Georgia Tech Procurement Assistance Center

  • Home
  • About Us
  • Training
    • Class Registration
    • On-demand Training
  • Useful Links
  • Team Directory
    • Albany Counselor
    • Atlanta Counselors
    • Augusta Counselor
    • Carrollton Counselor
    • Columbus Counselor
    • Gainesville Counselor
    • Savannah Counselor
    • Warner Robins Counselor
  • Directions
    • Atlanta – Training Facility
    • Atlanta – Office
    • Albany
    • Augusta
    • Carrollton
    • Columbus
    • Gainesville
    • Savannah
    • Warner Robins
  • New Client Application
  • Contact Us

SBA issues final rule on surety bond guarantee program

January 29, 2014 By ei2admin

In a rule (79 Fed. Reg. 2084) scheduled to go into effect on Feb. 12, 2014, the Small Business Administration (SBA) is modifying its Surety Bond Guarantee Program to incorporate certain provisions of the National Defense Authorization Act of Fiscal Year 2013 (NDAA).  This includes provisions that increase the contract amounts for which SBA is authorized to guarantee bonds, grant SBA the authority to partially deny liability under its bond guarantee, and prohibit SBA from denying liability based on material information that was provided as part of the guarantee application in the Prior Approval Program.

The rule also makes changes to the Quick Bond Guarantee Application and Agreement, the timeframes for taking certain actions related to claims, and the dollar threshold for determining when a change in the Contract or bond amounts meets certain criteria or requires certain action. Finally, the final rule eliminates references to the provisions of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (Recovery Act) that has expired.

The new rule can be downloaded here: 79 Fed. Reg. 2084

Filed Under: Contracting News Tagged With: ARRA, bonding, SBA, small business, surety bond

Minority business lands multimillion dollar grant with Georgia Tech’s assistance

January 18, 2011 By ei2admin

With assistance from the Georgia Minority Business Enterprise Center (GMBEC), a team of African American-owned telecommunication businesses in Atlanta partnered to win a highly competitive $59 million Department of Commerce grant to provide a broadband communication network to a substantial portion of a rural, eight-county region in central Alabama.

The team, made up of primary partners Trillion Communications Corporation, A2D Inc. and A-Plus Community Solutions, won a contract that will not only create jobs, but expand access to broadband in underserved communities. Through construction of a 2,200-mile network to augment existing facilities, the project will ultimately enhance the communities’ ability to bring high-speed telemedicine, distance learning, access to web-based legal assistance, and better 911 services to residents in this region, among other benefits.

Funded by the U.S. Department of Commerce’s Minority Business Development Agency and operated by Georgia Tech’s Enterprise Innovation Institute, GMBEC helps emerging and existing minority businesses experience significant growth and sustainability and generate long-term economic impact through the creation of jobs and revenue. Along with the Minority Business Development Agency and the National Telecommunications and Information Administration, GMBEC held a vendor fare for minority business enterprises that included a technical workshop and information on how to put a proposal package together.

Donna Ennis, GMBEC project director, worked with Trillion to develop and edit the proposal, assist with marketing and procurement, and implement the project. At GMBEC, Ennis is responsible for the strategic direction, marketing and outreach, and operations of the GMBEC and assists clients with strategic, business and market planning; marketing research and communications; public and private procurement, finance and operations; and business process improvement.

“I am thankful for Donna Ennis and the Georgia Minority Business Enterprise Center. They are admired and respected for their work ethic and professionalism. I am indebted to them for their support and counsel provided during the preparation of Trillion’s Infrastructure application,” noted Ralph E. Brown, CEO of Trillion Communications Corporation. “They successfully hosted the region-wide Vendor Workshop where Trillion secured corporate and community partnerships that helped us assemble and fortify a winning project. I could not have succeeded in our endeavor without Donna’s willingness to review our proposals, provide guidance and resources, as well as counsel and advice during the project implementation phase.”

Trillion Communications will serve as the grant awardee, fiduciary and program manager for the grant released by the U.S. Department of Commerce’s National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) and the Department of Agriculture Rural Utilities Service (RUS). An extra $25 million will come from private investors. In addition to creating broadband access, the MBDA projects the award opportunity will extend to 25 additional MBEs and service the impacted communities for the next 20 years.

“This will make a difference in the community,” said Brown. “It impacts eight counties, 1,000 businesses and community anchors including public libraries and institutions, Historically Black Colleges and Universities, 80,000 households, as well as the Poarch Creek Tribal Nation..”

The Trillion team will design, construct and install a next generation broadband infrastructure which will then be transferred to the South Central Alabama Broadband Commission (SCABC), where it will eventually be expanded across the region. A2D Inc. will serve as SCABC’s long-term operator of the eCommunity Broadband Network.

