industry’s experience with gsa’s electronic systems€™s experience with... · synopsis ......

WHITE PAPER

Industry’s experience with GSA’s Electronic Systems

Developed by the

ACT/IAC

Acquisition Management

Special Interest Group

JUNE 6, 2007

GSA Systems June 6, 2007 2

TABLE OF CONTENTS SYNOPSIS ................................................................................................................3 PURPOSE AND BACKGROUND - ACT-IAC ACQUISITION MANAGEMENT SUBCOMMITTEE ON GSA SYSTEMS...............................4 GSA SYSTEMS........................................................................................................4

SCHEDULES INPUT PROGRAM (SIP) .........................................................................5 GSA ADVANTAGE – EBUY ......................................................................................6 E-OFFER/E-MOD ......................................................................................................9 INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY SOLUTIONS SHOP (ITSS) .........................................11 TASK ORDERING SYSTEM (TOS) ...........................................................................14 72A QUARTERLY SALES REPORTING SYSTEM .......................................................16 SF294/295 ELECTRONIC SUBCONTRACTING REPORTING SYSTEM (ESRS) ............18 CONTRACTOR ASSESSMENT INITIATIVE (CASI).....................................................19 GWAC QUARTERLY SALES REPORTING SYSTEM..................................................21 SCHEDULE SALES QUERY (SSQ) ...........................................................................22 CENTRAL CONTRACTOR REGISTRATION (CCR).....................................................23 FEDERAL PROCUREMENT DATA SYSTEM – NEXT GENERATION (FPDS – NG) ......25 FEDBIZOPPS (FBO)...............................................................................................28

FINAL RECOMMENDATIONS .........................................................................30


White Paper: Industry’s experience with GSA’s Electronic Systems

ACT-IAC Acquisition Management Special Interest Group ( ACM SIG)

Released: June 11, 2007

The Acquisition Management SIG addresses acquisition life-cycle management issues as well as competitive sourcing, acquisition workforce training and procurement and contracting alternatives. The SIG focuses on educating federal agencies, Capitol Hill and regulatory bodies, leveraging the collective experience and expertise of IAC members, and coordinating the exchange of ideas between government and industry. The objective of the SIG provides a forum for government and industry to discuss ideas, concepts, and issues related to government acquisition.

Synopsis

The Acquisition Management SIG started a new subcommittee (GSA systems advisory committee), in coordination with the General Services Administration (GSA), to report on experience with and usability of GSA electronic systems. The subcommittee was tasked to provide GSA with an assessment on the overall usability of the systems in terms of strengths, weaknesses, and recommendations for improvement. The assessment, produced in the form of this white paper, is intended to offer GSA industry’s perspective on modernizing, upgrading, and/or consolidating existing systems and system data feeds.

Disclaimer This document has been prepared to provide information regarding a specific issue. This document does not – nor is it intended to – take a position on any specific course of action or proposal. This document does not – and is not intended to – endorse or recommend any specific technology, product or vendor. The views expressed in this document do not necessarily represent the official views of the individuals and organizations who participated in its development. Every effort has been made to present accurate and reliable information in this report. However, ACT/IAC assumes no responsibility for consequences resulting from the use of the information herein.

Copyright ©American Council for Technology, 2006. This document may be quoted, reproduced and/or distributed without permission provided that credit is given to the American Council for Technology and Industry Advisory Council.

Further Information For further information, contact the American Council for Technology and Industry Advisory Council at (703) 218-1955 or www.actgov.org


Purpose and Background - ACT-IAC Acquisition Management Subcommittee on GSA Systems

The Acquisition Management SIG started a new subcommittee (GSA systems advisory committee), in coordination with the General Services Administration (GSA), to report on experience with and usability of GSA electronic systems. The subcommittee was tasked to provide GSA with an assessment on the overall usability of the systems in terms of strengths, weaknesses, and recommendations for improvement. The assessment, produced in the form of this white paper, is intended to offer GSA industry’s perspective on modernizing, upgrading, and/or consolidating existing systems and system data feeds.

The Services Acquisition Center, Management Services Center, and IT Center Industry Government Councils (IGC) formed an e-tools team in the fall of 2006. The e-tools team developed a white paper in November 2006 similar to what is being covered in our assessment. Their findings on the GSA systems we assessed were incorporated into this white paper.

GSA Systems

This white paper provides a purpose and description, strengths, weaknesses, and suggested industry recommendations for future improvements of each of the following GSA systems.

Schedules Input Program (SIP) GSA Advantage! – eBuy e-Offer/e-Mod GSA IT-Solutions Shop (ITSS) GSA Tracking and Ordering System (TOS) 72A Quarterly Reporting System – Industrial Funding Fee (IFF) SF294/295 Electronic Subcontracting Reporting System (eSRS) Contractor Assessment Initiative (CAsI) GWAC Quarterly Sales Reporting System – Contract Access Fee (CAF) Schedule Sales Query (SSQ)

The systems below are part of the Integrated Acquisition Environment (IAE) and although they are not under GSA FAS, reviews and recommendations for improvement were made should GSA FAS have the opportunity to influence changes:

Central Contractor Registration (CCR) Federal Procurement Data System- Next Generation (FPDS-NG) FedBizOpps (FBO)

Members of the subcommittee include: Elaine Dauphin, CSC; Jackie Everett, SI International; Ron Falcone, Distributed Solutions; Jen Ferguson, CGI Federal; Kevin Hanley, Lockheed Martin Information Technology; Bill Johnson, General Dynamics Information Technology; Sheryl McCurnin, CDW-G; Ruth Mullany, CSC; Hema Sanghani, CGI Federal; Roy Varghese, Aquilent; and Brian Williams, D&B Government Solutions.


Schedules Input Program (SIP)

Purpose and Description All GSA Schedule contract holders are required to upload and keep current their Schedule offerings (pricelist) in GSA Advantage via the Schedules Input Program (SIP). SIP was intended to provide a consistent method for loading products and services into the Schedules catalogs for each contractor.

