
Rec. #: 5; Chapter 1 - Commercial Practices: Improving Competition;
Regulatory guidance should be provided in FAR to assist in establishing
the weights to be given to different types of evaluation factors,
including a minimum weight to be given to cost/price, in the
acquisition of various types of products or services.
Is GAO Work Consistent with SARA Recommendations?: Consistent;
OFPP comments on how SARA Panel recommendations will be addressed:
Under OFPP review.
Rec. #: 6;
Chapter 1 - Commercial Practices: New Competitive Services Schedule;
Authorize GSA to establish a new information technology schedule for
professional services under which prices for each order are established
by competition and not based on posted rates.
Is GAO Work Consistent with SARA Recommendations?: Consistent;
OFPP comments on how SARA Panel recommendations will be addressed:
Requires Legislative Action.
Rec. #: 7;
Chapter 1 - Commercial Practices: Improving Transparency and Openness;
Adopt the following synopsis requirement: Amend the FAR to establish a
requirement to publish, for information purposes only, at FedBizOpps
notice of all sole source orders (task or delivery) in excess of the
simplified acquisition threshold placed against multiple award
contracts; Amend the FAR to establish a requirement to publish, for
information purposes only, at FedBizOpps, notice of all sole source
orders (task or delivery) in excess of the simplified acquisition
threshold placed against multiple award Blanket Purchase Agreements;
Such notices shall be made within 10 business days after award.
Is GAO Work Consistent with SARA Recommendations?: Consistent;
OFPP comments on how SARA Panel recommendations will be addressed: OFPP
opened FAR Case 2007-009.
Rec. #: 8;
Chapter 1 - Commercial Practices: Improving Transparency and Openness;
For any order under a multiple award contract over $5 million where a
statement of work and evaluation criteria were used in making the
selection, the agency whose requirement is being filled should provide
the opportunity for a post-award debriefing consistent with the
requirements of FAR 15.506.
Is GAO Work Consistent with SARA Recommendations?: Consistent;
OFPP comments on how SARA Panel recommendations will be addressed: OFPP
opened FAR Case 2007-012.
Rec. #: 9;
Chapter 1 - Commercial Practices: Time-and-Materials Contracts;
The Panel makes the following recommendations with respect to T&M
contracts: (a)Current policies limiting the use of time-and-materials
contracts and providing for the competitive awards of such contracts
should be enforced; (b) Whenever practicable, procedures should be
established to convert work currently being done on a time-and-
materials basis to a performance-based effort; (c) The government
should not award a time-and-materials contract unless the overall scope
of the effort, including the objectives, has been sufficiently
described to allow efficient use of the time-and materials resources
and to provide for effective government oversight of the effort.
Is GAO Work Consistent with SARA Recommendations?: Consistent;
OFPP comments on how SARA Panel recommendations will be addressed:
Implementation of existing policies and regulations will address this
recommendation.
Rec. #: 10;
Chapter 1 - Commercial Practices: Protest of Task and Delivery Orders;
Permit protests of task and delivery orders over $5 million under
multiple award contracts. The current statutory limitation on protests
of tasks and delivery orders under multiple award contracts should be
limited to acquisitions in which the total value of the anticipated
award is less than or equal to $5 million.
Is GAO Work Consistent with SARA Recommendations?: Consistent;
OFPP comments on how SARA Panel recommendations will be addressed:
Might be addressed by legislative action; OFPP opposed this
recommendation in a statement of administrative policy on Senate
version of NDAA for 2008 (S. 1547, Sec. 821); According to OFPP, the
markup includes flexibility for the Administrator of OFPP to raise the
threshold for protest above $5M but, in no event shall such threshold
exceed $25M.
Rec. #: 11;
Chapter 1 - Commercial Practices: Pricing When No or Limited
Competition Exists;
For commercial items, provide for a more commercial-like approach to
determine price reasonableness when no or limited competition exists.
Revise the current FAR provisions that permit the government to require
"other than cost or pricing data" to conform to commercial practices by
emphasizing that price reasonableness should be determined by
competition, market research, and analysis of prices for similar
commercial sales. Move the provisions for determining price
reasonableness for commercial items to FAR Part 12 and de-link it from
FAR Part 15.
Is GAO Work Consistent with SARA Recommendations?: Consistent;
OFPP comments on how SARA Panel recommendations will be addressed:
Might be addressed by legislative action.
Rec. #: 12;
Chapter 1 - Commercial Practices: Pricing When No or Limited
Competition Exists;
Establish in FAR Part 12 a clear preference for market-based price
analysis but, where the contracting officer cannot make a determination
on that basis (e.g., when no offers are solicited, or the items or
services are not sold in substantial quantities in the commercial
marketplace), allow the contracting officer to request additional
limited information in the following order: (i) prices paid for the
same or similar commercial items by government and commercial customers
during a relevant period; or if necessary (ii) available information
regarding price or limited cost related information to support the
price offered such as wages, subcontracts or material costs. The
contracting officer shall not require detailed cost breakdowns or
profit, and shall rely on price analysis. The contracting officer may
not require certification of this information, nor may it be the
subject of a post-award audit.
Is GAO Work Consistent with SARA Recommendations?: No Basis;
OFPP comments on how SARA Panel recommendations will be addressed:
Might be addressed by legislative action.
Rec. #: 13;
Chapter 1 - Commercial Practices: Improving Government Market Research;
GSA should establish a market research capability to monitor services
acquisitions by government and commercial buyers, collect publicly
available information, and maintain a database of information regarding
transactions. This information should be available across the
government to assist with acquisitions.
Is GAO Work Consistent with SARA Recommendations?: Consistent;
OFPP comments on how SARA Panel recommendations will be addressed:
Under OFPP review.
Rec. #: 14;
Chapter 1 - Commercial Practices: Unequal Treatment of the Contracting
Parties;
Legislation should be enacted providing that contractors and the
government shall enjoy the same legal presumptions, regarding good
faith and regularity, in discharging their duties and in exercising
their rights in connection with the performance of any government
procurement contract, and either party's attempt to rebut any such
presumption that applies to the other party's conduct shall be subject
to a uniform evidentiary standard that applies equally to both parties.
Is GAO Work Consistent with SARA Recommendations?: No Basis;
OFPP comments on how SARA Panel recommendations will be addressed:
Requires legislative action.
Rec. #: 15;
Chapter 1 - Commercial Practices: Unequal Treatment of the Contracting
Parties;
In enacting new statutory and regulatory provisions, the same rules for
contract interpretation, performance, and liabilities should be applied
equally to contractors and the government unless otherwise required by
the United States Constitution or the public interest.
Is GAO Work Consistent with SARA Recommendations?: No Basis;
OFPP comments on how SARA Panel recommendations will be addressed:
Requires legislative action.
Source: GAO analysis of the Report of the Acquisition Advisory Panel to
the Office of Federal Procurement Policy and the United States Congress
- January 2007, and OFPP comments on how SARA Panel recommendations
will be addressed.
[End of table]
Table 3: Chapter 2 - SARA Recommendations and GAO Assessment of
Consistency with GAO Work Shown as "Consistent, Not Consistent or No
Basis"
Rec. #: 16;
Chapter 2 - Improving Implementation of Performance-Based Acquisition
(PBA) in the Federal Government:
OMB's governmentwide quota of requiring 40 percent of acquisitions be
performance-based should be adjusted to reflect individual agency
assessments and plans for using PBA;
Is GAO work consistent with SARA recommendations?: Consistent;
GAO categorization of how OFPP expects SARA Panel recommendations to be
addressed: OFPP issued policy memorandum dated May 22, 2007, Subject:
Using Performance-Based Acquisition to Meet Program Needs-Performance
Goals, Guidance, and Training.
Rec. #: 17;
Chapter 2 - Improving Implementation of Performance-Based Acquisition
(PBA) in the Federal Government:
FAR Parts 7 and 37 should be modified to include two levels of PBA:
Transformational and Transactional. OFPP should issue more explicit
implementation guidance and create a PBA "Opportunity Assessment" tool
to help agencies identify when they should consider using PBA vehicles;
Is GAO work consistent with SARA recommendations?: Consistent;
GAO categorization of how OFPP expects SARA Panel recommendations to be
addressed: OFPP issued policy memorandum dated May 22, 2007, Subject:
Using Performance-Based Acquisition to Meet Program Needs-erformance
Goals, Guidance, and Training.
Rec. #: 18;
Chapter 2 - Improving Implementation of Performance-Based Acquisition
(PBA) in the Federal Government:
Publish a best practice guide on development of measurable performance
standards for contracts;
Is GAO work consistent with SARA recommendations?: Consistent;
GAO categorization of how OFPP expects SARA Panel recommendations to be
addressed: OFPP issued policy memorandum dated May 22, 2007, Subject:
Using Performance-Based Acquisition to Meet Program Needs - Performance
Goals, Guidance, and Training.
Rec. #: 19;
Chapter 2 - Improving Implementation of Performance-Based Acquisition
(PBA) in the Federal Government:
Modify FAR Parts 7 and 37 to include an identification of the
government's need/requirements by defining a "Baseline Performance
Case" in the performance work statement or statement of objectives.
OFPP should issue guidance as to the content of Baseline Performance
Cases;
Is GAO work consistent with SARA recommendations?: Consistent;
GAO categorization of how OFPP expects SARA Panel recommendations to be
addressed: Under OFPP review.
Rec. #: 20;
Chapter 2 - Improving Implementation of Performance-Based Acquisition
(PBA) in the Federal Government:
Improve postaward contract performance monitoring and management,
including methods for continuous improvement and communication through
the creation of a "Performance Improvement Plan" that would be
appropriately tailored to the specific acquisition;
Is GAO work consistent with SARA recommendations?: Consistent;
GAO categorization of how OFPP expects SARA Panel recommendations to be
addressed: Under OFPP review.
Rec. #: 21;
Chapter 2 - Improving Implementation of Performance-Based Acquisition
(PBA) in the Federal Government:
OFPP should provide improved guidance on types of incentives
appropriate for various contract vehicles;
Is GAO work consistent with SARA recommendations?: Consistent;
GAO categorization of how OFPP expects SARA Panel recommendations to be
addressed: OFPP issued policy memorandum dated May 22, 2007, Subject:
Using Performance-Based Acquisition to Meet Program Needs - Performance
Goals, Guidance, and Training.
Rec. #: 22;
Chapter 2 - Improving Implementation of Performance-Based Acquisition
(PBA) in the Federal Government:
OFPP should revise the Seven Step process to reflect the panel's new
PBA recommendations;
Is GAO work consistent with SARA recommendations?: Consistent;
GAO categorization of how OFPP expects SARA Panel recommendations to be
addressed: OFPP will update as necessary.
Rec. #: 23;
Chapter 2 - Improving Implementation of Performance-Based Acquisition
(PBA) in the Federal Government:
Contracting Officer Technical Representatives (COTR) in PBA's should
receive additional training and be re-designated as Contracting Officer
Performance Representatives (COPR);
Is GAO work consistent with SARA recommendations?: Consistent;
GAO categorization of how OFPP expects SARA Panel recommendations to be
addressed: Implementation under way; At this time, OFPP does not
believe that the benefit of changing the name from COTR to COPR would
add significant value given the expense of amending all documents and
training materials, governmentwide, that address COTRs. More important,
in OFPP's view, is the training and certifications for those COTRs
involved with PBAs that it addressed in the OFPP COTR certification
memo issued on November 26, 2007.
Rec. #: 24;
Chapter 2 - Improving Implementation of Performance-Based Acquisition
(PBA) in the Federal Government:
Improved data on PBA usage and enhanced oversight by OFPP on proper PBA
implementation using an Acquisition Performance Assessment Rating Tool
(A-PART);
Is GAO work consistent with SARA recommendations?: Consistent;
GAO categorization of how OFPP expects SARA Panel recommendations to be
addressed: Under OFPP review.