The e-Community Broadband Network will link anchor institutions such as schools, libraries, and health care facilities together, as well as provide the means for small businesses to expand their markets and help stimulate new business development. It will also enhance public safety services by creating an interoperable network among public safety agencies. For those who can’t afford fee-based broadband services from commercial providers, eCommunity will also enable community organizations, anchor institutions and governmental agencies to offer free or subsidized intranet-based broadband access directly to vulnerable populations they already serve.

Funding for the project is made possible by the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act signed in 2009 by President Obama, which included approximately $7.2 billion to expand broadband access and adoption in communities across the United States. It also means an increase in jobs, more investments in technology and infrastructure and long-term economic benefits.

For more information on GMBEC services offered by Georgia Tech’s Enterprise Innovation Institute, contact Donna Ennis (404-894-2096); E-mail: (donna.ennis@innovate.gatech.edu); Web site: (http://www.georgiambec.org/).

About Enterprise Innovation Institute:

The Georgia Tech Enterprise Innovation Institute helps companies, entrepreneurs, economic developers and communities improve their competitiveness through the application of science, technology and innovation. It is one of the most comprehensive university-based programs of business and industry assistance, technology commercialization and economic development in the nation.

Research News & Publications Office

Enterprise Innovation Institute

Georgia Institute of Technology

75 Fifth Street, N.W., Suite 314

Atlanta, Georgia 30308 USA

Media Relations Contacts: Nancy Fullbright (912-963-2509 ); E-mail: (nancy.fullbright@innovate.gatech.edu) or John Toon (404-894-6986); E-mail (john.toon@innovate.gatech.edu).

Writer: Nancy Fullbright – Jan. 7, 2011

Filed Under: Georgia Tech News Tagged With: ARRA, broadband, Commerce Dept., GMBEC, grant, telecommunications

Senior acquisition officials question procurement policy direction

November 18, 2010 By ei2admin

Senior federal acquisition officials do not believe that many of the signature procurement policy changes the Obama administration and the Democratic Congress have implemented in recent years are adding significant value to the government’s mission, according to a new report from a pair of industry groups.

The biennial survey by the Professional Services Council, a contractor trade association, and Grant Thornton LLP, a business advisory firm, interviewed 33 officials from across government, including senior acquisition executives, congressional staff and oversight employees, on a host of topics.

On many key issues there appears to be a widening chasm between operational and oversight officials, but they generally concurred that the implementation of major policies and rules — from the insourcing of private sector functions to the push to use fixed-price contracts — were failing to meet their stated objectives.

“The idea of showing contract savings is nothing more than an accounting exercise,” said one interviewee. “When you have policy that doesn’t make sense to subject matter experts, you lose credibility,” another said. All the quotes were provided anonymously, although the officials interviewed were identified at the end of the report.

Stan Soloway, president of PSC, suggested that many senior acquisition officials supported the administration’s overall policy direction, but felt “neutered” by a one-size-fits-all execution approach.

For example, recent legislative and regulatory actions have shown a preference for fixed-price contracts above cost-plus or time-and-materials awards. In many cases, officials are required to provide lengthy written explanations when using the latter contract types. But the survey showed that 71 percent of respondents felt the fixed-price mandates had not resulted in better contract outcomes for the government or the taxpayer.

A similar disconnect between a policy’s intention and result was found in response to questions about insourcing. Many officials argued the concept, while necessary to restore core government capabilities, has not been conducted thoughtfully or strategically and might be moving too rapidly. Meanwhile, a whopping 94 percent of respondents said insourcing will hurt small businesses.

“Insourcing is moving too quickly and it is too focused on hitting metrics,” one interviewee said. “The administration is proceeding without a larger view of how the government does business. The decision should be strategic and not rushed.”

The redefinition of inherently governmental activities, one of the key procurement regulatory changes the Obama administration has embraced, also failed to impress senior acquisition officials.

Two-thirds of all interviewees said the March guidance from the Office of Management and Budget was not clear or actionable. As was the case with several policy proposals, many cited the lack of resources needed to implement the guidance.

The survey also revealed palpable frustration among acquisition and oversight leaders regarding implementation of the Recovery Act. Two-thirds of all respondents felt they were not provided adequate resources to comply with stimulus rules and that reporting requirements were neither manageable nor sustainable. Congress, however, has shown some support for implementing Recovery Act-type requirements for all procurements.

Retired Vice Adm. Lou Crenshaw, a principal at Grant Thornton, suggested that too much focus has been placed on regulatory compliance rather than operational outcomes. “This is rocket science,” Crenshaw said. “It’s a complicated process.”

