By Blog | February 01, 2012 at 03:27 PM EST | No Comments
By: Leo Alvarez
Since being elected, President Obama has continually pushed initiatives that promote greater transparency in the contracting arena. One example, which was profiled recently on this blog, is the Federal Awardee Performance and Integrity Information System (FAPIIS) which allows contracting officers to review past performance information in accessing contractor responsibility prior to an award of a federal contract. In the same vein, the Obama Administration announced an initiative in the summer of 2010 to establish a “Do Not Pay” List to help agencies identify debarred contractors prior to contract award. Currently procurement officials must scour multiple databases before awarding a contract. This has lead to improper payments being made throughout Federal contracting:
“In 2009, improper payments totaled nearly $110 billion, the highest amount to date.…over the past three years, federal auditors have reported that the government paid out benefits totaling more than $180 million to approximately 20,000 Americans who were dead; and more than $230 million in benefits to approximately 14,000 fugitive felons or those in jail and who are not eligible for benefits.”
The “Do Not Pay” List will consolidate information on these multiple databases and allow contracting officers to more easily verify payment eligibility status prior to contract award. While the initiative was announced in 2010, the list has still not been made public. Jeffrey Zients, the government's Chief Performance Officer, hinted in late 2011 that the list was still a few months away.
In an era of huge government spending, it’s incumbent upon government to promote transparency and limit wasteful spending. Hopefully we’ll see this tool go live sooner rather than later!
By Blog | January 20, 2012 at 03:28 PM EST | No Comments
By Heather Young
The United States Department of the Army is looking to hire analysts to evaluate the effectiveness of their procurement management, policy and oversight, according to USA Jobs. Their task—to help develop a contracting policy for the Army and provide guidance in order to improve overall quality, and as stated, “Review the operations of purchasing and contracting activities world-wide to assess their efficiency and effectiveness.”
This job is of interest to those with a GSA Schedule Contract because the Department of the Army is a huge spender through the General Services Administration (GSA). In the fiscal year 2011 alone, they spent $15,731,364,408 contracting dollars, almost 20% of all contracting dollars for small businesses.
A “reevaluation” of their contracting dollars could drastically change the ways they manage their funds. It’s difficult to say whether this will increase or decrease spending, and, how it will impact the types of firms they do business with (small/large, minority-owned or not, etc.)
Could this make the purchasing process more simplified for the Army and the firms they purchase goods and services from? Or, is it likely to cause increased red tape and logistics that will cause smaller businesses to be timid about venturing into the federal market?
By Blog | January 17, 2012 at 03:47 PM EST | No Comments
A New Kind of GSA Contract Vehicle in the Works
By: Leo Alvarez
Recognizing industry and government calls for a simpler federal buying process, GSA recently announced that it is developing a next generation acquisition vehicle called “Integrations.” Currently envisioned as a government wide, IDIQ, multiple award contract, Integrations will be designed to address agency needs for complex, multi-disciplinary projects with an equal or ancillary IT component. The vehicle is expected to span multiple professional services including: program management and consulting services, logistics, financial services, and professional engineering services. Given that project requirements for an integrated professional services acquisition are often difficult to specify or quantify at the outset of a procurement, the vehicle is also expected to utilize a variety of task order types, including cost reimbursement ordering. The project is currently in the RFI stage with a final RFP expected to be posted in the Summer of 2012. GSA’s stated goal for the Integrations vehicle is to have it ready for use by Fall 2013, so keep an eye on how the process unfolds.
GSA eBuy - Bids Today, Business Tomorrow
GSA’s eBuy website is a valuable tool to identify new business opportunities. Here are a couple of Request for Quotes (RFQ’s) we thought you would be interested in.
