ARMY AL&T
willingness to work outside the normal working environment. The transition from New Jersey to Maryland has, and still is, a seamless transition and a work in progress. Because of the cohesiveness of operating at a split-base level, the CECOM Contracting Center has been successful in meeting its mission.
Debra Abbruzzese is a CECOM Contracting Center Sector Chief. She holds a B.S. in business/Spanish from Albright College and an M.B.A. from the University of Hartford. Abbruzzese is certifi ed Level III in contracting and Level I in program management.
Deborah Gilligan is a CECOM Contracting Center Sector Chief. She holds both a B.A. in business administration and an M.B.A. from Monmouth University. Gilligan is certifi ed Level III in con- tracting, Level II in program management, and Level I in logistics.
Ann M. Calvin is a Procurement Analyst in the Policy Branch at the CECOM Contracting Center. She holds both an A.A. in business administration and a B.A. in business administration with a con- centration in management from Saint Leo University and a master of public administration with a concentration in management from Troy State University. Calvin is Level III certifi ed in contracting and a member of the National Contract Management Association.
a contract for performance of maintenance and sustainment of a major weapon system, to ensure that the resultant contract is awarded on a competitive basis with full consideration of all sources. An interim rule was prepared with a request for com- ments. The interim rule outlines a new DFARS Subpart 207.10, Additional Requirements for Major Systems. In January 2010, the Defense Acquisition Regulations (DAR) Council was informed that the case had cleared the Offi ce of Management and Budget (OMB) review process and the DAR staff was preparing the case for publication in the Federal Register. Since the requirements are statutorily mandated, the rule will be implemented upon pub- lication, and comments will be addressed and discussed by the DAR Council before the approval to publish a fi nal rule is made.
Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (DFARS) Cases Stemming From the WSAR Act of 2009
Ann Budd
On May 22, 2009, the Weapons Systems Acquisition Reform (WSAR) Act of 2009, Public Law 111-23, was signed. Two sections of the act—Section 202, Acquisition Strategies to Ensure Competition Throughout the Lifecycle of Major Defense Acquisition Programs [MDAPs], and Section 207, Organizational Confl icts of Interest in Major Defense Acquisition Programs—required the initiation of two DFARS cases. The content of these cases is discussed in this article.
DFARS Case 2009-D014 was initiated to implement Section 202 of the WSAR Act. This section directs that the Secretary of Defense (SECDEF) ensure that the acquisition strategy for each MDAP included measures to guarantee competition at the prime contract and subcontract level of the MDAP through- out its life cycle, as a means to improve contractor performance and adequate documentation of the rationale for selection of the subcontractor tier or tiers. It also outlines the measures to ensure such competition. Furthermore, it requires the SECDEF to take specifi c actions to ensure fair and objective “make or buy” decisions by prime contractors on MDAPs, and, when a decision regarding the source of repair results in a plan to award
The second DFARS case, 2009-D015, initiated to implement Section 207 of the WSAR Act, requires revisions to the DFARS to “provide uniform guidance and tightening of existing require- ments for organizational confl icts of interest by contractors in MDAPs.” The statute specifi es the minimum requirements to be incorporated into the regulation and requires that the case developers consult with the Panel on Contracting Integrity to ensure that its recommendations were considered during the case development. The panel recommendations were due to the SECDEF within 90 days following the enactment of the WSAR Act. In addition, the fi ndings and recommendations of the Administrator of the Offi ce of Federal Procurement Policy and the Director of the Offi ce of Government Ethics, pursuant to National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2009 Section 841(b), Review of Federal Acquisition Regulation Relating to Confl icts of Interest, were also required to be reviewed and con- sidered in the development of this case. This case has resulted in the preparation of a proposed rule with request for comments. In January 2010, the DAR Council agreed to a draft proposed rule and the DAR case manager will process it through the review process at OMB. Since it will be published as a proposed rule with request for comments, it will not require implementa- tion until the comments have been received and addressed, and the rule has been revised accordingly and approved by the DAR Council for processing and publishing as an interim rule.
The rules that result from both of the above cases will be pub- lished in the Federal Register at a future date. For updates on these DFARS cases, please visit
http://www.gpoaccess.gov/fr/ index.html and browse the table of contents. The DFARS rules included in these cases will be published under DOD.
Ann Budd is assigned to the Offi ce of the Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Army for Procurement by the U.S. Army Contracting Command and is a DAR Council member. She holds a B.S. in business administra- tion from Mary Washington College, an M.B.A. from Strayer University, and an M.S. in national resource strategy from the National Defense University. Budd is certifi ed Level III in contracting and Level II in program management and is a U.S. Army Acquisition Corps member.
APRIL –JUNE 2010 67
CONTRACTING COMMUNITY HIGHLIGHTS
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52 |
Page 53 |
Page 54 |
Page 55 |
Page 56 |
Page 57 |
Page 58 |
Page 59 |
Page 60 |
Page 61 |
Page 62 |
Page 63 |
Page 64 |
Page 65 |
Page 66 |
Page 67 |
Page 68 |
Page 69 |
Page 70 |
Page 71 |
Page 72
