Government procurement in the United States

src: www.governmentcontractsusa.com

Government procurement in the United States is the process by which the United States Federal Government acquires goods, services (primarily construction), and interest in real property. In FY 2016 alone, the US Federal Government spends $ 461 billion on contracts. Contracts for Government procurement typically involve funds allocated for inventory, service, and interest in real property by and for Federal Government use through purchases or leases, whether supplies, services or interests are present or must be developed, demonstrated and evaluated. View 48 C.F.R. Ã,§ 2.101 ("Acquisition" is defined, just like goods and services only). The Federal Government contracts have the same legal elements as contracts between private parties: legitimate objectives, competent contracting parties, bids, receipts in accordance with bid conditions, obligation mutuality, and consideration. However, the Federal contract is much more regulated, subject to the volume of laws relating to Federal contracts and Federal contracting processes, mostly in Titles 10, 31, 40, and 41 of the United States Code.

Private parties that enter into contracts with one another (ie, commercial contracts) are more free to set various terms of the contract with mutual consent than private parties who enter into contracts with the Federal Government. Each private party represents its own interests and may oblige itself in any legitimate way. The Federal Government Contract allows for contractual provisions by mutual agreement of the parties, but many areas dealt with by mutual agreement in commercial contracts are controlled by law in Federal contracts and legally require the use of specified terms and clauses. In a commercial contract, in which one or both parties may be represented by an agent whose powers are controlled by an agency law, agents are usually permitted to form contracts with reference only to accept a commercial sense of fairness and possibly some applicable law. In Federal Government contracts, special regulatory authorities are required for Government agencies to enter into contracts, and that the agency's bargaining authority is strictly controlled by laws and regulations that reflect national policy choices and prudential limitations on the right of Federal employees to oblige Federal funds. In contrast, in commercial contracts, the law allows any party to rely on the authority of the other party to enter into binding contracts on mutually agreed terms.

The authority of an Officer, a Government agent, to contract on behalf of the Government is stipulated in a public document (warrant) that a person in connection with the Contractor's Officer may review. Contractor Officer has no authority to act outside this warrant or to deviate from the laws and regulations that control the Federal Government contract. The private contracting party is held to know the limitations of the authority of the Contractor Officer, even if the Contractor Officer does not. This makes the contract with the United States a more structured and limited process than a commercial one.

Video Government procurement in the United States

Coverage

The Federal Procurement Report provides contract data that can be used for geographic, market, and socio-economic analyzes, as well as to measure and assess the impact of acquisition and management improvement policies.

In Fiscal Year 2010, the top five departments with mandatory dollars are:

• Department of Defense ($ 365.9 bn)
• Department of Energy ($ 25.7 bn)
• Health and Human Services ($ 19.0 bn)
• General Services Administration ($ 17.6 bn)
• NASA ($ 16.0 bn).

The Top 100 Contractors for Fiscal Year 2009 report records contracts worth $ 294.6 billion, the top five consisting of aerospace and defense contractors:

• Lockheed Martin ($ 38.5 bn)
• Boeing ($ 22.0 bn)
• Northrop Grumman ($ 19.7 billion)
• General Dynamics ($ 16.4 bn)
• Raytheon ($ 16.1 bn)

In the same period, small business contracts totaled $ 96.8 billion.

Maps Government procurement in the United States

Legal

The authority of the Federal Government to enter into the contract stems from the US Constitution, which defines its power. The Federal Government acts through the laws, treaties, implementing regulations, and execution of such authorities. The power of the Federal Government to contract is not strictly and specifically regulated in the US Constitution. However, the US Constitution seems to regard the continued vitality of "Involvement" entering under the Confederate Budget. US Constitution, Art. VI. Moreover, the power to contract is and is regarded as a law always associated with the execution of the Federal Government against other forces. The initial Case of the Supreme Court, United States v. Thomas Tingey , 30 Pet. 5 US. 115 (1831), recognizes that the United States Government has the right to sign the contract. This is an incident against the general right of sovereignty, and the United States, perhaps, within the scope of constitutional powers acknowledges it and through the intermediation of the proper department to which it is told, enters into a contract not prohibited by law. and in accordance with the fair exercise of that power. A number of laws now also expressly authorize departments and agencies to make contracts. The US Congress passed a law defining additional processes and legislation that provide funds. The executive branch agent enters into the contract and spends funds to achieve the congressally determined mission. When disputes arise, the administrative process within the institution may solve them, or the contractor may appeal to the court.

The procurement process for executive branch institutions (as distinguished from the legislative or judicial bodies) is governed mainly by the Law on Procurement of Armed Services and the Federal Property and Administration Act. To address many of the rules imposed by Congress and the courts, an administrative legal entity has been developed through Federal Acquisition Regulations. This 53-section rule defines the procurement process including special preference programs, and includes the specific language of many clauses in Government contracts. Most agencies also have additional regulatory coverage contained in what is known as FAR Supplements. This supplement appears in the Code of Federal Regulation (CFR) volume of each institution. For example, the Department of Defense (DOD) FAR Supplement can be found at 10 CFR.

Government contracts are governed by federal Federal law, a separate and distinct legal entity of the legal entity applicable to most businesses - the Uniform Commercial Code (UCC) and the general law of contract. UCC applies to contracts for the purchase and sale of goods, and for contracts of security interest in non-land property. The UCC is a legal entity legalized by the US state legislature and generally uniform among states. The general law of contract, which applies when the UCC is not, is largely common law, and is also similar across states, whose courts see decisions on each other when there is no precedent within the state.

