Eliminating the cultural barrier to innovative acquisition
April 27, 2015
For innovative acquisition to really spread, groups must empower a cadre of federal acquisition professionals accustomed to buying IT in traditional ways to change.
David Stegon was a staff reporter for FedScoop and StateScoop from 2011-2014.
The Department of Defense, NASA and the General Services Administration published a proposed rule on Thursday that would require past performance reports from government contractors to include specific components in an effort to better help federal agencies.
Besides providing a clear description of the contract, agencies will note evaluation factors for quality of product or service, cost control, timeliness, management or business relations and small business subcontracting efforts, according to the proposed rule.
DoD, GSA, and NASA published a proposed rule in the Federal Register at 76 FR 37704 on June 28, 2011, under FAR Case 2009-042, to implement recommendations from Government Accountability Office (GAO) Report GAO-09-374, entitled “Better Performance Information Needed to Support Agency Contract Award Decisions,” and Office of Federal Procurement Policy (OFPP) memorandum entitled “Improving the Use of Contractor Performance Information” (dated July 29, 2009). Two amendments to the Federal Register notice were published (76 FR 48776, dated August 9, 2011, and 76 FR 50714, dated August 16, 2011). The due date for receipt of public comments was extended twice and was ultimately set at September 29, 2011. Twentythree respondents submitted comments on the proposed rule. This proposed rule addresses all comments received in response to the proposed rule published in the Federal Register at 76 FR 37704 on June 28, 2011. This proposed rule also implements paragraphs (a), (b), and (d) of section 806 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012 (Pub. L. 112-81) which requires, at a minimum—
(1) Establishment of standards for the timeliness and completeness of past performance submissions for purposes of databases;
(2) Assignment of responsibility and management accountability for the completeness of past performance submissions for such purposes; and
(3) Assurance that past performance submissions are consistent with award fee evaluations in cases where such evaluations have been conducted.