Pentagon reports progress on anniversary of procurement reform law
May 31, 2010 by cs
In the year since President Obama signed the Weapons System Acquisition Reform Act into law, the Defense Department has made significant strides in gaining control over the cost and development of its procurement programs, Pentagon officials testified on Wednesday.
Many of the changes have focused on the front end of the acquisition process, according to Nancy Spruill, director of acquisition resources and analysis in the Office of the Undersecretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology and Logistics.
“The department is committed to making trade-offs among cost, schedule and performance to significantly reduce cost growth in major defense acquisition programs,” Spruill told the House Oversight and Government Reform Subcommittee on National Security and Foreign Affairs.
The law, which legislators have described as the most significant change to the Pentagon’s purchasing system in two decades, addressed the ballooning cost of Defense weapons system acquisitions. For example, it includes a provision that presumes any weapon program that exceeds its original costs by more than 25 percent will be terminated. If the program is not canceled, then it must be restructured and reviewed again.
To reduce the risk of cost overruns, additional reviews will be conducted early in the process, scrutinizing the schedule, cost limitations and technological maturity of major weapon programs, Spruill said. The department also has increased the size and capabilities of its cost estimating staff and is using contract fee structures that are better tied to delivered accomplishments, she said.
“We believe these steps will result in more thoughtfully structured programs that reinforce our stated preference for an evolutionary acquisition approach,” Spruill said.
A key federal watchdog, however, said Defense’s acquisition improvements were a mixed bag.
In March, the Government Accountability Office examined 42 major weapon programs and found progress in the technology, design and manufacturing knowledge at key points in the acquisition process. But, the report also found some weaknesses. A majority of the programs experienced substantial requirements changes, software development challenges or workforce issues, investigators said.
“Most programs are still proceeding with less knowledge than best practices suggest, putting them at higher risk for cost growth and schedule delays,” Mike Sullivan, director of acquisition and sourcing management at GAO, told the subcommittee.
GAO’s findings disappointed lawmakers. “DoD has still not fully implemented a ‘knowledge-based approach’ to its weapons acquisitions program,” said Rep. John Tierney, D-Mass., chairman of the subcommittee. “It boils down to the need for the department to take some common-sense steps in its processes.”
While Defense has made steep cuts to some of its weapon systems, its portfolio of major acquisition programs still is growing, from 96 in December 2007 to 102 in July 2009, according to GAO.
Defense Secretary Robert Gates recently proposed ending all or part of at least six major defense acquisition programs that are over cost, behind schedule or no longer meet the department’s needs.
Pentagon officials also reported progress in increasing the department’s acquisition workforce and insourcing functions currently being performed by contractors. During the next five years, Defense plans to hire 9,000 more civilian employees and convert 11,000 contract positions to government jobs.
By the end of March, Defense had brought on 3,200 new acquisition employees, said John Roth, the Pentagon’s deputy comptroller for program and budget. Hiring projections for the rest of fiscal 2010, which ends on Sept. 30, remain on target to meet the department’s needs, he said.
– By Robert Brodsky – May 19, 2010 – (C) 2010 BY NATIONAL JOURNAL GROUP, INC. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.
GSA’s Johnson calls zero footprint goal government’s “moon shot”
May 15, 2010 by cs
The General Services Administration is calling on the federal government to eliminate its environmental impact through green technology and smarter acquisition decisions, agency officials said on Wednesday.
“GSA has to embrace a zero environmental footprint goal. We should set our sights on eliminating the impact of the federal government on our natural environment,” said GSA Administrator Martha Johnson during a speech on Wednesday evening. “This is our moon shot.”
In an earlier conference call with reporters, Johnson said a zero footprint is a big strategic idea that hasn’t yet been translated into specific programs. But, she added, the agency aims to build leadership around sustainability, develop across-the-board training and awareness and attract young professionals who relate to the mission.
“The first thing you start quibbling about is, ‘What does it mean, how do we know it, where do we start measuring, how will we get the biggest bang for the buck?’ ” she said. “We want to have those kinds of conversations.”
When it comes to green technology, government needs to look at the whole IT life cycle to identify energy-saving solutions, Johnson said. For example, data center consolidation, smart building technology, virtual workplaces and reduced computing power all offer ways to build sustainability.