Rec. #: 25;
Chapter 2 - Improving Implementation of Performance-Based Acquisition
(PBA) in the Federal Government:
OFPP should undertake a systematic study on the challenges, costs, and
benefits of using performance-based acquisition techniques five years
from the date of the panel's delivery of its final report;
Is GAO work consistent with SARA recommendations?: Consistent;
GAO categorization of how OFPP expects SARA Panel recommendations to be
addressed: Under OFPP review.
Source: GAO analysis of the Report of the Acquisition Advisory Panel to
the Office of Federal Procurement Policy and the United States Congress
- January 2007, and OFPP comments on how SARA Panel recommendations
will be addressed.
[End of table]
Table 4: Chapter 3 - SARA Recommendations and GAO Assessment of
Consistency with GAO Work Shown as "Consistent, Not Consistent or No
Basis"
Rec. #: 26;
Chapter 3 - Interagency Contracting:
Increased transparency through identification of vehicles (e.g. GWACs,
MACs, enterprise-wide) and Assisting Entities. OMB conduct a survey of
existing vehicles and Assisting Entities to establish a baseline. The
draft OFPP survey, developed during the Working Group's deliberations
should include the appropriate vehicles and data elements;
Is GAO Work Consistent with SARA Recommendations?: Consistent;
OFPP comments on how SARA Panel recommendations will be addressed:
Implemented.
Rec. #: 27;
Chapter 3 - Interagency Contracting:
Make available the vehicle and assisting entity data for three distinct
purposes; Identification of vehicles and the features they offer to
agencies in meeting their acquisition requirements (yellow pages); Use
by public and oversight organizations to monitor trends in use;
Improved granularity in fee calculations; Standard FPDS-NG reports; Use
by agencies in business case justification analysis for creation and
continuation/reauthorization of vehicles;
Is GAO Work Consistent with SARA Recommendations?: Consistent;
OFPP comments on how SARA Panel recommendations will be addressed:
Implementation underway.
Rec. #: 28;
Chapter 3 - Interagency Contracting:
OMB institutionalize collection and public accessibility of the
information, for example, through a stand alone database or module
within transactions-based FPDS-NG;
Is GAO Work Consistent with SARA Recommendations?: Consistent;
OFPP comments on how SARA Panel recommendations will be addressed:
Implementation underway.
Rec. #: 29;
Chapter 3 - Interagency Contracting:
OMB direct a review and revision, as appropriate, of the current
procedures for the creation and continuation/reauthorization of GWACs
and Franchise Funds to require greater emphasis on meeting specific
agency needs and furthering the overall effectiveness of government-
wide contracting. GSA should conduct a similar review of the Federal
Supply Schedules. Any such revised procedures should include a
requirement to consider the entire landscape of existing vehicles and
entities to avoid unproductive duplication;
Is GAO Work Consistent with SARA Recommendations?: Consistent;
OFPP comments on how SARA Panel recommendations will be addressed:
Implementation underway.
Rec. #: 30;
Chapter 3 - Interagency Contracting:
For other than the vehicles and entities described in #31 above,
institute a requirement that each agency, under guidance issued by OMB,
formally authorize the creation or expansion of the following vehicles
under its jurisdiction: a. Multi-agency contracts; b. Enterprise-wide
vehicles; c. Assisting entities;
Is GAO Work Consistent with SARA Recommendations?: Consistent;
OFPP comments on how SARA Panel recommendations will be addressed:
Under OFPP review.
Rec. #: 31;
Chapter 3 - Interagency Contracting:
Institute a requirement that the cognizant agency, under guidance
issued by OMB, formally authorize the continuation/reauthorization of
the vehicles and entities addressed in #32 on an appropriate recurring
basis consistent with the nature or type of the vehicle or entity. The
criteria and timeframes included in the OMB guidance should be distinct
from those used in making individual contract renewal or option
decisions;
Is GAO Work Consistent with SARA Recommendations?: Consistent;
OFPP comments on how SARA Panel recommendations will be addressed:
Implementation underway.
Rec. #: 32;
Chapter 3 - Interagency Contracting:
Have the OMB interagency task force define the process and the
mechanisms anticipated by recommendations #32 and #33;
Is GAO Work Consistent with SARA Recommendations?: Consistent;
OFPP comments on how SARA Panel recommendations will be addressed:
Under OFPP review.
Rec. #: 33;
Chapter 3 - Interagency Contracting: OMB promulgation of detailed
policies, procedures, and requirements should include: a. Business case
justification analysis (GWACs as model); b. Projected scope of use
(products and services, customers, and dollar value); c. Explicit
coordination with other vehicles/entities; d. Ability of agency to
apply resources to manage vehicle; e. Projected life of vehicle
including the establishment of a sunset, unless use of a sunset would
be inappropriate given the acquisitions made under the vehicle; f.
Structuring the contract to accommodate market changes associated with
the offered supplies and services (e.g. market research, technology
refreshment, and other innovations); g. Ground rules for use of support
contractors in the creation and administration of the vehicle; h.
Criteria for upfront requirements planning by ordering agencies before
access to vehicles is granted; i. Defining post-award responsibilities
of the vehicle holders and ordering activities before use of the
vehicle is granted. These criteria should distinguish between the
different sets of issues for direct order type vehicles versus vehicles
used for assisted buys, including data input responsibilities; j.
Guidelines for calculating reasonable fees including the type and
nature of agency expenses that the fees are expected to recover. Also,
establish a requirement for visibility into the calculation; k.
Procedures to preserve the integrity of the appropriation process,
including guidelines for establishing bona fide need and obligating
funds within the authorized period; l. Require training for ordering
agencies' personnel before access to the vehicle is granted; m. Use of
interagency vehicles for contracting during emergency response
situations (e.g. natural disasters); n. Competition process and
requirements; o. Agency performance standards and metrics; p.
Performance monitoring system; q. Process for ensuring transparency of
vehicle features and use; Defined point of contact for public -
Ombudsman; r. Guidance on the relationship between agency mission
requirements/core functions and the establishment of interagency
vehicles (e.g. distinction between agency expansion of internal mission-
related vehicles to other agencies versus creation of vehicles from the
ground up as interagency vehicles);
Is GAO Work Consistent with SARA Recommendations?: Consistent;
OFPP comments on how SARA Panel recommendations will be addressed:
Implementation underway.
Rec. #: 34;
Chapter 3 - Interagency Contracting:
OMB conduct a comprehensive, detailed analysis of the effectiveness of
Panel recommendations and agency actions in addressing the findings and
deficiencies identified in the Acquisition Advisory Panel Report. This
analysis should occur no later than three years after initial
implementation with a continuing requirement to conduct a new analysis
every three years;
Is GAO Work Consistent with SARA Recommendations?: Consistent;
OFPP comments on how SARA Panel recommendations will be addressed:
Implementation underway; OFPP prefers continuous monitoring to assess
if changes require in-process adjustments.
Source: GAO analysis of the Report of the Acquisition Advisory Panel to
the Office of Federal Procurement Policy and the United States Congress
- January 2007, and OFPP comments on how SARA Panel recommendations
will be addressed.
[End of table]
Table 5: Chapter 4 - SARA Recommendations and GAO Assessment of
Consistency with GAO Work Shown as "Consistent, Not Consistent or No
Basis"
Rec. #: 35;
Chapter 4 - Small Business:
Guidance in using small business contracting programs; The Panel
recommends amending the Small Business Act to remove any statutory
provisions (such as the one contained in the HUBZone Act) that appear
to provide for a hierarchy of small business contracting among certain
small business programs. This is necessary because an agency will have
difficulty meeting its small business goals if any one small business
program takes a priority over the others. Thus, the panel recommends
the following: (2) Amend 15 U.S.C. § 657a (b)(2) to resolve any
confusion and ensure that contracting officers have the discretion to
award HUBZone set aside and sole source awards; 15 U.S.C. § 657a (b)
(2): (2) Address the authority of a contracting officer: (A) A
contracting officer may award sole source contracts under this section
to any qualified HUBZone small business concern, if; (B) A contract
opportunity may be awarded pursuant to this section on the basis of
competition restricted to qualified HUBZone small business concerns if
the contracting officer has a reasonable expectation that not less than
2 qualified HUBZone small business concerns will submit offers and that
the award can be made at a fair market price; and;
Is GAO work consistent with SARA recommendations?: Consistent: No
basis;
GAO categorization of how OFPP expects SARA Panel recommendations to be
addressed: Requires legislative action.
Rec. #: 36;
Chapter 4 - Small Business:
Guidance in using small business contracting programs. The Panel also
recommends that the implementing regulations provide the contracting
community discretion in utilizing the various programs, based in part
upon the goals and needs of the agency. This does not mean that the
goals should become the sole determining factor in directing an
agency's contracting behavior. Further, the contracting officer must
still comply with the other statutory provisions for each program,
e.g., anticipated award price limits for sole source or competitive
awards, awards to be made at fair market price, etc. Thus, the panel
recommends that the SBA and FAR regulations be amended to comply with
these statutory changes and to resolve any current conflicts. The panel
recommends the following: Delete 48 C.F.R. § 19.800 (e); Amend 48 C.F.R
§ 19.201 (c) to add the following at the end of the paragraph: In order
to achieve the Government-wide and agency goals, the contracting
officer is provided the discretion in deciding whether to utilize the
8(a) BD, HUBZone or SDVO SBC programs for a specific procurement. The
contracting officer must comply with all other statutory and regulatory
requirements related to the conduct of market research and the use of
the various small business programs. Amend 13 C.F.R § 124.504 (j) to
read as follows: The contracting officer shall consider setting aside
the requirement for HUBZone, 8(a), or SDVO SBC participation before
considering setting aside the requirement as a small business set
aside. Redesignate paragraphs (b) through (e) as (c) through (f) and
add a new paragraph (b) to 13 C.F.R. § 125.2 to read as follows: In
order to achieve the Government-wide agency goals, the contacting
officer is provided the discretion in deciding whether to utilize the
8(a) BD, HUBZone or SDVO SBC programs for a specific procurement. The
contracting officer must comply with all other statutory and regulatory
requirements related to the conduct of market research and the use of
the various small business programs. Amend 13 C.F.R. § 125.19(b) to
read as follows: If the contracting officer determines that § 125.18
does not apply, the contracting officer shall consider setting aside
the requirement for 8(a), HUBZone, or SDVO SBC participation before
considering setting aside the requirement as a small business set
aside. Amend 13 C.F.R § 126.607 (b) to read as follows: If the
contracting officer determines that § 126.605 does not apply, the
contracting officer shall consider setting aside the requirement for
HUBZone, 8(a), or SDVO SBC participation before setting aside the
requirement as a small business set aside. Delete 13 C.F.R. § 126.609.
Is GAO work consistent with SARA recommendations?: No basis;
GAO categorization of how OFPP expects SARA Panel recommendations to be
addressed: Requires legislative action.
Rec. #: 37;
Chapter 4 - Small Business:
Guidance in using small business contracting programs; The Panel
recommends that Congress repeal this new provision (Congress required
regulatory guidance on the use of cascading procurements set forth in §
816 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2006,
Public Law No. 109-163) and that language should be added to preclude
the use of cascading procurement. The recommended amendments are as
follows: Add a new paragraph to 10 U.S.C. § 2304 as follows: (1)The
Secretary of Defense shall prescribe guidance for the military
departments and the Defense Agencies prohibiting the use of a tiered
evaluation of an offer for a contract or for a task or delivery order
under a contract; Add a new paragraph to 41 U.S.C. § 253 as follows:
(j) The Federal Acquisition Regulation shall prescribe guidance for the
executive agencies prohibiting the use of a tiered evaluation of an
offer for a contract or for a task or delivery order under a contract.
