10:13 am, July 12, 2014

FederalNewsRadio.com - Purpose of Comments statement Click to show

Hubbard Radio, LLC encourages site users to express their opinions by posting comments. Our goal is to maintain a civil dialogue in which readers feel comfortable. At times, the comment boards following articles, blog posts and other content can descend to personal attacks. Please do not engage in such behavior here. We encourage your thoughtful comments which:

  • Have a positive and constructive tone
  • Are on topic, clear and to-the-point
  • Are respectful toward others and their opinions

Hubbard Radio, LLC reserves the right to remove comments which do not conform to these criteria.

  • 5
       

  • Reason
    FrankJr
    Its because the big defense companies have more $$$ to bribe officials ( through lobbyists ) into getting contrats.
    { "Agree":"1","Funny":"1","Insightful":"1","Disagree":"-1","Offensive":"-1","Troll":"-1" }
  • Reaching ACC's Simplified Acquisition Goal Means Hundreds of Millions for Small Business
    theasbcguy
    While I applaud Alice Williams for setting the 90 percent SAT goal, I have a few comments based on current spending by the Army in the area of Simplified Acquisitions. The following information is reported by FPDS-NG and is based on transactions in the database with a "date signed" between October 2011 and September 2012 (FY12). NOTE: Due to the delay in DoD transactions being presented to the public, the total spending amount will not be presented until the end of the calendar year. With that being said... According to FPDS-NG, Department of the Army awarded $1,595,848,958 in simplified acquisitions during FY12. $808,390,465 of this was awarded to "Other Than Small Business" based on the Contracting Officers Business Size Selection. $164,344,369 was awarded without competition Orders placed against Basic Ordering Agreements (BOA) total $1,241,500 $34,957,400 was awarded against Indefinite Delivery Contracts (IDC) Blanket Purchase Agreement (BPA) Calls accounted for $391,018,715 in awards Nearly $600 million of the $808M awarded to "Other Than Small Business" never really saw the light of day from a competitive perspective. If the Army Contracting Command can create an opportunity for the "rule of two" to be applied to these and similar Simplified Acquisition buys, that would go a long way to creating additional opportunities for small and disadvantaged business concerns to do business with Army, and foster growth via past performance and increased relationships within the small government contractor industrial base. The American Small Business Coalition is willing to lend a supportive hand to the Army in achieving the goal cited by Ms. Williams, and to small businesses who want to know more about pursuing simplified acquisition opportunities.
    Guy Timberlake The American Small Business Coalition www.theasbc.org
    { "Agree":"1","Funny":"1","Insightful":"1","Disagree":"-1","Offensive":"-1","Troll":"-1" }
  • DoD Contracts
    Norman's Mother
    are primarily awarded to the good old boy companies led by retired military officers. You can leave Northern Virginia and we won't miss you a bit. Don't worry, your wives can still host tea parties with those cute cucumber sandwiches and tea cookies. However, I would recommend some diversity (gasp!) with sushi, gluten free and vegan. I know, it's blasphemy and I'll suffer for insulting officers, but I really enjoyed the trip.
    { "Agree":"1","Funny":"1","Insightful":"1","Disagree":"-1","Offensive":"-1","Troll":"-1" }
  • DoD & GSA need to modify Federal Strategic Sourcing
    gsaconcern
    DOD / GSA’S current FSSI Procurement Solution ultimately eliminates up to 18,000 current vendors via replacing them with only a handful of suppliers. This IS NOT A SMALL BUSINESS FRIENDLY PLAN. Competition works and please give us the opportunity to present our OPEN COMPETITION Federal Strategic Sourcing Initiative Procurement Solution - Our Strategic Sourcing procurement plan gives visible cost savings in a competitive environment We call this procurement solution: The 21st Century Open Competition Federal Strategic Sourcing Initiative also know as OCFSSI Our procurement solution is only a foundation base to work from and should be changed, tweaked and enhanced via an open inclusive democratic process. Please allow experts to analyze and compute savings vs DOD / GSA’S current non-competitive procurement solution Below is a summary of our 21st Century Procurement Solution : On an annual basis each company that holds a DOD / GSA Schedule Contract should be allowed to bid on each item / service in given schedule so the government can obtain the lowest cost / highest quality per bidder. The winning BPA DOD / GSA vendors should be rewarded with 5% of the total sales and the non-winning BPA vendors obtain 95% of total sales. Via DOD / GSA software automation and/or manpower the non-winning BPA vendors cannot upload given item(s) to DoD / GSAadvantage.gov or offer given item to the government unless they can provide a lower price or match the winning vendor item prices. Hence, reward the winning bidder with 5% total sales of a particular item/ schedule but allow other