“It also invites the issue of employee culture. We can put in all kinds of dials and switches, but there is behavior that comes along with it, and we need to engage everyone in that conversation,” she added.
GSA also is working to shore up its workforce, said Steve Kempf, acting commissioner of the Federal Acquisition Service. The agency must fill its vacant full-time positions to improve service to its customers and to relieve the burden on staff, he added. Specific initiatives include recruitment of mid-level career employees, an FAS internship program and opportunities to rotate through positions to build management and information technology skills.
The agency’s fiscal 2011 budget request includes $25 million for acquisition workforce initiatives, including improved training, a more careful accounting of workforce strengths and gaps, and a stronger community-building program for sharing best practices.
“This is a way for GSA to have its own moon shot,” said Johnson. “We’re both positioned and poised and ready and eager to play a more aggressive role in this.”
- By Emily Long – 05/05/10 – © 2010 BY NATIONAL JOURNAL GROUP, INC. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED
Is a GSA Schedule Contract Right for You?
May 11, 2010 by cs
Business people frequently ask Counselors with the Georgia Tech Procurement Assistance Center (GTPAC) how they can figure out whether it’s worth their while to go after a GSA Schedule. Here are a few pointers to guide your decision-making.
First of all, it’s important to understand what a GSA Schedule is … and is not.
A GSA Schedule is a contract awarded by a federal agency, the General Services Administration, to firms with established track-records of selling products or services. A Schedule contract is long-term (a base term of 5 years, with renewal options to a maximum of 20 years). Schedule contracts cover a wide array of products and services. Contract awards are based on “most favored customer pricing.” While issued by the GSA, a Schedule contract can be used by any federal agency and, in some cases, by units of state and local governments. Since everything is pre-negotiated, government agencies benefit from using Schedule contracts because acquisition lead-times are shorter, administrative costs are lower, and administrative steps are fewer.
From a business point-of-view it’s very important to remember that a Schedule contract is not an order. In other words, once you are awarded a Schedule contract, you must be prepared to actively market yourself to government buyers. For this reason, it’s not uncommon for a Schedule contract to be referred to as “a license to hunt.”
Your initial step in pursuing one of these contracts should be to examine the entire list of 39 Schedules, including nine Schedules administered by the Veterans Administration. You can search for details inside particular Schedules by conducting a key word search at http://www.gsaelibrary.gsa.gov/ElibMain/scheduleList.do. Look for the Schedule that most closely fits your line of business. Subcategories within each Schedule are called SINs — Special Item Numbers. Remember, there is not a Schedule for everything. You eventually may conclude that there is not a Schedule that’s a good fit for your business.
If and when you find a relevant Schedule, GTPAC recommends you look at spending reports on individual Schedules at http://ssq.gsa.gov. This will give you some ideas about what kind of money is being spent on individual Schedules and who the prominent, winning Schedule contractors are.
You should do further market research on your potential competitors. Use the GSA eLibrary at http://www.gsaelibrary.gsa.gov to identify existing Schedule contractors, their contract terms and conditions, their product and service offerings, and their pricing. Remember, too, that today’s competitors may be tomorrow’s business partners; GSA Schedule contractors are allowed to team-up with one another to execute government contracts.
Once you’re ready to proceed, use the link in the GSA eLibrary for the Schedule you’ve identified to go to FedBizOpps — the central repository of virtually all government bid and proposal solicitation documents — so you can download the Schedule solicitation. Look for the link in the eLibrary that reads: “Click here to view the current solicitation on FedBizOpps.” An alternate way to find a solicitation is by using the links from this page: www.gsa.gov/schedulesolicitations.
The solicitation will consist of several different documents, so be sure to download them all. Collectively, we’re talking about hundreds of pages here, so the real work now begins – you must read, and re-read, everything. Only you can make a serious and accurate assessment of the impact of GSA’s terms and conditions on your business. Particularly pay attention to the instructions in the solicitation — you will need to follow these “to the letter” to ensure that GSA accepts your proposal.