Is GAO work consistent with SARA recommendations?: No basis;
GAO categorization of how OFPP expects SARA Panel recommendations to be
addressed: Requires legislative action.
Rec. #: 38;
Chapter 4 - Small Business:
Guidance with contract consolidation; The panel Recommends that: OFPP
create an interagency task force to develop best practices and
strategies to unbundle contracts and mitigate the effects of contract
bundling. OFPP coordinate the development of a governmentwide training
module for all federal acquisition team members and program managers to
acquaint them with the legislative and regulatory requirements of
contracting with small business, as well as contract bundling. The
training module should include a segment on the laws and regulations
regarding bundling and subcontracting with small businesses, with the
goal of developing a common understanding and standard implementation
of small business subcontracting goals across government. Training
should emphasize uniform guidance to large businesses in relation to
developing and/or specifying categorical small business goals for small
business subcontracting plans. Training also should emphasize processes
for determining realistic and achievable goals based on both the
objective of achieving governmentwide small business utilization goals,
and consideration and analysis of the unique functional and
programmatic requirements of each particular solicitation.
Is GAO work consistent with SARA recommendations?: Consistent;
GAO categorization of how OFPP expects SARA Panel recommendations to be
addressed: Under OFPP review.
Rec. #: 39;
Chapter 4 - Small Business:
Competition for multiple award contracts; The Panel recommends that 10
U.S.C. § 2304a(d)(3) and 41 U.S.C. § 253h(d)(3) be amended to provide a
new paragraph (C): (3) The regulations implementing this subsection
shall: (A) establish a preference for awarding, to the maximum extent
practicable, multiple task or delivery order contracts for the same or
similar services or property under the authority of paragraph (1)(B);
(B) establish criteria for determining when award of multiple task or
delivery order contracts would not be in the best interest of the
Federal Government; and; (C) establish criteria for reserving one or
more contract awards for small business concerns under full and open
multiple award procurements, including the subcategories of small
business concerns identified in Section 15(g)(2) of the Small Business
Act (15U.S.C. 644(g)(2)), when a total set aside is not appropriate.
Is GAO work consistent with SARA recommendations?: No basis:
GAO categorization of how OFPP expects SARA Panel recommendations to be
addressed: Requires legislative action.
Rec. #: 40;
Chapter 4 - Small Business:
Competition for task orders; The Panel recommends that 10 U.S.C. §
2304c and 41 U.S.C. § 253j be amended to re-designate paragraphs (c),
(d), (e), and (f) as paragraphs (d), (e), (f), and (g) and include a
new paragraph (c): (a) Issuance of orders.--The following actions are
not required for issuance of a task or delivery order under a task or
delivery order contract: (1) A separate notice for such order under
section 18 of the Office of Federal Procurement Policy Act (41 U.S.C.
416) or section 8(e) of the Small Business Act (15 U.S.C. 637(e)). (2)
Except as provided in subsection (b), a competition (or a waiver of
competition approved in accordance with section 2304(f) of this title)
that is separate from that used for entering into the contract. (b)
Multiple award contracts - When multiple task or delivery order
contracts are awarded under section 2304a(d)(1)(B) or 2304b(e) of this
title, all contractors awarded such contracts shall be provided a fair
opportunity to be considered, pursuant to procedures set forth in the
contracts, for each task or delivery order in excess of $2,500 that is
to be issued under any of the contracts unless: (1) the agency's need
for the services or property ordered is of such unusual urgency that
providing such opportunity to all such contractors would result in
unacceptable delays in fulfilling that need; (2)only one such
contractor is capable of providing the services or property required at
the level of quality required because the services or property ordered
are unique or highly specialized; (3)the task or delivery order should
be issued on a sole-source basis in the interest of economy and
efficiency because it is a logical follow-on to a task or delivery
order already issued on a competitive basis; or; (4)it is necessary to
place the order with a particular contractor in order to satisfy a
minimum guarantee. (c) Notwithstanding paragraph (b) and Section 803 of
Pub. Law No. 107-107, 115 Stat. 1012 (2002), a contracting officer has
the discretion to set forth procedures in multiple award contracts that
provide that competition for particular orders may be limited to small
business concerns, including the subgroups identified in Section
15(g)(2) of the Small Business Act (15 U.S.C. 644(g)(2)).
Is GAO work consistent with SARA recommendations?: No basis;
GAO categorization of how OFPP expects SARA Panel recommendations to be
addressed: Requires legislative action.
Rec. #: 41;
Chapter 4 - Small Business:
Competition for task orders; The Panel recommends that FAR § 16.504 be
amended to provide: (a) Description. An indefinite-quantity contract
provides for an indefinite quantity, within stated limits, of supplies
or services during a fixed period. The Government places orders for
individual requirements. Quantity limits may be stated as number of
units or as dollar values. (1) The contract must require the Government
to order and the contractor to furnish at least a stated minimum
quantity of supplies or services. In addition, if ordered, the
contractor must furnish any additional quantities, not to exceed the
stated maximum. The contracting officer should establish a reasonable
maximum quantity based on market research, trends on recent contracts
for similar supplies or services, survey of potential users, or any
other rational basis. (2) To ensure that the contract is binding, the
minimum quantity must be more than a nominal quantity, but it should
not exceed the amount that the Government is fairly certain to order.
(3) The contract may also specify maximum or minimum quantities that
the Government may order under each task or delivery order and the
maximum that it may order during a specific period of time. (4) A
solicitation and contract for an indefinite quantity must--; (iv) State
the procedures that the Government will use in issuing orders,
including the ordering media, and, if multiple awards may be made,
state the procedures and selection criteria that the Government will
use to provide awardees a fair opportunity to be considered for each
order (see 16.505(b)(1)) and state whether competition for particular
orders may be limited based on socioeconomic status.
Is GAO work consistent with SARA recommendations?: No basis;
GAO categorization of how OFPP expects SARA Panel recommendations to be
addressed: Requires legislative action.
Rec. #: 42;
Chapter 4 - Small Business:
Competition for task orders; The panel further recommends that FAR §
16.505 be amended to provide: (b) Orders under multiple award
contracts: (1) Fair opportunity; (i) The contracting officer must
provide each awardee a fair opportunity to be considered for each order
exceeding $2,500 issued under multiple delivery-order contracts or
multiple task-order contracts, except as provided for in paragraph
(b)(2) of this section. (ii) The contracting officer may exercise broad
discretion in developing appropriate order placement procedures. The
contracting officer should keep submission requirements to a minimum.
Contracting officers may use streamlined procedures, including oral
presentations. In addition, the contracting officer need not contact
each of the multiple awardees under the contract before selecting an
order awardee if the contracting officer has information available to
ensure that each awardee is provided a fair opportunity to be
considered for each order. The competition requirements in Part 6 and
the policies in Subpart 15.3 do not apply to the ordering process.
However, the contracting officer must: (A) Develop placement procedures
that will provide each awardee a fair opportunity to be considered for
each order and that reflect the requirement and other aspects of the
contracting environment; (B) Not use any method (such as allocation or
designation of any preferred awardee) that would not result in fair
consideration being given to all awardees prior to placing each order;
(C) Tailor the procedures to each acquisition; (D) Include the
procedures in the solicitation and the contract; and; (E) Consider
price or cost under each order as one of the factors in the selection
decision. (iii) The contracting officer should consider the following
when developing the procedures: (A)(1) Past performance on earlier
orders under the contract, including quality, timeliness and cost
control. (2) Potential impact on other orders placed with the
contractor. (3) Minimum order requirements. (4) The amount of time
contractors need to make informed business decisions on whether to
respond to potential orders. (5) Whether contractors could be
encouraged to respond to potential orders by outreach efforts to
promote exchanges of information, such as: (6) Whether competition for
orders will be limited based on socio-economic status.
Is GAO work consistent with SARA recommendations?: No basis;
GAO categorization of how OFPP expects SARA Panel recommendations to be
addressed: Requires legislative action.
Rec. #: 43;
Chapter 4 - Small Business:
Competition for task orders; The panel further recommends that DFAR §
216.505-70 be amended to provide: (a)This subsection- (1)Implements
Section 803 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year
2002 (Pub. L. 107-107); (2)Applies to orders for services exceeding
$100,000 placed under multiple award contracts, instead of the
procedures at FAR 16.505(b)(1) and (2) (see Subpart 208.4 for
procedures applicable to orders placed against Federal Supply
Schedules); (3)Also applies to orders placed by non-DOD agencies on
behalf of DOD, and; (4)Does not apply to orders for architect-engineer
services, which shall be placed in accordance with the procedures in
FAR Subpart 36.6. (c)An order for services exceeding $100,000 is placed
on a competitive basis only if the contracting officer- (1)(i) Provides
a fair notice of the intent to make the purchase, including a
description of the work the contractor shall perform and the basis upon
which the contracting officer will make the selection, to all
contractors offering the required services under the multiple award
contract; and; (ii) Affords all contractors responding to the notice a
fair opportunity to submit an offer and have that offer fairly
considered; or; (2)(i) Provides a fair notice of the intent to make the
purchase, including a description of the work the contractor shall
perform and the basis upon which the contracting officer will make the
selection, to all small business contractors offering the required
services under the multiple award contract; and; (ii)Affords all small
business contractors responding to the notice a fair opportunity to
submit an offer and have that offer fairly considered.
Is GAO work consistent with SARA recommendations?: No basis;
GAO categorization of how OFPP expects SARA Panel recommendations to be
addressed: Requires legislative action.
Rec. #: 44;
Chapter 4 - Small Business:
Competition for task orders; The Panel recommends that FAR § 8.405-5 be
amended to provide as follows; (a) Although the mandatory preference
programs of Part 19 do not apply, orders placed against schedule
contracts may be credited toward the ordering activity's small business
goals. For purposes of reporting an order placed with a small business
schedule contractor, an ordering agency may only take credit if the
awardee meets a size standard that corresponds to the work performed.
Ordering activities should rely on the small business representations
made by schedule contractors at the contract level. (b) Ordering
activities may consider socio-economic status when identifying
contractor(s) for consideration or competition for award of an order or
BPA. (1) Ordering activities may, in their sole discretion, explicitly
limit competition for an order to small business concerns, including
veteran-owned small business, service disabled veteran-owned small
business, HUBZone small business, women-owned small business, or small
disadvantaged business schedule contractor(s). (2) At a minimum,
ordering activities should consider, if available, at least one small
business, veteran-owned small business, service disabled veteran-owned
small business, HUBZone small business, women-owned small business, or
small disadvantaged business schedule contractor(s). GSA Advantage! and
Schedules e-Library at [hyperlink, http://www.gsa.gov/fss] contain
information on the small business representations of Schedule
contractors. (c) For orders exceeding the micro-purchase threshold,
ordering activities should give preference to the items of small
business concerns when two or more items at the same delivered price
will satisfy the requirement.
Is GAO work consistent with SARA recommendations?: No basis;
GAO categorization of how OFPP expects SARA Panel recommendations to be
addressed: Requires legislative action.
Rec. #: 45;
Chapter 4 - Small Business:
Competition for task orders; The Panel recommends that FAR § 8.405-2(d)
be amended to provide: (d) Evaluation. The ordering activity shall
evaluate all responses received using the evaluation criteria provided
to the schedule contractors (unless competition was limited based on
socio-economic status (see 8.405-5(b)(1)). The ordering activity is
responsible for considering the level of effort and the mix of labor
proposed to perform a specific task being ordered, and for determining
that the total price is reasonable. Place the order, or establish the
BPA, with the schedule contractor that represents the best value (see
8.404(d)). After award, ordering activities should provide timely
notification to unsuccessful offerors. If an unsuccessful offeror
requests information on an award that was based on factors other than
price alone, a brief explanation of the basis for the award decision
shall be provided.
