Continuing resolutions could be on the horizon for agencies
January 28, 2010 by cs
Federal program managers hoping for greater budget stability with Democrats controlling both the White House and Congress, consider yourselves forewarned: Expect to enter the next fiscal year without a budget.
That’s the prediction of Stanley Collender, a partner at Qorvis Communications and a leading expert on the federal budget.
Although the 2011 fiscal year won’t begin until Oct. 1, and Congress theoretically will have nine months to act on the budget request President Obama will submit on Monday, “I think it’s fairly safe to say the prospects for individual appropriations at this point [are] relatively small,” Collender said in a conference call with reporters on Thursday.
“We’re either looking at an omnibus bill, or one or more continuing resolutions, or both,” he said.
“For anyone that does business with the government that means that they may not be able to start doing that business maybe until after the first of the year when a new Congress comes in and a final omnibus or individual appropriations for 2011 are done,” Collender said.
Collender’s prediction stems from the fact that many moderate Democrats are facing tough elections in the fall and the White House budget, despite including a freeze on nonsecurity-related discretionary spending, essentially asks them to endorse a federal deficit of more than $1 trillion.
Appropriations bills are “squarely in the cross hairs,” Collender said.
Even funding for the Defense Department could be at risk. Earlier this week House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., said the Defense budget should not be excluded from any federal freeze, signaling a potential battle with the Pentagon over defense spending.
Three named to top GSA contract posts
January 22, 2010 by llyons
ITS assistant commissioner fills vacancies in GWAC and schedule programs
By Sami Lais Jan. 22, 2010
The sidelining of Martha Johnson’s confirmation as administrator of the General Services Administration may be entering its eighth month, but no such delays will be entertained in the agency’s Federal Acquisition Service, Integrated Technology Services, said ITS Assistant Commissioner Ed O’Hare.
The past 12 months at GSA have seen three acting administrators, a new assistant commissioner [O’Hare], and new directors in three of ITS’s six divisions, he said. “If you’re a GS-13 looking at this organization, you might find that unsettling.”
O’Hare has named Michael O’Neill the new deputy for governmentwide acquisition contracts (GWACs) programs. O’Neill’s commute won’t change; he currently is the ITS deputy for IT Schedule programs.
Patricia Waddell, formerly director and chief operating officer of GSA’s Center for IT Schedule Programs, will expand her duties to take over from O’Neill as ITS deputy for IT Schedule programs.
And Damon McClure, formerly a GSA procurement specialist, is the new director of the Office of Acquisition Operations. For the past year, the post had been filled in an acting capacity by James Connors, who is now a supervisory contract specialist in the contract operations division.
The new appointments are permanent, O’Hare said. “Nobody acting; no vacancies.”
The position of ITS director of GWAC and IT schedule programs, held by Mary Powers-King until her retirement Jan. 3, is not being filled. Instead, her duties have been split between O’Neill and Waddell.
The Federal Acquisition Service has seen a number of other recent departures. For example, Jim Ghiloni, deputy office director for GWAC programs, moved to FAS’s Office of Assisted Acquisitions, and Tyree Varnado, FAS deputy commissioner, also retired on Jan. 3.
The departures should come as no surprise, O’Hare said. “You’ve got a change of administration, so a lot of that has to be expected. A lot of people retired; the workforce is getting older; we know that, too.
“There’s been a lot of change; I get it; I understand it can be unsettling,” he added. “But change itself needn’t be a problem if it’s accompanied by ongoing communication. It’s why Rick [Ferguson, communications and customer engagement] is here. I have someone in charge of communications, to industry, to my employees, to our potential customers.”
About the Author: Sami Lais is a special contributor to Washington Technology.
© 1996-2009 1105 Media, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
President orders clampdown on tax-delinquent contractors
January 20, 2010 by cs
by Matthew Weigelt-Jan. 20, 2010-President Barack Obama today took some basic steps to hammer government contractors that are delinquent in paying their taxes.
In a memo the president signed this morning, Obama directed the Office of Management and Budget, the Treasury Department and other federal agencies to find ways to block companies that have not paid taxes from receiving new government contracts. He expects recommendations on how the government can do that in three months.
One way to do that is better data-sharing. The president wants a plan to make contractors’ certifications on their taxes available in a governmentwide database, similar to the data exchanges already being done with other information on companies.