Note, too, that many Schedules solicitations allow you to submit your proposal in an electronic format rather than on paper. These Schedules are designated as “eOffers.”
Does all this sound too daunting for you at this point? Take heart! After all, there are lots of ways to do business with the government, not just through a Schedule contract. In fact, GSA itself contracts extensively with vendors outside of the Schedule process. You can take a look at a forecast of GSA’s acquisition needs at www.gsa.gov/smbusforecast. This forecast can help you plan your approach. And don’t neglect to consider possible subcontracting opportunities with GSA contractors; you can find the major ones listed at www.gsa.gov/subdirectory. Your GTPAC Procurement Counselor can help you find many other government contracting opportunities at the federal, state and local levels.
Oh, and one more thing. If you do decide to to pursue a GSA Schedule contract, be sure to register for and attend GTPAC’s class entitled “Understanding the GSA Schedule Process.” Just click on the TRAINING tab on our website to identify the dates and locations of this class.
© 2010 Georgia Tech Procurement Assistance Center – All Rights Reserved.
4 Tips for Bidding on Your First Government Contract
April 7, 2010 by cs
Consumer demand may remain sluggish, but the federal government is still pouring stimulus dollars into the economy, to the tune of more than $500 billion annually. And though most government contracts go to big corporations—the GEs and Boeings of the world—23 percent of all government spending (some $115 billion) is set aside specifically for small businesses.
The process of winning a federal contract can be painstaking, long, overwhelming, and certainly competitive, but the potential payoff can be huge. If you are interested in government work, how can you get started?
American Express OPEN’s Victory in Procurement program for small business recently conducted a survey of 1,500 entrepreneurs who were government contractors or actively pursuing a contract. A panel of three small business owners and two government officers gathered as part of an all day event organized by OPEN at the Grand Hyatt Hotel in New York on March 31 to discuss the survey’s findings with more than 400 small business owners and to offer their tips to make government contracting easier for your business. Here’s what they had to say:
Start small. This was the No. 1 tip from successful small business contractors. Government agencies view past performance as a key indicator of potential success, and to get your foot in the door, you should bid on projects worth as little as $3,000. A good strategy is to start by subcontracting. More than half of all the surveyed federal contractors said they got their start by pursuing these opportunities. “Find out who the larger prime contractors are, and offer to provide your services to them,” says Julie Weeks, president and CEO of Womenable, a business consulting firm based in Empire, Michigan, that focuses on enabling women’s entrepreneurship.
Do your research. “Many small business owners think that the government’s not going to buy what they have,” says Susan Sobbott, president of American Express OPEN. “[But] they buy almost everything.” Much of your research can be done online. The first place to start is registering yourself on the Central Contractor Registration (CCR) database, where you can create a profile making it easier for government procurement officers to find your product. Then, get on the pre-approved bidder list on the General Services Administration (GSA) schedule, where you can also look up what your competitors are doing. For a complete list of all Federal Business Opportunities, visit fbo.gov. Knowing your specific target market will help, says Randall Lebolo, president of Lebolo Construction Management, a construction company in Boynton Beach, Florida, whose business is now 90 percent government contracts.
Stay persistent. In the survey, contractors reported that it took almost two years on average to win their first federal contract. “Preparing for a government contract is like training for a marathon,” Sobbott says. The most successful contractors unsurprisingly invested the most time and money in the bidding process—an average of $86,000 in cash and resources during 2009, according to the survey.
Cultivate relationships. “You think of the federal government as this cold entity, and that it’s all about putting together a big proposal, but it’s still all about relationships,” says Maureen Borzacchiello, president and CEO of Creative Display Solutions, a trade-display company in Garden City, New York, that has bid on five contracts. Relationships with government procurement officers are crucial. Agencies also have liaisons from the Office of Small and Disadvantaged Business Utilization (OSDBU) who will lobby on your behalf. Partnerships with other small contractors are also important; bidding for contracts as part of a team is another good strategy for getting started.
by Peter Vanden Bos – INC Magazine – Mar 31, 2010
Stimulus Workload Taxes Agency Staffs and Missions
March 16, 2010 by cs
By Robert Brodsky – GovExec.com – March 12, 2010
The additional workload associated with administering billions of dollars in stimulus funds has put a strain on the federal government’s contracts and grants workforce, according to new findings the Commerce Department’s inspector general released on Friday.