There are two components to the SIP files – the SIP Electronic Text File and the SIP Electronic Catalog File. The SIP Electronic Text File posts on GSA Advantage! as the “Catalog File” (i.e., it contains the catalog of products and services for each Schedule contractor by SIN). The SIP Electronic Catalog File contains the company name, administrator name, address, telephone number, etc. (i.e., administrative data).

Strengths Having SIP is better than loading pricelist data completely manually. The SIP tool has been upgraded to accept a variety of file types such as Word, Excel, PDF and HTML files.

Weaknesses Hard to use - SIP is very difficult to use for both product and text file creation resulting in many contractors hiring outside firms to upload their contract, pricing, and graphics (e.g., SenSoft, Immix, WMG). Some firms use their own EDI capabilities which requires them to employ staff full-time. A web-based update has been promised for over three years, yet the desktop SIP continues to be updated periodically instead. High administrative cost - SIP requires several GSA employees to work nearly full time helping contractors submit their SIP data thus increasing Schedules administrative costs. File name confusion - the Text File creates a catalog and the Catalog File creates administrative data.

Recommendations

Description of Item Recommendation for Action

Confusing file names Change “SIP Electronic Catalog File” to “SIP Electronic Administrative File”

Difficulty in tool use Overhaul the SIP program to simplify its use, internally and externally, and consider free EDI capability as an alternative. Create an education program for the new or existing tool(s). This can reduce costs for both industry and Government.


GSA Advantage – eBuy

Purpose and Description eBuy is a web-based system (hww.ebuy.gsa.gov/advgsa/advantage/ebuy/start_page.do) that permits authorized federal government contracting officials to electronically distribute opportunities (RFQs/RFPs, Sources Sought (SS), or Requests for Information (RFIs)) that will be issued against GSA-owned contract vehicles (GWACs or MAS’) to the entire authorized vendor community, and for authorized and registered vendors holding those contracts to respond to such requests with proposals and/or information.

The Government creates a posting page with supporting documentation for authorized vendors to access via a web portal. Vendors sign on to eBuy, review opportunities, select ones of interest, download documents, and respond to the government contracting officer (CO) with proposals or other documents to meet the government’s stated need. There is no requirement that a vendor respond to the eBuy notice. eBuy also allows the soliciting CO to select and send an email direct to one or more companies that possess a contract under which the opportunity will be awarded. eBuy also permits, where the scope is sufficiently broad, more than one contract or MAS to be used as the base contracting vehicle. Regardless of method used to announce the opportunity, all vendors possessing an appropriate contract vehicle for the opportunity may bid on the effort.

Industry partners are by far the largest users of this automated Government tool. System changes could have costly effects not only on the industry partners, but on Government contracting activities as well.

Strengths Single sign-on – permits one sign-on for a vendor holding multiple GWACs/MAS’. Meets DoD Section 803 requirements for competition. Generally easy to use for services and products. Provides notice that a vendor was directly selected by the CO (e-mail notice). Provides quick scan for all opportunities by highlighting a linked eBuy number for which the vendor was directly selected. Provides email link to responsible CO for questions and clarifications. Provides a sortable table of opportunities. Provides a means to eliminate user-selected RFP/RFQ from the user view. Allows vendors to use non-intrusive automated user interfaces (“scraper”) to efficiently and cost-effectively access the system and data. Also see below, weakness.

Weaknesses Inconsistent structure to the eBuy notification message. Essential elements, such as the following. may or may not be included pm RFP/RFQ notifications: Financial type of the order (i.e., T&M, FFP, CP) Client organizational information (who the actual customer is) Location of Work Security level (services)

Insufficient “help” tools for users.

https://www.ebuy.gsa.gov/advgsa/advantage/ebuy/start_page.do


Feedback to vendors on awards is weak. Too many vendor resources are being tied up waiting for and following up on award notices. eBuy doesn’t click directly to the RFP/RFQ after sign-on when users receive an email notification of an RFP/RFQ. Capability to set up notification based on criteria such as key words, dollar value, NAICS codes, etc doesn’t exist. Scope confusion – the ability to select more than one Schedule for the same requirement causes vendor confusion as to actual scope, and could also expose an award to negative audit oversight or interpretation. Open market or incidental items cannot be added to an RFP/RFQ response, this is contradictory to the GSA Schedule program guidance and FAR 8.402. The tool is limited to GSA Schedules and GWACs, which limits the customer and the Contractor in their ability to respond. GSA employees in the acquisition centers and other offices that work with customer agencies are unable to view opportunities, other than their own, posted to e-Buy. eBuy has no system change notice function; therefore, vendors are not being notified of changes to the system. These changes have negatively impacted how data is retrieved, both manually and automatically. It is very difficult to find services using the GSA Advantage! search engine. The results are not consistent nor are they accurate. Currently a contractor can only review RFQ’s or RFI’s for SIN’s which are approved on their individual contracts. This is a major limitation to those using Teaming or Participating Dealer relationships. The respondent who does not carry the particular SIN on their contract will not be able to view or respond to the RFQ at all, thus limiting competition.

Recommendations


Need a mandatory structure to the eBuy notification message

In order to have a complete RFP/RFQ, it would be beneficial to have the following on the notification message:

Financial type of the order (i.e., T&M, FFP, CP) Client Organizational Information (customer) Location of Work Security level (services)

Increase User Help tools Create a user Help Window “how to” for completing RFQ life cycle events. For example, one problem that increasingly occurs is that a Gov. user does not know how to make a mod to the existing eBuy RFQ for extending the due date or updating the record for changes to an SOW.

Mandatory response to vendors on order status

For all vendors submitting a quote, have the system send a notice of status change upon award or cancellation.

Change status code “Not Awarded” to “Not Selected”

The code “Not Awarded” can also mean the order was not awarded at all. “Not Selected” is better suited to a vendor’s understanding. Reserve “Not Awarded” for those RFPs/RFQs that truly have not been awarded.



Make RFI results known to vendors

Vendors frequently have no idea of what has happened to the responses they send in to COs. Status should state “RFQ forthcoming approx <date>” or “RFQ closed pending client approval.” Having no information leaves the vendor in limbo.