As in previous surveys, enhancing, training and managing the acquisition workforce remain the biggest operational challenges in acquisition, respondents said. They noted that while the addition of direct hiring authority at some agencies has helped to a point, constant turnover, insufficient training and a reliance on interns have created functional concerns. Acquisition officials suggested the system might be improving, but oversight officials generally were more skeptical.

Contract administrators also appeared to be struggling under the weight of oversight mandates. Nearly 90 percent of those surveyed agreed more resources were devoted to back-end oversight than front-end contract management. Others suggested overly burdensome oversight was inhibiting innovation while stressing rigidity and a focus on lowest cost.

“Resources are absolutely not in balance,” one interviewee said. “They have thrown resources at [inspectors general] and auditors, but they have done nothing to facilitate contract administration.”

The divide was evident in other areas. More than 70 percent of operational executives said existing structures designed to prevent organizational conflicts of interest function effectively. Sixty percent of oversight professionals disagreed. The two sides also disagreed on the need to reform personal conflict-of-interest rules, with operational officials generally in favor of maintaining the existing structure.

While the report did not take sides on the respective issues, it did recommend improving the communication and collaboration between the oversight and operational communities, backing up policy directives with sufficient resources, and avoiding one-size-fits-all mandates.

— By Robert Brodsky – GovernmentExecutive.com –  November 15, 2010

Filed Under: Contracting News Tagged With: acquisition, acquisition workforce, ARRA, conflict of interest, federal contracting, IG, insourcing, OMB, small business

Federal stimulus contract work switched amid delays

November 1, 2010 By ei2admin

Citing persistent work delays, state officials have decided to replace a contractor weatherizing homes with federal stimulus money for low-income people in Cobb County.

The Georgia Environmental Finance Authority is taking part of its $7.6 million stimulus contract away from Gainesville-based Ninth District Opportunity and giving it to Tallatoona Community Action Partnership to do the work in Cobb.

Ninth District also must team up with North Georgia Community Action to continue doing its weatherization work in Forsyth and 12 other North Georgia counties. As of Aug. 31, Ninth District had weatherized 175 homes, state records show. State officials expected the agency to have more than twice the number done by then.

GEFA is also considering taking away part of Columbus-based Enrichment Services Program’s $4.5 million contract and giving it to one or more other agencies to do the work in Stewart, Randolph, Clay and Talbot counties. Between August of last year and September of this year, Enrichment Services weatherized 79 homes, meeting less than half of its goal of 206, state records show. ESP has until Nov. 11 to either accept GEFA’s plan or say why it should reconsider.

Officials with Enrichment Services and Ninth District did not respond to requests for comment Friday.

The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act includes $5 billion to weatherize homes for low-income families nationwide, create jobs and cut utility bills, energy use and pollution. The federal government is divvying up the money among the states, which are hiring community action agencies, nonprofits and local governments to do the work.

— by Jeremy Redmon – The Atlanta Journal-Constitution – Oct. 29, 2010

Filed Under: Contracting News Tagged With: ARRA, energy savings, stimulus contract, weatherization

Federal workers overwhelmed by contracts

September 21, 2010 By ei2admin

President Obama proposed a new set of programs and plans to stimulate the economy — but there aren’t enough federal employees to oversee the money and programs from the previous stimulus. American Public Media’s Marketplace reporter John Dimsdale takes a look at the hold up.

TEXT OF STORY

Kai Ryssdal: The White House is studiously not calling its latest economic package a new stimulus plan. Might be just as well: Getting money from earlier federal programs out into the economy has run into a bottleneck. There aren’t enough federal workers to award and manage all those government contracts.

Our Washington bureau chief John Dimsdale reports.


John Dimsdale: The problem, says Allison Stanger, the author of “One Nation Under Contract,” is the number of federal employees today is the same as it was in 1963.

Allison Stanger: Yet the federal budget in real terms in that the same period of time has more than tripled. And that enormous gap is filled by contractors.

The government was short of people to oversee contracts from nuclear waste disposal to the space program, even before the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, which rely heavily on contractors. Now, add another $275 billion in stimulus contracts and monitoring all of them for waste and fraud is almost impossible, says Don Kettl, dean of the school of public policy at the University of Maryland.

Don Kettl: We’ve so vastly increased the amount of spending in such a short time, government employees are really struggling to keep up with the oversight burdens that have come along with the recovery program.

In some cases, government agencies have had to contract out oversight of their own contracts.

Richard Skinner: Matter of fact, we’ve experienced that here in DHS.

Richard Skinner, the inspector general at the Department of Homeland Security, says that’s fraught with potential conflicts of interest.

Skinner: These contractors may not have the government’s best interest in play here. I do not believe it’s healthy to have contractors managing other contractors.

