Acquisition Reform -- Not Acquisition Shortcuts

One of the fallouts from acquisition reform was a cutting of the size of the acquisition workforce. Is payback time near? Two articles in this week's online version of Federal Times seem to say "yes." In one, Steve Kellman, former OFPP Director, worries that the recent events will cause a backlash against acquisition reform.

In the second article GSA again takes the hits, not out West but right here in the National Capital Region -- "Contracting shortcuts, violations rampant at GSA". lt is not a question of people being dishonest, but rather too much to do and not enough people to do it; at least not the right way. Problems involved misuse of IT funds, cost growth by 500% in one case and many others. One response has been to now require legal review of all contracts over $100,000. While appreciating the opportunity for more legal work, that certainly is not going to speed up the process and why do we need the lawyers to review and make sure contracting folks take the right actions in processing a requirement -- contracting people know how to do it right, they just need the time and resources.

In a recent GAO opinion, Burns and Roe Services Corporation, B-291530, January 23, 2003, GAO stated that: "Where a solicitation advises offerors that experience is to be evaluated, an agency may properly consider an offerorÂ’s specific experience in the area that is the subject of the procurement. In this regard, experience as an incumbent may offer genuine benefits to an agency and may reasonably distinguish the incumbentÂ’s proposal. IBP, Inc., B-289296, Feb. 7, 2002, 2002 CPD ¶ 39 at 5." . Be a little careful. They are not saying you can just go ahead and award to the incumbent. But where the evaluation factors for past performance are properly structured, the benefits from incumbency are fair consideration. "In considering the impact of incumbency, the SSB noted that JonesÂ’s status as “the incumbent contractor currently performing most of the services for the same customers in the same remote location,” and the firmÂ’s intent to “roll their existing management team over from the current contract to the new one . . . provides the government a high degree of confidence and low risk in the successful performance . . . on a follow on contract.” AR, Tab 17, SSB Report, Sept. 24, 2002, at 9-10. Although, as noted by the protester, both JonesÂ’s and B&RÂ’s proposals received ratings of “good” under the corporate experience criterion, the agency could consider JonesÂ’s incumbency as a discriminator in the source selection decision because this criterion was part of the evaluation scheme.[6] IBP, Inc., supra, at 7. "

Mr. Vernon J. Edwards, a frequent contributor to the "Where in Federal Contracting" website and other contracting publications, has written an interesting article, The Level of Confidence Assessment Rating Technique: A tool for source selection. 15 pages and worth the time.

That's it for now.