Establish a separate questions and clarifications window in each order for all vendors to use and view responses

A common window would allow all vendors to ask questions and view all responses equally and openly.

Efficiency of user process Have eBuy click directly to the order after sign on for directed users.

Expand notification criteria Include criteria such as key words, dollar value, NAICS codes

Limit Schedule selection based on requirements

Allow the buyer to select only one Schedule for a requirement. A comment may be made that other Schedules may be used to complement the effort.

Open market/incidental items Per Patricia Pierson, a change to this issue is to be put in place, to allow the contractor to annotate (via a check box) if any open market or incidental items are included as part of the response, which will then flag the procuring office to review the Open Market requirements of the FAR. We recommend an update to eBuy when this change occurs.

Open to other GWACS Gain permission of the other GWAC Agencies, and open the tool to these vehicles.

Post an operations message window showing pending eBuy change actions

Some vendors have automated interfaces to eBuy for more efficient scanning of opportunities. Unplanned changes cause severe business process interruptions.

Single sign-on limitation for Schedule holders with dealers or teaming agreements

When a company signs a Teaming or Participating Dealer Agreement, request GSA provide a separate GSA login and password for those partners which the contract holder can issue upon execution of the agreement. With this "limited access" login and password, teaming partners could bid on RFQ's through e-Buy, but not have access to the rest of the contract holder’s GSA systems tools, reporting, etc.


e-Offer/e-Mod

Purpose and Description e-Offer is an electronic tool which was created to facilitate the submission, review, and negotiation of new GSA Schedule offers for new GSA Schedules. Based off of the same system as e-Offer, e-Mod is an electronic tool for submitting modifications to GSA to automate the modification processes. The e-Mod tool is open and available to all GSA Schedules not just the Information Technology (IT) Schedules.

Strengths GSA should be commended on creating an electronic tool to support the submission of new contracts and contract modifications. The cost savings to both Government and industry is not insignificant.

Weaknesses Technology not embraced – with some of the problems related to the electronic submission of offers and mods, the Acquisition Centers have not fully embraced this technology. Solicitation lacking – all of the required pages from the solicitation that require contractor to fill in data are not in the e-Offer tool. Therefore, most offers submitted are incomplete and are subsequently rejected. Missing capability - the system does not appear to allow for communication between the contractor and the CO within e-Mod. When the CO has a question or concern regarding the modification, they cannot send a notification via e-Mod; instead the CO is forced to reject the submission. This is very frustrating and time consuming for both the Government and contractor as the mod has to be completely resubmitted. If the capability currently exists to transfer any number of documents (e.g., e-mails, certifications, etc.), please provide additional training to the CO’s and contractors. Contractor view different - Contracting Officers in the Acquisition Centers have no idea what the proposed contractor sees on his end. Therefore, they are not in a position to help the contractor with his submission. Submission process - the e-Offer and e-Mod tool incorporates additional steps not required in a paper offer. For example, a mod must be signed by the contractor before it is complete and in some cases, they sit in their in-box for 2 weeks. This time counts against the CO’s PALT and is a step they would not have to worry about if the mod were originally submitted in paper. Difficulties in submission - Several private companies that develop offers for a fee have indicated that they no longer choose to use E-Offer or E-Mod because of the problems and difficulty. Signatures - When a modification is fully executed the contractor can see, save, and print a fully executed copy of the SF30. When the GSA CO or an auditor revisits a fully executed modification, the signatures do not appear. As of November 17th GSA is aware of the issue and is working on fixing this.


Digital certificates – should a digital certificate expire and a contractor acquire a new certificate, a modification posted and worked on under the prior certificate is blocked to any other certificate; therefore, the contractor no longer has visibility to see, work on, or retrieve the electronic data issued under the expired certificate.

Recommendations


e-Offer solicitation Ensure that the full solicitation, and all fill ins, are accessible by the contractor. Realizing that the e-Offer system runs both solicitation and electronic modification applications; both applications should be improved and value added to their processes. If GSA has a test site for its e-Offer system work, the recommendation is to share and beta test prior to launch, and then roll it out to the contractor community in phases.

Modification/clarification capability is missing

Modify the e-Mod application to allow for clarifications, communication, and negotiations.

Signature process Ensure workflow of the e-Tools is consistent with the normal offer and modification process and signatures now appear on all fully executed printed versions of the approved contract or modification

Digital certificate replacement Modify the system to allow for replacement digital certificates.

Training Expand training for all GSA and contractor personnel


Information Technology Solutions Shop (ITSS)

Purpose and Description To accommodate government procurement through its programs, IT-Solutions has developed an on-line, web-based purchase order system called IT-Solutions Shop (ITSS). ITSS provides convenient access through the internet to a centralized work environment where orders are submitted, processed, and awarded. All information is automatically posted and made available as it is processed in the system, and individuals are notified when events requiring their attention occur. Clients, contractors, and individuals from GSA are all able to work simultaneously on-line in this completely integrated internet environment. Furthermore, ITSS includes several security and support systems to make this environment secure and easy to use.

The system is a secure, web-based system using Lotus Notes/Domino software and a Common Operating Database (CODB) sharing data and records with ITOMS in a real-time mode. The system is designed to provide full life-cycle support for task orders with full, secure and open transparency for clients, GSA members, and authorized vendors for the orders under which they have access. The security parameters allow vendors to see ONLY those orders for which authorized.

Strengths Generally easy to use and to learn “how to”. Registration process is relatively easy. Good help functions. Multiple simultaneous accesses to task orders are a great feature, especially when working with support personnel from different geographical areas. Kudos to ITSS for their handling of essential security parameters. The vendor controls access at the task order level while GSA maintains access control at the company level. Dual email notification of all actions (to the primary and alternate points of contact) keeps actions from getting overlooked or lost. Task ID search capability is good, except for Quick Order Status. Web response time is very good (most of the time). Help desk personnel are very helpful and responsive. They try to solve the problems rather than pass them on. Organizational layout of Home Page is good, but a little crowded. Suggest using color and graphics to differentiate the sections (Quick Links, Orders, Registrations, and Help). Email links all appear to open to the correct order page. Holding RFQ in open status until the time frame cutoff is good. This gives vendors the ability to control the proposal until closeout time.