Is GAO work consistent with SARA recommendations?: No basis;
GAO categorization of how OFPP expects SARA Panel recommendations to be
addressed: Requires legislative action.
Rec. #: 46;
Chapter 4 - Small Business:
Competition for task orders; The Panel also recommends that DFAR §
208.405-70 be amended to provide: (a) This subsection - (1) Implements
Section 803 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year
2002 (Pub. L. 107-107) for the acquisition of services, and establishes
similar policy for the acquisition of supplies; (2) Applies to orders
for supplies or services under Federal Supply Schedules, including
orders under blanket purchase agreements established under Federal
Supply Schedules; and; (3) Also applies to orders placed by non-DOD
agencies on behalf of DOD. (c) An order exceeding $100,000 is placed on
a competitive basis only if the contracting officer provides a fair
notice of the intent to make the purchase, including a description of
the supplies to be delivered or the services to be performed and the
basis upon which the contracting officer will make the selection, to -
(1) As many schedule contractors as practicable, consistent with market
research appropriate to the circumstances, to reasonably ensure that
offers will be received from at least three contractors that can
fulfill the requirement, and the contracting officer- (i)(A) Receives
offers from at least three contractors that can fulfill the
requirements; or; (B) Determines in writing that no additional
contractors that can fulfill the requirements could be identified
despite reasonable efforts to do so (documentation should clearly
explain efforts made to obtain offers from at least three contractors);
and; (ii) Ensures all offers received are fairly considered; or; (2) As
many small business schedule contractors as practicable, consistent
with market research appropriate under the circumstances, and the
contracting officer receives offers from at least three small business
schedule contractors that can fulfill the work requirements; or; (3)
All contractors offering the required supplies or services under the
applicable multiple award schedule, and affords all contractors
responding to the notice a fair opportunity to submit an offer and have
that offer fairly considered. (d) See PGI 208.405-70 (Pop-up Window or
PGI Viewer Mode) for additional information regarding fair notice to
contractors and requirements relating to the establishment of blanket
purchase agreements under Federal Supply Schedules.
Is GAO work consistent with SARA recommendations?: No basis;
GAO categorization of how OFPP expects SARA Panel recommendations to be
addressed: Requires legislative action.
Source: GAO analysis of the Report of the Acquisition Advisory Panel to
the Office of Federal Procurement Policy and the United States Congress
- January 2007, and OFPP comments on how SARA Panel recommendations
will be addressed.
[End of table]
Table 6: Chapter 5 - SARA Recommendations and GAO Assessment of
Consistency with GAO Work Shown as "Consistent, Not Consistent or No
Basis"
Rec. #: 47;
Chapter 5 - The Federal Acquisition Workforce:
Data Collection and Workforce Definition; OFPP needs to ensure, going
forward, that consistent and sensible definitions of the acquisition
workforce are in place, and that accurate data is consistently
collected about all of the relevant categories, from year to year and
across all agencies. Data should be collected both about the narrow
contracting specialties (along the lines of the current FAI count) and
about the broader acquisition-related workforce (along the lines of the
current DOD AT&L workforce count methodology).
Is GAO Work Consistent with SARA Recommendations?: Consistent:
OFPP comments on how SARA Panel recommendations will be addressed:
Implementation of existing acquisition policy and regulation will
address this recommendation.
Rec. #: 48;
Chapter 5 - The Federal Acquisition Workforce:
Data Collection and Workforce Definition; OFPP should prescribe a
consistent definition and a method for measuring the acquisition
workforce of both civilian and military agencies. Definitions and
measures should be completed by OFPP within one year from the date of
this Report.
Is GAO Work Consistent with SARA Recommendations?: Consistent;
OFPP comments on how SARA Panel recommendations will be addressed:
Implementation of existing acquisition policy and regulation will
address this recommendation.
Rec. #: 49;
Chapter 5 - The Federal Acquisition Workforce:
Acquisition Workforce Database; OFPP should be responsible for the
creation, implementation, and maintenance of a mandatory single
government-wide database for members of the acquisition workforce. The
database should reflect the following purpose and elements: Purpose: To
provide information to support effective human capital management of
the acquisition workforce. Elements should include: employment
experience, education, training, certifications, grade, pay, career
series, and retirement eligibility.
Is GAO Work Consistent with SARA Recommendations?: Consistent;
OFPP comments on how SARA Panel recommendations will be addressed:
Implemented.
Rec. #: 50;
Chapter 5 - The Federal Acquisition Workforce:
Human Capital Planning for the Acquisition Workforce; In each agency,
as part of the overall agency Human Capital Management Plan, the Chief
Acquisition Officer should be responsible for creating and implementing
a distinct Acquisition Workforce Human Capital Strategic Plan designed
to assess and meet the agency's needs for acquisition workforce.
Is GAO Work Consistent with SARA Recommendations?: Consistent;
OFPP comments on how SARA Panel recommendations will be addressed:
Implementation underway.
Rec. #: 51;
Chapter 5 - The Federal Acquisition Workforce:
Human Capital Planning for the Acquisition Workforce; Agency CAOs
should be responsible for measuring and predicting, to the extent
possible, the agency's needs for procurement personnel;
Is GAO Work Consistent with SARA Recommendations?: Consistent;
OFPP comments on how SARA Panel recommendations will be addressed:
Implementation of existing acquisition policy and regulation will
address this recommendation.
Rec. #: 52;
Chapter 5 - The Federal Acquisition Workforce:
Human Capital Planning for the Acquisition Workforce; It is not
sufficient simply to try to retain and manage existing personnel
resources. Resources needed must be identified and gaps between needed
resources and available resources must be forthrightly acknowledged.
Is GAO Work Consistent with SARA Recommendations?: Consistent;
OFPP comments on how SARA Panel recommendations will be addressed:
Implementation underway.
Rec. #: 53;
Chapter 5 - The Federal Acquisition Workforce:
Human Capital Planning for the Acquisition Workforce; Assessment of the
role played by contractor personnel in the acquisition workforce should
be part of the strategic plan. The strategic plan should consider
whether the current use of contractor personnel to supplement the
acquisition workforce is efficient or not.
Is GAO Work Consistent with SARA Recommendations?: Consistent;
OFPP comments on how SARA Panel recommendations will be addressed:
Agency specific recommendation.
Rec. #: 54;
Chapter 5 - The Federal Acquisition Workforce:
Qualitative Assessment; Agencies' human capital planning for the
acquisition workforce needs to address the adequacy of existing
resources in meeting each agency's procurement needs throughout the
acquisition lifecycle. The standard should be whether the government is
able to optimize the contribution of private sector capabilities,
secured through the market, to the accomplishment of federal agency
missions.
Is GAO Work Consistent with SARA Recommendations?: No Basis;
OFPP comments on how SARA Panel recommendations will be addressed:
Implementation underway; OFPP issued policy memorandum dated October
17, 2007 Subject: 2007 Contracting Workforce Competencies Survey
addresses a portion of this recommendation.
Rec. #: 55;
Chapter 5 - The Federal Acquisition Workforce:
Workforce Improvements Need Prompt Attention; Due to the severe lack of
capacity in the acquisition workforce, aggressive action to improve the
acquisition workforce must begin immediately. All agencies should begin
acquisition workforce human capital planning immediately, if such plans
are not already underway. Agencies should complete initial assessment
and planning as quickly as possible. If initial human capital planning
reveals gaps, agencies should take immediate steps to address such
gaps, whether they arise in hiring, allocation of resources, training,
or otherwise.
Is GAO Work Consistent with SARA Recommendations?: Consistent;
OFPP comments on how SARA Panel recommendations will be addressed:
Implementation underway.
Rec. #: 56;
Chapter 5 - The Federal Acquisition Workforce:
Need to Recruit Talented Entry-Level Personnel; OFPP should establish a
government-wide acquisition internship program to attract first rate
entry-level personnel into acquisition careers.
Is GAO Work Consistent with SARA Recommendations?: Consistent;
OFPP comments on how SARA Panel recommendations will be addressed:
Implementation underway.
Rec. #: 57;
Chapter 5 - The Federal Acquisition Workforce:
Hiring Streamlining Necessary; OFPP and agencies need to identify and
eliminate obstacles to speedy hiring of acquisition workforce
personnel.
Is GAO Work Consistent with SARA Recommendations?: Consistent;
OFPP comments on how SARA Panel recommendations will be addressed:
Implementation underway; OFPP issued policy memorandum dated September
4, 2007 Subject: Plans for hiring reemployed annuitants to fill
acquisition-related positions.
Rec. #: 58;
Chapter 5 - The Federal Acquisition Workforce:
Need to Retain Senior Workforce; OFPP and agencies need to create and
use incentives for qualified senior, experienced acquisition workforce
personnel to remain in the acquisition workforce.
Is GAO Work Consistent with SARA Recommendations?: Consistent;
OFPP comments on how SARA Panel recommendations will be addressed: OFPP
issued policy memorandum dated September 4, 2007 Subject: Plans for
hiring reemployed annuitants to fill acquisition-related positions.
Rec. #: 59;
Chapter 5 - The Federal Acquisition Workforce:
Training; In order to ensure the availability of sufficient funds to
provide training to the acquisition workforce OMB should issue guidance
directing agencies to: Assure that funds in agency budgets identified
for acquisition workforce training are actually expended for workforce
training purposes, by appropriate means including "fencing" of those
funds. Require Head of Agency approval for use of workforce training
funds for any other purpose. Provide OFPP an annual report on the
expenditure of Acquisition Workforce Training Funds identifying any
excess or shortfalls. OFPP should conduct an annual review to determine
whether the funds identified by each agency for training of its
acquisition workforce are sufficient to meet the agency's needs for
acquisition workforce training. Once an agency's Human Capital
Strategic Plan for the Acquisition Workforce is in place, that plan
should guide this determination. OFPP's review should also ascertain
whether funds identified for such training were actually expended for
acquisition workforce training needs. Congress should reauthorize the
SARA Training Fund and provide direct funding/appropriations for the
fund.
Is GAO Work Consistent with SARA Recommendations?: Consistent;
OFPP comments on how SARA Panel recommendations will be addressed:
Under OFPP review.
Rec. #: 60;
Chapter 5 - The Federal Acquisition Workforce:
Acquisition Workforce Education and Training Requirements; Currently
both DAWIA and Clinger-Cohen provide for waivers to Congressionally
established education and training requirements. In order to ensure
that the government's Acquisition Workforce has both the competencies
and skills to manage the life cycle of the acquisition process:
Agencies should only grant permanent waivers to education and training
requirements upon an objective demonstration that the grantee of the
waiver possesses the competencies and skills necessary to perform
his/her duties. Agencies should only grant temporary waivers to allow
the grantee of the waiver sufficient time to acquire the lacking
education or training. Agency CAOs (or equivalent) should report
annually to OFPP on the agency's usage of waivers to meet statutory
training and education requirements, justifying their usage consistent
with the foregoing requirements, and reporting on plans to overcome the
need to rely excessively on waivers. OFPP should review these annual
reports and provide an annual summary report on the use of waivers of
DAWIA and Clinger-Cohen requirements.
Is GAO Work Consistent with SARA Recommendations?: Consistent;
OFPP comments on how SARA Panel recommendations will be addressed:
Under OFPP review.