Schedule 70 - Information Technology
•RFQ Title: Enterprise Data Services
RFQ ID: RFQ611360
Close Date: 02/15/2012 at 2:00:00 PM EST
•RFQ Title: Department of Defense De-Militarized Zones Support
RFQ ID: RFQ640152
Close Date: 02/02/2012 at 11:00:00 AM EST
Schedule 874 - MOBIS
•RFQ Title: Joint Task Force CAPMED AND AMFSA Training Requirement
RFQ ID: RFQ642444
Close Date: 01/27/2012 at 12:00:00 PM EST
•RFQ Title: Healthcare EDI Business Solutions Amendment 0003
RFQ ID: RFQ637034
Close Date: 01/25/2012 at 04:00:00 PM EST
If you need additional information on eBuy, contact us at Winvale
By Blog | December 20, 2011 at 11:13 AM EST | No Comments
By Leo Alvarez
For those not in the know, the Federal Government has recently made the Federal Awardee Performance and Integrity Information System (FAPIIS) open to the public. This online database aims to assist Contracting Officers in their responsibility determinations for pending contract awards by allowing them to access vendor past performance data and other historical records including “Terminations for Cause or Default, Defective Cost and Pricing Data, Determinations of Non-Responsibility, Terminations for Material Failure to Comply (grants), Recipient Not Qualified Determinations (grants) and Administrative Agreements.” The system is required to be utilized for contract award determinations in excess of $150,000. Part of an ongoing initiative by the Obama Administration to encourage greater transparency, the site also consolidates contractor information across several databases already in use by procurement officials:
•The Excluded Parties List System (EPLS): A website maintained by GSA that identifies those parties excluded from receiving federal contracts, certain subcontracts, and certain types of federal financial and non-financial assistance and benefits.
•The Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS): A web-based system used to input data on contractor performance.
•The Past Performance Information Retrieval System (PPIRS): A centralized database of past performance information, with information generated by the Department of Defense and federal agencies.
•The Central Contractor Registration
Active since early 2010, FAPIIS was until April only accessible by the procurement community and congress. While the public launch of the website is an important development for Federal Contractors and been hailed by some as a “Better Business Bureau” of federal contractors, data currently available for public review is limited to contractor information posted on or after April 15th. Additionally, Contracting Officer reports on companies past performance will not be made public. In an era of huge Government spending, sites like FAPIIS allow us to better track where taxpayer money is going and help support greater overall transparency. For more information, click here
By Blog | November 21, 2011 at 09:25 AM EST | No Comments
For each of its schedules GSA requires large businesses with a contract valued in excess of $650,000 to submit a Small Business Subcontracting Plan. The idea behind the plan is to detail for the Federal Government the level of diversity among third party organizations you are subcontracting work to in the performance of awarded schedule activities. At the end of each government fiscal year contractors are required to submit Summary Subcontract Reports (SSR) which outlines the level of spend to various small business categories (veteran-owned small business, service-disabled veteran-owned small business, HUBZone small business, small disadvantaged business, and women-owned small business concerns). Recently I’ve received a few questions on an additional reporting requirement for organizations submitting an SSR: The Year-End Supplementary Report for Small Disadvantaged Business.
The SBA requires large businesses to “include a breakout, in the Contractor's format, of subcontract awards, in whole dollars, to small disadvantaged business concerns by North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) Industry Subsector.” Why has Uncle Sam asked for the additional supplementary report? According to the SBA, the data is being collected to determine which industries small disadvantaged businesses are underrepresented within and the analysis is likely to be used to “adjust the preferences afforded to SDBs under the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR), subpart 19.12, Small Disadvantaged Business Participation Program.”
In completing the supplementary report we’d recommend you keep the following factors in mind:
1) As mentioned, you will need to associate a North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) Industry Subsector with each small disadvantaged business concern. A listing of NAICS Subsectors can be found HERE.
2) You must have a supporting written size self-certification for every small business you are counting in the small business and socioeconomic section of this report. If you don’t have one of these then you must count these subcontracts in the large business field. (Per the 13 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) 121.404 (e) & 121.410)
3) You should report only those subcontracts that you award to your immediate subcontractors, not subcontracts awarded to lower-tier subcontractors by your subcontractors.
For additional help on this supplementary report, GSA has provided contractors with a quick reference guide. Please visit:
By Blog | October 21, 2011 at 09:32 AM EDT | No Comments
By: Heather Young
Anyone who is familiar with the process for acquiring a GSA Schedule should be familiar with the various responses vendors are required to answer. The purpose of these responses is to ensure vendors are implementing accurate and ethical business practices in order to provide their products/services to the government. One of the Regulation Responses that many people are unfamiliar with is the Hazardous Material Identification and Material Safety Data Response.