Weaknesses Quick Order Status - needs to be able to search on partial order ID and search the same way as the other search functions. Quick Order search requires an exact match; otherwise it takes you to the beginning of the vendor’s task order list. The other search function allows a partial entry, and goes to the first task with that entry (e.g., if you enter ‘4TFL’ in Quick Links, it goes to the beginning of the list which is not a task beginning with 4TFL. The others go to the first task with the first characters identifying 4TFL, or the first task beyond that which is closest).


Creating Order Mod - two differing methodologies are used (GSA request vs. vendor request), a single methodology is preferable. When GSA requests a mod, it is done as an RFQ process which can cause confusion as to what dollar amounts to place on the order. However, when the vendor requests a mod, the system asks for the new total price, and then calculates the price difference as a check for the Mod value, this methodology is preferred. Adding/deleting contract authorizations – the vendor principal, not the registration desk, should be confirming individual primary registrations. Vendors with large employee usage, as well as the ITSS registration desk spend inordinate amounts of time processing user authorization letters. The registration desk should still require approvals at the company level. In addition, the maintenance process for registrations is cumbersome. Vendors cannot delete registrations for employees no longer with the company; the vendor principal has to send a letter to the registration desk. The amount of extra/unnecessary registrations can become unmanageable. Paragraph titles - the Guide Me window paragraph titles do not match too well with the actual titles on the Welcome page which can cause confusion for new users. Award notices – the e-mails only state the winning vendor, not the award value. The award value is public information, and to reduce the amount of time and money for both industry and Government on FOIA requests, the award value should be included on the award notice sent to all bidding vendors. Client Acceptance (Invoice) - the action to rate the vendor should be mandatory. Contract authorization verification - there is no automatic check of contract authorization when a GSA rep selects a person to receive an RFQ. In some cases an RFQ is sent out to a registrant in a company who does not have authority to submit a proposal for the intended contract vehicle. Fee tracking – the system doesn’t have the ability to track the fee that GSA organizations charge if it is done in a method other than a percentage (i.e., hourly rates for GSA services). Therefore, ITSS is not used by FEDSIM or other GSA organizations that charge for their services by the hour. Multiple funding documents – the system cannot track tasks that receive funding from multiple sources (it can track serially but not in parallel). This creates the need to manually track what money was spent against what funding sources.

Recommendations


Quick Order status requires exact match All order search functions need to operate the same way (e.g., take you to the closest order with the data entered).

Creating Order Mods differs Change the award value calculation on the GSA window to match the vendor window – the new total value will be recalculated based on the mod amount that was entered.



Registration process ITSS security needs to be a shared responsibility. Once approved by the registration desk at the company level, give the authority to one or two authorized vendor representatives to add, maintain, delete registrations and add or remove eligible contracts. Have the registration desk/GSA review the eligible contracts list for integrity.

Make new user guides more efficient Review the Guide Me windows and titles to ensure all match and can be followed.

Award notices are incomplete Enhance award notice emails to include winning vendor and total price. This is open government information and will save money to both vendors and government by reducing FOIA requests.

Not all Client Acceptances have a rating Make the rating of vendors a mandatory (gold dot) action. The approving person cannot leave the page until a rating is accomplished.

Contractor employee selected to receive order does not match intended contract

Build a list by contract (ANSWER, Millennia, Schedule, etc) that links to the appropriate individual in each company who has responsibility and authority to submit proposals for that contract. A suggestion for doing this is to provide a “selecting function” whereby the GSA CSR selects the contract which then opens another drop down list of authorized companies. The CSR selects the company and another drop down list pops up which has the names of primary registrants authorized to submit proposals under that contract. The CSR then picks one of those names.

Fees charged as hourly rates not supported Modify the system to also allow the fee charged by GSA to be input as hourly rates.

Funding sources Modify the system to allow tracking of multiple funding sources per task order.


Task Ordering System (TOS)

Purpose and Description TOS allows electronic delivery of vendor orders and vendor invoices via the internet, including electronic delivery of approved invoices to the one paying office. TOS interfaces, allows users to input commitment, obligation, and disbursement transactions for vendor orders in a manner equivalent to that done by OMIS.

TOS is a Lotus Notes system that is used by FEDSIM/FEDCAC to develop and input contracting information and serves as a front-end to OMIS. TOS processes and stores structured (i.e., conventional database) and unstructured (i.e., free form text documents) data. The system supports the end-to-end workflow involved in preparing, routing, and awarding a complete procurement package. Some of these workflow steps are captured in TOS for transmission to OMIS and performance of FEDSIM/FEDCAC financial processing.

Strengths Registration is easy to understand. There is a primary and alternate vendor POC and only they can add other company members to the vendor registration for any particular contract. Invoices automatically go to the GSA finance center (Greater Southwest Finance Center) without having to enter it a second time (more connected to Finance centers than ITSS). TOS now has the capability to handle partial payments. This is a great improvement and much appreciated by both Government and Industry.

Weaknesses Help desk is responsive, but not knowledgeable of details such as how to configure automatic notifications. System limitations – the following elements discuss limitations in the TOS system:

RFQs/TORs – are not issued by TOS, they have to go out through some other method (e.g., e-mail and fax).

Locating specific invoices – when a vendor has a large number of orders, locating specific invoices in a range of dates is difficult.

Order layout - when an order is issued and awarded, the PO is on the top of the page and other associated documents are on the bottom of the page.

File sizes – the attachment size limitation needs to be expanded, the size is currently too small for most excel spreadsheets.

Tighter controls – it is too easy to modify the corporate profile, tighter controls are needed. Help functions – not clear in user guides how to designate which individuals are to receive automated notification of what items.

Recommendations


RFQ/TOR distribution Use an automated system, eBuy, to send solicitation documents.