non-BPA-competitors to offer a lower or same price entailing 95% of total sales. This can be accomplished via 2 different procurement solutions See a) and b) below : a) If DOD / GSA has the automated software and manpower sophistication, hence DOD / GSA can reward given winning BPA Vendor with 5% total sales of given item (not total schedule) and non-BPA vendors 95% total item sales. This would incur more savings for the government and simultaneously give all vendors greater opportunities via competition. Again, this depends on DOD / GSA’S capabilities. b) If DOD / GSA does not possess automated software and/or abilities to reward BPAs per item hence during the interim DOD / GSA would reward given winning BPA Vendors 5% total sales of given schedule and give non-BPA Vendors 95% total schedule sales. Simultaneously and during this interim DOD / GSA would develop software so all DOD / GSA vendors at a predictable future date can make bids per item vs per schedule. This per item bid option would save the government an incredible amount of taxpayer dollars. c) Above option a and option b procurement solutions saves the taxpayers substantially more money vs the current DOD / GSA FSSI non-competitive procurement solution. Please allow experts to crunch the numbers, hence comparing our 21st Century procurement solution vs DOD / GSA’S current non-competitive FSSI procurement solution. d) Again our open competition solution does not require addition taxpayer dollars. DOD / GSA’S current FSSI procurement solution potentially denies 18,000 companies from selling to the federal government., hence leaving only 10 or 15 companies per schedule selling items to Uncle Sam. Via Economics 101 past experiences a handful of companies vs 10,000s of vendors will eventually create oligopolies & monopolies. I would like to present more 21st Century Competitive Solutions vs DOD / GSA’S current FSSI Again, our Open Competition DOD / GSA procurement solution does not require taxpayer dollars. Our open competition procurement solution is funded via putting all nonessential DOD / GSA projects on hold or lay off given DOD / GSA employees or increase or maintain current DOD / GSA vendor schedule fees. No additional taxpayer dollars are required for this project. I strongly believe DOD / GSA should modify existing software to control buyers rather than eliminating competition via the current DOD / GSA FSSI procurement program. If buyer breaks protocol hence buyer would be disciplined. This software project can be done without additional funding. DOD / GSA, DoD & NASA can prioritize this software project via existing employed Software Engineers. It takes the will and priority to make this happen. Also, if DOD / GSA claims it does not have available software engineers to complete this non-funded task hence, DOD / GSA can put all nonessential DOD / GSA projects on hold or lay off given DOD / GSA employees or increase or maintain current DOD / GSA vendor schedule fees. No additional taxpayer dollars are required for this project. From what I can see there are some really big holes in the procurement process. 1) Via this GAO report http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-12-705T most purchases were made outside of DOD / GSA procurement web site www.DoD / GSAadvantage.gov. ; A solution to this problem would be take away the buyers PHYSICAL credit card and store the credit card information online via www.DoD / GSAadvantage.gov ; This also protects the credit card # and information from possibly being compromised. Again this software project can be done with no additional funding. Amazon.com is a perfect example if you want to see how this works. I know the government is not a company but I am certain DOD / GSA has great software engineers to accomplish this task via a top priority and no additional funding software project. For open market purchases buyer currently utilize fbo.gov and/or other existing procurement sites. The same projects can be accomplished via these sites. 2) An independent software company should be allowed to screen scrape information from DoD / GSAadvantage.gov to prove selected FSSI Vendors "DO NOT" offer the lowest prices/ best quality. 3) Via Vendor uploads develop back end software to monitor and reject over-priced items. Example a box of paper should not sell more than $50 hence boxes of paper selling for more than $50 would be red flagged hence denying this item upload to DoD / GSAadvantage.gov. DOD / GSA software engineers would need to create software to utilize statistical databases. Top-notch software companies may be required to assist DOD / GSA software engineers. 4) I believe various government buyers have different volume purchase requirements. FSSI is not a one size fits all solution. Example many government buyers have less than a $3,000 requirement. Internet purchasing may be more advantageous for this type of purchase. Example open competition via DoD / GSAadvantage.gov 5) DOD / GSA claims its employees are overworked and can no longer handle additional and/or existing vendors. All existing employee manual operations should be analyzed via DOD / GSAs Software Engineers to automate current manual human labor. It may be possible to handle unlimited vendors and buyers once this project is completed. Each new additional DOD / GSA Human assignment should be analyzed by software engineers for possible automation. Again this can be a non-funded project as explained above. 