Georgia Tech Procurement Assistance Center

5 tips for making winning bids

By

After spending 30 years in the software business, Greg Mills was seeking a new challenge. That’s why two years ago, he acquired a brass and metal-fixtures manufacturer near Phoenix and renamed it M3 metals. He’s spent the majority of that time seeking ways to modernize and streamline the company, so it can find new customers in the increasingly competitive construction industry.

He isn’t alone. In fact, 34 percent of construction companies said their biggest challenge in their first through fourth years in business was finding new customers, according to a Kabbage® study. That’s more than the 30 percent combined who said they were most concerned with managing cash flow, dealing with regulations, and finding and retaining employees.

Keep reading this article at: https://www.constructiondive.com/news/5-tips-for-making-winning-bids/530192/

Companies barely had to compete for half of the federal contracts awarded in Puerto Rico so far

By

Now that Puerto Rico is moving into recovery and rebuilding after the Hurricane Maria disaster, billions of dollars in federal disaster spending are flowing to the island.  Estimates put hurricane damage at $95 billion, and Puerto Rican Gov. Ricardo Rosselló is asking various federal agencies for $94 billion in grants.

With this much public money on the line, monitoring how U.S. tax dollars are spent in the recovery will be crucial to prevent waste, fraud, and shoddy work. The best way to do that is by awarding contracts through the open bidding process, which allows the largest number of businesses a chance to compete to offer the best deal. These types of contracts generally require more scrutiny and oversight than no-bid deals.

So far, competitive bidding hasn’t been a top priority for federal agencies responding to Hurricane Maria. Nearly half of the 540 federal contracts signed so far (as of November 16), totaling $252 million, were awarded outside the open bidding process, according to federal procurement data.

Keep reading this article at: https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2017/11/17/16618476/puerto-rico-federal-contracts

Lawmakers aim to restrict use of lowest-price contracts

By

A contractors group has welcomed a bipartisan House bill placed in the hopper last month aimed at curbing agency use of lowest price technically acceptable contracts.

The Promoting Value Based Procurement Act (H.R. 3019), introduced by Reps. Mark Meadows, R-N.C., and Don Beyer, D-Va., would amend the Federal Acquisition Regulation to require civilian agencies to align themselves with the Defense Department and stiffen their rationales for resorting to lowest price technically acceptable (LPTA) contracts, which have grown in use in recent years but are controversial.

“Price should not be the sole deciding factor when the federal government is purchasing complex, innovative information technology and engineering systems, where the least expensive option often may not lead to the best long-term value,” Beyer said in a statement to Government Executive. “We can help spur innovation by allowing contractors for certain high-tech procurements to compete on the strengths of their products, not the cost.”

Keep reading this article at: http://www.govexec.com/contracting/2017/07/lawmakers-aim-restrict-use-lowest-price-contracts/139306

Former Georgia National Guard employee and two vendors sentenced in corruption scheme

By

Raytosha Elliott, a former contracting official with the Georgia National Guard, and the owners of two vendor companies have been sentenced to federal prison for a corruption scheme wherein Elliott awarded contracts to the vendors in exchange for illegal kickbacks.

“Elliott took advantage of her position with the Georgia National Guard, and awarded no-bid contracts to her friends in exchange for illegal kickbacks,” said U.S. Attorney John Horn.  “She and two of her friends stole over $150,000 in funds that were intended to maintain defense facilities and instead spent the money on themselves.”

“The sentencing of these individuals to federal prison will not only hold them accountable for their greed based criminal conduct, but will also send a clear message to others that might consider a similar scheme.  The FBI will continue to work with its various law enforcement partners to ensure that those individuals engaged in these types of activities are identified, investigated and presented for federal prosecution,” said J. Britt Johnson, Special Agent in Charge, FBI Atlanta Field Office.

FBI Seal“Corruption at any level diminishes the hard work and dedication of the thousands of government employees who are dedicated to providing honest services to the American public,” stated Veronica F. Hyman-Pillot, Acting Special Agent in Charge. “IRS Criminal Investigation stands committed to weed out individuals who misuse their job as a path to financial success by using greed and corruption.”