The direct contract between the Government and its contractor (the "main contract") is governed by federal law. Contracts between the main contractor and its subcontractors are governed by the contract law of each state. The difference between the legal framework can put pressure on the main contractor.

United States Constitution

The authority to purchase is not one of the explicitly mentioned authorities granted to the Federal Government by Article 8 of Article One of the Constitution of the United States, but the courts find that power is implied in the Constitution's power to make the necessary and appropriate legislation to carry it out. special powers given, such as the power to establish post offices, postal streets, banks, soldiers, navy, or militia.

Statute

Behind every Federal Government acquisition is a law that allows it and gives money for it. This is usually covered by authorization and licensing laws. Generally, this law does not affect the acquisition process itself, although the allocation process has been used to amend the procurement law, especially with the Federal Acquisition Reform Act (FARA) and the Federal Aququisitions Streamlining Act (FASA). Other relevant laws include the Federal Property and Administration Act of 1949, the Armed Services Procurement Act (ASPA) and the Antidenficiency Act.

Antideficiency Act

The US Federal fiscal law is about the oversight of the Executive Branch Congress, not primarily to accomplish a completed mission or get a good deal for the Government. Fiscal laws often prevent Government agencies from signing agreements to be signed by commercial entities. Therefore, fiscal legislation may limit Federal agencies from the quickest, easiest, or cheapest way to achieve their mission. Supervision mandated by the Constitution on the use of public funds is attributed to the principle of checks and balances. Good working relationships and strong communication between the Executive and Legislative branches are key to avoiding problems in this area.

Teeth for fiscal legislation are derived from the Anti-Reflection Act (ADA), which stipulates that nothing can oblige the Government to make payments for which money has not been adjusted. The ADA also prohibits the Government from receiving haphazard services without explicit legal authority. In particular, an ADA violation occurs when a Federal agency uses a customized fund for a different purpose than that specified in an allocation action that provides funds to the agency. ADA is directly linked to several other fiscal laws, the Goal and Bona Fide Requirements Rules.

Money adjusted for one purpose can not be used for different purposes, according to the Objective Act (31 U.S.C.Ã,§Ã, 1301). The annual DoD action includes about 100 different allocations (known as "color of money"), and with this rule the operation and maintenance (O & amp; M) funds can not be used to buy weapons. Even expenditures within a clear scope of an appropriation may not be permitted if there is a more specific appropriation or agency has made a previous election of funds in contravention of the use of the proposed funds. For example, O & M funds can be used to purchase repair parts, but if parts are needed to affect the extension of service life that is no longer fixed but reimbursements - procurement funds should be used if the total cost is more than $ 250,000 (otherwise known as the threshold Other Procurement, for example, threshold of Procurement of Other Soldiers (OPA)) or other procurement is available such as armored vehicles or weapon deprivation.

A violation of the Antideficiency Act can also occur when a contract uses funds in a period that is beyond the time period the funds are allowed to be used under what is known as the Bona Fide Needs rule (31 USC 1502), which provides: "The balance of long-term appropriations is only available for payment of expenses issued correctly during the period of availability or to complete the contracts made correctly within the period. "

The Bona Fide Requirement Rule is a basic principle of allocation law that governs the availability of time of agency appropriation. 73 Comp. Genesis 77, 79 (1994); 64 Comp. Genesis 410, 414-15 (1985). The rule specifies that appropriations are available for liability only to meet the original or bonafide requirements of the period of availability made. 73 Comp. Genesis 77, 79 (1994). This applies to all Federal Government activities carried out with adjusted funds, including contracts, grants, and cooperative agreement transactions. 73 Comp. General 77, 78-79 (1994). An agency's compliance with a bona fide requirement rule is measured at the time the agency issues an obligation, and depends on the purpose of the transaction and the nature of the obligation included. 61 Comp. Genesis 184, 186 (1981) (the determination of accountable needs depends on the facts and circumstances of the particular case). In the context of grants, liabilities occur at the time of awarding. 31 Comp. Genesis 608 (1952). See also 31 U.S.C. Seconds. 1501 (a) (5) (B). Simply put, this rule states that the Executive Branch can only use the current funds for current needs - they can not buy goods that benefit the appropriation period next year (ie, 1 October to 30 September) without any special exception. The net result of this rule is expiry funds after the credibility date of their availability. For example, the one-year fund expires on October 1 of the year following its application (ie, the allocation of FY07. (Eg, October 1, 2006 to September 30, 2007) ends on October 1, 2007).

For example, operations and maintenance funds generally can not be used to purchase inventory after September 30 of their year is adjusted for a few exceptions - 1) exempt service disconnected under 10 USC 2410 and A/34 Office of Management and Budget (OMB), Instruction on Implementation Budget, 2) Official storage level exclusion and 3) long lead time exceptions. (See https://www.safaq.hq.af.mil/contracting/affars/fiscal-law/bona-fide-need.doc) The Government Accounting Principles Principles of the Federal Allocation Act (otherwise known as GAO Redbook at http://www.gao.gov/legal.htm) has a detailed discussion of fiscal law rules that directly impact the ability of Federal agencies to contract with the private sector.