Skinner says the government needs more skilled managers. And in fact, President Obama wants to boost the government’s contract work force by 5 percent. Author Alison Stanger has another suggestion.

Stanger: My solution is what I call “radical transparency.”

She means let the public track all governments contracts right on the Internet.

In Washington, I’m John Dimsdale for Marketplace.

— Thursday, September 9, 2010 – American Public Media – http://marketplace.publicradio.org/display/web/2010/09/09/pm-federal-workers-overwhelmed-by-contracts/?refid=0#

Filed Under: Contracting News Tagged With: ARRA, contract management, contractor performance, federal contracting, government contracting, government trends, procurement reform, recovery

SBA: Small business procurement scorecard shows progress toward meeting 23% goal

August 30, 2010 By ei2admin

Small businesses won a record $96.8 billion in federal prime contracts in Fiscal Year (FY) 2009 (Oct. 1, 2008-Sept. 30, 2009), an increase of more than $3 billion from FY 2008, according to the U.S. Small Business Administration’s fourth annual small business procurement scorecard released today.  This dollar amount represents 21.89 percent of all federal spending – an improvement over FY2008.  Additionally, performance in each of the government’s socioeconomic subcategories increased for FY2009.

There was an increase in both dollars and contracting share for every small business category.  This represents real progress, but not enough, we must reaffirm our commitment to ensuring that the 23 percent goal is met and exceeded,” SBA Administrator Karen Mills said. “Federal contracts awarded to small businesses are a ‘win-win’ – providing small businesses with the opportunity to grow and create jobs, and offering innovative services and essential goods to the government at great value to the taxpayers.”

Small Business Goaling Summary Report

Small Businesses:

2009 Goal      23%

2009 Percentage     21.89%

2009 Contract Dollars     $96.8 billion

2008 Percentage     21.5%

2008 Contract Dollars     $93.2 billion

Women Owned Small Business:

2009 Goal      5%

2009 Percentage     3.68%

2009 Contract Dollars     $16.3 billion

2008 Percentage     3.40%

2008 Contract Dollars     $14.7 billion

Small Disadvantaged Businesses:

2009 Goal      5%

2009 Percentage     7.57%

2009 Contract Dollars     $33.5 billion

2008 Percentage     6.76%

2008 Contract Dollars     $29.3 billion

Service-Disabled Veteran Owned Small Business:  

2009 Goal      3%

2009 Percentage     1.98%

2009 Contract Dollars     $8.8 billion

2008 Percentage     1.49%

2008 Contract Dollars     $6.4 billion

HUBZone:

2009 Goal      3%

2009 Percentage     2.81%

2009 Contract Dollars     $12.4 billion

2008 Percentage     2.34%

2008 Contract Dollars     $10.1 billion

SBA is required to report to the President and Congress on achievements by federal agencies and departments against their annual goal to ensure greater accountability.  The small business Procurement Scorecard fulfills that requirement by providing an assessment of federal achievement in prime contracting and subcontracting to small businesses by the 24 Chief Financial Officers Act agencies. It also measures progress that departments are making to ensure small business opportunities remain an integral part of their acquisition of goods and services to meet mission objectives.

The fourth annual Scorecard is an assessment tool (1) to measure how well federal agencies reach their small business and socio-economic prime contracting and subcontracting goals, (2) provide accurate and transparent contracting data and (3) report agency-specific progress.  The prime and subcontracting component goals include goals for small businesses, small businesses owned by women, small disadvantaged businesses, service-disabled veteran owned small businesses, and small businesses in located in HUBZones.

As it does every year, the SBA has closely examined federal procurement reporting and data to ensure the greatest level of transparency possible. 

After identifying anomalies in initial reports, the SBA has worked collaboratively – and will continue to work – with agencies across the government to correct as many data issues as possible, and improve the integrity of all small business federal contracting reporting moving forward.

The Recovery Act and small business contracting

 The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) provided additional resources to federal agencies in fiscal year 2009, providing additional opportunities for small businesses to win federal contracts.  Through early August, small businesses have secured over 30 percent of Recovery Act Contracts.  This preliminary data underscores the priority the Administration and the SBA have placed on increasing small businesses access to federal contracts so that they can grow and create jobs.

About the Scorecard 

SBA graded 24 agencies on each of the individual prime contracting goals established by Congress and used a new A+ through F letter grade system rather than the previous red, yellow, and green ratings.  The new scorecard format was implemented this year to provide greater clarity and transparency on how well each agency is doing in meeting its individual small business prime contracting goals.

Each federal agency has a different small business contracting goal, determined annually in consultation with SBA.  SBA ensures that the sum total of all of the goals meets the 23 percent target established by law.  