This is one of the responses that is near the end of the Vendor Response Document, so naturally at this point, most vendors just want to complete the process as quickly as possible. You may think to yourself, “Hazardous material? My products aren’t hazardous.” And then skip right through it, but this could be a vast mistake.
When most people refer to hazardous materials, they think of radioactive nuclear substances that only high profile laboratories handle. When in fact, the Federal government defines hazardous materials by several different standards, see below.
The purpose of the standard is to establish requirements for the preparation and submission of Material Safety Data Sheets (MSDS) by contractors who provide hazardous materials to government activities. The entire clause can be found in Federal Standard No. 313 (as of date the most recent version is D).
Hazardous materials are defined as any item or chemical which is a "health hazard" or "physical hazard", including:
Chemicals which are carcinogens, toxic or highly toxic agents, reproductive toxins, irritants, corrosives, hepatotoxins, nephrotoxins, neurotoxins, agents which act on the hematopoietic system, and agents which damage the lungs, skin, eyes, or mucous membranes.
Chemicals which are combustible liquids, compressed gases, explosives, flammable liquids, flammable solids, organic peroxides, oxidizers, pyrophorics, unstable (reactive) or water-reactive.
Chemicals which in the course of normal handling, use, or storage may produce or release dusts, gases, fumes, vapors, mists or smoke which have any of the above characteristics.
Any item or chemical which, when being transported or moved, is a risk to public safety or an environmental hazard and is regulated as such by one or more of the following:
DOT - Department of Transportation; Hazardous Materials Regulations (49 CFR 100-180)
IMO - International Maritime Organization; International Maritime Dangerous Goods (IMDG) Code
IATA - International Air Transport Association; Dangerous Goods Regulations
ICAO - International Civil Aviation Organization; Technical Instructions
AF - Air Force "INTERSERVICE" Manual, Preparing Hazmat for Military Air Shipments (AFMAN 24-204)
Also included are any chemicals with special characteristics which can cause harm to people, plants, or animals when released by spilling, leaking, pumping, pouring, emitting, emptying, discharging, injecting, escaping, leaching, dumping, or disposing into the environment (including the abandonment or discarding of barrels, containers, and other receptacles).
**It is important to note the GSA Schedules this is most applicable to are: 56, 84, 36, 23V and 70. If you currently hold a schedule or are applying for one in the near future, be sure to keep this in mind!
GSA Contact points for Hazmat information:
MSDS- Material Safety Data Sheets for GSA Products may be obtained online or as shown below:
By Blog | October 11, 2011 at 08:30 AM EDT | No Comments
By: Paul Cease
Last week the world’s second largest software maker, Oracle Corp. (ORCL), agreed to pay more than $199.5 million to settle allegations that it overcharged the U.S. government over an eight year span.
The focus of the case was federal government purchases of Oracle software through the GSA Schedule program. The General Services Administration claims that Oracle falsely promised GSA schedule buyers the same discounts being offered to commercial entities. From 1998 through 2006, agencies spent an estimated $1.08 billion on Oracle software through the GSA Schedule program.
The settlement is the largest ever obtained by GSA through the False Claims Act, which allows citizens to share in the recovery of money when they sue on behalf of the government. The case was filed in 2007 by former Oracle employee Paul Frascella, who will receive $40 million from the settlement.
The U.S. Justice Department joined Frascella’s case in federal courts and added a joint complaint last year. The complaint claimed that Oracle frequently gave commercial customers discounts of as much as 90 percent off of list prices, while only giving GSA schedule buyers a discount of 25 to 40 percent. Oracle continues to deny any wrong-doing, and despite the settlement, says that “government agencies who purchased from the GSA schedule received fair pricing.”
Oracle also paid more than $98 million in 2006 to settle a case involving GSA schedule pricing at PeopleSoft Inc., a software company Oracle purchased the year before.