Searching for invoices Enhance the task order/invoice search capability to provide the ability to select a date range instead of have to select a single date from the calendar.

Changing corporate profile Limit the ability to modify the Corporate Profile to the Primary contact, or institute another class of user with the specific authority to modify the Corporate Profile.

File size limitation Increase the file size limitation.

Designation of users to receive automated notifications of actions is not clear

Enhance user guides to include more detail about setting up notifications.

No comment block in system for invoices Enhance the invoice function to add a comment field in the system that will allow the vendor to make notations (e.g., submitting a partial invoice).


72A Quarterly Sales Reporting System

Purpose and Description GSA Schedule Contractors are required to report contract sales to GSA on a quarterly basis. The 72A Quarterly Reporting System and its associated web site (https://72a.gsa.gov/) provide the mechanism for submission of sales data to GSA. In accordance with contract clause, INDUSTRIAL FUNDING FEE (IFF) AND SALES REPORTING, the Contractor must electronically report total contract sales to GSA quarterly. Once a sales figure has been reported, it is multiplied by the appropriate IFF percentage and the amount is remitted to GSA.

Strengths The system is reasonably intuitive and relatively easy to understand and follow. The option exists to electronically pay the IFF via EFT or credit card.

Weaknesses Transparency – the contractor does not see all the reports available to the Administrative Contracting Officer, especially the variance report. The lack of transparency creates problems when trying to resolve issues. Cumbersome processes – several unnecessary screen progressions are required to make payments. The process would be more straightforward if the system would automatically bring up the follow-on screen after each screen is completed. Incomplete information – The acknowledgement of payment received (i.e. confirmation number screen) does not show the contract number. This requires extraneous tracking when reporting on multiple contracts. Redundant data entry – Provide an option to store a profile where bank information can be saved for future use. Reporting on 10 Schedules means putting the routing number, account number, business/personal, and type of account in for each transaction processed. Limited flexibility for EFT – the system doesn’t take into account any adjustments made and only allows EFT payments for IFF amounts calculated for the current quarter. Any adjustments to previous quarters mean that IFF must be paid by check. Also, provide for payment to GSA at the discretion of the contractor rather than GSA accessing the account to withdraw the funds.

Recommendations


Reports Add the ability for the contractor to review and print the variance report.

Payment acknowledgement Add the contract number on the receipt that prints from the confirmation number screen.

Payment system navigation Modify the payment system navigation to automatically progress to the next screen rather than click out of current screen and click on next screen to proceed with payment process.

https://72a.gsa.gov/



Limited payment flexibility Modify the system to store bank profiles for Contractors. A pull down option similar to what is available in commercial systems would reduce time and errors in entering and re-entering bank data. Allow EFT payment for IFF amounts other than what the system calculates for the quarter to allow for variances. This will reduce checks having to be mailed to GSA. Change the EFT payment process from GSA accessing the Contractor’s account for IFF payments to the Contractor transferring the IFF payments to GSA (push vs. pull). This will result in more Contractors using this payment option and reducing the checks having to be mailed to GSA.


SF294/295 Electronic Subcontracting Reporting System (eSRS)

Purpose and Description eSRS (http://www.esrs.gov) is the government-wide system for electronic subcontracting reporting. The eSRS encompasses a set of tools to collect subcontracting data and create higher visibility and introduce a more transparency into the process of gathering information on Federal subcontracting accomplishments.

The system was designed to streamline the process of reporting on subcontracting plans and provide agencies with access to analytical data on subcontracting performance. Specifically, the eSRS eliminates the need for paper submissions and processing of the SF 294's, Individual Subcontracting Reports, and SF 295's, Summary Subcontracting Reports, and replaces the paper with an electronic process to collect the data. With the first generation of the eSRS, contractors and their business associates report data through their web browser, visiting this site and logging on to report accomplishments using an easy data entry process. Future plans for full-operational capability include the development of a back-office interface for those businesses collecting accomplishments electronically.

Strengths The system prevents duplicate contract submissions.

Weaknesses Missing data – the contract is not always in the eSRS due to problems with data from the FPDS System. Either the contract has not been entered into the FPDS system or the subcontract plan requirement field was not selected. Inaccurate data – the contract number that is reported in FPDS system is not the same as on the award document which requires that contractors maintain a cross-walk of the contract numbers between the award documents, FPDS, and the eSRS. Lack of full communications capability – the system does not permit forwarding a copy of the ISR/SSR to an individual who may or may not have access to the eSRS system.

Recommendations


Ensure Consistency with FPDS Validate FPDS data input and data transfer.

Enhance the eSRS Add the capability to forward communications.

http://www.esrs.gov/


Contractor Assessment Initiative (CAsI)

Purpose and Description The Contractor Assessment Initiative (http://vsc.gsa.gov/casi/) is designed to assist the Federal community in directing their acquisitions to firms that provide exceptional support to the Government. The CAsI program is divided into two major components - Internal/Administrative Compliance and Customer Dialogue.

The Internal/Administrative Compliance component gives Federal agencies access to recent performance data on contractors within the Multiple Award Schedule (MAS) program, and assists FAS acquisition activities in making informed decisions about exercising contract options and awarding additional contracts. Industrial Operations Analysts (IOAs) assess contractor compliance with administrative contract requirements and produce a report card that addresses over 20 specific areas of compliance.

The Customer Dialogue component is a work in progress and scheduled to be revisited later this fiscal year. When completed, it is supposed to provide the Federal community with customer feedback from previous buyers of supplies and services through the MAS program. Customer satisfaction evaluations consistent with past performance guidelines established by the Office of Federal Procurement Policy (OFPP), and part of the Government-wide Past Performance Information Retrieval System (PPIRS), will be conducted by independent firms on behalf of GSA. Contractors will have the opportunity to review and respond to their individual evaluations prior to electronic posting, and will have access to their corporate-specific performance data at all times through PPIRS. GSA will leverage PPIRS data concerning Schedule contractors by extracting the detailed evaluations from PPIRS, summarizing them at the contract level, and making the summaries available to Schedule customers through GSA Advantage!

