Federal Contracting

The Government Accountability Office came out with a report this week on increasing competition in federal contracting, and uses the Defense Department as an example of where congressional action might help in bringing that about:

Some degree of noncompetitive contracting is unavoidable, such as when only one responsible source can perform the work; and in some cases competition is impractical due to the government's reliance on contractors stemming from decisions that were made long ago. Recent congressional actions to strengthen competition opportunities in major defense programs may take some time to demonstrate results. Further, OMB's efforts to reduce agencies' use of high risk contract types may help agencies refocus and reenergize efforts to improve competition. Despite these actions, other targets of opportunity still exist, but to take full advantage of them, it will be necessary to challenge conventional thinking to some extent. Key among these are establishing an effective, adequately trained team of contracting and program staff working together, starting early in the acquisition process. Competition opportunities should be considered when requirements are initially developed, and as complex programs mature and the government gains more knowledge about what it needs. Because program officials have an essential role in the acquisition process, as do contracting officers, it is just as important for them to advance competition whenever possible. Given the nation’s fiscal constraints, it is not acceptable to keep an incumbent contractor in place without competition simply because the contractor is doing a good job, or to resist legitimate suggestions that competition be imposed even though it may take longer. As discussed in this report, some agencies have implemented the leadership and accountability to make progress in this area, such as breaking out requirements to facilitate competition. However, there is no requirement to assess the circumstances under which competitive solicitations receive only one offer to potentially bring about a greater response from the market place. The competition advocates, in their unique role and in the context of OFPP’s call to reinvigorate their role, have the potential to implement changes to practice and to culture. However, to do so they need to be situated in the right organizational position and able to bring to bear the acquisition knowledge and leadership to engender change.

Consequently, GAO recommends that the administrator of the Office of Federal Procurement Policy do the following:

* Determine whether the (Federal Acquisition Regulations) should be amended to require agencies to regularly review and critically evaluate the circumstances leading to only one offer being received for recurring or other requirements and to identify additional steps that can be taken to increase the likelihood that multiple offers will be submitted, with the results of the evaluation documented in the contract file.

* As part of efforts to reinvigorate the role of the competition advocate, issue guidance to federal agencies regarding appropriate considerations when appointing competition advocates, such as placement within the organization, skill set, and potential methods to effectively carry out their duties.

* Direct agencies to require their competition advocates to actively involve program offices in highlighting opportunities to increase competition.

Some of the people who oversee those acquisition programs within DOD, at least, will have to be military and not civilian, Inside the Pentagon reports this morning:

The Pentagon's procurement shop has officially designated numerous acquisition posts to be "key leadership positions" that must be filled by military officials of a certain rank.

In an Aug. 25 memo to the military services and defense agencies, Frank Kendall, the Pentagon's No. 2 acquisition official, lays out guidance for the department's critical acquisition functions.

The "key leadership positions" (KLPs) listed in the memo require "a significant level of responsibility and authority and are key to the success of a program or effort," writes Kendall, the principal deputy under secretary of defense for acquisition, technology and logistics. He signed the memo in an acting capacity for Pentagon acquisition chief Ashton Carter.

The services and defense agencies can designate any job a KLP so long as it meets the criteria, but the memo declares certain types of positions are required to have that status. These include program executive officers; deputy program executive officers; program managers for acquisition categories I, IA and II efforts; deputy program mangers for acquisition category I efforts; and senior contracting officials.