Frascella’s case highlights the growing sentiment that, especially in these economic times, the government needs to prosecute companies that are overcharging agencies through the GSA schedule program. Part 538.2 of the General Services Administration Acquisition Manual (GSAM) states that “the government will seek to obtain the offeror's best price (the best price given to the most favored customer).”
In Oracle’s defense, many software companies are finding it increasingly difficult to balance commercial sales practices with government pricing compliance. The commercial sales process is notably different than the federal sales process, and there are numerous methods to prove to GSA that they are receiving fair and reasonable pricing.
As the nation’s preeminent government contracts consultancy, Winvale has the expertise and experience needed to establish competitive pricing with GSA while still providing the profit margins your company needs to grow. Winvale has built the contract vehicles for more than 900 companies, through which more than $21 billion in sales have been conducted.
By Blog | September 26, 2011 at 01:21 PM EDT | No Comments
Past Performance Evaluation Report
By: Renee Connelly
There are many requirements when submitting for a GSA Schedule. Of these requirements, one of the most important is the completion of the Past Performance Evaluation (PPE). The PPE is a report generated by Dun & Bradstreet (D&B) c/o Open Ratings and is used by the GSA to assess a company’s history in successfully providing their products and services to customers. The report is valid for one year, and is required for every GSA Schedule Solicitation.
As the GSA will be evaluating how these references rank your past job performance, it is imperative that you select references that will give the highest scores possible. While you will be able to see overall scores, individual responses will be kept anonymous. It is recommended that you contact your references prior to submitting their contact information. You should inform them that you are pursuing a GSA Schedule, and you would appreciate it if they would be reference. The survey will be sent via email from Open Ratings, and will be available for them to complete for three weeks, after which Open Ratings will then call them to complete the survey over the phone. While it is recommended that you list as many references as possible, only four need to respond for a report to generate. The survey questions are:
1) How reliable do you think this company follows through on its commitments?
2) How closely did your final total costs correspond to your expectations at the beginning of the transaction?
3) How well do you think the product / service delivered matched your order specifications and quantity?
4) How satisfied do you feel about the delivery of the product / service provided by this company?
5) How satisfied do you feel about the quality of the product / service provided by this company?
6) How easy do you think this company is to do business with?
7) How satisfied do you feel about the attitude, courtesy, and professionalism of this company’s staff?
8) How satisfied do you feel about this customer support you received from this company?
9) How responsive do you think this company was to information requests, issues, or problems that arose in the course of the transaction?
The PPE report is composed of several different parts of information. The first page of the report displays the company’s general information, such as DUNS number, contact info, number of employees, annual sales, line of business, and year begun. The second page of the report is comprised of three parts: Overall Performance Rating, Detailed Performance Ratings, and SIC Level Quintile. The Overall Performance Rating is scored from 0-100, and is comprised of the Detailed Performance Ratings. The Detailed Performance Ratings consist of nine categories: reliability, cost, order accuracy, delivery/timeliness, quality, business relations, personnel, customer support, and responsiveness. The last part of page two is the SIC Level Quintile which compares your PPE score to other companies’ scores within the same SIC. The third and final page of the report displays the breakdown of survey responses received. For each survey question, the responses, which are provided on a 0 to 10 scale, are categorized as positive (9 to 10), neutral (5-8), or negative (0-4).
For any negative feedback received on your PPE report, you must submit a letter of explanation to the GSA. The letter should detail why you believe you received the negative comments, and what measures you are taking to guarantee the issues do not occur again. The intent of the letter is to allow you to address the negative feedback and discuss the procedures your company has in place to provide for corrective action should it be necessary. It is also important to highlight your unwavering commitment to providing quality services on every project and for every client.
By Blog | September 22, 2011 at 12:55 PM EDT | No Comments
The Obama Administration has made a continued effort to in-source work performed for the Federal Government. The thought behind this is that government contractors are more expensive than federal employees. In an effort to increase efficiency, the Obama administration has suggested that agencies in the Federal Government in-source some of the work that has historically been done by contractors. With the start of in-sourcing, there grows a demand for greater workforce management. Agencies need to pay closer attention to the efficiencies within their workforce and make sure the job is done quickly and properly.