Although agencies are prioritizing Recovery Act work and, in many instances, hiring more staff or realigning tasks, the increased workload has exacted a price on departmental operations, the IG found.
“The awarding of contracts and grants is being delayed as is other work; employees are working overtime; and the oversight and monitoring of awards — especially non-Recovery Act contracts and grants — are expected to decline, as many agencies attempt to implement Recovery Act requirements while carrying out their ongoing programs and operations,” according to the report, which was mandated by the 2009 American Recovery and Reinvestment Act.
At the request of the Recovery Accountability and Transparency Board, the IG surveyed 29 federal agencies receiving stimulus funds to gauge whether there are enough qualified and well-trained acquisition and grant personnel overseeing stimulus funds. Twenty six responded, including officials from 140 divisions and offices.
Agencies receiving stimulus funds calculated that from April 1 through June 30, 2009, they assigned more than 22,000 employees — just over 20 percent of their contracting and grants workforce — to Recovery Act contracts and grants. Those projects resulted in more than 3.7 million hours of work during this period, the IG report said.
Agencies projected that between July 2009 and June 2010, their contracting and grants staff would spend more than 17.5 million hours on stimulus projects — or the work of nearly 8,600 full-time equivalent employees. Recovery Act staffing is expected to increase to nearly 25,000 by June, the report said.
Despite the added help, officials report they still are overwhelmed with responsibilities. More than 40 percent of respondents at large agencies said their Recovery Act staffing was inadequate. Another 45 percent said their agencies had enough employees to administer Recovery funds but the workload affected non-Recovery Act projects. The remaining 14 percent reported their staffing was fine and the work had minimal impact on other operations.
Nearly one-fourth of officials at smaller agencies reported their staffing levels were sufficient, although more than half said stimulus work was cascading into non-Recovery tasks.
“Recovery Act funding has substantially increased the workload of most agencies receiving these funds, as agencies were expected to make additional awards as quickly as possible while adhering to regulations and procedures that would ensure a fair and competitive process,” the report said.
The workforce challenges appear dire among officials administering grants, which represent a significantly higher portion of Recovery spending than contracts. Officials told the IG that unrelated tasks are being delayed, including the performance of routine grants management, reviewing applications in discretionary grants competitions and resolving audit findings.
Members of the acquisition workforce also acknowledged delays in awarding non-Recovery Act contracts.
“Respondents indicated that acquisition delays will range from longer lead times in initiating awards and not completing projects on time, to rescheduling projects or even postponing them indefinitely,” the report said. “Additionally, several respondents reported that timely obligation of all fiscal year funds, policy development and other programmatic initiatives, along with training, might not be completed over the next year.”
Those problems could be just the beginning. Several respondents said without additional resources, their staffs will not be able to devote enough attention to processing modifications, updating contract management plans, monitoring contractor systems or tracking deliverables for their nonstimulus contracts.
Acquisition personnel also expressed concern about the increased costs of meeting Recovery Act requirements, including overtime, credit hours and compensatory time. Others noted. “The toll that prolonged extended hours can have on employees, citing burnout, and decreased morale and productivity.”
In addition, the report found gaps in the training and certification of the acquisition workforce. While nearly all contracting officers assigned to Recovery Act acquisitions are certified, only 75 percent of civilian contracting officer technical representatives/contracting officer representatives have the necessary certification. The Defense Department has not established certification standards for COTRs/CORs.
The grants workforce, meanwhile, has no governmentwide qualification or training requirements, although a handful of agency-specific requirements exist. The IG recommended agencies establish standard qualifications and training requirements, similar to those in the acquisition workforce, for the grants community.
——————————————————————————–
(C) 2010 BY NATIONAL JOURNAL GROUP, INC. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.
Panel recommends overhaul of GSA’s Multiple Award Schedules
March 12, 2010 by cs
By Emily Long 03/11/10
A changing acquisition landscape and inconsistent policy implementation are behind a push to update the General Services Administration’s contract practices, according to procurement professionals.