Each agency’s overall grade will show an A+ for agencies that meet or exceed 120 percent of their goals, an A for those between 100 percent and 119 percent, a B for 90 to 99 percent, a C for 80 to 89 percent, a D for 70 to 79 percent and an F for less than 70 percent. An agency’s overall grade was comprised of three quantitative measures: prime contracts (80 percent), subcontracts (10 percent) and its progress plan for meeting goals (10 percent).

The scorecards released Aug. 27, 2010 by SBA, as well as a detailed explanation of the new scorecard methodology, is available online: http://www.sba.gov/aboutsba/sbaprograms/goals/index.html.

As part of its ongoing efforts to increase access to contracting opportunities for small businesses, the SBA is continuing to work with federal agency procurement staff to strengthen the integrity of contracting data, including providing tools to facilitate public review of data, improvements to systems and training to improve accuracy.

***************

Release Date: August 27, 2010

Contact:  Tiffani Clements  (202) 401-0035 Hayley Matz (202) 205-6948

Release Number: 10-48                    

Internet Address: http://www.sba.gov/news

Filed Under: Contracting News Tagged With: 8(a), ARRA, contract awards, federal contracting, federal regulations, government trends, HUBZone, preference, recovery, SBA, SDVOSB, small business, woman owned business

Stimulus money a challenge to track

August 25, 2010 By ei2admin

In February 2009, the United States had fallen into what many economists called the deepest economic slowdown since the Great Depression.

The housing bubble had burst, unemployment was nearing its highest level in almost three decades and the once-freewheeling banking sector had turned tightfisted.

At the urging of President Obama, Congress passed a $787 billion economic stimulus bill on Feb. 10, 2009, to get federal dollars flowing into the U.S. economy.

Eighteen months later, the administration estimates that about 85 percent of the jobs it expected to create or save in the first two years have indeed been created or saved. The economy is rebounding slowly, and the worst effects of the recession have softened. Unemployment, while still high, is better than it otherwise would have been.

For the most part, mainstream economists such as those at the Congressional Budget Office agree with those conclusions. But an examination by McClatchy Newspapers and the Medill News Service has found that some parts of the country have benefited far more from the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act than others, that some sectors of the economy are benefiting far more than others, and that it’s difficult to detail exactly where all the money has gone.

Among the findings:

• The jobless rates in the states had little to do with where major portions of the stimulus package were distributed. Some states with the lowest unemployment rates received some of the highest per-capita spending for stimulus projects.

• Job creation on the local level has been uneven. By the White House’s numbers, for example, Nebraska created 74 percent of the expected jobs, while North Dakota and Massachusetts created 100 percent.

• The Obama administration won’t be able to fulfill its vow to track every stimulus dollar. The mechanism that’s used to account for the expenditures is complicated, flawed and at times inaccurate.

“I know it’s political rhetoric to say we have to know where every penny is spent,” said Raymond Yee, a lecturer at the University of California-Berkeley’s School of Information. “But it’s difficult to even understand where every billion dollars is spent.”

• Much of the stimulus money has yet to go out the door. As of July, $127 billion in contracts, grants and loans had been awarded, but that’s less than half the $275 billion allocated for those projects.

That’s partly by design and partly because it was difficult to get systems in place to spend money quickly for the array of new programs that the stimulus bill funded.

The White House projected creating or saving about 3.5 million jobs in the first two years after the stimulus bill passed. In a July report, the administration estimated that it’s created or saved about 3 million of them, about 85 percent of the expected total.

(Using different economic models, the administration calculates the added-jobs tally at either 2.5 million or 3.6 million and averages them out to 3.1 million.)

Benefit to states is uneven

While they agree that the stimulus package has created jobs, other economists are less optimistic than the White House is. The CBO says the job boost could be as low as 1.4 million or as high as 3.4 million. Three other economic organizations – all of which the White House cited in its July report – put the jobs tally at 1.8 million, 2.1 million or 2.2 million.

It’s clear from the McClatchy-Medill analysis of stimulus spending and unemployment, however, that some states have fared much better than others have.

North Dakota has had one of the nation’s lowest unemployment rates for the past year. In June, it hit 3.6 percent. Yet the analysis found that it’s scheduled to receive more stimulus spending, per capita, than is Nevada, where the unemployment rate climbed to 14.2 percent in June.

Economists who’ve studied the stimulus package say there’s little connection between which states have the worst unemployment and where the stimulus dollars have been spent. Edward Glaeser, a Harvard University economist, wrote in March: “Stimulus aid was not particularly well-matched with need.”

Veronique de Rugy of George Mason University testified before the House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure in March that she and other researchers could not find any relationship between unemployment in a given area and the amount of stimulus dollars spent there.