Bid identical

Executive Order President Kennedy 10936 of 24 April 1961 requires federal agents to investigate and report on identical offers received in connection with the procurement of goods or services. It was repealed by President Reagan in 1983 by the Executive Order 12430.

Kennedy's orders reflect the concern that "the prevalence of an identical offering is harmful to the effective functioning of a competitive supply system" and that "the same offer [may] be evidence of a conspiracy to monopolize or restrain trade or commerce". The Reagan order states that the requirement "proves ineffective" and "consumes [d] resources that can be used in a more effective way to prevent antitrust violations".

FASA

• Federal Improvement Streamlining Act of 1994 (FASA) Pub. L. No. 103-355, 108 Stat. 3243
• 10 U.S.C. Ã,§ 2323 has a language similar to FASA for Department of Defense (DoD), NASA, and Coast Guard. Under this law, Congress extended the affirmative action authority granted DoD by 10 U.S.C. Ã,§ 2323 to all Federal Government agencies. See 15 U.S.C. Ã,§ 644 records. The regulation to enforce the authority was postponed because of the decision at Adarand Constructors v. PeÃÆ' Â ± a, 515 U.S. 200 (1995). See 60 Fed. Reg. 48,258 (September 18, 1995). See 61 Fed. Reg. 26,042 (May 23, 1996) (proposing reforms for affirmative action in Federal procurement) for the basis of the rules for implementing this FASA provision. See 62 Fed. Reg. 25,648 (May 9, 1997) for the Government's response to comments on the proposal, and 62 Fed. Reg. 25,786 (May 9, 1997) (proposed legislation), 63 Fed. Reg. 35,719 (June 30, 1998) (provisional rules), and 63 Fed. Reg. 36.120 (July 1, 1998) (provisional rules), Federal Acquisition Regulations, Affirmative Action Reforms in Federal Procurement that handle Public Service Administration (GSA), NASA, and Department of Defense.

Federal Acquisition Rule

The procurement process is subject to laws and regulations that are separate from the authorization and appropriation process. This Regulation is included in the Code of Federal Regulations ("CFR"), a list of omnibus government regulations, as Title 48. Chapter 1 of Title 48 is usually called the Federal Acquisition Regulations ("FAR"). The remaining chapters of Title 48 are supplements for FAR for specific institutions.

The process for announcing regulations including Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) includes the publication of proposed rules in the Federal Register and acceptance of comments from the public before issuing regulations. The Court treats FAR as "the strength and influence of the law", and the Contractor Officers have no authority to deviate from it. Supplements to FAR have been issued following the same process, and have similar strengths and effects.

The FAR and its supplements allow for substantial variations from purchasing paperclips to warships. Contractor and contractor officers should strive to achieve their sometimes conflicting goals while following the regulatory requirements. As with any complex document (in book form, Title 48 of CFR requires several shelves), FAR and its supplements can be interpreted differently by different people.

src: cdn.vox-cdn.com

The acquisition process

In general, the Federal acquisition begins with the identification of requirements by certain Federal activities. A basic idea of ​​what is needed and a problem statement is prepared and the activity requiring meets with the order of acquisition with a Contract Officer with an appropriate warrant issued by a particular acquisition activity.

Contract officials have different thresholds and contractual capabilities. Each has a special warrant stating the conditions under which they are allowed to engage in a Federal contract. Depending on the contract activity, some contract officers may not have any experience with questionable products, services or requirements or knowledge of one of the potential vendor bases, creating weaknesses in the Government procurement process.

Preparing proposal

Often, the contractor's proposal in response to a Request for Proposal (RFP) incorporates an exact copy of the RFP work statement. The responses of the offeror usually indicate their approach to performing a statement of work, their approach to managing a program or project, and examples of past performance on similar projects in size, scope, and complexity.

Scoring evaluators punish proposals that contain "fluff" or generic information that is not directly related to the specifics of the call - the need of the Government, the factor of source selection and employment statement or performance specification. Charts and other infographics can help the proposal. Examples are: a six-line chart of the most convincing credentials from the contractor's key personnel, or including a uniformed security guard image on a page depicting the contractor's uniform. Professional proposal writers often have graphic design experience.

The proposal may be too long, causing the government's source selection authority to pass through. The government's source selection team may not want to spend much time on acquisition resources. Also, it is possible for vendors to put too much information into proposals that do not go into the center of the acquisition, especially information that is not related to source selection criteria and employment statements.

For a simple acquisition, the government's source selection authority has responded positively to proposals that emphasize experience with specific requirements sought by the Government for sources and information about how a product or service will meet the needs of the Government as stated in the source selection and job declaration factors.

Contractors should also be aware of whether prices are more important than non-price factors. Where prices are more important than non-price factors, then the lowest bidder that is technically acceptable given the source selection factor and the requirements of the employment statement will be selected. Where the solicitation indicates that the requirement is to obtain the best value, the contractor should develop their proposal to emphasize how the proposed technical solution will meet every source selection and choice.

For more complex acquisitions, the source selection authority will be interested in how the contractor will produce non-service services or deliverables. Thus, employment plans, methodologies for yielding, past experience, ISO certification, and other information indicating that risks to Government acquisitions have been identified and reduced should be rated higher than other proposals that do not indicate such information. However, it is important that the first proposal and especially address the work request statement or technical specifications and source selection factors.

The contractor should also be wary of the contractual clauses in the contract to include requirements for certain standards not directly related to the shipment intended to include small or minority provisioning requirements, Davis-Bacon (basically local union worker level should be used), special accounting standards , certain certifications, etc.