The Multiple Award Schedules Advisory Panel, made up of stakeholders from GSA, agency users and industry, published on Monday its 20 recommendations to improve the structure, use and pricing of GSA’s schedules program.
The recommendations acknowledge the program, which has evolved from offering commodities to providing solutions and services, and the pricing methodologies might not suit what agencies are buying today, said Alan Chvotkin, a panel member and executive vice president and counsel at the Professional Services Council, a contractor trade association.
Although the schedules have been a useful tool for agencies looking for commercially available services and products, “MAS has needed a lot of rehab because it hasn’t kept up with the wide expansion of services and products that are out there,” said Ray Bjorklund, senior vice president and chief knowledge officer at FedSources, a market research firm.
One of the panel’s tasks was to determine the future of the price reduction clause, which states if a vendor lowers prices for its target customer, then it also must do so for government. The panel recommended GSA remove the clause from supply and services contracts and, in turn, not apply the provision to solutions.
“[Some are] mischaracterizing the panel’s recommendations regarding the price reduction clause,” Chvotkin said. “We did recommend eliminating it, but the mischaracterization is that we said, ‘Do away with it.’ We proposed replacing it with other tools and techniques to help buying agencies.”
Chvotkin said GSA can’t simply eliminate the clause, so the recommendations in part were designed to build transparency and visibility for purchasing agencies. They ask, for example, for GSA to develop more information about individual orders, give benchmark data and provide more disclosure about how it establishes reasonable prices.
Bjorklund said one of the report’s less explicit themes is that GSA and contractors must apply policies consistently and coherently, which will help companies to sign up for multiple schedules.
The report also proposes governmentwide adoption of Section 803, a provision from the 2002 National Defense Authorization Act that previously applied only to the Defense Department. The policy would require agencies gathering bids for more than $100,000 in task and delivery orders to solicit all schedule contractors and collect bids from at least three.
Some of the changes are regulatory and administrative, Chvotkin said, adding the only statutory change — adopting Section 803 — has congressional approval. “It’s a leadership challenge more than a technical challenge,” he said.
Larry Allen, president of the Coalition for Government Procurement and a panel member, hopes the recommendations receive fair examination. “The report was designed to improve the schedules program. It would be a shame not to pilot test them,” he said.
GSA executives, including Administrator Martha Johnson, Chief Acquisition Officer Michael Robertson and the incoming head of the Federal Acquisition Service who has yet to be named, will review the recommendations and implement any changes.
GSA on Thursday confirmed that the administrator received the report.
VA chief pledges acquisition streamlining
March 10, 2010 by cs
By Bob Brewin – 03/10/10
Veterans Affairs Secretary Eric Shinseki told a House panel on Wednesday that he could cut $2 billion from the department’s $15 billion annual procurement budget through management reforms, including the development of a centralized acquisition infrastructure.
The proposed reforms also would centralize purchasing for VA’s 153 hospitals, which for the most part run their own acquisitions today.
Shinseki asked the Veterans Affairs Committee to back the creation of a new position — assistant secretary for acquisition, logistics and construction — to manage relationships with the department’s 15,000 suppliers.
He also sought authority to establish eight new deputy assistant secretary slots, five of which would be in the Office of Information and Technology, headed by Chief Information Officer Roger Baker. The new positions would oversee five separate business lines:
–Strategy, architecture and design
–Product development and delivery
–Enterprise program management
–IT performance management
–IT operations and engineering
Shinseki also said he wanted to create principal deputy assistant secretary positions in two areas: acquisition, logistics and construction; and construction and facilities management.
Shinseki said the new positions would not require increased funding or adding Senior Executive Service slots, but instead would be supported with existing resources.
He promised the committee that the anticipated savings from acquisition reform efforts would go to veterans. “Every dollar I can save, I can put into care and benefits,” Shinseki said.
Improved management of information technology is essential to better management of VA as a whole, Shinseki told committee members. “Great IT development and execution, in turn, depends on very well-managed and disciplined acquisitions support and project management,” he added.
In the past, VA IT setbacks have “largely been [the result] of project management and acquisition failures,” problems the department has started to resolve with the development last June of the Program Management Accountability System, Shinseki said.