“All across this country, there are people who meet their obligations each and every day,” Obama said in a speech today before signing the memo. “And yet, somehow, it’s become standard practice in Washington to give contracts to companies that don’t pay their taxes.”
The president is also directing the IRS to conduct a review of the overall accuracy of companies’ claims about tax delinquency.
“We need to be sure that when a company says it’s paying taxes, that company is in fact paying taxes,” he said.
A regulatory change to the Federal Acquisition Regulation in 2008 requires contractors to certify whether they had delinquent taxes, had failed to pay taxes or had received notice of a tax lien against them. In addition, an agency could suspend or debar the company from government work if a contractor told the government it had had problems with taxes during the previous three years.
In his speech, Obama asked Congress to approve legislation to allow data sharing between the IRS and contracting officials at agencies.
“So the steps I’m directing today and the steps I’m calling on Congress to take are just basic common-sense steps,” Obama said. “They’re not going to eliminate all the waste or all the abuse in government contracting in one fell swoop.”
Defense contractors are confident about fiscal 2011 budget
January 20, 2010 by llyons
By Megan Scully CongressDaily January 20, 2010
The panic pervasive in the defense industry a year ago has largely subsided as officials await an fiscal 2011 Pentagon spending request that most budget watchers expect will not include the program terminations and deep cuts that made fiscal 2010 a major turning point for many firms that do business with the military.
Industry officials and outside analysts will undoubtedly eye the defense budget and the accompanying Quadrennial Defense Review of military priorities and capabilities for any new investment areas or shifting procurement priorities.
But most say they feel they have a read on the administration, now in its sophomore year, and feel confident that top officials are prepared to invest in defense — even if that amounts to more modest annual increases than those enjoyed during the Bush years.
Sources say they view the fiscal 2010 cuts, now a painful memory, as a seismic shift intended to change the Pentagon’s course. A repeat of last year, they said, is neither likely nor necessary.
“It’s probably never over — whether it’s a thousand cuts or one big one, I think one always wonders what’s out there,” one defense industry source recently said.
But the source, who, like many in the defense industry, has been scrambling to learn details of the Obama administration’s closed-door budget negotiations, said the prevailing thought within industry is that Defense Secretary Robert Gates laid out his major programmatic changes and cuts in last year’s request.
The budget request, as well as the QDR, are expected to be an outgrowth of that fiscal 2010 request, which focused on ending problematic or unnecessary programs in favor of funding technologies deemed more critical to operations in Afghanistan and Iraq or essential to providing a hedge against future threats.
Industry sources said they don’t anticipate many major new program starts in the fiscal 2011 request and only a modest uptick in the base defense budget. And much of that increase will likely be spent to pay for rising personnel and healthcare costs instead of buying new weapons systems.
But there are some areas that could see increased investments, including unmanned aerial vehicles — one of Gates’ favorite technologies — as well as directed energy, short- and mid-range missile defenses and cybersecurity programs.
There is “some concrete anticipation that you’ll see investment in those areas,” the industry source said.
One long-suffering sector of the defense industry — shipbuilders, who have faced erratic budgets over the last several years — are hoping for stability and at least a $15 billion investment for next year, said Cindy Brown, president of the American Shipbuilding Association.
The industry, Brown says, hopes the Pentagon maintains the requirement that the Navy field 12 aircraft carriers. They also believe the Navy will commit to investing in research and development of a replacement for Ohio-class submarines, which are set to begin retiring in the late 2020s.
Another industry source closely tracking the budget said battlefield communications technology — down to the level of the individual soldier — could get a heavy investment in the fiscal 2011 budget.
Meanwhile, troop increases in Afghanistan could mean more money spent on vehicles, generators, transport aircraft and helicopters, as well as innovative solutions to key problems such as improvised explosive devices and energy use, according to an analysis released Tuesday by Deloitte’s aerospace and defense sector.
“The bottom line is … are you in a fast current?” the second industry source said. “Do you have the program that’s going to be paying dividends? And if you are, you’re good.”
The QDR, essentially a planning document, could shed some light on which firms will be riding a fast current. Past QDRs have delineated new spending and offered rationales for launching of ambitious long-range programs.