6) I strongly believe an independent software company should be given the opportunity to present additional 21st Century solutions hence enhancing our 21st Century ALL AMERICAN Open Competition Federal Strategic Sourcing Initiative also know as OCFSSI. 7) Reduce the number of schedule solicitations. Currently DOD / GSA claims it costs $3,000 per year, per contract to maintain each contract and numerous DOD / GSA employees. There are 40 solicitations (DOD / GSA and VA). The solicitations should be consolidated down to a handful with a goal of a single solicitation (contractors could then choose to consolidate their contracts or maintain separate contracts depending on their business models). The current structure of the schedules often forces companies to submit multiple offers for multiple contracts when a single contract would be more efficient. Consolidating solicitations allows companies to efficiently and effectively consolidate contracts rather than having multiple contracts across schedules and business lines. This approach would provide the opportunity for contractors and DOD / GSA to reduce costs associated with seeking, obtaining and managing multiple schedule contracts. It is an opportunity to leverage contractor and DOD / GSA resources through a more efficient structure. Consolidating schedules would lead to a more efficient and effective platform for market research by customer agencies. Also all human manual work should be analyzed via DOD / GSA software engineers for automation and efficiency. 8) Congress needs to investigate if DOD / GSA’s software is awash in horrible spaghetti software code making it virtually impossible to make necessary modifications to move this agency into the 21st century. Hiring competent small business software companies would be the logical choice to fix this problem. Again, Our Open Competition DOD / GSA procurement solution does not require taxpayer dollars. Our open competition procurement solution is funded via putting all nonessential DOD / GSA projects on hold or lay off given DOD / GSA employees or increase or maintain current DOD / GSA vendor schedule fees. No additional taxpayer dollars are required for this project. 9) It is this writer's belief FSSI is nothing similar to Corporate volume purchasing. Example lets take Walmart. They currently have 66,000 vendors and counting each day. FSSI eliminates virtually all competition with possible oligopoly price fixing. Keep in mind all vendor prices are available via DoD / GSAadvantage.gov Giving very few companies exclusive selling rights via a long term contract and eliminating competition is not the answer. Why have 1,000s of existing DOD / GSA software programs go to waste monitoring a few vendors. DOD / GSA needs to enhance existing software to truly and easily maintain a vigorous open competitive market via existing web sites (DoD / GSAadvantage.gov and other existing procurement sites). Programmatically controlling the buyer via software is the 21st solution. Thank you very much for reading and compiling this logical and open competition procurement solution called The 21st Century Open Competition Federal Strategic Sourcing Initiative also know as OCFSSI. I still believe in open competition and American Free Enterprise will always prevail over oligopolies and monopolies. I strongly believe our 21st Century Open Competition Procurement Solution is superior to the current DOD / GSA FSSI procurement solution. I am certain the American people would agree with me.
    { "Agree":"1","Funny":"1","Insightful":"1","Disagree":"-1","Offensive":"-1","Troll":"-1" }
  • small business
    woodrobuda
    as always you guys rock.... So the following statement should not be construed as politically incorrect but since the issue I'm about to name is currently before the Surpremes, it should be mentioned very explicitly. I desire feedback even from the editorial staff. Is not this move toward small business a new corporate entitlement program? Is not this move to facilitate small business not a quota system? Finally, (and perhaps the most "radically") is not this move toward small business not an affirmative action program? I know how these questions sound but this tilt (years in the making now) is so dramatic that it will force a whole new economic model for many companies (large and mid-sized certainly). This may seem as though it's a cynical response to FrankJr but it really isn't. These changes are a redefinition of who can be successful. I don't necessarily believe it's all bad but I'm not so naieve as to believe it's good either. What's most disturbing is the notion that the government can force changes to their suppliers and expect that there are not consequences for driving down costs. How am I wrong?
    { "Agree":"1","Funny":"1","Insightful":"1","Disagree":"-1","Offensive":"-1","Troll":"-1" }
  • { "Agree":"1","Funny":"1","Insightful":"1","Disagree":"-1","Offensive":"-1","Troll":"-1" }