Reviews of programs under the system resulted in the cancellation of 12 IT projects last month for a savings of $54 million, Shinseki said.
Rep. Steve Buyer, R-Ind., the ranking member on the VA Committee, endorsed Shinseki’s request for the new appointments. Buyer asked the VA chief to provide him with a detailed acquisition reform policy within 30 days.
The committee’s chairman, Rep. Bob Filner, D-Calif., did not immediately endorse Shinseki’s requests and reminded Buyer that he was speaking for himself and not the full panel.
Budget calls for larger acquisition workforce
February 2, 2010 by llyons
By Robert Brodsky rbrodsky@govexec.com February 2, 2010
The size of the federal acquisition workforce would grow significantly under President Obama’s proposed 2011 budget.
The budget, released on Monday, allocates $158 million for an initiative to improve the capacity and capabilities of the civilian agency acquisition workforce, building on a similar initiative at the Defense Department.
The funds will allow agencies to increase the size of their acquisition workforce by 5 percent and proposes investments in training, certification management and technology for the contracting staff, according to the budget.
“This additional capacity will allow agencies to acquire the goods and services they need to accomplish their missions at reduced costs and with better performance,” the “Analytical Perspectives” volume of the spending plan stated.
Some of the money will come from the new $24.9 million Acquisition Workforce Initiatives Fund. Managed by the General Services Administration, the fund will spend $7.9 million for salaries and training; $6 million for human resources support; $3 million for acquisition workforce data management; $6 million to create and maintain a contractor inventory database; and $2 million to study current and future acquisition workforce needs.
The remaining $133 million to boost the size of the acquisition workforce is included in the budget requests of individual agencies, according to an OMB official.
GSA also administers the $15 million Acquisition Workforce Training Fund, which is supported by fees that agencies pay for using GSA contracting options.
“We have … north of $500 billion in federal contracts,” OMB Director Peter R. Orszag said on Monday. “Over the past eight or nine years, those contracts have doubled in size. The acquisition workforce has stayed constant. It’s not too hard to figure out that oversight of those contracts has not kept pace with what it should be.”
The Obama budget criticizes the Bush administration for “one-sided management priorities” that created an overreliance on contractors to perform government functions.
“Those priorities rewarded agencies for identifying functions that could be outsourced, while ignoring the costs associated with the loss of institutional knowledge and internal capability,” the budget noted. “Too often agencies have neglected the investments in human capital planning, recruitment, hiring and training that are necessary for building strong internal capacity.”
In July, OMB directed all federal agencies to conduct a pilot human capital analysis of at least one program, project or activity, where the agency had concerns about the extent of reliance on contractors, and to take appropriate steps to address any identified internal weaknesses. The results of the pilot program could lead to the insourcing of some functions, OMB said.
The budget outlines a specific framework for how civilian agencies can save money through improved contracting procedures.
For example, the Small Business Administration would receive an additional $2 million to improve its oversight of contracting programs, specifically the HUBZone program, which has been cited by watchdogs as vulnerable to waste and fraud.
The Interior Department could save $30 million through using strategic sourcing to consolidate its purchases of common services and commodities. The budget cites potential savings in enterprise contracts for telecommunications, relocation services, copiers and printers, heavy equipment, recycled paper, shuttle services, furniture, wireless communications, and training.
And Treasury could collect an estimated $2 billion during the next 10 years by increasing the amount of delinquent taxes collected from federal contractors. The plan was first outlined in a January executive order from Obama.
Another budget provision would require agencies to create an annual inventory of all contractors providing services for the government. By the end of 2010, agencies would be required to submit to OMB a list that includes a description and cost for the services; the contractor’s name and place of performance; and whether the contract was awarded competitively. The administration instructs agencies to look for services that are inherently governmental or for poorly performing contracts.
OMB will provide guidance to agencies on how to develop the inventory by March 1, according to budget documents. The inventory will be made public and subject to oversight by the Government Accountability Office.
The 2011 budget also continues a governmentwide moratorium on A-76 competitions for federal work.
“For far too long a time, the contracting focus was on how to turn more of the work of the federal government over to the private sector,” said Colleen Kelly, president of the National Treasury Employees Union. “This new focus on the best way to manage the work of the people is a welcome change.”
