Michael Fischetti is the executive director of the National Contract Management Association.

In recent weeks, there's been considerable movement on different fronts to change how government conducts acquisition. Collectively, three of the largest initiatives may considerably affect how the government does its buying. What are they and what's the significance?

The Agile Acquisition to Retain Technological Edge Act was introduced on March 25 to reform the Department of Defense (DoD) acquisition system. It is intended as a discussion draft and only a start, based on over a thousand comments and input from defense leaders. Rep. Mac Thornberry, R-Texas, chairman of the Armed Services Committee, and committee Ranking Member Rep. Adam Smith, D-Wash., will offer many already-reported provisions for consideration in the forthcoming National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA). The bill has bipartisan support in both the House and Senate.

Better Buying Power (BBP) 3.0, was released on April 9 by Frank Kendall, under secretary of defense for Acquisition, Technology and Logistics. BPP 3 comes five years after the first version, and is meant to "increase the productivity, efficiency, and effectiveness" of DoD's many complex acquisition, technology, and logistics efforts. BBP isn't a program, but more a back-to-basics reminder of all that should comprise an acquisition system supporting military capability intended to keep our nation strong, safe, and technologically superior to potential adversaries—something we've taken for granted in the post-WWII and Cold War years.

GSA's Multiple Award Schedule (MAS) Competitive Pricing Initiative embodies potentially transformational change to the MAS program anticipated to improve flexibility, agility, pricing, transparency, and increased government use. It could provide increased information to contracting officers so they in turn make more informed award determinations and assist some schedule holders in becoming more competitive. This would occur through price analysis of existing data and a proposed Transactional Data Reporting Rule, requiring vendors to electronically report prices paid through GSA contracts. Other rules changes include a class deviation affecting IT schedule "Commercial Supplier Agreement" terms and conditions and order level pricing, allowing for more flexibility in ongoing work. Given the significance of the MAS program and its potential to address many government supply and service needs quickly, at commercial quality, and at technological currency, changes that encourage contracting officers across government to consider MAS more routinely as a contracting strategy could fulfill several goals for future government acquisition.

Coming off recent OMB moves toward category management and several months (or years) of asking for action in acquisition, many may now see it. All the above initiatives are meaningful, thoughtful, honest, transparent, and carefully measured attempts toward meaningful reform. No one promises significant or discernable change immediately or even in the near future. The fact that these activities are not a knee jerk reaction to sharp criticism from some corners and that all expect change to be an evolutionary process, with results realized over the long run, is a healthy and realistic change from the usual short-term business, political, or media cycle responses we've often seen in other areas.

While some hope for more "revolutionary" change, the process by which these acquisition initiatives are taking shape offers a positive model not always seen within government recently. In all cases, the actions have been relatively open and transparent. All voices have the opportunity to be heard, particularly those of the professionals managing or working in the acquisition environment, from both government and industry sectors. All ideas were carefully considered; all parties are more or less on the same page (whether they be from Congress, the executive branch, industry, or others) and all parties are searching for meaningful, long-term, cultural change. Thus, while various constituencies are mostly still analyzing and seeing what the specific outcomes might be, before formulating specific positions in response, all should be pleased with the healthy nature of long-term contracting improvement. Of course, the final outcome is yet to be determined.

Share:
In Other News
Load More