“No matter how we measure unemployment, we find no correlation,” she said.

Though other economists recognize de Rugy’s findings, some disagree with her and Glaeser that funding stimulus programs without regard for local unemployment or economic conditions is a problem.

“If you say, ‘Let’s target states that are doing worse, places that saw the property crash in the worst way,’ ” said Timothy Taylor, managing editor of the Journal of Economic Perspectives, “is that really the right goal here? This wasn’t just inflicted on them like a lightning bolt. Rewarding failure is never the best plan.”

“I think giving (money) to the state governments was probably about as targeted as one could reasonably do,” he said. “It was no more unfair than other possibilities could have been. To have the federal government try to fix things county by county seems insane, especially if you take timely as an important task.”

Administration officials also disagree that targeting communities with high jobless rates would have been a better approach.

“Economic need isn’t bound by county or state lines and, fortunately, neither are the economic benefits of recovery act programs and projects,” said Elizabeth Oxhorn, recovery act spokeswoman for Vice President Joe Biden. “And when it comes to supporting the hardest-hit among us, assistance like unemployment benefits, tax relief and health care are directly targeted to those who need it most, regardless of where they live.”

“Bottom line: It’s working,” Oxhorn said. “Before the recovery act, our economy was losing an average of 750,000 jobs each month. In the first five months of this year, the economy has created nearly half a million new private-sector jobs.”

hard to track spending

Obama also pushed the stimulus bill with a promise that the American people would be able to account for “every penny” that was spent.

However, a year and a half later – despite spending $18 million to launch an unprecedented system for tracking stimulus bill spending – much of the reported funding information doesn’t match the dollars the federal government says it’s paid.

Although the administration reports how much each government agency has spent, that’s only half the story.

When stimulus dollars are spent, they’re funneled through states, agencies and contractors to the “sub-recipients” that build roads, do research or retrain unemployed workers. After they receive the money, states and recipients are supposed to record how they spend it and report those totals to the federal government.

That’s where things get confusing.

The $280 billion set aside for the states came fast and without clear accounting procedures. Moreover, the federal government didn’t include any money for states to hire the people necessary to track the deluge of money.

“I joke that the (stimulus) money came in the nick of time and the worst time,” said Kinney Poynter, executive director of the National Association of State Auditors, Comptrollers and Treasurers. “Many states were already short-staffed. And really there were no policies and procedures that happened this quick and of this magnitude before.”

— Graydon Gordian, Kelsey Snell and Michael Beller – Medill News Service, Aug. 8, 2010 – as published in the Arizona Daily Star

Filed Under: Contracting News Tagged With: ARRA, federal contracting, government trends, recovery, stimulus contract

Government contractors must report subcontractor and executive compensation information

August 4, 2010 By ei2admin

On July 8, 2010, an interim rule was published (75 Fed. Reg. 37414-20) that requires government contractors to report information about their first-tier subcontractors and to report executive compensation for themselves as well as their subcontractors. This information will then be made publicly available at USAspending.gov.

Under the interim rule, contractors are subject to these new reporting requirements:

  1. Information (name, address, etc.) relating to first-tier subcontractors and the amount of each subcontract must be reported. The only exceptions are for classified contracts, contracts to individuals or contracts to those with a gross income of less than $300,000 in the previous year. There are no exceptions for small companies, privately-held companies or companies producing commercial off-the-shelf items.To ease the burden of complying with this requirement, it will be phased in.  Through September 30, 2010, the subcontractor reporting will only be required on newly awarded subcontracts if the prime contract is expected to be worth $20 million or more. From October 1, 2010 through February 28, 2011, reporting will be applicable to newly awarded subcontracts under prime contracts expected to be worth over $550,000. After March 1, 2011, the rule will apply to all non-exempt contracts expected to be over $25,000.The subcontract reporting is to occur by the end of the month following an award, and annually thereafter, by the prime contractors submitting reports to the Federal Funding Accounting and Transparency Act Subaward Reporting System.
     
  2. The names and total compensation (not just limited to salary) from the previous fiscal year of contractors’ and first-tier subcontractors’ top five executives also must be reported. However, this compensation information is required only if the company (prime contractor or first-tier subcontractor): 1) received at least 80 percent of its annual gross revenue from federal contracts, grants and loans; 2) received $25 million from federal awards; and 3) doesn’t already report executives’ compensation publicly (e.g., filed with the SEC).The salary data is to be reported annually as a part of annual updates to the Central Contractor Registration (CCR).