The White House also has proposed a boost in the acquisition staff for the Defense Department, which represents 70 percent of all government contract spending.
Continuing a policy announced last year by Defense Secretary Robert Gates, the budget calls for the department to increase the number of acquisition personnel by 20,000 during the next five years, from 127,000 in 2010 to 147,000 by 2015. This includes roughly 10,000 positions currently held by contractors that will be converted to civil service positions.
The budget also recommends that the Pentagon reduce its use of time-and-material and labor-hour contracts by 17 percent and increase the number of contract obligations that are competitively awarded by 1 percent.
(C) 2010 BY NATIONAL JOURNAL GROUP, INC. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.
Budget calls for larger acquisition workforce
February 2, 2010 by cs
The size of the federal acquisition workforce would grow significantly under President Obama’s proposed 2011 budget.
The budget, released on Monday, allocates $158 million for an initiative to improve the capacity and capabilities of the civilian agency acquisition workforce, building on a similar initiative at the Defense Department.
The funds will allow agencies to increase the size of their acquisition workforce by 5 percent and proposes investments in training, certification management and technology for the contracting staff, according to the budget.
“This additional capacity will allow agencies to acquire the goods and services they need to accomplish their missions at reduced costs and with better performance,” the “Analytical Perspectives” volume of the spending plan stated.
Some of the money will come from the new $24.9 million Acquisition Workforce Initiatives Fund. Managed by the General Services Administration, the fund will spend $7.9 million for salaries and training; $6 million for human resources support; $3 million for acquisition workforce data management; $6 million to create and maintain a contractor inventory database; and $2 million to study current and future acquisition workforce needs.
The remaining $133 million to boost the size of the acquisition workforce is included in the budget requests of individual agencies, according to an OMB official.
GSA also administers the $15 million Acquisition Workforce Training Fund, which is supported by fees that agencies pay for using GSA contracting options.
“We have … north of $500 billion in federal contracts,” OMB Director Peter R. Orszag said on Monday. “Over the past eight or nine years, those contracts have doubled in size. The acquisition workforce has stayed constant. It’s not too hard to figure out that oversight of those contracts has not kept pace with what it should be.”
The Obama budget criticizes the Bush administration for “one-sided management priorities” that created an overreliance on contractors to perform government functions.
“Those priorities rewarded agencies for identifying functions that could be outsourced, while ignoring the costs associated with the loss of institutional knowledge and internal capability,” the budget noted. “Too often agencies have neglected the investments in human capital planning, recruitment, hiring and training that are necessary for building strong internal capacity.”
In July, OMB directed all federal agencies to conduct a pilot human capital analysis of at least one program, project or activity, where the agency had concerns about the extent of reliance on contractors, and to take appropriate steps to address any identified internal weaknesses. The results of the pilot program could lead to the insourcing of some functions, OMB said.
The budget outlines a specific framework for how civilian agencies can save money through improved contracting procedures.
For example, the Small Business Administration would receive an additional $2 million to improve its oversight of contracting programs, specifically the HUBZone program, which has been cited bywatchdogs as vulnerable to waste and fraud.
The Interior Department could save $30 million through using strategic sourcing to consolidate its purchases of common services and commodities. The budget cites potential savings in enterprise contracts for telecommunications, relocation services, copiers and printers, heavy equipment, recycled paper, shuttle services, furniture, wireless communications, and training.
And Treasury could collect an estimated $2 billion during the next 10 years by increasing the amount of delinquent taxes collected from federal contractors. The plan was first outlined in a Januaryexecutive order from Obama.
Another budget provision would require agencies to create an annual inventory of all contractors providing services for the government. By the end of 2010, agencies would be required to submit to OMB a list that includes a description and cost for the services; the contractor’s name and place of performance; and whether the contract was awarded competitively. The administration instructs agencies to look for services that are inherently governmental or for poorly performing contracts.
OMB will provide guidance to agencies on how to develop the inventory by March 1, according to budget documents. The inventory will be made public and subject to oversight by the Government Accountability Office.
The 2011 budget also continues a governmentwide moratorium on A-76 competitions for federal work.