Planning

Activities that are in need and Contractor Officers, ideally, will start acquisition planning as the first step towards Federal acquisition. The acquisition planning is described in FAR Section 7, Acquisition Planning, and any additional agents for FAR, for example, Defense FAR Supplement (DFARS) 207, Acquisition Planning. Components to agents, such as the US Army, as well as individual contractual orders concerned often also have acquisition instructions that include additional instructions on acquisition planning. For example, the US Army should follow AFARS Section 7, Acquisition Planning.

Acquisition planning often depends on the circumstances. For example, during World War II, quantity was the key. As in the Civil War, the US achieved victory because it was largely an American industrial base. A friction war requires a large amount of material, but does not necessarily have great qualities. During the Cold War, quality was the key. The United States may not have as much equipment as their opposition, but the equipment could be more effective, efficient, or deadly, and offset the numerical superiority of the opposition. Currently, the military needs equipment that works where it is needed, reliable, has high maintenance levels, has long-term reliability, is agile, versatile, and avoids the choice of equipment that generates political debate and partisan politics.

As part of the acquisition planning process, the Government must overcome purchasing power. Many acquisition orders The government writes acquisitions solely based on a haphazard acquisition strategy that is primarily aimed at avoiding bidding protests. Thus, it is necessary to emphasize competition and understand the acquisition from the point of view of the contractor; The government's acquisition order should ask what it wants to achieve and whether the program is really in the best interests of the Government.

Many Federal acquisitions are in a hurry due to bad time management. In this case, the tendency is to issue a single source contract for a known vendor even though FAR Part 6 specifically forbids the single source contractor at the time due to the lack of advanced planning. There is also a high cost premium that is added to the cost of the acquisition when the buyer wants suppliers/vendors to rush into contracts or push their contracts to the head of all other contractor/vendor jobs. It's often said that "if you want it bad you will get it badly." Thus, poor acquisition planning generally results in poor and unjustifiable acquisition results. Thus, it is important to understand the time resources needed to plan and implement Federal acquisitions. Generally, Government acquisitions for medium to complex needs require at least 120 days.

The acquisition plan may have many elements as listed in FAR 7105; depending on the estimated cost of the acquisition, these elements include:

• Statement of needs and background
• Applicable conditions
• Cost
• Life cycle cost if applicable
• Ability or performance
• Delivery or performance requirements
• Sacrifices - the expected consequences of reciprocity between cost, ability, and schedule
• Milestone graphs depicting acquisition goals
• Action plan
• Potential sources
• Competition plan - whether full and open competition is used, and if not, justification
• The source selection procedure
• Considerations of acquisition
• Potential government information, equipment or services
• Security and/or style protection considerations
• Budgeting and funding
• Product or service description
• Logistical considerations
• Environmental considerations
• Contract administration issues
• Participants in the preparation of the acquisition plan (including the source selection committee)

During the acquisition planning, some key aspects of the effort are decided, including:

• The level of competition required under FAR Part 6, Competition Requirements (ie, full and open competition, full and open competition after source exclusion, or apart from full and open competition, also called "single source")
• Publishing requirements for acquisition (FAR Part 5, Publish Contract Action)
• Preparation of SOW/PWS - documents that determine "who, what, when, where, how" of the contract; it must be sufficiently specific that the contractor meets the requirements properly and can be enforced in court. Measurable results should be clearly stated.
• The amount and type of funding required for the proposed acquisition
• Structure of contract line numbers (CLIN): this is generally in Part B of published contracts built in the Uniform Contract Format. CLIN's schedule is the offer price in their offer/proposal. It is often advantageous to create a CLIN Schedule that matches the outline of a work statement. Failure to properly structure a CLIN into the contents of a work statement can lead to an inability to determine how many contractors should be paid or penalized if performance problems arise.
• Source selection criteria (SSC): Source selection criteria "1) Represents key areas of importance and emphasis to be considered in decision on source selection, and (2) Supports meaningful comparisons and discrimination between and between competing proposals." (FAR 15.304, Evaluation factors and significant subfactors).
• Independent Government cost estimates
• Market research: Market research is an essential part of knowledge-based acquisitions. Information retrieval based on information and information requires complete information to carry out successful acquisitions. FAR Part 10, Market Research, provides guidance on market research processes and its role in Federal acquisitions.
• Acquisition Risk: The risk in the contract falls into three categories - scheduling risk, performance risk and cost risk. Risks to acquisitions, including negative past experience, should be identified and mitigation measures and risk allocation between Government and potential vendors determined.
• The government provides equipment, resources, support or information: Often, the Government must provide equipment, logistical support, information, and many other things that are essential to the performance of a contract. If there is ownership information in the information provided by the Government (GFI), then action must be taken to avoid violations of applicable regulations.

Effective market research helps the Government in:

• understand industrial terminology,
• understand basic concepts of desired service or equipment,
• identify potential contractors who provide the goods
• determine the scope of the correct requirements to best fit the vendor base
• The lack of adequate market research often results in contracts that fail to meet customer expectations. Requiring activities are sometimes required to write a work statement about a subject with little experience. People with little knowledge of how to conduct market research should seek training or guidance or apply the same common sense that they will use if they buy high value items for themselves.