Rec. #: 61;
Chapter 5 - The Federal Acquisition Workforce:
Acquisition Workforce University; OFPP should convene a twelve-month
study panel to consider whether to establish a government-wide Federal
Acquisition University and/or alternative recommendations to improve
training.
Is GAO Work Consistent with SARA Recommendations?: No Basis;
OFPP comments on how SARA Panel recommendations will be addressed:
Might be addressed by legislative action.
Rec. #: 62;
Chapter 5 - The Federal Acquisition Workforce:
An Acquisition Workforce Focus is Needed in OFPP; There should be
established in OFPP a senior executive with responsibility for
acquisition workforce policy throughout the federal government. As part
of OMB's role in reviewing and approving agency Human Capital Plans in
conjunction with OPM, OFPP should be delegated responsibility for
receiving and reviewing the agency Acquisition Workforce Human Capital
Strategic Plans, and for identifying trends, good practices, and
shortcomings.
Is GAO Work Consistent with SARA Recommendations?: No Basis;
OFPP comments on how SARA Panel recommendations will be addressed:
Might be addressed by legislative action.
Rec. #: 63;
Chapter 5 - The Federal Acquisition Workforce:
Waiving Unnecessary Paperwork; To the extent that agencies can
demonstrate that they have implemented any recommendations (or parts
thereof) that require a report to OFPP, the process established by OFPP
should include criteria for a waiver from the reporting requirements;
any waiver should include a requirement for a sunset.
Is GAO Work Consistent with SARA Recommendations?: Consistent;
OFPP comments on how SARA Panel recommendations will be addressed:
Requires legislative action.
Source: GAO analysis of the Report of the Acquisition Advisory Panel to
the Office of Federal Procurement Policy and the United States Congress
- January 2007, and OFPP comments on how SARA Panel recommendations
will be addressed.
[End of table]
Table 7: Chapter 6 - SARA Recommendations and GAO Assessment of
Consistency with GAO Work Shown as "Consistent, Not Consistent or No
Basis"
Rec. #: 64;
Chapter 6 - Appropriate Role of Contractors Supporting Government:
The Office of Federal Procurement Policy should update the principles
for agencies to apply in determining which functions must be performed
by government employees.
Is GAO Work Consistent with SARA Recommendations?: Consistent;
OFPP comments on how SARA Panel recommendations will be addressed:
Under OFPP review.
Rec. #: 65;
Chapter 6 - Appropriate Role of Contractors Supporting Government:
Agencies must ensure that the functions identified as those which must
be performed by government employees are adequately staffed with
federal employees.
Is GAO Work Consistent with SARA Recommendations?: Consistent;
OFPP comments on how SARA Panel recommendations will be addressed:
Under OFPP review.
Rec. #: 66;
Chapter 6 - Appropriate Role of Contractors Supporting Government: In
order to reduce artificial restrictions and maximize effective and
efficient service contracts, the current prohibition on personal
service contracts should be removed. Government employees should be
permitted to direct a service contractor's workforce on the substance
of the work performed, so long as the direction provided does not
exceed the scope of the underlying contract. Limitations on the extent
of government employee supervision of contractor employees (e.g.
hiring, approval of leave, promotion or performance rating, etc.)
should be retained.
Is GAO Work Consistent with SARA Recommendations?: No Basis;
OFPP comments on how SARA Panel recommendations will be addressed:
Requires legislative action.
Rec. #: 67;
Chapter 6 - Appropriate Role of Contractors Supporting Government:
Consistent with action to remove the prohibition on personal services
contracts, the Office of Federal Procurement Policy should provide
specific policy guidance which defines where, to what extent, under
which circumstances, and how agencies may procure personal services by
contract. Within five years of adoption of this policy the Government
Accountability Office should study the results of this change.
Is GAO Work Consistent with SARA Recommendations?: No Basis;
OFPP comments on how SARA Panel recommendations will be addressed:
Requires legislative action.
Rec. #: 68;
Chapter 6 - Appropriate Role of Contractors Supporting Government:
The FAR Council should review existing rules and regulations, and to
the extent necessary, create new, uniform, government-wide policy and
clauses dealing with Organizational Conflicts of Interest, Personal
Conflicts of Interest, and Protection of Contractor Confidential and
Proprietary Data, as described in more detail in the following sub-
recommendations.
Is GAO Work Consistent with SARA Recommendations?: Consistent;
OFPP comments on how SARA Panel recommendations will be addressed: OFPP
opening FAR case.
Rec. #: 69;
Chapter 6 - Appropriate Role of Contractors Supporting Government:
Organizational Conflicts of Interest ("OCI"); The FAR Council should
consider development of a standard OCI clause, or a set of standard OCI
clauses if appropriate, for inclusion in solicitations and contracts
(that set forth the contractor's responsibility to assure its
employees, and those of its subcontractors, partners, and any other
affiliated organization or individual), as well as policies prescribing
their use. The clauses and policies should address conflicts that can
arise in the context of developing requirements and statements of work,
the selection process, and contract administration. Potential conflicts
of interest to be addressed may arise from such factors as financial
interests, unfair competitive advantage, and impaired objectivity (on
the instant or any other action), among others.
Is GAO Work Consistent with SARA Recommendations?: Consistent;
OFPP comments on how SARA Panel recommendations will be addressed: OFPP
opening FAR case.
Rec. #: 70;
Chapter 6 - Appropriate Role of Contractors Supporting Government:
Contractor Employees' Personal Conflicts of Interest ("PCI"); The FAR
Council should determine when contractor employee PCIs need to be
addressed, and whether greater disclosure, specific prohibitions, or
reliance on specified principles will accomplish the end objective of
ethical behavior. The FAR Council should consider whether development
of a standard ethics clause or a set of standard clauses that set forth
the contractor's responsibility to perform the contract with a high
level of integrity would be appropriate for inclusion in solicitations
and contracts. The FAR Council should examine the Defense Industry
Initiative ("DII") and determine whether an approach along those lines
is sufficient. As the goal is ethical conduct, not technical compliance
with a multitude of specific and complex rules and regulations, the
rules and regulations applicable to federal employees should not be
imposed on contractor employees in their entirety.
Is GAO Work Consistent with SARA Recommendations?: Consistent;
OFPP comments on how SARA Panel recommendations will be addressed: OFPP
opening FAR case.
Rec. #: 71;
Chapter 6 - Appropriate Role of Contractors Supporting Government:
Protection of Contractor Confidential and Proprietary Data; The FAR
Council should provide additional regulatory guidance for contractor
access and for protection of contractor and third party proprietary
information, including clauses for use in solicitations and contracts
regarding the use of non-disclosure agreements, sharing of information
among contractors, and remedies for improper disclosure.
Is GAO Work Consistent with SARA Recommendations?: Consistent;
OFPP comments on how SARA Panel recommendations will be addressed: OFPP
opening FAR case.
Rec. #: 72;
Chapter 6 - Appropriate Role of Contractors Supporting Government:
Training of Acquisition Personnel; The FAR Council, in collaboration
with the Defense Acquisition University ("DAU") and the Federal
Acquisition Institute ("FAI"), should develop and provide (1) training
on methods for acquisition personnel to identify potential conflicts of
interest (both OCI and PCI), (2) techniques for addressing the
conflicts, (3) remedies to apply when conflicts occur, and (4) training
for acquisition personnel in methods to appropriately apply tools for
the protection of confidential data.
Is GAO Work Consistent with SARA Recommendations?: Consistent;
OFPP comments on how SARA Panel recommendations will be addressed: OFPP
opening FAR case.
Rec. #: 73;
Chapter 6 - Appropriate Role of Contractors Supporting Government:
Ethics Training for Contractor Employees; Since contractor employees
are working side-by-side with government employees on a daily basis,
and because government employee ethics rules are not all self-evident,
consideration should be given to a requirement that would make receipt
of the agency's annual ethics training (same as given to government
employees) mandatory for all service contractors operating in the multi-
sector workforce environment.
Is GAO Work Consistent with SARA Recommendations?: Consistent;
OFPP comments on how SARA Panel recommendations will be addressed:
Agency specific recommendation.
Rec. #: 74;
Chapter 6 - Appropriate Role of Contractors Supporting Government:
Enforcement; In order to reinforce the standards of ethical conduct
applicable to contractors, including those addressed to contractor
employees in the multi-sector workforce, and to ensure that ethical
contractors are not forced to compete with unethical organizations,
agencies shall ensure that existing remedies, procedures, and sanctions
are fully utilized against violators of these ethical standards.
Is GAO Work Consistent with SARA Recommendations?: Consistent;
OFPP comments on how SARA Panel recommendations will be addressed:
Implementation of existing acquisition policy and regulations will
address this recommendation.
Source: GAO analysis of the Report of the Acquisition Advisory Panel to
the Office of Federal Procurement Policy and the United States Congress
- January 2007, and OFPP comments on how SARA Panel recommendations
will be addressed.
[End of table]
Table 8: Chapter 7 - SARA Recommendations and GAO Assessment of
Consistency with GAO Work Shown as "Consistent, Not Consistent or No
Basis"
Rec. #: 75;
Chapter 7 - Report on Federal Procurement Data:
OFPP shall ensure that FPDS-NG corrects the reporting rules for
competition at the order level immediately.
Is GAO Work Consistent with SARA Recommendations?: Consistent;
OFPP comments on how SARA Panel recommendations will be addressed:
Implementation underway.
Rec. #: 76;
Chapter 7 - Report on Federal Procurement Data:
OFPP shall ensure that validations apply equally to all agencies unless
there is a statutory reason to differ.
Is GAO Work Consistent with SARA Recommendations?: Consistent;
OFPP comments on how SARA Panel recommendations will be addressed:
Implementation underway.
Rec. #: 77; Chapter 7 - Report on Federal Procurement Data:
An Independent Verification and Validation ("IV&V") should be
undertaken to ensure all other validation rules are working properly in
FPDS-NG.
Is GAO Work Consistent with SARA Recommendations?: Consistent;
OFPP comments on how SARA Panel recommendations will be addressed:
Implementation underway; Ensuring that validation rules are working
properly will be addressed in OFPP's initiative to assign specific FPDS
reports an "agency owner," responsible for the report. Independent
verification and validation is not planned at this time due to expense.
Rec. #: 78;
Chapter 7 - Report on Federal Procurement Data:
Congress should revise the OFPP Act to assign responsibility for timely
and accurate data reporting to FPDS-NG or successor system to the Head
of Executive Agency.
Is GAO Work Consistent with SARA Recommendations?: Consistent;
OFPP comments on how SARA Panel recommendations will be addressed:
Might be addressed by legislative action.
Rec. #: 79;
Chapter 7 - Report on Federal Procurement Data:
Agencies shall ensure that their workforce is trained to accurately
report required contract data. The training should address the purpose
and objectives of data reporting to include: Improving the public trust
through increased transparency; Providing a tool for sound policy-
making and strategic acquisition decisions.
Is GAO Work Consistent with SARA Recommendations?: Consistent;
OFPP comments on how SARA Panel recommendations will be addressed: OFPP
issued policy memorandum dated March 9, 2007, Subject: Federal
Procurement Data Verification and Validation.
Rec. #: 80;
Chapter 7 - Report on Federal Procurement Data:
OMB should establish, within 90 days of this Report, a standard
operating procedure that ensures sufficient and appropriate Department
and Agency personnel are made available for testing changes in FPDS-NG
and participating on the Change Control Board.
Is GAO Work Consistent with SARA Recommendations?: Consistent;
OFPP comments on how SARA Panel recommendations will be addressed:
Agency specific recommendation.
Rec. #: 81;
Chapter 7 - Report on Federal Procurement Data:
Agency internal reviews (e.g., Procurement Management Reviews,
Inspector General audits) should include sampling files to compare FPDS-
NG data to the official contract/order file.