“For far too long a time, the contracting focus was on how to turn more of the work of the federal government over to the private sector,” said Colleen Kelly, president of the National Treasury Employees Union. “This new focus on the best way to manage the work of the people is a welcome change.”
The White House also has proposed a boost in the acquisition staff for the Defense Department, which represents 70 percent of all government contract spending.
Continuing a policy announced last year by Defense Secretary Robert Gates, the budget calls for the department to increase the number of acquisition personnel by 20,000 during the next five years, from 127,000 in 2010 to 147,000 by 2015. This includes roughly 10,000 positions currently held by contractors that will be converted to civil service positions.
The budget also recommends that the Pentagon reduce its use of time-and-material and labor-hour contracts by 17 percent and increase the number of contract obligations that are competitively awarded by 1 percent.
Obama seeks increase in Defense spending
February 1, 2010 by cs
The Obama administration Monday requested a $708.2 billion defense budget for fiscal 2011, plus an additional $33 billion to pay for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan for the remainder of the fiscal year.
For fiscal 2011, the request includes $548.9 billion for the Defense Department’s base budget — an $18.2 billion, or 3.4 percent increase, over fiscal 2010 enacted levels — as well as $159.3 billion to pay for the wars.
Within the base budget, the Pentagon is requesting $112.9 billion for procurement, an $8.1 billion increase over current spending. Among the priorities are 42 F-35 Joint Strike Fighters for the Air Force, Navy and Marine Corps, 52 Air Force unmanned aerial vehicles and 10 ships. There is also one F-35 in a separate fiscal 2011 budget request for “overseas contingency operations.”
But research and development accounts took a hit, dropping about $4 billion from $80.6 billion this year to $76.7 billion in the request.
Meanwhile, the administration is seeking $200.2 billion for operations and maintenance accounts, a $15.8 billion increase over fiscal 2010. Military personnel accounts rose only slightly — from $135 billion this year to $138.5 billion in the request.
As expected, the fiscal 2011 budget proposes ending Boeing Co.’s C-17 Globemaster III cargo plane and the General Electric/Rolls Royce alternate engine for the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter. The administration attempted to end both programs last year, but lawmakers added them back into the enacted fiscal 2010 Defense spending bill, for a total of $3 billion.
At the Pentagon, Defense Secretary Robert Gates said he would “strongly recommend” that President Obama veto any bill that restores funding for either of those two programs.
The latest budget request also ends the Third Generation Infrared Surveillance program, which the administration expects will save $73 million. In its place, the military ultimately plans to buy upgraded Space-Based Infrared System Satellites.
The request includes a 1.4 percent military pay increase, the smallest in recent memory but one the Office of Management and Budget says is “in line with those in the private sector.” The administration also is requesting an average housing increase of 4.2 percent, as well as a variety of monthly special skill-based payments, enlistment and re-enlistment bonuses and other benefits.
As the Bush administration did during its wartime spending requests, the budget includes placeholder estimates for war funding of $50 billion a year for fiscal 2012 and beyond.
But OMB stressed that the estimates “do not reflect any policy decisions about specific military of intelligence operations, but are only intended to indicate that some as-yet unknown costs are anticipated.”
Besides the F-35 purchases, the budget restructures the program to address concerns about cost and development. It also includes $864 million for research and development for a new tanker for the Air Force, reflecting the service’s hopes to get the program under contract in fiscal 2011.
In addition, the Pentagon budget requests $200 million for a next-generation bomber, and pledges $1.7 billion for the effort between fiscal 2011 and fiscal 2015.
For the Army, the Pentagon is requesting $3.2 billion to modernize the service’s brigade combat teams — a follow-on effort to the Future Combat Systems, which was canceled last year.
Meanwhile, the budget includes $15.7 billion for Navy shipbuilding and conversion accounts. The requested funds will pay full or partial costs for 10 new ships, including two Virginia class submarines, two DDG-51 destroyers, two Littoral Combat Ships, one Landing Helicopter Assault Replacement, one Mobile Landing Platform and two Joint High Speed Vessels, one of which is for the Army.
In addition, the budget includes $9.9 billion for missile defense programs.