But the much-anticipated quadrennial reviews traditionally include scarcely a mention of defense industry or industrial base concerns — a fact that industry officials believe will change this time.
“At this point, we are cautiously optimistic that this QDR will be different and … will actually take into account to some degree the issue of we must maintain the human capital, the expertise, the facilities and the resources to address future threats,” said Marion Blakey, president of the Aerospace Industries Association. “And as a result, those kinds of factors are going to have to be part of our strategy, not just what we need for the immediate conflicts we are involved in.”
In an unusual move just weeks before the release of the budget and the QDR, Gates and two other senior Pentagon officials met with AIA and leaders from top aerospace firms behind closed doors last week.
Blakey, who attended the meeting but would not discuss the details, said she viewed it as a “positive sign” of the administration’s desire to reach out to industry. “The administration is showing a willingness to approach the defense needs of the country as a real partnership, where we are able to work together in a way really that I don’t think we have seen in recent years, and this is a really encouraging thing,” Blakey said.
(C) 2010 BY NATIONAL JOURNAL GROUP, INC. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.
Survey: Many federal contractors saw boost despite recession
January 19, 2010 by cs
According to a new report from consulting firm Grant Thornton LLP, half of federal contractors surveyed experienced revenue boosts from federal business during the past year.
Despite the continued recession, only 20 percent of respondents to the accounting firm’s 15th annual Government Contractor Survey reported a decrease in revenue from federal business in the last 12 months.
“The revenue trends experienced by surveyed companies illustrate the conventional wisdom that government spending never experiences a recession,” said Kerry Hall, head of Grant Thornton’s government contractor practice. “While the commercial sector of the economy has been suffering from major business disruption, financial losses and employee cutbacks, government contracting remains a growth industry.”
About one-third of respondents said they anticipated modest revenue increases from the stimulus package; only 4 percent said they anticipated significant increases from the spending spree. The rest of respondents reported that they didn’t expect to see a measurable change in their business as a result of the stimulus.
The survey’s participants earned approximately 91 percent of their total revenue from government contracts, the same proportion as the 2008 report. The percentage of revenue earned through Defense Department contracts, however, decreased slightly from last year, breaking with recent trends. Revenue from Defense contracts had grown steadily during the past few years, from 56 percent to 65 percent, according to Grant Thornton’s last three surveys.
“It is likely that the small decrease in revenue from DoD contracts in the 15th annual survey may have been caused by the winding down of government contracting operations in Iraq,” the report said.
Despite the relative stability of the federal market, contractors continue to report modest profits. Almost half (45 percent) of surveyed companies said they earned either no profit or profit rates between 1 percent and 5 percent of revenue. This is a notable increase from last year, when 37 percent of respondents reported profits in this low range.
Contractors cited two ongoing issues that might affect business in the upcoming year: changes in the Defense Contract Audit Agency’s management and audit procedures and expanded ethics and compliance requirements.
The majority (86 percent) of contractors reported positive relationships with DCAA auditors, although 11 percent said their relationship with DCAA has worsened during the past year, compared to only 3 percent who said relationships with their agency contracting officers have deteriorated. Grant Thornton noted that DCAA’s response to severe criticism from the Government Accountability Office during the last year likely will increase risk to contractors.
“Given the changes currently taking place within DCAA, we expect the relationship with DCAA to be less positive in next year’s survey,” the report stated.
Defense takes aim at contractor business systems
January 15, 2010 by cs
The Defense Department is getting tough on contractors that fail to maintain adequate controls against waste, fraud and abuse.
In a draft rule posted Friday in the Federal Register, Defense proposed allowing contracting officers to withhold payments from companies with certain deficiencies in their business systems.
A clause would be added to contracts requiring firms to certify that they have no major defects in their systems for accounting; purchasing; estimating; and property, earned value and material management. The notice outlined the criteria for a sound business system in the six areas.
Contracting officers would have the authority to withhold payments on cost reimbursement, incentive-type, time-and-materials, and labor-hour pacts, according to the proposed rule. They also could do so on contracts that provide progress payments based on costs or on a percentage or stage of completion.
“Weak control systems increase the risk of unallowable and unreasonable costs on government contracts,” the draft rule stated.
The proposal relies on auditors from the Defense Contract Audit Agency or other “functional specialists” to document any business system deficiencies.
If companies fail to fix documented problems, or do not submit a corrective action plan within 45 days, then contracting officers could immediately begin withholding 10 percent of the payments under the contract, the notice stated. If firms submit an acceptable corrective action plan but do not completely remedy the identified deficiencies, then contracting officers could withhold 5 percent of each payment.
For companies with defects in multiple business systems, generally the cumulative percentage of payments withheld could not exceed 50 percent, the rule said.
Penalties would increase significantly if the problems are not addressed. Withholdings could reach 100 percent for deficiencies deemed “highly likely to lead to improper contract payments being made,” or problems representing “an unacceptable risk of loss to the government.”
The contracting officer and the auditor must approve any corrections to business systems, according to the proposal.
The business systems of Defense contractors, particularly those operating in Iraq and Afghanistan, have come under intense scrutiny recently.
Last year, the congressionally chartered Commission on Wartime Contracting examined a selection of reports on contractor business systems associated with $43 billion of work and found auditors had deemed half the systems for billing and compensation “inadequate” and prone to unallowable costs. Panel staffers uncovered somewhat smaller problems with the systems used for accounting, budget, electronic data processing, indirect and overhead costing, labor and purchasing.
During an August hearing, commission members cited a lack of cooperation between the Defense Contract Management Agency and the Defense Contract Audit Agency as one of the biggest impediments to oversight of contractors’ business systems.
The commission noted in its June 10, 2009, interim report to Congress, that “significant deficiencies in contractor systems increase the likelihood that contractors will provide proposal estimates that include unallowable costs or that they will request reimbursement of contract costs to which they are not entitled or which they cannot support.”
Comments on the proposed rule will be accepted until March 16 and can be e-mailed to dfars@osd.mil with DFARS Case 2009-D038 in the subject line.
Concern grows over stalled GSA nomination
January 11, 2010 by llyons
By Robert Brodsky rbrodsky@govexec.com January 11, 2010
For more than eight months, Martha Johnson has been in bureaucratic purgatory.
President Obama nominated Johnson on April 3, 2009, to serve as chief of the General Services Administration, and she easily cleared the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee in June. But, Johnson’s name has yet to reach the Senate floor for a full vote due to a hold by Sen. Kit Bond, R-Mo., involving a Kansas City building project.
A former GSA chief of staff during the Clinton administration, Johnson now has waited longer than any other Obama nominee to be confirmed. And, some are beginning to suggest that the White House is not doing enough to break the stalemate.
“One has to wonder why the president is not being more aggressive and energetic in his defense of Martha Johnson,” said GSA former Administrator Lurita A. Doan, who held the spot from May 2006 until she resigned in controversy in April 2008 and is now a Federal News Radio commentator. “The GSA administrator is an important position with broad responsibilities. Martha Johnson was President Obama’s nominee. Obama could push Johnson’s confirmation forward if he wanted to, but he seems content to allow her to twist in the wind.”
Doan was forced out of the job after butting heads with Democratic lawmakers, GSA’s inspector general and eventually, the Bush White House. Since then, the agency has been in perpetual transition.
David Bibb served as acting administrator from May 2008 until his retirement three months later. Jim Williams, the commissioner of GSA’s Federal Acquisition Service, filled in until the Obama administration appointed Paul Prouty as acting chief in January 2009. Prouty, whose family is in Denver, opted to return home last month and resume his former job as assistant regional administrator in the Public Buildings Service in GSA’s Rocky Mountain Region. Stephen Leeds, who had been working as a senior counselor to Prouty, was named the fourth acting administrator in 20 months.
The ongoing management upheaval apparently has taken its toll. Last week, Danielle Germain, named GSA’s chief of staff in June, stepped down, citing the lengthy delay in Johnson’s nomination. Meanwhile, Barnaby Brasseux, who served as GSA’s deputy administrator since September 2008, retired in early January.
“Fundamentally, the agency can still function, almost on autopilot,” said a former GSA official who requested anonymity to speak freely about the situation. “But, without a leader there is no one really setting the agenda or laying out their vision of what needs to be done.”
GSA spokeswoman Sahar Wali said the delays have not hurt morale or general operations, but rather kept the agency in a permanent transition period.
“Imagine a business being without a CEO,” Wali said. “Now imagine that for two years.”
An industry source said part of the problem is GSA is not a high-visibility agency and Johnson lacks the political connections to broker a deal. And, while GSA is undergoing its share of personnel upheaval, sources said the situation pales in comparison to the void at the Transportation Security Administration, where, in the midst of several crises, including an attempted terrorist attack on Christmas Day, Erroll Southers’ nomination to serve as administrator has been delayed by a hold from Sen. Jim DeMint, R-S.C.
“I’ve worried all along about nominees that get held up, particularly when it has nothing to do with the nominee or his or her qualifications,” the industry source said. “Given all of the high-priority issues on the table, the need to make all kinds of deals, how much is the White House willing to give for an individual?”
Another well-informed acquisition source said the White House has “hung [Johnson] out to dry.” But, sources told Government Executive the White House is not considering alternatives to Johnson at this point.
The Office of Management and Budget did not respond to a request for comment.
By February, the Senate is expected to invoke cloture on Johnson’s nomination, along with several other appointees currently being bogged down by holds, according to one government source familiar with discussions. Cloture — a process in which debate on a bill or nomination is brought to an end — can be complicated. It requires 60 votes, can take 30 hours of debate and no other legislative matters can be considered until the process is complete.
“They just need to set aside time for debate,” the government source said. “That’s the big issue right now.”
Some lawmakers, however, are getting impatient. Leslie Phillips, a spokeswoman for the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee, said Chairman Joseph Lieberman, I-Conn., is “frustrated” by the delay in Johnson’s confirmation.
“It is contrary to the public interest to block a qualified nominee based on parochial interests, and irresponsible to block a nominee for this length of time,” Phillips said. “GSA needs strong, focused leadership, and the hold on Martha Johnson’s nomination puts the entire agency at a disadvantage.”
Bond’s hold apparently has little to do with Johnson’s qualifications, which sources indicated are not in doubt. The senator wants GSA to close down the federally owned Bannister Federal Complex outside Kansas City and relocate the 1,200 employees who work there to office space downtown, as part of a major revitalization project.
The original plan, submitted to Congress in 2008, had been for a local developer to build a new office center and lease it back to GSA. Sources said Brad Scott, who served as GSA’s regional administrator in Kansas City during President George W. Bush’s administration, brokered the plan. Scott was Bond’s deputy chief of staff for 12 years.
GSA officials said they still plan to move employees from the Bannister complex but have changed their strategy from leasing the new space to building and buying it. Bond’s office did not respond to a request for comment.
“GSA has done what it can to move forward with this process,” Wali said.
(C) 2010 BY NATIONAL JOURNAL GROUP, INC. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.
Procurement reform fever to die down in 2010
January 7, 2010 by cs
By Matthew Weigelt - Jan. 07, 2010 – What a difference a year makes, even if in a wholly unexpected way.
On March 4, 2009, President Barack Obama delivered what had the makings to be a game-changing speech for the federal information technology community. The president outlined his agenda for overhauling federal procurement, promising to end wasteful contracting practices and wean agencies off their reliance on government contractors.
The federal market was soon buzzing about fixed-priced contracts, reinvigorated competition, and a pronounced shift from the outsourcing of government work to the insourcing of contractor work.
“The way government agencies acquire the goods and services needed to carry out their responsibilities will take an abrupt 180-degree turn if President Barack Obama gets his way,” Federal Computer Week reported at the time.
However, the buzz generated by that speech and its accompanying memo has grown quiet, and the market is back to business as usual, or nearly so. What seemed like the start a major reform initiative 10 months ago now appears to have been a new president putting his stamp on issues that previous administrations have also tackled.
Contracting policies “have been fairly consistent throughout the years. It’s just good public policy,” said Robert Burton, former deputy administrator at the Office of Federal Procurement Policy and now a partner at Venable law firm.
That’s not to say the speech was empty rhetoric. The administration followed the March 4 memo with additional guidance and initiatives in the areas of cost-reimbursement and sole-source contracting, the acquisition workforce, and workforce management.
Administration officials also have prodded agencies to identify opportunities for saving money through improved procurement practices. Obama predicted that the memo and the governmentwide guidance could save the government as much as $40 billion. On Dec. 21, Jeffrey Zients, deputy director for management at the Office of Management and Budget, said the administration was nearly halfway there, having identified $19 billion in potential savings.
More agencies are buying in bulk to get volume discounts, Zients said at a press briefing. They’re also using reverse auctions, in which companies compete for work by offering a lower price than another bidder — the opposite of an eBay auction. And NASA, among other agencies, reviewed its contracts and shifted some high-risk programs to fixed-price contracts, making it possible to keep its costs under control.
Zients said he estimates that agencies are on track to save 3.5 percent this fiscal year and 7 percent by the end of fiscal 2011. And of course, the contractor community continues to watch warily as the administration beats the drum for bringing government work in-house.
Still, most of Obama’s procurement agenda is remarkably similar to that of previous administrations. For example, the shift to fixed-price contracting, a central piece of Obama’s agenda, has been a priority of the procurement community for years and was incorporated into the Federal Acquisition Regulation.
“A lot of the guidance was essentially a reinforcement of previously stated preferred procurement practices,” said Larry Allen, president of the Coalition for Government Procurement.
What Obama has done is refocus the procurement community. That is not a trivial matter, but it is not a game changer. “Overall, I think the impact of the guidance issued so far will be like turning the procurement landscape from royal blue to sky blue, not from black to white,” Allen said.
Ray Bjorklund, senior vice president and chief knowledge officer at FedSources, said the focus of the March 4 memo and related guidance is not the contracting principles but the acquisition community, such as the employees and the purchasing process.
“I think the extent to which the memo will affect the policies of the future is in laying the foundation for a fresh look — not at the law and regulation,” he said. “I don’t see any serious intent to correct or change the underlying laws and regulations.”
Burton said the Bush administration tackled many of the same issues on Obama’s agenda.
For example, Bush launched a program called Be America’s Buyer to recruit a new generation of acquisition experts. He also introduced training certifications for contracting officers, their technical representatives and even program managers. The Bush administration’s agenda also included tracking down contracting fraud and abuse, reducing the use of risky contracting approaches, and improving competition for contracts.
Mark Amtower, an industry consultant and founding partner of Amtower and Co., said issues such as limiting contractors’ influence in government decision-making “have been with us to a greater or lesser degree forever. They do not go away.”
Rule would waive Buy American provisions for some Afghanistan support contracts
January 6, 2010 by llyons
By Elizabeth Newell enewell@govexec.com January 6, 2010
A Federal Acquisition Regulation rule change filed on Wednesday would waive certain Buy American restrictions for contracts in support of operations in Afghanistan. The waiver would apply to nine countries in the Afghan region and would exclude some products such as guns and ammunition.
The proposed rule would implement a July 2009 declaration from Deputy Defense Secretary William Lynn to the same effect. Lynn’s waiver, outlined in a memorandum from Shay Assad, director of Defense acquisition and procurement policy, to military and contracting officials, stated that allowing Defense to buy support items from South Caucasus and Central and South Asian countries — specifically Armenia, Azerbaijan, Georgia, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Pakistan, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan and Uzbekistan — has a range of potential benefits.
Permitting these acquisitions would improve local market and transportation infrastructure in the Afghan region; reduce the U.S. government’s transportation costs; and facilitate “the free flow of regular, reliable large-scale shipments of products and services through the region in support of the operations in Afghanistan,” Lynn stated. The waiver would lift restrictions “inconsistent with the public interest” and encourage countries in the region to cooperate in expanding supply routes, he added. In turn, a more robust commercial transportation network in the area would help connect Afghanistan to its neighbors, promote regional commerce, diversify existing infrastructure, and generally bolster stability and prosperity, he noted.
The FAR rule, which is open to public comment until March 9, would apply this waiver to Defense Department contracts and those underwritten by the General Services Administration. There is a repeated exemption for arms, ammunition and war materials; the government will continue to be required to buy those products from American firms.
The proposal contains a clause aimed at reciprocity. Foreign companies that sign deals with the U.S. government under this provision would be required to inform their country’s government of its participation in the acquisition and that “it generally will not have such opportunity in the future unless its government provides reciprocal procurement opportunities to U.S. products and services and suppliers of such products and services.”
Comments on the proposal can be sent to dfars@osd.mil.
(C) 2010 BY NATIONAL JOURNAL GROUP, INC. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.