Strengths The CAsI program formalizes the assessment of contractors’ performance.

Weaknesses Inconsistent review cycles – not all contractors are evaluated with the same frequency. Some contractors are visited by an IOA every year, while others once in a five year period. Report card metrics – the following elements speak to the possible inaccuracies and anomalies in the evaluation process in that information on the report card does not reflect the true state of the contract: Delivery – there is no way for an IOA to ascertain that the contractor completes a project 95% on-time, especially in a T&M environment.

Price list – oftentimes problems with price lists in GSA Advantage are not within the contractor’s purview to correct as updates can be delayed by GSA systems or processes.

IFF – with quarterly reporting, only two late payments are allowed and it takes 2.5 years to recover from one late payment. In a five-year period, a contractor can never recover from three or more late payments. The metric does not provide for a learning curve nor does it credit improvements. Additionally, payments made by check are not considered paid until GSA inputs them into the system. Being one day late is the same as being one month late.

Novation/name change – this action is shared between the contractor and GSA, but is included in a metric that reflects solely upon the contractor.

http://vsc.gsa.gov/casi/


Edit capabilities - do not exist for contact information. Data entry errors – should the IOA make a data entry error, it can take months to correct the error. In addition, the IOA cannot correct their own error(s), the ACO has to correct it.

Recommendations


Develop a uniform evaluation Revise the report card to evaluate all contractors with the same review cycle and the same criteria.

CAsI’s evaluation criteria Redesign the CAsI metrics to reflect only those items within the contractors’ control.

Error correction after report card completion

Allow the IOA edit rights after completion to correct data entry errors and set timeframes for timely correction.


GWAC Quarterly Sales Reporting System

Purpose and Description GWAC Contractors are required to report contract sales to GSA on a quarterly basis. Web site https://gwac.gsa.gov/default.htm provides the mechanism for submission of sales data to GSA. In accordance with contract clause, CONTRACTOR SALES REPORTING AND CONTRACT ACCESS FEE (CAF) REMITTANCE, the Contractor must electronically report total contract sales to GSA quarterly. Once a sales figure has been reported, it is multiplied by the appropriate CAF percentage and the amount is remitted to GSA.

Strengths The reporting mechanism allows for tailoring to each contract CAF requirement. The option exists to electronically pay the CAF via EFT or credit card. The user is able to electronically upload the reporting file.

Weaknesses Inadequate exception processing – missing Orders require GSA validation and updates to the system which can hold up the remainder of the submission and processing. Lack of flexibility – depending on contract activity, multiple submissions on the same contract for the same quarter may be required. Multiple submissions are not currently accommodated.

Recommendations:


Exception processing Suggest a process for exceptions that does not hold up processing the “non-exception” portions of the CAF submission.

Partial input Update the system to allow partial contract updates/edits prior to final submission of CAF information.

https://gwac.gsa.gov/default.htm


Schedule Sales Query (SSQ)

Purpose and Description The Schedule Sales Query (SSQ) provides access to the sales reported by MAS Contractors. The sales data reported is updated as contractors’ reports are received.

The report generator offers pre-formatted reports. To facilitate the process, ten formats were developed based on historically requested data. Some of the reports require a Schedule number, a fiscal year, a contract number, or a company name. The reports are generated as quarterly reports for the current year and the past five fiscal years. While this is not the official source for sales data, the information on the site (http://ssq.gsa.gov/) is used by GSA for contract administration and fee management.

Strengths The query offers the user multiple options for viewing the data. User interface, via pop-up window, informs the user that the query may take several minutes.

Weaknesses Delays – there are long delays between end of the reporting date and availability of the data. Process challenge – to create a report the contractor must go through Step 1, providing contact information. Contact information is entered several times in a session when multiple reports are requested, this should be once per session instead of for each report. Formatting issue – data from report #6, Total for All Quarters by Contractor by Fiscal Year, is only available in text format. Data from report #10, Total by Contractor for a Specific Schedule and Fiscal Year, is not easily manipulated due to the dollar field being formatted as a text field instead of a number field. Provide reports in excel files with proper formatting. Data issue – report #8, Total for Each Quarter for a Specific SIN by Fiscal Year, has duplicate SINs on the pick list. System error – the button to return to report selection after viewing the report example produces an error.

Recommendations:


Improve throughput Reduce the delays between the end of the reporting date and the availability of the data.

Eliminate redundant processes Redesign system to enter contract data once per session instead of for each report.

Ensure maximum data usage Maintain numeric data in numeric format: Data from report #6: Total for All Quarters by Contractor by Fiscal Year is only available in text format. Data from report #10: Total by Contractor for a Specific Schedule and Fiscal Year, is not easily manipulated due to the dollar field being formatted as a text field instead of a number field. Provide all reports in Excel files with proper formatting.

http://ssq.gsa.gov/


Central Contractor Registration (CCR)

Purpose and Description CCR (http://www.ccr.gov/), which began as a DOD-wide system, is the primary vendor database for the Federal Government. Both the DFARS and FAR mandate that prior to award of any contract or purchase agreement, a vendor will register in CCR. The CCR collects, validates, stores, and disseminates data in support of Government acquisition missions and is the source of EFT payment data.

By enabling a business to interact with a single system, now shared across the government enterprise, the government achieves a single instance of a business partner’s data. Moreover, the business partner has a one-stop solution to submit information and to update the government on material changes to its attributes and structure.

CCR has expanded its integration with systems across the government enterprise to validate data from authoritative sources such as the SBA, IRS, and VA, as well as worked to integrate data into back office systems. The result has been a framework of business data which can take on different looks and feels, depending on the application, that the CCR application feeds whether that is a simple payment on a contract, online representations and certifications through ORCA, federal procurement data reporting through FPDS-NG, department data through EPLS, or even grants data through Grants.gov.