Is GAO Work Consistent with SARA Recommendations?: Consistent;
OFPP comments on how SARA Panel recommendations will be addressed:
Agency specific recommendation.
Rec. #: 82;
Chapter 7 - Report on Federal Procurement Data:
The OFPP Interagency Contracting Working Group should address data
entry responsibility as part of the creation and continuation process
for interagency and enterprise-wide contracts.
Is GAO Work Consistent with SARA Recommendations?: Consistent;
OFPP comments on how SARA Panel recommendations will be addressed:
Implementation underway.
Rec. #: 83;
Chapter 7 - Report on Federal Procurement Data:
The GAO should perform an audit that covers not only the quality of
FPDS-NG data but agency compliance in providing accurate and timely
data.
Is GAO Work Consistent with SARA Recommendations?: Consistent;
OFPP comments on how SARA Panel recommendations will be addressed:
Agency specific recommendation.
Rec. #: 84;
Chapter 7 - Report on Federal Procurement Data:
OFPP should ensure that FPDS-NG reports data on orders under
interagency and enterprise-wide contracts, making this data publicly
available (i.e., standard report(s)). The OFPP Interagency Contracting
Working group shall provide the specific guidelines consistent with the
reports requested by the Panel to include competition information at
the order level sufficient to answer, at a minimum: Who is buying how
much of what using what type of indefinite delivery vehicle and if not
buying it competitively, what exception to fair opportunity applies?
Other considerations, such as pricing arrangements, socio-economic
status, number of offers received, fee information, and PBA should be
considered when designing the report.
Is GAO Work Consistent with SARA Recommendations?: Consistent;
OFPP comments on how SARA Panel recommendations will be addressed:
Implementation underway.
Rec. #: 85;
Chapter 7 - Report on Federal Procurement Data:
The FPDS-NG report provided to the Panel that shows the dollar
transactions by agency and by type of interagency vehicle (e.g., FSS,
GWAC, BPA, BOA, other IDCs) and Product or Service Code should be made
available to the public in the short term.
Is GAO Work Consistent with SARA Recommendations?: Consistent;
OFPP comments on how SARA Panel recommendations will be addressed:
Implementation underway.
Rec. #: 86;
Chapter 7 - Report on Federal Procurement Data:
OFPP should devise a method and study the cost-benefit of implementing
additional data reporting requirements sufficient to perform strategic
sourcing and market research within and across agencies.
Is GAO Work Consistent with SARA Recommendations?: Consistent;
OFPP comments on how SARA Panel recommendations will be addressed:
Under OFPP review.
Rec. #: 87;
Chapter 7 - Report on Federal Procurement Data: OFPP should seek agency
and industry perspective to determine if the UNSPSC classification or
some other classification system is feasible as a new data element if
the scope of data collection is expanded.
Is GAO Work Consistent with SARA Recommendations?: Consistent;
OFPP comments on how SARA Panel recommendations will be addressed:
Under OFPP review.
Rec. #: 88;
Chapter 7 - Report on Federal Procurement Data:
OMB shall ensure agencies provide sufficient funds to ensure that these
systems are financed as a shared service based on levels agreed to by
CAO Council and OFPP sufficient to support the objectives of the
systems.
Is GAO Work Consistent with SARA Recommendations?: Consistent;
OFPP comments on how SARA Panel recommendations will be addressed:
Agency specific recommendation.
Rec. #: 89;
Chapter 7 - Report on Federal Procurement Data:
Within one year, OMB shall conduct a feasibility and funding study of
integrating data on awards of contracts, grants, cooperative
agreements, inter-agency service support agreements ("ISSAs") and Other
Transactions through a single, integrated and web-accessible database
searchable by the public;
Is GAO Work Consistent with SARA Recommendations?: This recommendation
has been overtaken by events. In August 2006, the Congressional Budget
Office ("CBO") released an estimate of $15 million for implementing
S.2590, the Federal Funding and Accountability Transparency Act of
2006. The President signed the bill into law on September 26, 2006 and
OMB is currently working towards implementation.
Source: GAO analysis of the Report of the Acquisition Advisory Panel to
the Office of Federal Procurement Policy and the United States Congress
- January 2007, and OFPP comments on how SARA Panel recommendations
will be addressed.
[End of table]
[End of section]
Appendix III: OFPP Memorandums Responding to SARA Acquisition Advisory
Panel Recommendations:
Subject, date, and addressees: Federal Acquisition Certification for
Contracting Officer Technical Representatives; November 26, 2007; Chief
Acquisition Officers;
Purpose: Establishes a structured training program for Contracting
Officer Technical Representatives and other individuals performing
these functions, that standardize competencies and training across
civilian agencies and improves collective stewardship of taxpayer
dollars;
Reporting requirements to ensure implementation: The Chief Acquisition
Officer of each agency is responsible for the policies and programs
necessary to implement this certification program. There is no
requirement for agencies to report their actions to OFPP.
Subject, date, and addressees: 2007 Federal Contracting Workforce
Competencies Survey; October 17, 2007; Chief Acquisition Officers;
Purpose: Highlights the key findings from the survey that CAOs should
use in developing strategies to close the competency gaps in the
acquisition workforce;
Reporting requirements to ensure implementation: CAOs should review the
agency's survey results with their Chief Human Capital Officer as they
prepare the Gap Analysis Report and Improvement Plans for closing
contracting workforce skills gaps, which are due to OPM by December 15,
2007. Also include in the report to OPM a succession plan for the GS-
1102 series in your agency that identifies strategies and milestones
for recruitment and retention at all levels.
Subject, date, and addressees: Plans for Hiring Reemployed Annuitants
to Fill Acquisition-Related Positions; September 4, 2007; Chief
Acquisition Officers and Senior Procurement Executives;
Purpose: Allow the hiring of retired annuitants to fill critical
vacancies in the acquisition field;
Reporting requirements to ensure implementation: 1. Agencies must
develop plans, in coordination with OFPP, to implement the General
Services Administration Modernization Act (P.L. 109-313). 2. Annual
reports on the use of this law are to be provided to the Office of
Personnel Management and OFPP by November 1, each fiscal year beginning
November 2008.
Subject, date, and addressees: Enhancing Competition in Federal
Acquisition; May 31, 2007; Chief Acquisition Officers and Senior
Procurement Executives;
Purpose: Request help and leadership in reinforcing the use of
competition and related practices for achieving a competitive
environment;
Reporting requirements to ensure implementation: 1. Each agency's
competition advocate is required to submit an annual report, showing
how the agency is promoting competition. The report is due December 20,
2007, and annually thereafter. A copy of the first annual report is to
be provided to OFPP. 2. The General Services Administration is to
develop new competition metrics to be reported in the Federal
Procurement Data System.
Subject, date, and addressees: Using Performance-Based Acquisition
(PBA) to Meet Program Needs - Performance Goals, Guidance, and
Training; May 22, 2007; Chief Acquisition Officers and Senior
Procurement Executives;
Purpose: Recommend appropriate PBA performance goals and identify PBA
learning assets, including useful guides and training opportunities, to
ensure this acquisition strategy is used effectively;
Reporting requirements to ensure implementation: In fiscal year 2006
agencies were required to apply PBA methods to 40 percent or more of
their eligible service actions over $25,000. In December 2007, OFPP
increased the goal to 50 percent for fiscal year 2008. Agencies must
ensure that their PAB plans reflect their most current goal
information.
Subject, date, and addressees: Federal Acquisition Certification for
Program and Project Managers; April 25, 2007; Chief Acquisition
Officers;
Purpose: Improve the partnership between program/project managers and
contracting professionals for a common understanding of how to best
meet acquisition needs;
Reporting requirements to ensure implementation: 1. The Federal
Acquisition Certification for Program and Project Managers shall be
accepted by, at minimum, all civilian agencies as evidence that an
employee meets the core training and experience requirements. 2. The
Federal Acquisition Institute will conduct periodic reviews to ensure
the Federal Acquisition Certification for Program and Project Managers
program is being managed consistently.
Subject, date, and addressees: Federal Procurement Data Verification
and Validation; March 9, 2007; Chief Acquisition Officers;
Purpose: Ensure that agencies take the necessary steps to verify and
validate the accuracy of the data in the Federal Procurement Data
System, since it is the government's principal repository of
acquisition information;
Reporting requirements to ensure implementation: Agencies must provide
OFPP with responsibility assignments and data validation/verification
policies to ensure that 2007 Federal Procurement Data System data
reflect accurate and timely contract information. The initial report
was due May 16, 2007.
Source: GAO analysis of OFPP policy memorandums.
[End of table]
[End of section]
GAO Products Related to SARA Acquisition Advisory Panel Report by
Chapter:
Chapter 1: Commercial Practices:
Federal Acquisitions and Contracting: Systemic Challenges Need
Attention. GAO-07-1098T. Washington, D.C.: July 17, 2007.
Defense Contracting: Improved Insight and Controls Needed over DOD's
Time-and-Materials Contracts. GAO-07-273. Washington, D.C.: June 29,
2007.
Defense Acquisitions: DOD Needs to Exert Management and Oversight to
Better Control Acquisition of Services. GAO-07-359T. Washington, D.C.:
January 17, 2007.
DOD Contracting: Efforts Needed to Address Air Force Commercial
Acquisition Risk. GAO-06-995. Washington, D.C.: September 29, 2006.
Contract Management: DOD Vulnerabilities to Contracting Fraud, Waste,
and Abuse. GAO-06-838R. Washington, D.C.: July 7, 2006.
Contract Management: Opportunities to Improve Surveillance on
Department of Defense Service Contracts. GAO-05-274. Washington, D.C.:
March 17, 2005.
Contract Management: Opportunities to Improve Pricing of GSA Multiple
Award Schedules Contracts. GAO-05-229. Washington, D.C.: February 11,
2005.
Interagency Contracting: Problems with DOD's and Interior's Orders to
Support Military Operations. GAO-05-201. Washington, D.C.: April 29,
2005.
Contract Management: Guidance Needed to Promote Competition for Defense
Task Orders. GAO-04-874. Washington, D.C.: July 30, 2004.
Contract Management: Further Efforts Needed to Sustain VA's Progress in
Purchasing Medical Products and Services. GAO-04-718. Washington, D.C.:
June 22, 2004.
Defense Management: Opportunities to Enhance the Implementation of
Performance-Based Logistics. GAO-04-715. Washington, D.C.: August 16,
2004.
Competitive Sourcing: Greater Emphasis Needed on Increasing Efficiency
and Improving Performance. GAO-04-367. Washington, D.C.: February 27,
2004.
Contract Management: Restructuring GSA's Federal Supply Service and
Federal Technology Service. GAO-04-132T. Washington, D.C.: October 2,
2003.
Contract Management: Civilian Agency Compliance with Revised Task and
Delivery Order Regulations. GAO-03-983. Washington, D.C.: August 29,
2003.
Military Transformation: Progress and Challenges for DOD's Advanced
Distributed Learning Programs. GAO-03-393. Washington, D.C.: February
28, 2003.
Contract Management: Improving Services Acquisitions. GAO-02-179T.
Washington, D.C.: November 1, 2001.
Contract Management: Service Contracting Trends and Challenges. GAO-01-
1074R. Washington, D.C.: August 22, 2001.
Contract Management: Few Competing Proposals for Large DOD Information
Technology Orders. GAO/NSIAD-00-56. Washington, D.C.: March 20, 2000.
Acquisition Reform: Multiple-award Contracting at Six Federal
Organizations. GAO/NSIAD-98-215. Washington, D.C.: September 30, 1998.