Stripped Down Components

1. Employment statement: List provided with performance specifications and objectives if not a service contract (no brand name except for example)

• • Measurable results in service contract
  • Construction or architecture & amp; engineering (A & amp; E) (FAR Section 36)
  • Schedule/milestone (included in the job statement)

1. CLINS is closely matched to the work statement structure/framework
2. Source selection criteria

Risk

Contracts are all about risk allocation and minimize risk to include cost, schedule and performance. The more vague contract of employment statement, the more risks assumed by the Government.

• Risks from the Program Manager, Contract and Investor Perspective:

Risk. Measures of inability to achieve program objectives within defined cost and schedule limits. Risks are associated with all aspects of the program, eg, threats, technology, design processes, Work Breakdown elements (WBS), etc. It has two components, the possibility of failing to achieve a certain result, and the consequences of failure to achieve that result.

• Risk from a Lawyer's point of view:

Does this contract adequately describe all important work/expectations, is there a schedule and is it workable? What is our treatment, if any?

Requires activities and contract workers often want to get acquisitions on contract as soon as possible; sometimes too soon. Thus, contractual and acquisition attorneys often have to carefully review the overall acquisition to identify risks to costs, schedules and performance and recommend mitigation measures to reduce these risk areas.

• Risk from Investor's point of view:

What rewards do I expect? The greater the expected result, the greater the associated risk, and vice versa. The investor, who is a shareholder in the contracting company, will endeavor to carefully balance the expected returns with related risks, and he is given an incentive to seek great results, as long as the risks are acceptable. This perspective is unique in the sense that risk represents the opportunities and dangers for Investors, while it is only a danger to Program Managers and Lawyers.

In other words, there is an inequality in risk perception between Program Manager, Lawyer, and Investor. In the end is an Investor who owns a contracting company, and this dissonance will affect Investor's behavior and stock performance.

Overbundling needs

Cost, schedule, and performance risks can be increased by over-bundling requirements into a single acquisition vehicle. Over-bundling dries up possible vendor bases that might compete for needs. Thus, it is imperative that an evaluation of possible vendors who may compete for overall results/statements can be completed. For example, having a working statement for asphalt roads, space shuttles, hot dog carts, movie projectors and skyscrapers might not get a good vendor; only the main integrator will bid on this type of bloated requirement, thereby accumulating an enormous amount of overhead into the acquisition price. In the best case scenario, the main integrator will only go out and contract with the vendor that should have been done by the Government from the beginning. The worst case is the main integrator who will be wrong in outsourcing to their subcontractors and bad results will happen. Overhead costs of more than 100% of subcontractor prices are not uncommon in this situation, especially in Iraq. This analysis will often require the separation of needs into different parts. Grouping requirements also have a very bad effect making SSC and CLIN structures difficult to use in source selection, price evaluation and contract administration.

Excessive requirements often suffer from very vague requirements and employment statements, especially in service contracts. In a service contract, the CLIN structure is priced per person per hour and not on self-delivered service work. The ability of governments or contractors to prepare cost or price estimates for vague work declarations is very limited; Thus, the Government will negotiate the level of manpower, number of persons and individual qualifications for the given requirements which is the only feasible way to get cost ideas. However, the use of per-hour/per-hour price for services is a bad contract practice as the Government maintains almost all performance risks, costs and timetables provided by contractors are fully undertaken under CLIN statements when they provide qualified bodies, rather than providing required services. One can say that CLIN statements are overworked even in well-written work statements and work prices per person/hour with the limits on the number of persons and types of qualifications that contractors can use contrary to employment The given statement means the Government has requested the contractor to establish the contract price has no relation to the work itself and the Government directs the contractor on how to implement the requirements - thereby disrupting the contractor's performance and the sign of employer-employee relationships rather than independent contractual relationships. Also, a CLIN structure that rates per person per basis or per hour generally pays for those people on a yearly basis not just for services on a la carte or as needed, hence raising costs in most cases. Pricing per person or hour is a sign that the contract may also qualify as a private service contract under FAR Part 37 - technically violates at least the spirit, if not the letter, of the Classification Act and FAR Part 37 except in special circumstances and with determination and special findings.

The use of major integrators in excessive contracts has sometimes led to poor results in a number of major system acquisitions. For example, what would happen if the US Navy went too far in allowing the contractor to make economically reasonable choices in a special acquisition but add the cost to the Navy as a whole? Examples are the main integrators that get a lot of things on certain radar systems that are not used in other ship systems - making these particular purchases cheaper but overall costing them enormously because of the lack of interoperability that drives the need to stand in training schools, supply systems, increase in manpower, etc.

Over-bundling makes it easy to contract, but often, especially for complicated acquisitions, does not deliver the results expected by customers or combatants for complex acquisitions, especially acquisitions that the acquisition order in question has little experience with or has substantial change. more than personnel during the acquisition period.

Small business acquisitions have mandatory limits for over-bundling. However, non-small business acquisitions are not subject to the same rules.