Strengths Single point of entry for government business partners which eliminates duplicate registrations, data profiles across the government enterprise. This has resulted in reduction in administrative errors and expense (time and money). Standardized, clean, data set which can be used in a variety of systems, repeatedly, over the acquisition process; sourcing to reporting (i.e., validation of data against authoritative sources at SBA, VA, IRS, etc.). Ability to search CCR for other vendors, grant applicants, etc., based on various criteria (e.g., keywords, NAICS code, type of competition, etc.).

Weaknesses Expectation setting concerning time required to register. Organization and presentation of information to registrant throughout the CCR registration process (alerts, notes, and errors). This includes the consideration that CCR no longer serves just contractors. Grantees and other government partners are using this environment. Old procurement/payment rules update to accommodate new system capabilities (APO/FPO locations, exact name/address match for disbursement, etc.).

http://www.ccr.gov/


Recommendations


Visualization around time line for a complete registration

While the application process of the CCR registration clearly indicates the steps one must go through for a complete registration, this could be improved. By adding a visualization of the timeline (a clock or calendar), businesses can make decisions based on the expected timetable for the entire process. By not only indicating how long the “typical” registration process takes, but by updating this timeline based on steps that have been completed (DUNS Number, FEIN validation, etc) a registrant can see updates to progress and more easily determine if they need to intervene or escalate any delays.

Ability to hyperlink to other IAE systems from the CCR public profile if data resides there

Dynamic Small Business search profile, FPDS-NG contracts, EPLS, etc. to further demonstrate the interconnection of these systems. This potentially supports the goals of FFATA in so much as it will be easier to navigate between systems to obtain a more cohesive view of government activity with businesses – regardless of the ultimate FFATA solution.

Review the look and feel CCR has been tasked with many new objectives since its original inception. As a result, there is a contractor registrant look and feel, but many other types of government business partners need to interact with the system. As a result, there is a great deal of information that is presented in notes, text boxes, alerts, one page narratives, registrant letters, etc. This content, and how it is presented to the registrant, could be redesigned. The IAE is working on a task of this nature.


Federal Procurement Data System – Next Generation (FPDS – NG)

Purpose and Description The Federal Procurement Data System has been around for over four decades and has been reconstituted under IAE as FPDS - next generation (FPDS – NG). According to IAE, FPDS-NG was created with the following four principles in mind:

Providing greater transparency and visibility into government contracting Providing a powerful business decision-making tool for the contracting community Creating a foundation for standardizing contracting processes Enabling a self-service web accessible reporting tool.

FPDS-NG serves two primary users: government and public. Public users are any citizen who wishes to access the various reports. Government users include those who require access to reports and those who capture and/or submit data. Anyone with an email address can register to access the reporting functionality at no cost.

Most of the reports provide a view of the spending patterns across the federal government including legacy data since 1979. FPDS-NG offers three types of reports:

Standard Reports – using search criteria to tailor the results Published Reports – pre-canned reports Custom (Ad-hoc) reports – using enterprise report generation tools

The origin of FPDS-NG can be traced to Public law 93-400, which mandated that the Office of management and Budget (OMB) and the Office of Federal procurement Policy (OFPP) “establish a system for collecting, developing, and disseminating the procurement data which takes into account the needs of the Congress, the executive branch, and the public sector”.1

The Federal Procurement Data System (FPDS) was created by Congress in 1978 and data collection began in October of the same year. It was intended to provide an annual view of large dollar (awards greater than $25,000) procurement spending as well as determine the degree of competition in agencies’ awards and whether agencies were meeting their socio-economic goals. From industry’s perspective, “old” FPDS allowed businesses to search for contracting opportunities across the federal government.

The “old” FPDS report for FY 2002 even provided the following caveat in its forward: “The Federal Procurement Report is developed annually, and contains ‘snapshot’ statistics on the procurement activities of over 60 agencies. The figures in this report are only as accurate, timely, and complete as the data provided by the reporting agencies to the FPDC”.2 This passage echoes of the “garbage in”, “garbage out” (GIGO) principle.

Industry depends on accurate FPDS data for deciding who to do business with as well as identifying potential subcontracting opportunities. One improvement in collecting data under FPDS-NG has been in capturing accurate contractor data. This improvement was enabled by leveraging the contractor data in CCR and thus minimizing incorrect data by eliminating duplicate entry. 1 Federal Procurement Data System, http://www.fpdsng.com/downloads/FPR_Reports/FPR2002a.pdf 2 Wikipedia, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Garbage_in,_garbage_out


While there may be many explanations of why collecting accurate procurement data via FPDS-NG has been a daunting task, several trends have transpired over the recent years. (1) Acquisition is moving from a back office function towards a strategic function; (2) A cultural change is occurring due to a shrinking workforce (an exodus of knowledge and expertise) combined with younger entrants into the 1102 series. One industry perspective is that many GS 1102’s view FPDS collection as a back office (clerical) function and therefore not integral to their acquisition responsibilities. There is also a fear that as the 1102 workforce keeps shrinking resulting in an increased burden, FPDS-NG data collection may not be viewed as a high priority.

Accurate data collection is dependent on training as well as adequate information available to a contract specialist. Automation and validation can only go so far. Many times a specialist either lacks relevant and sufficient information or is too lazy to obtain the correct information in order to satisfy FPDS-NG validation requirements in order to accelerate awards.

“Old” FPDS had long been regarded as a back office “reporting” system. As FPDS-NG moves closer to a “real time” system (web services), the timeframe for retrieving relevant and accurate information is shrinking at light speed.

According to a GSA OIG report, “many problems were reported over the years that included inaccurate and incomplete data”.3 This can partly be explained by the need to short cut the capture process by entering data just for the sake of completing the labor intensive SF 279 form.

Moving to a new business system does not always solve a business problem. Data validation is not foolproof as it still requires human intervention to capture data either directly (via FPDS-NG web services) or indirectly (via a contract writing system). While one would anticipate fewer errors with the newer system (FPDS-NG) due to real time data validation, some early results suggest that short cuts taken to enter the data have not diminished. The antiquated SF 279 form has been replaced by a web based form with real time data validation. Those who perform the data capture activities have discovered that some data (such as the NAICS) can be entered incorrectly and still pass the web-based data validation process. It is very difficult to eliminate this problem because much of the FPDS data collection relies on human interaction and decisions. It’s more of an educational issue than a systems issue.