This interim rule is the result of the Federal Funding Accountability and Transparency Act of 2006, co-sponsored by then Senator Barack Obama, which was later amended in 2008. Although some contractors are already required to report this information as a condition of receipt of American Reinvestment and Recovery Act (“ARRA”) funds, the new rule now applies to all federal contracts with the extremely limited exceptions noted above. To enforce these rules, all federal agencies are required to review reports quarterly and use remedies available under the contract to require contractors to comply.

Besides the effort to actually comply with these new reporting requirements, it becomes paramount for prime contractors to flow down provisions to all first-tier subcontractors, including vendor purchase orders, so they can obtain the information needed to satisfy their reporting obligations or to establish any exception to the reporting requirement.

Contractors must report the required information to the Federal Funding Accountability and Transparency Act Sub-award Reporting System (FSRS) at http://www.fsrs.gov/.  The subcontract award data will be posted on the Government’s U.S.A. Spending website. Contractors who fail to comply with the Interim Rule may be subject to contractual remedies, including contract termination.

Filed Under: Contracting Tips Tagged With: ARRA, CCR, compensation, federal contracting, federal regulations, recovery, subcontracting

Existing procurements got bulk of Recovery Act contract dollars

July 30, 2010 By ei2admin

The federal government awarded more than two-thirds of the $26 billion in Recovery Act contract obligations through acquisition vehicles in place before the stimulus bill became law, according to a new report.

Pressure to act quickly on high-priority projects drove officials toward existing contracts, the Government Accountability Office reported on July 21. Officials were not concerned that a contract had been awarded before the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act was enacted in February 2009. When the contract was originally awarded, officials said the government had met its competition requirements, GAO reported.


RELATED STORY: Administration alters reporting rules for stimulus money


As of May, the government has awarded 68 percent of the $26 billion through pre-existing contracts, and 32 percent through new contracts. Of the newly awarded contracts, 89 percent of the funds were awarded competitively. The other 11 percent of the money, awarded without competition, went to companies in small-business programs, GAO reported.

Directed by the Obama administration to spend the stimulus money quickly, program and contracting officials found programs, projects and contracts that would allow them to award the money in a short time. In talking to contracting officers at five federal agencies, GAO said the officials considered both the risks of using non-competitive contracts and the benefits of spending the money faster than going through the process of awarding a new contract.

For example, a sole-source, small-business contract took the Army Corps of Engineers roughly four months to award, while a new competitive contract would have taken more than a year, GAO reported.

The administration objects to sole-source contracts, but GAO found agencies justified their reasons for awarding a contract without competition.

In addition, GAO found that early on inspectors general dedicated more time focusing on work that they believed was of higher risk, rather than looking at contract spending, including contracts awarded without competition.

GAO said it was okay to attend to the riskier projects when agencies were under pressure to spend the money. However, GAO officials are concerned that a lot of contracts have been awarded without competition — and without audits — through the Small Business Administration’s 8(a) Business Development program without audits, according to the report.

It’s significant, GAO said, because, while the 8(a) program has safeguards, they aren’t always set up properly.

In response, Joseph Jordan, SBA’s associate administrator for government contracting, objected to GAO’s implication that the 8(a) program is more susceptible to fraud than other programs.

“Suggestions of wrong-doing without supporting evidence are detrimental to the 8(a) program and its thousands of eligible program participants,” Jordan wrote. Even so, SBA officials have worked to prevent fraud, he added.

Inspectors general from the Defense Department and NASA said they were beginning audits on Recovery Act money. NASA’s IG told GAO it intends to launch audits of the funds, which includes seven contracts that were awarded through the 8(a) program.

In addition, the Energy Department IG didn’t consider its Recovery Act contracting as a high-risk area because a significant portion of the department’s funds went out through grants, according to its response to the GAO report.

— About the Author – Matthew Weigelt is acquisition editor for Federal Computer Week.  Published in Washington Technology – July 22, 2010

 

 

Filed Under: Contracting News Tagged With: 8(a), Army Corps of Engineers, ARRA, DoD, Energy Dept., GAO, NASA, SBA, small business

Administration to require subcontractor reporting

July 16, 2010 By ei2admin

Nearly four years after the passage of legislation that mandated the disclosure of all federal contracting awards, the Obama administration is requiring agencies to report data on its subcontracts.

Beginning immediately, agencies must post information on their first-tier subcontracts, according to an interim rule published on Thursday in the Federal Register. The long-awaited rule, which would amend the Federal Acquisition Regulation, also would require contractors to report the names and salaries of their five highest paid executives.

“The objective of the rule is to empower the American taxpayer with information that may be used to demand greater fiscal discipline from both executive and legislative branches of government,” the notice stated.

The subcontracting provision will be phased in slowly to minimize the burden on agencies and contractors, the administration said.

