TOPICS
TOPICS
Senate contracting reform bill wins support
Government and private sector officials expressed measured support Tuesday for a Senate bill that would overhaul the federal acquisition process.
The Accountability in Government Contracting Act (S. 680), introduced in February by Sen. Susan Collins, R-Maine, aims to strengthen the acquisition workforce, improve oversight of contracts and promote competition and transparency.
At a Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee hearing Tuesday, both the chief of the Government Accountability Office and the chair of the Services Acquisition Reform Act Advisory Committee said the bill took many of their recommendations into consideration.
"Let me commend the sponsors of this legislation," said David M. Walker, the comptroller general. "The act addresses a number of areas of concern GAO has had over the years. We believe it has a number of meritorious provisions, and we're broadly supportive of this legislation."
Walker said the watchdog agency does have several suggestions for improving the bill, however, and will provide the committee with those recommendations within a week.
At the hearing, Marcia Madsen, the chairwoman of the Services Acquisition Reform Act Advisory Committee, a group created by the 2004 Defense Authorization Act, summarized the panel's full report. An initial list of recommendations was released in February and was taken into consideration before the bill was introduced.
The witnesses discussed several provisions of the bill specifically, including a requirement that sole source contracts awarded in the wake of an emergency be opened up to competitive bids after 150 days and language giving losing bidders the ability to protest elements within larger contracts.
They supported the requirement that sole source contracts awarded under the justification that they fill an urgent and compelling need eventually face competing bids, but there was some discussion of whether the 150-day limit was reasonable.
"Our general concern is that a general provision with a firm timeline could collide with certain realities," said Stan Soloway, the president of the Professional Services Council, an association representing contractors. "One-hundred and fifty or 180 days could generally be more than enough time, but in some cases it may not be."
Walker echoed concern over the strict time limit, saying GAO would have to discuss necessary exceptions with the committee.
Meanwhile, Collins was taken aback by Soloway's lack of support for the expanded bid protest rights for task orders over $5 million.
"I'm a little surprised that Mr. Soloway has concerns," Collins said. "Our goal is to help smaller businesses, medium-sized businesses who feel they could have competed and were shut out and to get them an affordable, fast, reliable remedy at GAO."
Soloway explained that while increased transparency is important for small and mid-tier contractors, the firms would benefit more from the provisions mandating debriefing sessions and the public posting of task orders.
"The greatest concern from small and mid-tier firms is that although $5 million is not a small amount of money -- it's a very significant amount of money -- in the pantheon of federal contracting, it is a fairly routine amount," Soloway said. With the provision, "you could be adding costly litigation that is very burdensome on smaller and mid-tier firms, a burden they don't particularly savor taking on."
Walker said GAO, which decides bid protests, would be able to handle the extra cases that might arise from expanded rights to challenge task orders. But he said the cost threshold, if reconsidered, should not be lower than $5 million.
COMMENTS
- Senator Collins is misguided in thinking that her legislation will somehow aid small businesses by establishing a dollar threshold for MAS TOs/DOs. Those who protest most vigorously are those who can finance a litigation arm, and those companies tend to be mid-sized or large businesses. Most small businesses would not even bother, due to the expense of protest and/or litigation. Furthermore, what is the "magic" behind a $5 million threshold? All this will do is lead to more split awards, under the premise of "maximizing participation." What her bill also does is limit Indefinite Delivery basic contract awards to $100 million. This would hurt logistic center contracting, as they rely on having reputable vendors available for long terms. It would also hurt programs in my own area, where we rely on having multiple award contracts with substantial ceilings to support worldwide force protection missions. Creating yet another set of rules with artificial thresholds tied to nothing does no one any good. Christopher Posted July 19, 2007 11:06 AM
- The efforts to overhaul the procurement system to strengthen the acquisition workforce improve oversight of contracts and promote competition and transparency must incorporate out-of-the-box solutions. Allowing the private sector, for example - with proper government oversight - to manage selective services (aimed at both the procurement community and small businesses) could eliminate many of the problems, save taxpayers money and make some of the services self-supportive and more efficient. FPA which works with a Think Tank at the University of North Florida (UNF) has come up with a revolutionary concept aimed at bringing solutions to many of the challenges addressed by S680 and HR1873. FPA has begun the process of sharing its plans with Members of Congress and key procurement officials to get traction and build support. The FPA plan starts with the creation of a new dataset of information with which to support a Congressional mandate; the establishment of a Clearinghouse of data to make it available plus a public forum to discuss its implications. The plan culminates with the creation of an 'umbrella of services’ managed by established entrepreneurs to support - with measurable results – the ‘set-aside program.. FPA represents the procurement interests of ALL of the groups for whom Congress created the 'set-aside program,' a constituency of 10 million small businesses! Raul Espinosa Posted July 19, 2007 8:32 AM
- The intent of of a portion of this legislation appears to be an attempt to increase small & mid-sized business opportunities, however, the legislation, as currently written, is going to have major impact to meeting the Government's mission. For example, suppose Hurricane Katrina just occurred. Suppose you award an urgent & compelling task to provide food & water at the Superdome in New Orleans. Instead of working other contingent needs, you now have to work on a complete food and water service package and competitively bid that effort, perform market reserach, hold an "industry day" for interested vendors, provide formalized answers to questions from all interested vendors, receive and evaluate a multitude of bids, and finally make award of the task (let's not forget that you also have to de-brief the folks who didn't get awarded the task). A major undertaking in the 150 day window. But wait, even if you meet the 150-day window and award this competitively bid task to provide food and water, it can then be protested and no work can be performed while it's under protest. Thus, if the service has to continue, your only recourse is to award another 150-day urgent and compelling task. All I can see this new legislation is going to create is an increased workload on the Government and amplyfying frustration in private industry. Wayland Posted July 18, 2007 7:08 PM