One of the advantages with FPDS-NG compared to “old” FPDS is that it allows contract writing system (CWS) vendors to reduce development and maintenance costs of trying to embed the validation rules using the antiquated file-based approach (batch files).

Strengths Open architecture: Allows vendor CWS’ to integrate more easily because of its open standards approach, which employs a services-oriented architecture with web services and utilizes XML Real time capture and data validation Minimizes synchronization issues with vendors who provide CWS Leverages existing data collection applications (CCR) to ensure accurate vendor data Easier access to procurement data via the internet An enhanced reporting tool (reports dashboard)

3 Review of the Federal Procurement – Next generation, GSA OIG Report dated March 30, 2006.


Context sensitive help content A welcome screen that provides a brief overview of what is and what is not available via reporting Standard reporting allows basic and advanced search criteria Easy to use GUI for ad-hoc queries

Weaknesses Inaccurate and incomplete data, captured incorrectly Insufficient data

Lack of granular spending data (NAICS too broad) Does not provide line item details Lack of granular service and commodity codes

The system doesn’t accommodate the various teaming arrangements and lacks a field for “authorized dealers”. Unreliable data resulting in untapped business opportunities and limited subcontracting opportunities No longer a true reporting system but now transactional; could delay awards in some cases Relies too heavily on validation rules to police human interaction Ad-hoc reports require detailed knowledge of more than 150 FPDS data elements Help system exposes too much information for non-government users

Recommendations

Description of Item Recommendations

Accuracy of data Emphasize the importance of accurate procurement data by educating users and mandate training as a job requirement.

Data accuracy measurement Hold those responsible for collecting FPDS-NG data by incorporating their accuracy effectiveness as part of their performance evaluation.

Enhanced capability Enhance FPDS-NG to capture detailed spending data at the line item level.


FedBizOpps (FBO)

Purpose and Description According to GSA, FedBizOpps (FBO) is meant to be the single government point of entry for federal government procurement opportunities over $25,000 and the primary source of procurement announcement for industry. Through this portal government buyers are able to advertise their purchasing initiatives to vendors marketing to the federal government.

Through this portal, industry is able to identify federal government sources that are procuring products/services, search, monitor and retrieve opportunities. The system has a government and vendor interface.

Strengths Vendor Notification Service (subscription based, customizable e-mail alerts) Ability to search and retrieve announcements based on various criteria (keywords, NAICS code, type of competition, etc.) Ability to register and monitor status/announcements pertaining to a particular solicitation Ability to register as an interested vendor. This feature isn’t used very heavily, but could be a good feature for teaming discussions for industry Procurement opportunities grouped by department, agency, set-aside type, NAICS codes, etc Ability to find award information

Weaknesses No capability to create a personal profile so that searches can be stored and solicitations can be monitored User-interface not intuitive enough for average users. The layout and format of the “find business opportunities” page is overly complicated. Industry products that do similar services are much simpler and intuitive to use Search results have high number of non-relevant or unrelated hits Search capability not robust enough. Search should provide Google-type search results enabling users to quickly find relevant results rather than scroll through results that have about 10 lines of data each It is difficult to determine how to manage the Vendor Notification Service subscriptions. The interface for registrants to manage their subscription can be made easier so that they can register and go make changes as needed FBO is NOT the single point of entry for all procurements over $25,000, forcing contractors to monitor multiple systems (GWAC’s, agency BPA’s, etc.). If FBO is to be the single point of entry, the other vehicles need to provide data to FBO Award information is not searchable

Recommendations

Description of Item Recommendations for Action

Add self-service capability Develop capability to set up personal profiles to manage e-mail subscription, searches, etc. A vendor portal that is personalized will enable


industry users to customize their preferences resulting in higher usage, increased competition, and higher user satisfaction.

Enhance search capability Google-type search capability within the database of procurement announcements and awards. The current search results are too detailed and have a high level of irrelevant content.

Improve structure for ease of use Change the information architecture in such a way that users can find opportunities by the right category (agency, NAICS codes, set-aside type, etc.) without using a search.

Searchable award information Make award information searchable like procurement announcement. The award information should include term of the contract and type of contract. This information should be mandatory for all procurements announced through FBO and should be archived for at least 5 years.

9BFinal Recommendations 22BFedBizOpps (FBO) May 25, 2007 30

Final Recommendations

GSA’s goal is to help Federal customers by providing them with maximum flexibility and choice. To meet specific customer needs, GSA offers a range of acquisition services and solutions utilizing a variety of tools, contract vehicles, and services.

In an effort to further the goals of GSA, this subcommittee assessed GSA’s supporting electronic systems and developed this white paper which provides an industry perspective on where things work well, where improvements can be made, and specific recommendations. We recognize that with the evolving nature of these systems, some of the recommendations might overlap with modifications/enhancements currently in process.

The subcommittee took the top recommendations from each system and created a smaller list. This smaller list represents solutions that are advantageous for Government and industry alike with the potential to reduce administrative burden and cost, share data/resources to reduce clerical errors, provide timely information, and increase competition.

The strongest recommendation that can be made is to improve communications regarding all aspects of Government electronic systems. Without improved communication, issues and misconceptions on what is or is not being done will continue to occur. Open dialogue can lead to collaborative thinking which can lead to a more proactive vs. reactive approach to system changes.

A valuable tool to be considered is the reactivation of an expanded Vendor Advisory Board to include knowledge of all GSA systems. Industry partners interact daily with their Government customers and can provide a valuable viewpoint on the data that is being requested and used and how those systems can be improved to meet those needs. The Vendor Advisory Board can then form specialty groups to work jointly with GSA to address specific systems and/or system types.

The industry partners on this subcommittee appreciate the opportunity to assist GSA in their efforts to deliver unparalleled acquisition services that provide best value for federal agencies and taxpayers.

industry’s experience with gsa’s electronic systems€™s experience with... · synopsis ......

Documents