“This is a prime example of our determination, along with our fellow law enforcement agencies, to investigate allegations of criminal activity and corruption involving the National Guard and other DOD entities,” said Frank Robey, Director of the U.S. Army Criminal Investigation Command’s Major Procurement Fraud Unit.   “Regardless of the ‘scope and size’ of the allegations, our CID Special Agents are committed to working side-by-side with other agencies to help eradicate this type of activity.”

“The Defense Criminal Investigative Service is committed to protecting the integrity of the DOD contracting process, including the GA National Guard,” said John F. Khin, Special Agent in Charge, Southeast Field Office, Defense Criminal Investigative Service. “This sentencing sends a message to individuals who fail to follow the rules that along with our other law enforcement partners, violators will be brought to justice.”

“Accountability of violators is paramount when dealing with public corruption.  GBI’s partnership with the FBI in the Public Corruption Task Force is essential for continued public trust in Georgia.  When those who violate the law and violate public trust are held accountable, and go to jail – if this occurs, it sends a clear message that public corruption is not acceptable in this state,” said Vernon Keenan, Director, Georgia Bureau of Investigation.

“We hope these sentences serve as a deterrent to those who desire to pilfer the state and federal governments’ coffers. We also believe this case exemplifies how multiple agencies can work together to achieve a common goal: to serve the public who depends on us to defend the integrity of government programs. As in this case, our office will remain dedicated to protecting taxpayers’ money by continuously pursuing fraud, waste, abuse and corruption within the executive branch of state government,” said Deb Wallace, State Inspector General, Georgia Office of the Inspector General.

According to U.S. Attorney Horn, the charges and other information presented in court:  From May 2007 through April 2012, Elliott worked for the Georgia Department of Defense, the state agency charged with coordinating and supervising all agencies and functions of the Georgia National Guard.  Elliott worked as an Engineering Operations Manager at the Clay National Guard Center, located at Dobbins Air Reserve Base, in Marietta, Georgia.

In that position, Elliott worked with engineering firms to develop bid-ready construction projects, prepared bid documents, and oversaw no-bid purchase orders.  Under the rules governing the contracting process that Elliott oversaw, projects that cost less than $5,000 did not need to go through a competitive bidding process, allowing Elliott to award the contracts.  She certified that the work had been completed for those projects, and facilitated payment to the vendors who allegedly completed such projects.

Elliott awarded numerous contracts under $5,000 to vendor companies created by her friends and associates, including co-defendants Lakeysha Ellis and Angela Thicklin (f/k/a Angela Stanback Kinlaw).  In return, Ellis and Thicklin paid Elliott kickbacks, equal to 50% of the value of the contracts, for steering contracts to Ellis’ vendor company, Total Source Solution, LLC, and to Thicklin’s vendor company, 3M Construction LLC.

Elliott awarded Total Source Solution 17 contracts with a total value of approximately $75,000.  Elliott awarded 3M Construction 18 contracts with a total value of approximately $78,000.  The contracts were for a variety of services supposedly to be performed by the two companies, including electrical work, landscaping, and HVAC work.  But the work was never done.  Instead, the defendants split the money awarded under the contracts and spent it on personal items, including travel, meals, and merchandise.  As part of the scheme, Elliott owned a company named Tech Group Investments, LLC.  Ellis and Thicklin took money they received from the Georgia National Guard contracts, and paid kickbacks to Elliott through that company.  Elliott falsely certified that the work had been completed to facilitate payment by the Georgia National Guard.

Elliott and Ellis engaged in a similar fraud scheme from January 2009, through May 2011, when Ellis was an accountant at Baumueller-Nuermont Corporation, an industrial equipment company with offices in Atlanta.  Her job responsibilities included payroll and paying vendors.

