"Contracting Officers often click through mindlessly when entering contracts in FPDS-NG"

Is this you? Looking on page three of the DOI IG's report you can see the importance of correctly inputting information. Also, having the correct data is good, too.

A solution suggested is to have periodic "statistical sampling." Is there a better solution?

Let me know in the comments.



For other articles on this and other data integrity issues, check out my feed on data integrity.

Proposed rule looks at small business and subcontractors

Here is a collection of articles that deal with a proposed FAR rule. As the introduction to the rule states,

Federal Funding Accountability and Transparency Act of 2006 (FFATA) (Pub. L. 109-282) requires the existence and operation of a searchable website that provides public access to information about Federal expenditures

This proposed rule puts into place the FAR requirements to make this happen. Among the issues this raises is the public access to subcontractor information that has not be available in the past. This information will eventually be captured and searchable at federalspending.gov.

A secondary issue is that small businesses, which have received a pass on a lot of accountability issues, will be faced with the government wanting- and getting- more details about how they do business.

Emily Murphy, the General Services Administration’s former chief acquisition officer, says that the government will have more information than ever on small businesses, so they need to better manage their government contracts.

Murphy said many small businesses have not mastered the intricacies of their contracts. For example, FAR small-business set-aside provisions limit how much of the contract’s subcontracting work can go to large businesses.

That means more work for them, reducing their ability to be fully functioning business partners.

[Note: Rep. Jim Moran says that about "ninety percent of the companies receiving small-business set-aside contracts will go out of business." Another encouraging word.]

Agencies need a plan to validate FPDS-NG data

No kidding! OFPP expects the agencies to come up with a plan to ensure the information in FPDS is accurate and up-to-date. If that happens, all the taskers we normally get should go away and we can get back to the business of buying stuff.

We all need goals and dreams.

Government spending website coming soon

The Federal Funding Accountability and Transparency Act of 2006 calls for a single searchable website to allow access to information regarding all federal awards. It defines federal awards as:

grants, subgrants, loans, awards,cooperative agreements, and other forms of financial assistance; [and includes] contracts, subcontracts,
purchase orders, task orders, and delivery orders [but] does not include individual transactions below $25,000; and...before October 1, 2008, does not include credit card transactions.

The linked article is a good overview of the proposed system, describing it as a "Google-like search engine and database."

There are two interesting aspects to this. First is trying to get all the data that this calls for and to keep it updated (there is a requriement all information is updated within 30 days of award). The Federal Procurement Data System-New Generation is supposed to have that, at least for federal contract information, but doesn't. Good luck integrating that data.

The other interesting part to me is the emphasis on subcontracts. Since the focus lately on the sub-sub-sub-contracts of the Army's LOGCAP contracts, this could be quite an expansive system. Of course, the bill calls for contractors to charge for this reporting effort.

This upside, though, is that if it increases the visibility of how important federal procurement is to the U.S. economy, it may be a good thing.

Government Internet initiatives face real challenges

After reading (and writing) about the soon-to-be-adopted (by 2014) web-based contracting systems, I remembered this recent article. It cites the use of federal Internet sites by citizens throughout the country. [A similar article is here]

Maybe the explanation is in the traditional government practice of rice-bowling. Here is what the article says,

Karen Evans, administrator of OMB's Office of Electronic Government and Information Technology, said it is one thing for agencies to offer a service, but it is another for them to actually shut down their similar service and use the governmentwide solution. [my italics, of course]

That is why there is an Army Single Face to Industry website and FedBizOpps, a USAJobs site and the Army CPOL website (the Air Force has one and the Navy, too).

Of course, what about all the legacy systems that are procurement-related that can barely even talk to themselves.

The Coast Guard's contract writing system (see the article or read the report, see page 8) that doesn't talk to the federal government's new repository of procurement-related data (FDPS-NG) nor to other DHS contracting systems. The report says

Currently, however, DHS has several different contract writing systems that do not automatically interface with its Federal Procurement Data Systems - Next Generation (FPDS-NG) – a government-wide procurement reporting system accessible by the public. Some of the systems may need to be replaced. Additionally, not all DHS procurements are entered into FPDS-NG. For example, grants, mission assignments, and purchase card data may not be entered into FPDS-NG, resulting in an understatement of DHS’s procurement activities.

Wow! Why can't we just get along?

Tracking federal contract actions

The new law that requires a single source for keeping track of all federal contracting actions (both contracts and grants) is beginning to get attention in the media and elsewhere. This article is a good summary of the law and the deallines to watch for.

With our experience with FPDS-NG and our business intelligence systems, implementing this should be pretty exciting to watch.