Chapter 2: Improving Implementation of Performance-Based Acquisition in
the Federal Government:
Homeland Security: Observations on the Department of Homeland
Security's Acquisition Organization and on the Coast Guard's Deepwater
Program, GAO-07-453T. Washington, D.C.: February 8, 2007.
Implementation of OMB Circular No. A-76 at Science Agencies. GAO-07-
434R. Washington, D.C.: March 16, 2007.
Defense Contracting: Improved Insight and Controls Needed over DOD's
Time-and-Materials Contracts. GAO-07-273. Washington, D.C.: June 29,
2007.
NASA Procurement: Use of Award Fees for Achieving Program Outcomes
Should Be Improved. GAO-07-58. Washington, D.C.: January 17, 2007.
Defense Acquisitions: Tailored Approach Needed to Improve Service
Acquisition Outcomes. GAO-07-20. Washington, D.C.: November 9, 2006.
DOD Systems Modernization: Uncertain Joint Use and Marginal Expected
Value of Military Asset Deployment System Warrant Reassessment of
Planned Investment. GAO-06-171. Washington, D.C.: December 15, 2005.
Defense Acquisitions: DOD Has Paid Billions in Award and Incentive Fees
Regardless of Acquisition Outcomes. GAO-06-66. Washington, D.C.:
December 19, 2005.
Defense Management: DOD Needs to Demonstrate That Performance-Based
Logistics Contracts Are Achieving Expected Benefits. GAO-05-966.
Washington, D.C.: September 9, 2005.
Contract Management: Opportunities to Improve Surveillance on
Department of Defense Service Contracts. GAO-05-274. Washington, D.C.:
March 17, 2005.
Federal Acquisition: Progress in Implementing the Services Acquisition
Reform Act of 2003. GAO-05-233. Washington, D.C.: February 28, 2005.
Department of Energy: Further Actions Are Needed to Strengthen Contract
Management for Major Projects. GAO-05-123. Washington, D.C.: March 18,
2005.
Department of Energy: Status of Contract and Project Management
Reforms. GAO-03-570T. Washington, D.C.: March 20, 2003.
Federal Procurement: Spending and Workforce Trends. GAO-03-443.
Washington, D.C.: April 30, 2003.
Contract Management: Guidance Needed for Using Performance-Based
Service Contracting. GAO-02-1049. Washington, D.C.: September 23, 2002.
Contract Reform: DOE Has Made Progress, but Actions Needed to Ensure
Initiatives Have Improved Results. GAO-02-798. Washington, D.C.:
September 13, 2002.
Contract Management: Taking a Strategic Approach to Improving Service
Acquisitions. GAO-02-499T. Washington, D.C.: March 7, 2002.
Contract Management: Trends and Challenges in Acquiring Services. GAO-
01-753T. Washington, D.C.: May 22, 2001.
National Laboratories: DOE Needs to Assess the Impact of Using
Performance-Based Contracts. GAO-RCED-99-141. Washington, D.C.: May 7,
1999.
Department of Energy: Lessons Learned Incorporated into Performance-
Based Incentive Contracts. GAO-RCED-98-223. Washington, D.C.: July 29,
1998.
Year-End Spending: Reforms Underway but Better Reporting and Oversight
Needed. GAO/AIMD-98-185. Washington, D.C.: July 31, 1998.
Chapter 3: Interagency Contracting:
High-Risk Series: An Update. GAO-07-310. Washington, D.C.: January
2007.
Transportation-Disadvantaged Populations: Actions Needed to Clarify
Responsibilities and Increase Preparedness for Evacuations. GAO-07-44.
Washington, D.C.: December 22, 2006.
Interagency Contracting: Improved Guidance, Planning, and Oversight
Would Enable the Department of Homeland Security to Address Risks. GAO-
06-996. Washington, D.C.: September 27, 2006.
Hurricane Katrina: Planning for and Management of Federal Disaster
Recovery Contracts. GAO-06-622T. Washington, D.C.: April 10, 2006.
Interagency Contracting: Franchise Funds Provide Convenience, but Value
to DOD Is Not Demonstrated. GAO-05-456. Washington, D.C.: July 29,
2005.
GAO's 2005 High-Risk Update. GAO-05-350T. Washington, D.C.: February
17, 2005.
Contract Management: Opportunities to Improve Surveillance on
Department of Defense Service Contracts. GAO-05-274. Washington, D.C.:
March 17, 2005.
Contract Management: Opportunities to Improve Pricing of GSA Multiple
Award Schedules Contracts. GAO-05-229. Washington, D.C.: February 11,
2005.
High-Risk Series: An Update. GAO-05-207. Washington, D.C.: January
2005.
Rebuilding Iraq: Fiscal Year 2003 Contract Award Procedures and
Management Challenges. GAO-04-605. Washington, D.C.: June 1, 2004.
Contract Management: Restructuring GSA's Federal Supply Service and
Federal Technology Service. GAO-04-132T. Washington, D.C.: October 2,
2003.
Budget Issues: Franchise Fund Pilot Review. GAO-03-1069. Washington,
D.C.: August 22, 2003.
Management Reform: Continuing Progress in Implementing Initiatives in
the President's Management Agenda. GAO-03-556T. Washington, D.C.: March
26, 2003.
Contract Management: Interagency Contract Program Fees Need More
Oversight. GAO-02-734. Washington, D.C.: July 25, 2002.
Contract Management: Taking a Strategic Approach to Improving Service
Acquisitions. GAO-02-499T. Washington, D.C.: March 7, 2002.
Contract Management: Improving Services Acquisitions. GAO-02-179T.
Washington, D.C.: November 1, 2001.
Chapter 4: Small Business:
Hurricane Katrina: Agency Contracting Data Should Be More Complete
Regarding Subcontracting Opportunities for Small Businesses. GAO-07-
205. Washington, D.C.: March 1, 2007.
Contract Management: Impact of Strategy to Mitigate Effects of Contract
Bundling on Small Business Is Uncertain. GAO-04-454. Washington, D.C.:
May 27, 2004.
Contract Management: Reporting of Small Business Contract Awards Does
Not Reflect Current Business Size. GAO-03-704T. Washington, D.C.: May
7, 2003.
Small Business Contracting: Concerns about the Administration's Plan to
Address Contract Bundling Issues. GAO-03-559T. Washington, D.C.: March
18, 2003.
Small Business: HUBZone Program Suffers from Reporting and
Implementation Difficulties. GAO-02-57. Washington, D.C.: October 26,
2001.
Small Business: Trends in Federal Procurement in the 1990s. GAO-01-119.
Washington, D.C.: January 18, 2001.
Acquisition Reform: Multiple-award Contracting at Six Federal
Organizations. GAO/NSIAD-98-215. Washington, D.C.: September 30, 1998.
Chapter 5: The Federal Acquisition Workforce:
Human Capital: Federal Workforce Challenges in the 21st Century. GAO-
07-556T. Washington, D.C.: March 6, 2007.
Human Capital: Retirements and Anticipated New Reactor Applications
Will Challenge NRC's Workforce. GAO-07-105. Washington, D.C.: January
17, 2007.
Highlights of a GAO Forum: Federal Acquisition Challenges and
Opportunities in the 21st Century. GAO-07-45SP. Washington, D.C.:
October 6, 2006.
Contract Management: DOD Vulnerabilities to Contracting Fraud, Waste,
and Abuse. GAO-06-838R. Washington, D.C.: July 7, 2006.
DOD Acquisitions: Contracting for Better Outcomes. GAO-06-800T.
Washington, D.C.: September 7, 2006.
Hurricane Katrina: Planning for and Management of Federal Disaster
Recovery Contracts. GAO-06-622T. Washington, D.C.: April 10, 2006.
Defense Acquisitions: Assessments of Selected Major Weapon Program. GAO-
06-391. Washington, D.C.: March 31, 2006.
Securities and Exchange Commission: Some Progress Made on Strategic
Human Capital Management. GAO-06-86. Washington, D.C.: January 10,
2006.
Interagency Contracting: Problems with DOD's and Interior's Orders to
Support Military Operations. GAO-05-201. Washington, D.C.: April 29,
2005.
DOD Civilian Personnel: Comprehensive Strategic Workforce Plans Needed.
GAO-04-753. Washington, D.C.: June 30, 2004.
Human Capital: Key Principles for Effective Strategic Workforce
Planning. GAO-04-39. Washington, D.C.: December 11, 2003.
Acquisition Workforce: Status of Agency Efforts to Address Future
Needs. GAO-03-55. Washington, D.C.: December 18, 2002.
Acquisition Workforce: Department of Defense's Plans to Address
Workforce Size and Structure Challenges. GAO-02-630. Washington, D.C.:
April 30, 2002.
Contract Management: Improving Services Acquisitions. GAO-02-179T.
Washington, D.C.: November 1, 2001.
Contract Management: Service Contracting Trends and Challenges. GAO-01-
1074R. Washington, D.C.: August 22, 2001.
Federal Acquisition: Trends, Reforms, and Challenges. GAO/T-OCG-00-7.
Washington, D.C.: March 16, 2000.
Government Contractors: Are Service Contractors Performing Inherently
Governmental Functions?. GAO/GGD-92-11. Washington, D.C.: November 18,
1991.
Chapter 6: Appropriate Role of Contractors Supporting Government:
Department of Homeland Security: Improved Assessment and Oversight
Needed to Manage Risk of Contracting for Selected Services. GAO-07-990.
Washington, D.C.: September 17, 2007.
Homeland Security: Observations on the Department of Homeland
Security's Acquisition Organization and on the Coast Guard's Deepwater
Program, GAO-07-453T. Washington, D.C.: February 8, 2007.
Implementation of OMB Circular No. A-76 at Science Agencies. GAO-07-
434R. Washington, D.C.: March 16, 2007.
Suggested Areas for Oversight for the 110th Congress. GAO-07-235R.
Washington, D.C.: November 17, 2006.
Defense Acquisitions: Future Combat Systems Challenges and Prospects
for Success. GAO-05-442T. Washington, D.C.: March 16, 2005.
Government Contractors: Are Service Contractors Performing Inherently
Governmental Functions? GAO/GGD-92-11. Washington, D.C.: November 18,
1991.
Federal Housing Administration: Monitoring of Single Family Mortgages
Needs Improvement. GAO/RCED-91-11. Washington, D.C.: February 7, 1991.
Chapter 7: Report on Federal Procurement Data:
Federal Contracting: Use of Contractor Performance Information. GAO-07-
111T. Washington, D.C.: July 18, 2007.
Interagency Contracting: Improved Guidance, Planning, and Oversight
Would Enable the Department of Homeland Security to Address Risks. GAO-
06-996. Washington, D.C.: September 27, 2006.
Improvements Needed to the Federal Procurement Data System-Next
Generation. GAO-05-960R. Washington, D.C.: September 27, 2005.
DOD Business Systems Modernization: Navy ERP Adherence to Best Business
Practices Critical to Avoid Past Failures. GAO-05-858. Washington,
D.C.: September 29, 2005.
Interagency Contracting: Franchise Funds Provide Convenience, but Value
to DOD is Not Demonstrated. GAO-05-456. Washington, D.C.: July 29,
2005.
Reliability of Federal Procurement Data. GAO-04-295R. Washington, D.C.:
December 30, 2003.
Contract Management: Restructuring GSA's Federal Supply Service and
Federal Technology Service. GAO-04-132T. Washington, D.C.: October 2,
2003.
Contract Management: No Reliable Data to Measure Benefits of the
Simplified Acquisition Test Program. GAO-03-1068. Washington, D.C.:
September 30, 2003.
Contract Management: Civilian Agency Compliance with Revised Task and
Delivery Order Regulations. GAO-03-983. Washington, D.C.: August 29,
2003.