Until Sept. 30, newly awarded subcontracts must be reported only if the prime contract amount was $20 million or more. From Oct. 1, 2010 to Feb. 28, 2011, the threshold for reporting new subcontract awards will be lowered to $550,000 or more. Beginning on March 1, 2011, all subcontracts for prime contracts of $25,000 or more must be publicly reported.

The rule will be required for all commercial item contracts and actions below the $100,000 simplified acquisition threshold that meet the $25,000 threshold. The clause, however, is not required in classified solicitations and contracts with individuals. Companies with less than $300,000 in annual revenue also would be exempt.

The rule has been a long time in the making. In September 2006, President George W. Bush signed the Federal Funding Accountability and Transparency Act, which created USASpending.gov, a public database on all prime contract awards of more than $25,000. The bill was co-sponsored by then-Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill.

The Transparency Act required federal agencies begin posting subcontracting awards by the start of 2009. The Bush administration conducted a brief pilot program to test the collection of some high-dollar subcontracting awards. But the government terminated the pilot on Jan. 1, 2009, and it was never revived.

The impetus for the law’s revival appears to be the vast breadth of reporting the 2009 American Recovery and Reinvestment Act mandates. The stimulus requires contractors to provide detailed information on their subcontracts, including many of the same data elements that are called for under the Transparency Act. Similar to the Recovery Act, the new rule will apply only to first-tier subcontracts.

Contractors will provide their subcontract reports to the Federal Funding Accountability and Transparency Act Sub-Award Reporting System. The data will be posted later on USASpending.gov.

The salary provision, meanwhile, stems from the 2008 Government Funding Transparency Act, which requires contractors and subcontractors to annually disclose the names and total compensation — including bonuses and stock options — of their five highest paid officers from the preceding fiscal year, the notice said.

The executive compensation rule, which is required for Recovery Act contractors, applies to awards of at least $25,000. Companies must report the salary data to the Central Contractor Registration.

The 2008 law applies to companies earning at least 80 percent of their revenue from federal contracts, grants and loans and that have received in excess of $25 million in total federal funding during the previous year. Companies would be exempt if they already report the salary data through Securities and Exchange Commission reports, or if they earned less than $300,000 in gross income the year before.

The administration is accepting public comments on the interim rule through Sept. 7.

______________________

— By Robert Brodsky- GovExec.com – July 9, 2010

Filed Under: Contracting News Tagged With: ARRA, CCR, federal contracting, subcontracting, thres, transparency

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • Next Page »

Recent Posts

  • Contractors must update EEO poster
  • SBA scorecard shows federal government continues to prioritize small business contracting
  • The risk of organizational conflicts of interest
  • The gap widens between COFC and GAO on late is late rule
  • OMB releases guidance related to small business goals

Popular Topics

8(a) abuse Army bid protest budget budget cuts certification construction contract awards contracting opportunities cybersecurity DoD DOJ False Claims Act FAR federal contracting federal contracts fraud GAO Georgia Tech government contracting government contract training government trends GSA GSA Schedule GTPAC HUBZone innovation IT Justice Dept. marketing NDAA OMB SBA SDVOSB set-aside small business small business goals spending subcontracting technology VA veteran owned business VOSB wosb

Contracting News

SBA scorecard shows federal government continues to prioritize small business contracting

OMB releases guidance related to small business goals

OMB issues guidance on impact of injunction on government contractor vaccine mandate

Changes coming to DOD’s Cybersecurity Maturity Model Certification under CMMC 2.0

Judge issues nationwide injunction halting enforcement of COVID-19 vaccine mandate

Read More

Contracting Tips

Contractors must update EEO poster

The risk of organizational conflicts of interest

The gap widens between COFC and GAO on late is late rule

Are verbal agreements good enough for government contractors?

CMMC 2.0 simplifies requirements but raises risks for government contractors

Read More

GTPAC News

VA direct access program events in 2022

Sandia National Laboratories seeks small business suppliers

Navy OSBP hosting DCAA overview (part 2) event Jan. 12, 2022

Navy OSBP hosting cybersecurity “ask me anything” event Dec. 16th

State of Georgia hosting supplier systems training on January 26, 2022

Read More

Georgia Tech News

Undergraduate enrollment growth reflects inclusive excellence

Georgia Tech delivers $4 billion in economic impact to the State of Georgia

Georgia Tech awards first round of seed grants to support team-based research

Georgia Tech announces inaugural Associate Vice President of Corporate Engagement

DoD funds Georgia Tech to enhance U.S. hypersonics capabilities

Read More

  • SAM.gov registration is free, and help with SAM is free, too
APTAC RSS Twitter GTPAC - 30th Year of Service

Copyright © 2023 · Georgia Tech - Enterprise Innovation Institute