Examples of how over-bundling causes major problems (permutations and evaluation of total prices in source selection): Let's say the activities in need of getting a voting service. Acquisition planning revealed there were five polls in ten different areas. However, it turns out the Government will only order one out of five polls in real numbers and certain polls are much more expensive in the true cost than the other four. If a weighting scheme is not applied to these bundled requirements, vendors can make four highly ordered polls in their offer and high volume polls are very expensive, based on their knowledge of Government ordering patterns in previous acquisitions. Thus, on his face, the overall price of the offer when each poll is added together to arrive at the total price (used in source selection) will look attractive but in practice, the Government will burn through its budget very quickly considering the vast majority of polls booked very expensive (although the actual cost of polls most often ordered is much less than offered). To avoid the headache of weighting schemes, all five polls must be separated and contracted separately so that they can be judged on the basis of their superiority. This is an example of what is often done on a large unlimited duration, an unlimited quantity contract (IDIQ) and explains why some acquisitions are very expensive and require additional funding to achieve the objectives of the activity in need.

Working statement

A work statement (SOW) is a formal document submitted along with a request for a proposal (RFP) to the vendor specifying the work to be performed, the location of the job, the schedule to be submitted, the applicable performance standards, any specific requirements (eg security permits, travel, and specialized knowledge), and performance period.

Source selection

The Procurement Integrity Act (PIA) applies to personnel engaged in Federal source selection to include a ban on gifts to resource selection personnel, restrictions on the dissemination of sensitive information on procurement and post-government restrictions on work.

Source selection refers to a process for evaluating proposals or contract quotations submitted in response to a request for a proposal (RFP) or quotation request (RFQ) based on a contract request. Source selection is encouraged by any instruction for the complement clause included in the contract request (eg, FAR 52.212-2 with language tailored to the source selection criteria, weighting, etc.).

After the activities that require writing their SOW/PWS, find the source selection approach, then select the factors and subfactors, then find the weighting of non-cost/price factors, then understand the consequences above, they write the source selection plan (SSP). The SSP instructs the source selection committee on how to evaluate each proposal. The court will be subject to business considerations of the source selection committee, so facts should be included to base the decision on; source selection committees should not be arbitrary or have no facts in the record for their findings.

In the end, risk evaluation is the place that the resource selection team wants. That is what is used to define significant weaknesses, weaknesses and disadvantages, given to unsuccessful bidders. Creating a relationship between risk evaluation/criteria/source selection factor and bid proposal is a resource choice

The process used for source selection can be selected from FAR Section 13, Simple Acquisition, 14, Closed Offer or 15, Contract through Negotiation.

Contractors competing for Government requirements have the opportunity to request clarification or amendment of a statement or a work request. Clarification requests must be made relatively early in the acquisition process, preferably as close to the publication of the application, RFQ, RFP or other publications. The contracting officer will often approve the clarification if the contractor's request makes sense.

The main principles for source selection:

• Tell them what your foundation will award them (the reward criteria) (let them know)
• A gift based on what you say you will give based on (do what you say you will do)
• Document what you do. (Tell them that you did what you said you would do in the first place) Better as long as it makes sense.
• If the discussion is held, read the offer protest at the first discussion to make sure you understand how to do it.
• Competitive Ranges - Defined in FAR 15,305 (c) - used "if discussion is to be done...." The Competitive Range is the tool you use when you expect many proposals so only the most competitive proposal needs to be evaluated. FAR 15,209: "If the Government intends to make a decision AFTER DISCUSSION WITH SUPPLY IN THE COMPETITIVE RANGE... enter [terms in 52.21501...]"

Offers excluded from the competitive range must follow the notification procedure at 15.503 (a) and the briefing procedure at FAR 15305 (c) (4). DO NOT use competitive ranges to exclude offers/proposals unless the solicitation declares that the discussion will be used. FAR 15.306 (c). If a competitive range is used, you MUST send a pre-award notice to the contributors so that it is excluded. Agencies entering the discussion should provide "meaningful discussions" (See GAO's decision on this issue).

If FAR Section 15 is used, there should be a proposal evaluation under FAR 15,305 to include "fair and reasonable" pricing under FAR 15,305 (a) (1), past performance evaluations under FAR 15,305 (a) (2) and evaluation technically below FAR 15305 (a) (3).

For each factor ranking, identify each key strength, uncertainty and supply deficiency of the offeror and then explain how strength, uncertainty, and deficiency result in that rating. Focus specifically on factors and subfactors specifically stated in the offer/instruction to the offeror. Do not use unspecified source selection criteria to choose a winning bid.

Discuss the discriminators who make one party offer or better than others based on selection criteria. Be detailed and focused on discriminators because the source selection results make it possible. If there is something that is not discriminatory then say so and also state why not. If the power has no effect on the ranking of the offeror, state so.

Simply address the impact of past performance on decisions; remember, no past performance is rated NEUTRAL !!

A concept of a source selection decision document should indicate the thinking process and the reason for source selection behind the comparative analysis. Use declarations of thought/intent from the source selection authority (SSA). For example: I choose; I think; I am determined; I review; etc.

Source options can not compare offers to each other. Just fight the award criteria.

Spend time on the summary to make it right because it's so important. It is intended to quickly include the best words of the principal discriminators used by the SSA to reach their decisions.

Do not focus the discussion on only one offeror. The Source Selection Decision Document (SSDD) compares the judgments of successful applicants to others. If there are a large number of offerors, detailed discussion may be limited to the highest-rated bidders. Some light discussions about the lower appraisers are needed when the competitive range is not set.

Do not use rankings with contradictory supporting languages, such as "unspecified" "" very good. " Check your rankings carefully as it relates to your technical discussion. Make sure they are consistent (that is, avoid weaknesses discussed in one evaluation proposal and no other proposal that has the same weakness).

Do not identify or list weaknesses without discussing them and their importance to the thinking process.