While employed as Baumueller-Nuermont’s accountant, Ellis fraudulently funneled money to the defendants’ two sham companies, Total Source Solution and Tech Group Investments.  Ellis wrote corporate checks to Total Source Solution, signed her name on the checks, and forged the signature of the Vice President on the checks, to ensure that the checks could be negotiated.  Ellis recorded these payments in the check registry to reflect falsely that the checks had been issued to true vendors (such as American Express) when in fact they went to Ellis’ company.

As part of the scheme, Ellis also falsified employee records in the corporation’s payroll system to disguise payments to the defendants’ two companies.  Ellis created phantom employees by altering the names of real employees (by switching their first and last names) and slightly changing their Social Security numbers.  She then caused the payroll system to make fraudulent salary payments to Total Source Solution and Tech Group Investments for these new, non-existent employees.

Baumueller-Nuermont lost about $85,000 from this scheme.

Raytosha Elliott, 35, of Atlanta, Georgia, was sentenced yesterday to two years, ten months in prison and three years of supervised release, and ordered to pay $115,902 in restitution to the Georgia National Guard and $26,500 in restitution to Baumueller-Nuermont Corporation by U.S. District Judge Amy Totenberg.  Elliott was also ordered to pay $20,000 in restitution to WebBank based on a fraudulent loan application she submitted to the bank in September 2013.  In that application, Elliott falsely inflated Tech Group Investments’ sales and gross receipts, and provided a fraudulent federal tax return in support of those figures, to obtain the loan. She was also ordered to perform 60 hours community service.

Lakeysha Ellis, 37, of Decatur, Georgia, was sentenced to nine months in prison and three years of supervised release, and three months of home confinement.  She was also ordered to pay $74,902 in restitution to the Georgia National Guard and $81,487.88 in restitution to Baumueller-Nuermont Corporation.  Both defendants previously pleaded guilty to two counts of conspiracy.

Today, Angela Thicklin, 45, of Atlanta, Georgia, was sentenced to one year, nine months in prison and three years of supervised release including ordered to pay $78,640 in restitution to the Georgia National Guard by Judge Totenberg.  Thicklin previously pleaded guilty to one count of conspiracy.

This case was investigated by the Federal Bureau of Investigation; the Georgia Bureau of Investigation; the U.S. Department of Defense, Office of Inspector General, Defense Criminal Investigative Service; Internal Revenue Service Criminal Investigation; the U.S. Army Criminal Investigation Command; and Deputy Inspectors General of the State of Georgia Office of the Inspector General.

Assistant U.S. Attorney Stephen H. McClain prosecuted the case.

Source: http://www.justice.gov/usao-ndga/pr/former-georgia-national-guard-employee-and-two-vendors-sentenced-corruption-scheme

LPTA contracts stifle innovations, contracting officials say

By

Lowest Price, Technically Acceptable (LPTA) contracts might save the government some money, but they deter innovation, a panel of government contracting officials said Monday (May 19, 2014).

“I don’t know a senior leader in government that thinks LPTA is the best,” said Tiffany Hixson, regional commissioner for the General Services Administration. “Contracting and innovation is about risk management.”

But with shrinking budgets, agencies are looking to lower their costs and LPTA contracts do just that, said Robert Coen, acting director of the National Institutes of Health Information Technology Acquisition and Assessment Center.

“There’s way too much LPTA going on,” Coen said at the May 19 ACT-IAC Management of Change Conference. “LPTA should be used for commodity buys, not innovations.”

Keep reading this article at: http://www.fiercegovernment.com/story/lpta-contracts-stifle-innovations-contracting-officials-say/2014-05-20

Why suppliers ‘No Bid’

By

The competitive bidding process is essential to ensure that products and services purchased by public procurement professionals on behalf of their agencies offer the best value and quality. But not all Requests for Proposal (RFPs) and/or Invitations for Bid (IFBs) are created equal. In theory, the bidding process is designed to result in responses from many potential suppliers. However, what if an RFP/IFB does not result in several qualified responses? If leading suppliers in the marketplace choose not to respond, what does that mean?