With more employees on payroll, and less work done through contractors, managers in the FedGov need to make sure that employees are growing, learning, communicating and most importantly, keeping costs down. There are several new technologies that will see a rise in sales from all of this in-sourcing:
•All communications type platforms, that allow employees to communicate internally, share documents, track versions, etc.
•Mentor type software that help grow employees.
•Time and attendance software that will make sure employees are putting in the time and effort that is expected of them.
•Rewards and recognition applications,
•Recruiting software, and the like.
The Office of Personnel Management states on their website, “We see our labor-management culture as one characterized by mutual respect and trust, joint problem-solving, and a willingness to share information and confront problems openly and honestly. Within our labor-management forum framework, we will work together to develop better and more effective ways to meet the goals of this agency and to seek solutions to workplace issues. This will lead to fewer employee complaints of any nature and more focus on serving our customers.”
By Blog | September 16, 2011 at 02:51 PM EDT | No Comments
For all of those clamoring for a more cost effective and simpler federal buying process, one can safely assume that the General Services Administration (GSA) has no complaints. Just this week, the United States Government Accountability Office (GAO) released a congressional report which reviewed the use of contracting fees charged by several federal agencies (most prominently GSA) to other agencies for use of their government-wide multiple award acquisition contracts. As any GSA Contractor knows, GSA charges a 0.75% Industrial Funding Fee (IFF) to other agencies that purchase through GSA’s Multiple Award Schedule (MAS) program. Since the program is not federally funded, GSA relies on this interagency contracting fee to cover the cost of program operation and to fund additional acquisition services for other agencies. Program improvements, for example, that we’ve seen over the previous few years (eOffer, eMods, greater help desk support services, etc.) were directly aided by revenue generated through GSA’s contracting fee.
With that said, if the IFF was designed to keep the MAS program operationally “afloat”, it's doing its job and then some. According to the GAO report, the MAS program generated, on average, over $62 Million annually in excess revenue over the 4 year period analyzed (2007 to 2010) and has built up a reserve of over $800 Million over time. Similar cases of “excess revenue” were found with four out of six government-wide multiple award acquisition contracts reviewed. With a reserve in place, many have asked why GSA has not decided to lower its contracting fee. NASA’s SEWP contract, for instance, has been incredibly popular over the previous few years (growing by 137%), but the agency decided to decrease its contracting fee last year. While some may want to see GSA act similarly, the MAS program’s lack of federal funding has given GSA sufficient rationale for maintaining the status quo. GSA also asserts that the IFF has been critical in covering losses seen throughout other areas of the agency’s portfolio. For example, between 2007 and 2010, GSA’s Assistant Acquisition Service and its Networx multiple award telecommunications programs experienced large losses of $7.7 million and $4.7 million (on average) a year, respectively.
The GAO has provided GSA with two recommendations to improve its contracting processes:
•Begin tracking cost information on the Networx MAC at the program level to enable agency managers to identify possible inefficiencies in the program, and
•Develop and implement guidance for evaluation of current fee rates when an individual program consistently transfers excess revenue to the reserve funds.
It’ll be important for GSA contractors to remain informed over the coming months around any steps taken at GSA to adopt these recommendations, especially one that might alter the existing IFF percentage. Stay tuned!
For additional information on the GAO’s findings, click here
By Blog | September 09, 2011 at 11:15 AM EDT | No Comments
Curious how and what the federal government buys?
Want to transition your company from a B2B approach to a B2G approach or even get a better understanding of your current B2G relationship? Attend a useful information session at George Mason University's School of Management.
Since the U.S. Federal Government purchases nearly every legitimate business product and service imaginable through many different contractual vehicles and channels, this session provides an overview of the breadth and depth of the “What” as well as the “How.” It will also cover the nuances of the Federal Fiscal Year, how to take advantage of the “Buying Cycle,” and the choice of many manufacturers to leverage a reseller model instead of selling direct.
When: September 13, 2011. 8:00am - 12:00 pm
Where: Where: Mason Inn and Conference Center, 4352 Mason Pond Drive, Fairfax VA, 22030
Register here for more information on how to take your company to the next level.