Do not treat a neutral performance trust rating of good or bad. (Do not disqualify an offeror for having a neutral rating.) No past performance should be considered neutral under FAR Part 13 and FAR Subpart 15.3.

Make sure that, when documenting the award decision in the SSDD, SSA focuses on the underlying advantages and disadvantages of the proposal, not just the ranks themselves. HoveCo, B-298697: http://www.gao.gov/decisions/bidpro/298697.pdf

Agency regulations often provide guidance on source selection: See eg AFARS 5115.308 Source selection decisions - "Resource selection decisions documents should be prepared for all source selection and reflect SSA integrated judgments and decisions The document should be a single summary document supporting the selection of the best value proposals consistent with the defined evaluation criteria, must clearly explain the decision and document the reasoning used by the SSA to reach a decision, the document must be released to the General Accounting Firm and others authorized to receive proprietary and informed selection resources When releasing a copy for the giver bidding or to anyone not authorized to receive proprietary information and source selection, the edited material must be limited to proprietary and which must be continuously protected as source selection information. "

Consistency: what's bad for one bad proposal for all; find the adverse comments, then look at the proposal from other bidders and see if the same problem is there and not written in the evaluation for the proposal. What is good for one proposal is good for all proposals (see above)

Take a close look at the definitions in the instructions given to the source selection committee - see the words in it; start with the worst definition, that is, unacceptable, look at the words in it, then see if the words appear in evaluations rated higher than those definitions in the ranking worksheet.

If you have something bad in the proposal that you want to win, then acknowledge it in your source decision document, and STATE THAT IT DOES NOT AFFECT YOUR DECISION OF X DETERMINES THE RATING OF THE PROPOSAL !!! - if the same thing is bad in another proposal, then say the same thing in that one too.

The word "unresponsive" is ONLY USED IN SEALED OFFER! It should NEVER be used in Part 13 FAR or 15 evaluation process. Missing packages are only rated lower for example, poor, good, unacceptable or IAW FAR weaknesses, significant weaknesses, etc.

Compare the SOW and delivery schedules for requests (for example, RFP/RFQ) to what's on the proposal word for word to see if everything is handled. State if anything is missing to justify a lower rank; talk about all that applies to each award criteria to "stack up" good comments for proposals you like; then show that it's better to say what you like, and less to say about what you do not like.

Do the best you can with bad source selection or award criteria. Just make sure it's applied consistently

Selection Criteria Source

Source Selection Criteria (SSC) can be simple or complex depending on the subject of the acquisition. If FAR Section 15 is used, then the concept called the best value can be used; the best value is only the idea that the lowest bidder is not necessarily the winner of the competition - but rather, the evaluation of the overall offer based on the specified SSC is reached and the source selection decision completed (see below) based on the specified SSC using a fact-based business valuation of the acquisition activity.

SSC may vary in complexity depending on the acquisition process used, for example, FAR Part 13, Simple Acquisition, or FAR Section 15, Procurement Negotiations. For example, under FAR Part 15, there are various source selection models including:

1. The Technically Acceptable Low (TA) Lowest (TA) based on a work statement (SOW) (LPTA) (use this for BUYS VERY SIMPLE - for example, pencil)
2. LPTA with Last Performance (partial tradeoff) (more complicated)
3. Full Sacrifice by LP, TA, previous performance, and other criteria including SOW (VERY COMPLICATED BUYS) (sometimes known as the best value)
   1. Should not choose the lowest price
   2. Can choose a proposal at a higher price that provides a better solution for the purpose
   3. Decisions based on business decisions on a rational basis

If the FAR of Part 13, a simple acquisition is used, then the contracting officer may choose from various processes including the Government Purchase Card (GPC) for purchases below the micro purchase threshold (see FAR definition section for current value (for example, in US, currently $ 2,500 ), a simplified acquisition threshold (see FAR definition section, current up to $ 150,000 in the US with certain exceptions), or up to $ 6.5 million for commercial goods/services. Under FAR Part 13, contract workers are not required to use FAR Section 15 processes or follow the FAR Part 5 publication requirements, but they MUST create their own processes to follow.

Past performance Vendors are generally included as source selection criteria. It is important to include the requirements for past performance "last and relevant".

Insufficient SSC makes the best work statement and CLIN useless.

Metrics/performance metrics

Metrics are meaningful measurements taken over a period of time that communicate important information about a process or activity, leading to a fact-based decision.

Focus on things that get worse - not an effective resource for measuring everything. Instead, select some important metrics for mission critical processes, processes that have historically experienced chronic problems or the process of their checkpoints and checkpoints.

• Good metric characteristics:
  • Means for the customer
  • Simple, easy to understand, logical, and repeatable
  • Showing trends
  • Clearly defined
  • Economic data to collect
• Just in time
  • Encourages appropriate action (this is the most important feature of good metrics)
  • Shows how the goals and goals of the organization are met through the tasks and processes

Trade or sales authority

"In obtaining a personal property, any executive body, under the rules to be determined by the Administrator, is subject to the rules prescribed by the Administrator for Federal Procurement Policy under the Office of Federal Procurement Policy may exchange or sell similar goods and may apply an exchange allowance or proceeds of sale in such cases in whole or in part the payment for the acquired property... "

The Federal Property and Administration Act of 1949 provides the general authority to sell private property and uses proceeds to replace similar properties during the same or subsequent fiscal year, such as used cars used.