It’s unlikely suppliers didn’t know about the RFP/IFB or that they were “too busy” to respond. There’s a possibility some small local suppliers may not have the resources to know about potential bidding opportunities, but most regional, national and international companies monitor these opportunities closely.

Let’s look at some potential reasons why a supplier might opt to “No Bid.” The insights can help an agency strengthen its RFP/IFB practices and realize true best-value solutions.

Avoiding the Pitfalls

Here are some potential pitfalls of the RFP/IFB process that can cause a supplier to decide not to bid:

Keep reading this article at: http://americancityandcounty.com/government-procurement/why-suppliers-no-bid?

DLA to make major changes in contractor shipping requirements

By

The Defense Logistics Agency (DLA) plans to make big changes in its contractor shipping requirements.  The changes will take place in October 2013, so if your business sells products to DLA, now is the time to get ready. 

DLA’s new shipping requirements are called First Destination Transportation (FDT), and the new rules apply to the movement of material from suppliers to the first military depot or direct to military customer.  In these instances, shipping will change from FOB destination to FOB origin.

  • FOB is an abbreviation for free on board.  This term is used with the designation of a physical point to determine the responsibility and basis for payment of freight charges and, unless otherwise agreed, the point at which Title for supplies passes to the buyer of consignee.  (The policies on designation of contracts as FOB Origin or FOB Destination are set forth in FAR 47.3.)
  • Irrespective of whether a contract is designated as FOB Origin or FOB Destination, the government bears the cost of shipping (either as part of the item price under FOB Destination or separately under FOB Origin).   An important consideration between the two designations, however, is who bears risk for damage or loss of the item during shipment.  Typically, under FOB Destination, the seller bears the risk of loss or damage to the item during shipment.  Under FOB Origin, the buyer typically bears the risk of loss or damage to the item during shipment.

Slated to begin with solicitations and awards in late October 2013, DLA’s new FDT rules will require the removal of transportation-related cost from contractor bids.  Shipping will be designated FOB Origin, thus contractors need only be concerned with quoting the associated costs of manufacturing their products.  Products affected by the October roll-out will be those labeled as Class IX consumables and some Class IV and VII materials to CONUS destinations. Supply Chains included in the FDT initiative are: Aviation, Land and Maritime, Construction and Equipment, and Industrial Hardware.

According to DLA, the new FDT rules mean that geography will no longer play a part in competitive bidding because distance-based shipping expenses will not have to be factored into bids.   The drawdown of troops from Afghanistan signals a reduction of necessary parts and supplies to U.S. troops.  Contractors who utilize this change in transportation terms, and find additional avenues for cutting costs, will find their reward in additional business opportunities.

In these uncertain budgetary times, DLA is challenged to decrease costs at the same time as being challenged with increased support to the troops in both the U.S. and abroad.  It is DLA’s goal to take control of its supply chain by improving in-transit visibility (ITV) and dock productivity as well as safety stock requirements.  ITV offers opportunities to consolidate.  Loading fewer, fuller trucks increases DLA’s effectiveness and reduces its carbon footprint.

Once the FDT rules become effective, vendors are advised that before  submitting a bid (minus the cost of transportation), they will need to Log In and subscribe to DLA’s Vendor Shipment Module (VSM).   VSM is the vehicle by which vendors will notify DLA’s transportation team that a shipment is ready for pick up.  No matter the size or weight, VSM will assess the information provide by vendors, assign the carrier best suited for the shipment, and notify the vendor of the carrier choice. At that time, VSM will allow each vendor to access its own contract information in order to print a commercial bill of lading, military shipping labels, packing slip, address labels and small parcel carrier labels.

For VSM registration and instruction, please click on the link below.   A Help Desk is available and can be reached by email at delivery@dla.mil or by phone Monday through Friday, between the hours of 6:00 am and 6:30 pm Eastern Time, at 800-456-5507.

Will you be ready for this change in October 2013?  Now is the time to register for VSM:  https://vsm.distribution.dla.mil/   Watch for solicitations that use the freight term FOB Origin, and don’t forget to sharpen your pencil!