Small Business: HUBZone Program Suffers from Reporting and
Implementation Difficulties. GAO-02-57. Washington, D.C.: October 26,
2001.
Human Capital: A Self-Assessment Checklist for Agency Leaders. GAO/OCG-
00-14G. Washington, D.C.: September 2000.
OMB and GSA: FPDS Improvements. GAO/AIMD-94-178R. Washington, D.C.:
August 19, 1994.
The Federal Procurement Data System--Making It Work Better. PSAD-80-33.
Washington, D.C.: April 18, 1980.
[End of section]
Footnotes:
[1] Pub. L. No. 108-136, 117 Stat. 1663 (2003).
[2] Report of the Acquisition Advisory Panel to the Office of Federal
Procurement Policy and the United States Congress, January 2007.
[3] Federal statutes do not allow for protests of task and delivery
orders issued under Multiple Award Contracts.
[4] Report of the Acquisition Advisory Panel to the Office of Federal
Procurement Policy and the United States Congress, January 2007, p.
327. The federal acquisition workforce, the appropriate role of
contractors, federal procurement data, and small business were not
specific topics that Congress directed the panel to address. The panel
added working groups to address these topics after it began its work.
The panel believed issues in these areas needed to be addressed if it
were to provide the insight and assistance sought by Congress.
[5] GAO, Defense Acquisitions: DOD Needs to Exert Management and
Oversight to Better Control Acquisition of Services, GAO-07-359T
(Washington, D.C.: Jan. 17, 2007).
[6] GAO, Contract Management: Few Competing Proposals for Large DOD
Information Technology Orders, GAO/NSIAD-00-56 (Washington, D.C.: Mar.
20, 2000).
[7] GAO, Federal Acquisitions and Contracting: Systemic Challenges Need
Attention, GAO-07-1098T (Washington, D.C.: July 17, 2007).
[8] GAO-07-359T.
[9] GAO, Contract Security Guards: Army's Guard Program Requires
Greater Oversight and Reassessment of Acquisition Approach, GAO-06-284
(Washington, D.C.: Apr. 3, 2006).
[10] GAO, Contract Management: Guidance Needed to Promote Competition
for Defense Task Orders, GAO-04-874 (Washington, D.C.: July 30, 2004).
Also, see GAO, Small Business: Trends in Federal Procurement in the
1990s, GAO-01-119 (Washington, D.C.: Jan. 18, 2001). Indefinite
Delivery, Indefinite Quantity contracts provide for an indefinite
quantity, within stated limits, of goods or services during a fixed
period of time. Agencies place separate task or delivery orders for
individual requirements that specify the quantity and delivery terms
associated with each order. The Federal Acquisition Regulation
expresses a preference for multiple awards of these contracts, which
allows orders to be placed using a streamlined, commercial-style
selection process where consideration is limited to the contract
awardees. FAR 16.504.
[11] Waivers are granted based on authority in the FAR and Defense
Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement.
[12] Report of the Acquisition Advisory Panel to the Office of Federal
Procurement Policy and the United States Congress, January 2007, p. 95.
[13] GAO, Contract Management: DOD Vulnerabilities to Contracting
Fraud, Waste, and Abuse, GAO-06-838R (Washington, D.C.: July 7, 2006).
[14] GAO, Contract Management: Opportunities to Improve Pricing of GSA
Multiple Award Schedules Contracts, GAO-05-229 (Washington, D.C.: Feb.
11, 2005).
[15] See GAO, Contract Management: Further Efforts Needed to Sustain
VA's Progress in Purchasing Medical Products and Services, GAO-04-718
(Washington, D.C.: June 22, 2004).
[16] PBA is an approach to acquisition that focuses on describing end
results and compensating vendors on the basis of whether or not results
are achieved. The FAR requires that a PBA have clear performance
requirements, measurable performance standards, and a quality assurance
surveillance plan. With a PBA, the manner in which the work is to be
performed is left up to the contractor. FAR 37.6.
[17] GAO, Federal Procurement: Spending and Workforce Trends, GAO-03-
443 (Washington, D.C.: Apr. 30, 2003).
[18] GAO, Contract Management: Guidance Needed for Using Performance-
Based Service Contracting, GAO-02-1049 (Washington, D.C.: Sept. 23,
2002).
[19] GAO, Contract Management: Opportunities to Improve Surveillance on
Department of Defense Service Contracts, GAO-05-274 (Washington, D.C.:
Mar. 17, 2005).
[20] GAO-02-1049.
[21] Interagency contracts include (1) multi-agency contracts that are
task-order or delivery-order contracts established by one agency for
use by other agencies, (2) the General Services Administration's
Schedules Program, also known as the Federal Supply Schedules Program
or Multiple Award Schedules Program, and (3) governmentwide acquisition
contracts established pursuant to the Clinger-Cohen Act, 40 U.S.C.
11314(a)(2) for information technology. Report of the Acquisition
Advisory Panel, to the Office of Federal Procurement Policy and the
United States Congress, January 2007, pp. 228-232.
[22] GAO, High Risk Series: An Update, GAO-05-207 (Washington, D.C.:
January 2005), and High Risk Series: An Update, GAO-07-310 (Washington,
D.C:. January 2007).
[23] GAO, Interagency Contracting: Improved Guidance, Planning, and
Oversight Would Enable the Department of Homeland Security to Address
Risks, GAO-06-996 (Washington, D.C.: Sept. 27, 2006).
[24] Franchise funds are government-run, self-supporting businesslike
enterprises managed by federal employees. Franchise funds provide a
variety of common administrative services, such as payroll processing,
information technology support, employee assistance programs, public
relations, and contracting.
[25] GAO, Interagency Contracting: Franchise Funds Provide Convenience,
but Value to DOD Is Not Demonstrated, GAO-05-456 (Washington, D.C.:
July 29, 2005).
[26] GAO, Rebuilding Iraq: Fiscal Year 2003 Contract Award Procedures
and Management Challenges, GAO-04-605 (Washington, D.C.: June 1, 2004).
[27] The panel recommends, for example, amending the Small Business Act
to remove any statutory provisions (such as the one contained in the
HUBZone Act) that appear to provide for a hierarchy of small business
contracting among certain small business programs. Report of the
Acquisition Advisory Panel to the Office of Federal Procurement Policy
and the United States Congress, January 2007, p. 292.
[28] See GAO, Contract Management: Reporting of Small Business Contract
Awards Does Not Reflect Current Business Size, GAO-03-704T (Washington,
D.C.: May 7, 2003).
[29] GAO, Highlights of a GAO Forum: Federal Acquisition Challenges and
Opportunities in the 21st Century, GAO-07-45SP (Washington, D.C.:
October 2006).
[30] GAO, DOD Acquisitions: Contracting for Better Outcomes, GAO-06-
800T (Washington, D.C.: Sept. 7, 2006).
[31] GAO, Contract Management: DOD Vulnerabilities to Contracting
Fraud, Waste, and Abuse, GAO-06-838R (Washington, D.C.: July 7, 2006).
[32] GAO, Acquisition Workforce: Status of Agency Efforts to Address
Future Needs, GAO-03-55 (Washington, D.C.: Dec. 18, 2002).
[33] OMB, Circular A-76, Performance of Commercial Activities
(Washington, D.C.: May 2003).
[34] See GAO bid protest decision, Aetna Gov't Health Plans, Inc.;
Foundation Health Fed. Servs., Inc., B-254397 et al., July 27, 1995, 95-
2 CPD 129 at 12-13 for a discussion of issues associated with
organizational conflicts of interest.
[35] According to the panel, it has been 15 years since OFPP's last
comprehensive analysis of what constitutes an inherently government
function. Also, there have been numerous changes in the way the
government operates and the way that contractors are utilized since
that time. As a result, the panel concluded that it would be
appropriate for OFPP to adopt a set of general principles and best
practices to identify those functions that should be performed by civil
servants.
[36] GAO, Homeland Security: Observations on the Department of Homeland
Security's Acquisition Organization and on the Coast Guard's Deepwater
Program, GAO-07-453T (Washington, D.C.: Feb. 8, 2007). We have also
found problems with contractors having too much control over the
Department of Energy's nuclear energy programs, the Environmental
Protection Agency's Super-fund Program, and the National Aeronautics
and Space Administration's Space Shuttle Challenger and the Hubble
Space Telescope. See GAO, Government Contractors: Are Service
Contractors Performing Inherently Governmental Functions? GGD-92-11
(Washington, D.C.: Nov. 18, 1991).
[37] GAO, Department of Homeland Security: Improved Assessment and
Oversight Needed to Manage Risk of Contracting for Selected Services,
GAO-07-990 (Washington, D.C.: Sept. 17, 2007).
[38] FPDS, the predecessor to FPDS-NG, first began collecting
procurement data for fiscal year 1979 and, from that time on, there
were concerns regarding the accuracy and completeness of FPDS data.
[39] Report of The Acquisition Advisory Panel to the Office of Federal
Procurement Policy and the United States Congress, January 2007, p.
430.
[40] GAO, OMB and GSA: FPDS Improvements, AIMD-94-178R (Washington,
D.C.: Aug. 19, 1994).
[41] GAO, Improvements Needed to the Federal Procurement Data System-
Next Generation, GAO-05-960R (Washington, D.C.: Sept. 27, 2005).
[42] GAO, DOD Business Systems Modernization: Navy ERP Adherence to
Best Business Practices Critical to Avoid Past Failures, GAO-05-858
(Washington, D.C.: Sept. 29, 2005).
[43] GAO, Improvements Needed to the Federal Procurement Data System-
Next Generation, GAO-05-960R (Washington, D.C.: Sept. 27, 2005).
[44] See FAR case number 2007-012 - Enhancing Competition Procedures
for Multiple Award Contracts.
[45] H.R. 1585, 110TH Congress, § 843 (as presented to the President on
Dec. 14, 2007).
[End of section]
GAO's Mission:
The Government Accountability Office, the audit, evaluation and
investigative arm of Congress, exists to support Congress in meeting
its constitutional responsibilities and to help improve the performance
and accountability of the federal government for the American people.
GAO examines the use of public funds; evaluates federal programs and
policies; and provides analyses, recommendations, and other assistance
to help Congress make informed oversight, policy, and funding
decisions. GAO's commitment to good government is reflected in its core
values of accountability, integrity, and reliability.
Obtaining Copies of GAO Reports and Testimony:
The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no
cost is through GAO's Web site [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov]. Each
weekday, GAO posts newly released reports, testimony, and
correspondence on its Web site. To have GAO e-mail you a list of newly
posted products every afternoon, go to [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov]
and select "Subscribe to Updates."
Order by Mail or Phone:
The first copy of each printed report is free. Additional copies are $2
each. A check or money order should be made out to the Superintendent
of Documents. GAO also accepts VISA and Mastercard. Orders for 100 or
more copies mailed to a single address are discounted 25 percent.
Orders should be sent to:
U.S. Government Accountability Office:
441 G Street NW, Room LM:
Washington, D.C. 20548:
To order by Phone:
Voice: (202) 512-6000:
TDD: (202) 512-2537:
Fax: (202) 512-6061:
To Report Fraud, Waste, and Abuse in Federal Programs:
Contact:
Web site: [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm]:
E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov:
Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7470:
Congressional Relations:
Gloria Jarmon, Managing Director, JarmonG@gao.gov:
(202) 512-4400:
U.S. Government Accountability Office:
441 G Street NW, Room 7125:
Washington, D.C. 20548:
Public Affairs:
Chuck Young, Managing Director, youngc1@gao.gov:
(202) 512-4800:
U.S. Government Accountability Office:
441 G Street NW, Room 7149:
Washington, D.C. 20548: