Who are the top federal contractors?

June 28, 2013 by

Each year, Washington Technology magazine ranks the top 100 federal contractors based on sales of IT, systems integration, communications, engineering and other high-tech products and services.  They analyze and profile these firms by factors such as industry sector, those who are newcomers, those who are publicly traded or privately held, small business status, participation in Defense Department and civilian agency contracts, and many other factors.   To access this list click here: http://washingtontechnology.com/toplists/top-100-lists/2013.aspx.

Washington Technology also ranks the 50 fastest growing small businesses in the government contracting market, based on their compound annual growth rate from 2007 through 2011.  You can view the “Fast 50″ list at: http://washingtontechnology.com/fast50lists/fast-50-lists/2012.aspx.

The fastest growing 8(a) firms are ranked at: http://washingtontechnology.com/top25lists/top-25-lists/2012.aspx.

VA issues corrections to VOSB verification guidelines

June 25, 2013 by

The Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) has issued a correction to an advanced notice of proposed rulemaking (ANPR), 78 Fed. Reg. 36715, on June 19, 2013.

In a document originally published in the Federal Register on May 13, 2013, (78 FR 27882), the VA amended its Veteran-Owned Small Business (VOSB) Verification Guidelines Program regulations to provide greater clarity, to streamline the program and to encourage more VOSBs to apply for verification. The preamble of that document contained several errors. The new document merely corrects those errors and does not make any substantive change to the content of the ANPR.

Comments on the proposed rule originally published May 13, 2013, are still due by July 12, 2013.

 

Is the government starting to hate LPTA too?

June 14, 2013 by

I was surprised (and relieved) to learn that government proposal evaluators are pushing back on the use of lowest price, technically acceptable (LPTA) evaluation criteria—and for good reason. They are now learning that this evaluation criteria can limit their ability to exercise reasonable judgment in the evaluation process and may result in contracts awarded to companies that are clearly inferior and have less qualified offerings compared to others in the competition.

Here are two instances where the use of LPTA evaluation criteria backfired on the government decision-makers:

  1. Superior value versus price
  2. Past performance and performance risk

Keep reading this article at: http://washingtontechnology.com/Articles/2013/06/07/Insights-Lohfeld-LPTA-shortcomings.aspx?Page=1 

Government agencies offer advice on avoiding contracting mistakes

June 13, 2013 by

[Editor's Note: The Raleigh, NC News Observer's "Shop Talk" reporter Virginia Bridges attended Marketplace, a local workshop and networking opportunity to help small businesses identify government contracting opportunities, and asked representatives from various agencies about common mistakes small-business owners make when seeking government contracts.  Below is a list of tips offered.]

•  “One of the major components is small-business owners fail to actually understand what the city really needs,” said Luther Williams, Raleigh’s Business Assistance Program manager. “I think this could be solved if individuals would just look at the request that the city has out there and do a little research on the city’s request to determine if their product is compatible with the city’s needs.”

•  “They haven’t made the internal decision as to whether or not they really want to do business with the federal government,” said Bruce Osborne, a customer service director with U.S. General Services Administration. “Seventy-five percent of them have not asked themselves that question and afforded the opportunity to debate it with their organization.”

Keep reading this article at: http://www.newsobserver.com/2013/06/10/2953923/government-agencies-offer-advice.html 

Critical steps a contractor can take to foster E-Verify compliance

June 5, 2013 by

“Yes, we use E-Verify.” “Of course, our company is in compliance, we did an I-9 audit a few years ago – isn’t that the same as E-Verify?” “I know this is not an issue, because I remember being told we addressed all I-9 and E-Verify issues.” “No, the General Counsel’s office doesn’t handle immigration issues.”

You get the picture. Many companies simply do not take immigration compliance seriously. This failing usually does not come from a disinterest in compliance, but rather from a threshold failure to understand the intricacies involved in immigration issues or the potential exposure that could result from noncompliance. Only when faced with government investigations, public scrutiny, or other negative impacts on the business do the right people in the right places start to pay attention. When they learn that federal contractors can be suspended or debarred for failing to adhere to immigration and E-Verify related issues that attention is heightened.

It has been almost three years since the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) E-Verify clause (FAR 52.222-54) for federal contractors went into effect in September of 2009.

Keep reading this article at: http://www.natlawreview.com/article/federal-contractors-federal-acquisition-regulation-far-e-verify-clause-revisited-cri

Which Georgia businesses won federal contracts in May?

June 3, 2013 by

Ever wondered what Georgia companies are succesful in winning federal contracts?

Now, it’s easy to find out.   The Georgia Tech Procurement Assistance Center (GTPAC) produces monthly reports on federal contracts awarded to firms located in Georgia.  The reports contain hyperlinks to complete award details as posted on FedBizOpps and other website databases.

Reviewing the details of these awards can provide insights into government spending, how contracts are structured, the dollar value of awards, who your competitors may be, and the identity of firms you may wish to partner or subcontract with in the future.

You can download a copy of the federal contract award report for the month of May 2013 here: FEDERAL CONTRACT AWARDS IN GEORGIA – MAY 2013

Copies of reports for earlier months can be accessed here: http://gtpac.org/2013/04/whos-winning-federal-contracts-in-georgia/

VA launches pre-review process of VOSB applications to reduce rejection rate

May 31, 2013 by

Veteran business owners now have a new opportunity to fix errors in their applications for verification by the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA).  Verification of ownership and control of a firm by one or more veterans is necessary before a firm can be considered for a contract set-aside exclusively for veteran-owned small businesses (VOSBs) by the VA.

To avoid rejecting VOSBs for minor paperwork errors or omissions, the VA has initiated a new pre-determination process.  According to the VA’s May 3, 2013 press release, the process is designed to reduce denials by identifying easily corrected issues on many applications. Businesses that would ordinarily be denied can now take advantage of this opportunity for approval by correcting findings prior to receiving a final determination letter. The pre-determination process allows companies the option to correct their applications and significantly increase their chance for approval to participate in the Veterans’ First Contracting Program.

For more information, please see: http://www.va.gov/osdbu/pressreleases/news20130503a.asp.

How to win contracts when lowest price is the highest measure

May 31, 2013 by

The lowest price technically acceptable (LPTA) acquisition strategy, which focuses on price over value, has become the dominant approach that agencies are applying to federal contracting. The accelerated transition to this strategy has been fueled by sequestration and the growing need for government to do business at a reduced cost. Contractors are still learning how to operate in this new environment, but many fear that the emphasis on lower cost labor will reduce the expertise of the work force and result in lower levels of effort.

The LPTA strategy is a step down from best value, admits Tony Constable, president, CAI/SISCo, a company that provides business development support services to industry. In a best value contract, the winning proposal is chosen based on an aggregate view about the perceived value, and that value is tempered somewhat by price. Even if the underlying contract switches from one contractor to another one, the new company could still retain much of the trained labor force. In an LPTA contract, the price—not the solution—is the primary decision criterion, and this affects labor pricing much more so than it does product pricing.

Being an incumbent contractor is the worst place to be on an LPTA bid, because the needed flexibility in labor prices requires huge salary and benefit cuts. Constable calls it the race to the bottom as it relates to labor, but he also acknowledges that the LPTA strategy is reasonable to a point depending on the work.

Keep reading this article at: http://www.afcea.org/content/?q=node/11104

DBE bid protests: One contractor’s loss is another’s gain

May 29, 2013 by

Lately, competition for public works projects is fierce, and bidders, using every possible advantage to obtain contracting opportunities, seem resigned to combing through a low bid to determine if “all I’s are dotted and T’s are crossed.”

As part of this process, the Disadvantaged Business Enterprise (“DBE”) compliance requirements have turned out to be a fertile ground for bid protests, particularly on federally funded state highway projects.  The DBE program provides a vehicle for woman and minority-owned, small businesses to participate in public projects.  As part of this program, contractors on federal public contracts are required to meet certain DBE subcontracting goals (for example, 12% of the total bid amount must be subcontracted to certified woman or minority-owned firms).

The requirements for demonstrating DBE participation, however, can be complicated and fraught with pitfalls for both DBEs and contractors alike.  Failure to comply with the DBE bidding requirements to the letter is a common basis for finding a bid non-responsive, and, thus, provides numerous bidders with a basis to protest, including (i) questioning a prime contractor’s achievement of the project’s DBE goal or good faith efforts to meet that goal, (ii) the legitimacy or certification of a listed DBE entity, or (iii) a DBE’s ability to perform a Commercially Useful Function on a project.

For example, a general contractor who submitted a bid which came in “second,” may challenge award of the project to the apparent low bidder on the basis that the DBE firm that the low bidder proposes to use is either not properly certified to perform the work proposed or is not a legitimate DBE firm.  Such protests provide a lucrative opportunity for the second low bidder who may ultimately be awarded the project.

Keep reading this article at: http://www.ac-lawyers.com/news/2013/05/14/dbe-bid-protests-one-contractors-loss-is-anothers-gain

Comments on veteran-owned small business rules sought by July 12

May 14, 2013 by

The Office of Small and Disadvantaged Business Utilization (OSDBU) of the Dept. of Veterans Affairs (VA) has published an Advanced Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (ANPR) seeking comments to “improve the regulations to provide greater clarity, to streamline the program, and to encourage more VOSBs to apply for verification.”

VOSBs are veteran-owned small businesses, including service-disabled veteran-owned small businesses (SDVOSBs).

According to the ANPR, the VA is seeking to “find an appropriate balance between preventing fraud in the Veterans First Contracting Program and providing a process that would make it easier for more VOSBs to become verified.”

The VA’s initiatives on behalf of VOSBs have been both lauded and criticized.  Early in the VOSB program, critics charged that the standards were lax, resulting in fraudulent misrepresentations by firms not truly owned or controlled by veterans.  In separate investigations, both the Government Accountability Office (GAO) and the VA’s Office of Inspector General (IG) found numerous instances of fraud.   In seeking to take corrective action however, the VA currently is subjected to much criticism by veterans themselves who complain that the verification procedures are onerous and hard to understand.  Under current rules, legitimate VOSB who have been rejected by the VA must wait six months before reapplying for verification.

In response, the VA is now considering ways to improve the VOSB Verification Guidelines.  The VA has already collected suggestions from a wide range of sources for changes to the regulations, and has compiled them into a single document. This compilation document and the existing regulations can both be found at http://www.va.gov/osdbu/veteran/vapVAB.asp

The VA invites public comments on the ideas offered in the compilation document as well as on eight specific questions posed in the ANPR.

The Georgia Tech Procurement Assistance Center (GTPAC) encourages all VOSBs and SDVOSBs to read the ANPR and submit comments, ideas and suggestions.  You can download the two-page ANPR here: Advanced Notice of Proposed Rulemaking – VOSB Verification Guidelines – 38CFR Part 74.

Comments are due by July 12, 2013.