For more information on FDT, visit: http://www.dla.mil/FDTPI/Pages/default.aspx#transportation.

How to win contracts when lowest price is the highest measure

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

Despite push for competition, no-bid contracts increase and small business awards decline

By

President Obama in 2009 told federal agencies that no-bid contracts were “wasteful’’ and “inefficient.’’ Four years later, his administration spent more money on non-competitive contracts than ever before.

Federal agencies awarded $115.2 billion in no-bid contracts in fiscal year 2012, an 8.9 increase from $105.8 billion from 2009, according to government data. The jump unfolded even as total contract spending decreased by about 5 percent. Lockheed Martin, Boeing and Raytheon were top recipients of sole-source contracts.

Those top Pentagon vendors and other large contractors can draw on established relationships with procurement officers to claim a greater share of non-competitive work, said Robert Burton, former acting administrator of the Office of Federal Procurement Policy under George W. Bush.

“It highlights a growing problem in the procurement system,’’ said Burton, who represents contractors as a partner at Venable in Washington. “The pie is shrinking, but at the same time, the number of non-competitive awards has increased. That’s a bad combination.”

Keep reading this article at: http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/no-bid-us-government-contracts-jump-9-percent-despite-push-for-competition/2013/03/17/9f6708fc-8da0-11e2-b63f-f53fb9f2fcb4_print.html 

Georgia DOAS: Two simple steps to a more successful bid

By

The Georgia Department of Administrative Services (DOAS) recently published an article highlighting two mistakes most often made by bidders on State contracts.  The article is reprinted below in its entirety.

We know: Successfully competing for statewide contracts is not easy!

However, you can improve your chances, regardless of the form of business and the type of solicitation.

Here are two of the most common setbacks to successful submissions and their fool-proof remedies:

Setback #1: Waiting Until the Last Minute

Procrastination is one of the leading culprits to unsuccessful bids. Rarely are extensions to solicitation deadlines allowed. State law deems incomplete bids unacceptable.

Time and time again, suppliers don’t begin to post their response until minutes before the solicitation closes and more often than not, they are unable to place a bid. Typically, suppliers are just unfamiliar with the system or with the procurement processes and required documents.

Bid posts and any number of changes are permitted, but only before the bid closes. All suppliers are encouraged to allow a full week for initially submitting their bid and then up to the last hour before the bid closes for edits or changes. This method should give ample time for inputting error-free responses and ensuring that all required documents are uploaded and burning questions are answered.

Setback #2: Neglecting Your Profile

Once a supplier registers in Team Georgia Marketplace™, it can be easy to forget about maintaining your profile. However, this simple mistake can have a huge impact on a supplier successfully bidding and acquiring a state contract.

Staff come and go, but if the right organizational representative and his or her contact information is not in the system, you are leaving it up to chance as to whether you will be able to make timely submissions for contract bids. Team Georgia Marketplace™ will only send electronic bid notices to persons with registered emails.

Similarly, Team Georgia Marketplace™ will only send electronic bid notices for registered NIGP codes. When your business’ product or service lines change, update your profile. Regular profile maintenance will ensure that you don’t receive invitations unrelated to your business or miss receiving appropriate bids altogether. Don’t miss business opportunities because you failed to receive the invitation to bid. Update your profile every six months to a year.

Believe it or not, there is another added benefit to maintaining your Team Georgia Marketplace™ profiles. DOAS tracks Georgia spend with resident small businesses and reports this information to the Governor’s Office. Small business spending statistics are used by Georgia legislators in making important decisions. All suppliers are asked to review their profiles for accuracy and to update as necessary, especially if they meet the state’s new definition of small business.

(The State of Georgia’s small business definition: A Georgia-resident business that is independently owned and operated. In addition, such a business must either have fewer than 300 employees or less than $30 million in gross receipts per year.)

Contracting News

Read More

Contracting Tips

Read More

GTPAC News

Read More

Georgia Tech News

Read More