ARMY AL&T
Contracting Community Highlights
n keeping with the 50th anniversary theme of this issue of Army AL&T Magazine and the showcasing of evolutionary weapon technological capability through the years, I want to address some significant changes to the contracting mission. Technology evolution traditionally builds on previous capability, with
I
each subsequent generation (upgrade) a natural progression to enhancement. Changes to contracting, however, are neither progressive nor sequential. They are often an abrupt change in statute, policy, regulation, and clause, which must be immedi- ately interpreted and implemented by the contracting officer (KO) and specialist, and then articulated to the industrial and vendor base.
We have been, and continue to be, under a microscope on contracting. Specifically, during the past 2 years we have received guidance from, or have had to justify our contracting actions to:
• The President of the United States. • Commission on Wartime Contracting (COWC). • Office of Management and Budget (OMB). • Congress. • DOD Task Force on COWC. • DOD Inspector General (IG). • Department of Army IG. • Special IG for Afghanistan Reconstruction. • Special IG for Iraq Reconstruction. • U.S. Army Audit Agency. • Panel on Contracting Integrity. • Commission on Army Acquisition and Program Management in Expeditionary Operations (Gansler Commission).
The President issued guidance on March 4, 2009, requiring greater emphasis on competition, the minimal use of no-bid contracts, and stipulations that the government will not engage in noncompetitive contracts without full justification. This memo marks the first time we received language from an administration regarding the proper mix of contractors and civilians in the federal workforce and the potential problem of inherently governmental duties being performed by contractors. Further, we must now clarify when government outsourcing for services is, and is not, appropriate.
OMB issued implementing guidance on the President’s letter for Phase I on July 29, 2009, and for Phase II on Oct. 27,
63 OCTOBER –DECEMBER 2010 I S
2009. Phase I requires a 7-percent savings to baseline contract spending by the end of FY11 and a 10-percent reduction in the share of dollars obligated in FY10 for new contract actions. The administration set a net savings target of $40 billion a year; each agency must develop a plan to save 3.5 percent in FY10 and an additional 3.5 percent in FY11.
Phase II provided implementing guidelines for increasing competition and structuring contracts, listing three questions with accompanying considerations to specifically address the questions during the contract pre- and/or post-award phases.
Another significant change in recent years is the Weapon Systems Acquisition Reform Act (WSARA), signed into law May 22, 2009, which contains many initiatives affecting the acquisition community (see related article on Page 64). Of special interest to contracting professionals is the provision addressing organizational conflicts of interest (OCI). The WSARA requires the Secretary of Defense (SECDEF) to revise the Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (DFARS) to provide “uniform guidance and tighten existing requirements for OCI by contractors in major defense acquisition programs.”
The SECDEF was directed to consider recommendations from two sources: the DOD Panel on Contracting Integrity and a similar ongoing study by the Office of Federal Procurement Policy.
Recommendations from the Panel on Contracting Integrity addressed actions that program executive officers and program managers must take. Their recommendations for KOs require that offerors fully disclose all contracts and subcontracts they perform in support of an agency or organization whose requirements are being solicited for proposals; that OCI determination is made before awarding each contract and task order; and that annual OCI training occurs. The Defense Acquisition Regulations Council has drafted a proposed rule to the DFARS that is being reviewed by the appropriate regulatory offices within OMB.
Army contracting professionals are well trained and flexible. They react quickly to implement any mandated change. We keep ourselves apprised of the latest rulings and policies to maintain that professional edge. What will not change, however, are the values, integrity, and commitment we bring to the job as we continue to serve those who serve.
Edward M. Harrington Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Army for Procurement
CONTRA C T ING COMMUNI T Y H IGHLIGHTS
A
O
Q
C
L
U
I
O
S
T
I
N
I
H
O
N
E
,
T
L
O
C
G
T
I
S
&
C
G
Y
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 |
Page 73 |
Page 74 |
Page 75 |
Page 76