By Blog | September 06, 2011 at 10:13 AM EDT | No Comments
Recently, contractors under the Financial and Business Solutions (FABS) Schedule (520) and Travel Services Solutions Schedule (599) received notice that the Federal Acquisition Service (FAS) will begin piloting a new program that will replace how vendors currently upload their pricing to GSA Advantage.For years GSA Schedule contract holders have used the Schedule Input Program (SIP) software package to upload their approved electronic catalog to GSA Advantage!This required (and still does) what many have regarded as a ‘cumbersome process’, beginning with a contract being registered on the GSA Vendor Support Center(VSC) website for a SIP password, catalog information being uploaded utilizing that password, and a Contracting Officer responsible for receiving the data and checking for consistencybetween the electronic file and the written contract.The process has proven somewhat inefficient for GSA – creating additional work in assisting contractors in properly uploading their pricing information and keeping that pricing up to date with approved contract modifications.
GSA’s new Enterprise Acquisition Solution (EAS) pricing pilot program represents a new way of keeping contractor pricing current and accurate without relying on contractors to utilize the SIP software package.The process will rely on a Formatted Price List (FPL) template file in 4 format different formats that can be chose by the contractor (S-Excel, Comma Separated Values (CSV), Electronic Data Interchange (EDI) and Data Form Entry Form).Once your pricing has been incorporated into your offer or mod in the formatted template and is awarded, the template will be automatically uploaded to GSA Advantage by FAS.It is believed this new process will streamline the upload process:
The template provides a standard, data-driven method to submit complete pricing information upfront with the initial offer or price-related modification through eOffer/eMod. Once awarded, the pricing information captured in the template and the pricing related Terms and Conditions are combined and automatically loaded in GSA Advantage!, as the authorized GSA Schedules Pricelist. This process ensures that your pricing information is complete and up-to-date, eliminates the Schedule Input Process (SIP), and simplifies future contract modification pricing actions.
All existing schedule 520 and 599 contractors will be notified of these new processes through two mass modifications, issued approximately 30 days apart, over the coming the coming weeks.GSA Contractors will want to keep an eye out for developments with the pilot program as its success could determine its use with the other GSA Schedules.If you are a schedule 520 and 599 contractor and want further information on these upcoming changes, feel free tocontact us!
By Blog | February 19, 2011 at 10:49 PM EST | No Comments
Federal cutbacks and spending will soon have an impact on IT professional services and products within the federal market. One outcome of this is that the government is looking to decrease their spending, and looking to innovative ways to do this while maintaining IT solutions for agencies. The changed environment will be focused on using contract vehicles geared towards the cloud and other advanced innovations. This focus on the cloud is greener, more efficient, and enables agencies to better fulfill their missions. Cloud computing solutions are delivered through the Internet in a pay-per-use or subscription model. Industry partners are categorized according to the type of cloud IT services they provide. Among them are:
•Infrastructure as a Service (IaaS)
•Software as a Service (SaaS)
•Platform as a Service (PaaS)
Another IT trend that cloud will have on federal contracting is the government’s desire to utilize more Blanket Purchase Agreements (BPAs) specifically geared to innovations such as the cloud and mobile media. What does this mean for the GSA IT contractors out there who can provide these solutions? You will have to look to improve your BPA contracting capabilities and the task orders that are awarded from such contracts. A successful vendor will have a well-structured response team with notification processes, proposal templates and partner identification criteria in place that will allow them to respond to these RFPs in a timely and organized manner.We can personally attest to this based on some recent experience. Teaming with Webtech Wireless, we recently won a five-year / $20 million dollar BPA to support GSA’s fleet of over 217,000 federal vehicles with vehicle tracking and telematics services. While going through this process, we had a team whose sole purpose was to create and respond to all the necessary information in order to win a place in this competitive BPA.With competition increasing in the government market, make sure you have enough resources and time to put together a quality RFP response.It will make the difference between winning and losing.
If you have any questions on cloud computing, BPAs, Schedule 70, or just want some general advice on how to make sure your team is prepared for this new federal contracting world, Contact Us!
