As a matter of policy, contracting officers should minimize the situations where a contractor will be required to prepare proposals for new requirements or to definitize unpriced contractual actions. … If a contracting officer requires a proposal for a follow-on contract or for new requirements, or determines it is necessary to award undefinitized contractual actions, the Department will often be placed in the position of paying for the proposal and negotiation costs on a reimbursable basis with little or no competitive control over the costs incurred. Contracting officers should avoid placing the Government in that position.
‘The reality is we need to step up our game across the board, and so that’s what we’re doing,’ Assad told reporters. He said unlike profit margins, overhead costs would be fair game. ‘That’s cost. How do we get that out?’ …
The Defense Department says it's taking several new steps designed to drive toward better business deals. They involve not only rebuilding the acquisition workforce, but also making sure that workforce has the tools to make good decisions. … Shay Assad, the Pentagon's director of Defense pricing, said the steps are a ‘revolutionary approach’ to making sure DoD's acquisition professionals get much more skilled in understanding the business deals they make with industry. They center on giving acquisition staff a better view of what's happening across DoD itself. …
The changes will be led by the Defense Contract Management Agency, the DoD entity that handles administration of contracts, Assad told attendees at a conference of the Government Contract Management Conference in Bethesda, Md.
Assad said DoD is starting by bringing all of DCMA's administrative contracting officers (ACOs) back into one place after a period of decentralization.
‘We're going to have a uniform approach to how we deal with our peers in industry,’ he said. ‘That change is taking place right now. It should lead to a more consistent understanding of what the government's position is. It should lead to an improved ability for forward pricing rate agreements to come about. We're establishing a fundamental position in the department that says that these corporate ACOs who are responsible for rates will be the contracting officers' central repository of information with regard to rates.’
Second, DoD is piloting a new system called the Contractor Business Analysis Repository (CBAR). The tool is designed to give contracting officers much more insight into DoD's past and ongoing relationships with a particular company they may be dealing with.
‘They'll be able to log in and get access to every business deal over $10 million with that company,’ Assad said. ‘The ability for contracting officers to have much more awareness of what's happening throughout this very large organization will be provided to them almost instantaneously and in real time. In addition to that, they'll have access to all of the rates that have been proposed, what DCMA's position has been and what the contactor's position has been over time. Our contractors are really excited about having this kind of capability.’ …
A third initiative is tied to the regrowing of DoD's acquisition workforce. Assad said DCMA has hired 300 price analysts and engineers for one specific purpose, to populate a new effort called ICAT — or Integrated Contractor Analysis Teams. The groups will be able to offer immediate technical and pricing assistance to contracting officers. Similarly, new regional pricing teams will be stood up to help with smaller contracting projects. They'll focus on contracts that are smaller than $100 million and be available as a resource to help contracting officers who need expertise in figuring out pricing. …
… we will soon be issuing a proposed DFARS rule (Case No. 2011-D042), that will provide a check-list to help gauge the adequacy of a contractor proposal. Such controls like this checklist, once finalized, will help prevent the Department from being billed for a substandard proposal package that will not adequately support negotiation of a reasonable price.
When the proposal is based on information other than certified cost or pricing data, the contracting officer is responsible for obtaining information that is adequate for evaluating price reasonableness. Inadequacies exist when the offeror does not comply with the contracting officer’s requirements. The following criteria, while specifically not applicable to information other than certified cost or pricing data, may provide a guideline to the auditor in reaching an opinion as to the adequacy of the proposal (CAM 9-208). Consideration should also be given to any specific requirements in the request for proposal (RFP).
... we wonder if the foregoing Air Force and DCAA direction might not be avoiding addressing the real problem—which is insufficient identification of Government requirements, and subsequent changes to those requirements—which prevents contractors from submitting timely and comprehensive proposals. (See the GAO reports linked above, which show the lack of defined requirements is a much a problem as any lack of cost or pricing data.) Focusing on enforcing timely contractor provision of requested data to support fact-finding and negotiations seems to be a fundamentally misplaced management emphasis...
Even with the Pentagon looking to make widespread cuts and improve efficiency, profitability is not a target and it may increase, the Defense Department's director of procurement and acquisition policy told an audience of investors Wednesday.
Speaking at the Credit Suisse 2011 Aerospace & Defense Conference, Shay Assad said that the Pentagon is concerned with cost reduction, not margin reduction, and that he would be surprised if profitability went down even as spending is decreased.
‘It wouldn't bother us at all if operating margins go up, so long as we're paying less,’ he said. ‘We want to spend 90 and have them make 15, we don't want to spend 105 and have them make 15.’
Basically the [DPAP cash flow] tool compares the net present values of the cash flows under progress payments and those with performance based payments. The aim is to assure that the discounted outlay is not higher under performance based payments than under progress payments. The discount rate for the government cash flows (out) differs from the discount rate used for the contractors’ cash flows. The tool splits that delta (arriving at the win-win) and calculates a rate of profit that achieves that win-win outlay. The contracting community’s major concern has been the discount rate selected and the fact that the tool appears to fly in the face of the preference for performance based payments by making them less attractive.
Clearly, that commenter was far more diplomatic that we have been on this topic.On November 10, 2011, AIA (and other industry associations) met with a DPAP representative to discuss industry’s concerns. In that meeting, attendees (and now our readers) learned the following—
- DFARS Case 2011-D045 will reference the cash flow tool and include a cost limitation clause, and guidance for use of the tool. Why this needs to be a DFARS rule and not a revision to DOD’s PGI remains to be seen.
- The cost limitation contract clause noted above will limit the value of PBPs to the contractor’s actual incurred costs.
- DOD does not like PBPs and feels that they provide no incentive for on-schedule performance.
- DOD does not intend that PBPs be used with competitive awards, because of the expense and delay associated with conducting two negotiations (one for customary progress payments and the other for the price difference associated with use of PBPs).
- DOD believes that use of PBPs requires additional reviews prior to payment, whereas those reviews need not be present to process customary progress payments.
- DOD intends that contractors receive a lower profit rate when PBPs are utilized, notwithstanding the current Weighted Guidelines direction that PBPs are riskier to the contractor than are progress payments.
- DOD is focused on reducing contractors’ indirect costs, while at the same time it issues policy guidance that will tend to increase contractor’s indirect cost.
- DOD blames contractors for inadequate proposals, while failing to address its own shortcomings that create those inadequate proposals.
- DOD is reorganizing and hiring-up, to provide more opportunities to drive down contractor costs.
- DOD is actively seeking to overturn the will of Congress and, through its actions, reduce contractor profits while creating more workload for DCAA.
< Prev | Next > |
---|