Shows & Panels
- AFCEA Answers
- Ask the CIO
- The Big Data Dilemma
- Carrying On with Continuity of Operations
- Connected Government
- Constituent Servicing
- Continuous Monitoring: Tools and Techniques for Trustworthy Government IT
- The Cyber Imperative
- Cyber Solutions for 2013 and Beyond
- Expert Voices
- Federal Executive Forum
- Federal IT Challenge
- Federal Tech Talk
- Mission-critical Apps in the Cloud
- The Path from Legacy Systems
- The Real Deal on Digital Government
- The Reality of Continuous Monitoring... Is Your Agency Secure?
- Veterans in Private Sector: Making the Transition
Shows & Panels
New FAR rules crack down on contracting abuse
Wednesday - 1/4/2012, 9:45am EST
Federal News Radio
Three new rules in the Federal Acquisition Regulation aim to crack down on practices that may be considered "somewhat dubious in procurement," said Joseph Petrillo, attorney of Petrillo and Powell in an interview with The Federal Drive.
The rules, released Tuesday, will go into effect on Feb. 2.
- Interagency contracts
These contracts will have to be approved with a business case analysis, a process that will be phased in through fiscal year 2014, Petrillo said.
The analysis will include, among other things, small business participation, contract administration costs, the potential effect of "diluting" other contracts, and the roles and responsibilities of contract administrators, he said.
The specifics of the content for a business case analysis are not set forth in the rule, but the Office of Procurement Policy set out a template in a September memo.
- Firm fixed price preference
The rule limits time-and-materials contracts and labor-hour contracts for commercial items.
"The issue is the government is taking on added risk when the contractor is simply providing hours and not specific results or specific dollars," Petrillo said.
The rule also clarifies that these contracts are neither fixed price nor cost reimbursement contracts, but a third type of contract, he said.
- Brand names specifications
The rule is "clearly trying to make it harder to use and to discourage their use," Petrillo said.
"Posting it in some cases might lead to vendor protesting that the determination that a brand name specification is necessary ... if a protest is available for that kind of procurement," he said.