The Other Acceptance Ordinance (31 USC 3302) mandates that funds received by the US Government must be deposited in other acceptance accounts in the US Treasury unless a special exception is authorized by Congress. The Miscellaneous Acceptance Ordinance prevents the Executive Branch from financing itself unless specifically authorized by Congress. 40 USC 181 (c) is therefore required to ensure that an order which basically trades or sells goods, often of information technology (IT) equipment, can store receipts from trade or sales and apply them to the acquisition of replacement goods.

src: az480170.vo.msecnd.net

Contract administration

Contract worker

Unless specifically prohibited by other legal provisions, agency authorities to enter into contracts are held by agency heads, for example, the Secretary of the Air Force or the Administrator, the Aviation Administration and the National Space Administration. Heads of agencies delegate their authority to Contractor Officials, who hold their powers under their positions or should be appointed in accordance with the procedures laid down in the Federal Acquisition Regulations. Only Contractor Officials are signed Government contracts on behalf of the Government. 48 CFR Ã,§ 1.601. A Contractor's Officer only has delegated powers based on legal procedures and agents. This authority is contained in the certificate of appointment of Contracting Authority (formerly called "warrant"). Unlike in commercial contracts, there is no clear authority doctrine applicable to the Government. Any action taken by the Contractor Officer exceeding the authority delegated by the Contractor Officer is not actually binding on the Government, even if both the Contract Authority and the Contractor want such actions and actions to benefit the Government. The Contractor is deemed to know the scope of authority of the Contractor Officer and can not rely on the actions of the Contractor Officer when exceeding their authority. Contracted Officers are assisted in their duties by the Gambling Officers Representative (CORs) and the Technical Representative Officers (COTR), who normally do not have the authority of a Contractor Officer.

What happens after the Government contract is signed? The subject is referred to as the contract administration. Duties of contract administration may include:

• Payment (important prompt payment) - often using Wide Area Workflow (WAWF).
• Modifications and Adjustments, usually done using the change clause
• Includes a Fair Adjustment Request (can be processed under FAR 49.002 (c)) (this is basically a modification under the applicable contract change clause eg, clause 52212-4)
• Termination of cause or convenience - for a commercial item, you use the termination clause in clause 52.212-4.
• Request protest, ratification, and contract claims

See the DCMA Handbook for more information on contract administration.

Requests for Equal Adjustments

Requests for Equal Adjustments (REAs) are modifications of contracts that are not done formally or properly. REA is often based on clause change. They usually occur when new jobs are added or changes in the current job are ordered, possibly by the contract officer, without the required documentation. Changing circumstances and fairness are likely justification for the contractor to request REA. The Contractor may request late damage arising from the change of contract at REA. This can be great.

Expenses that show evidence of increased costs are on the contractor. Special rules exist for the rights of contractors or are not eligible for profit in addition to their actual costs incurred, especially in cases of rental equipment held due to delays on the part of the Government or the failure of the Government to properly integrate other contractors which subsequently interfere with our contractor's work. Cases out there that say Government can reduce profits if risk is reduced due to change.

Can use the completion procedure in FAR Section 49, per FAR 49.002 (c) but it is suggested that this section is actually written for termination - you must adjust the completion procedure, perhaps for termination for convenience, to the REA.

The government should ensure that there is a Claim Release (ROC) clause in the REA-FAR/DFARS contract modification does not have an ROC clause example. In the context of Part 12 of commercial item FAR, the change clause requires a BILATERAL AGREEMENT.

A large number of Federal cases deal with REA:

• "It is black law that every contract with the Government implies that no party will do anything to prevent, hinder, or postpone performance." Sterling Millwrights, Inc. v. United States, 26 Cl.Ct. 49, 67 (1992) (citing Lewis-Nicholson, Inc. v. United States, 213 Ct.Cl. 192,550 F.2d 26, 32 (1977)).
• When the Government's actions delay the contractor's performance and increase the cost, "the contractor has a claim for damages." (Lewis-Nicholson, 550 F.2d on 26).
• "Constructive change generally arises when the Government, without more, explicitly or implicitly instructs the contractor to undertake work not specified in the contract document." Lathan, 20 Cl.Ct. at 128 (cited Chris Berg, Inc. v. United States, 197 Ct.Cl. 503, 525, 455 F.2d 1037, 1050 (1972)).
• The contractor can recover the excess costs through a fair adjustment, but, "bear the burden of proving the responsibility, causes and injuries that result." Ralph L. Jones, 33 Fed.Cl. in 331 (citing Wunderlich Contracting Co. v. United States, 173 Ct.Cl. 180, 199, 351 F.2d 956 (1965); Electronic & Missile Facilities, Inc. v. United States, 189 Ct.Cl. 237, 253, 416 F.2d 1345 (1969)).
• The standard to meet this load is high. Before a fair adjustment is to be made, the contractor shall demonstrate: (1) the cost increase arises from a condition that is materially different from that indicated by the contract document and that the condition is unpredictable based on all information available to the contractor; and (2) changes in requirements lead to increased cost of question. Johns-Manville Corp v. United States, 12 Cl.Ct. 1, 33 (1987).
• A contractor must distinguish the court from the delays that the Government is responsible for as its own counterpart; Standard contractors to prove the damage do not require "absolute accuracy or mathematical provisions

  Source of the article : Wikipedia