The Section 809 Panel has recommended that Congress eliminate most small business set-asides for DoD acquisitions. The Panel would replace the longstanding set-aside system with a meager five percent small business price preference.
For small government contractors, this recommendation is the policy equivalent of a five-alarm fire. Small contractors may need to fight hard to save the set-aside system.
Get ready for a battle.
Among its suggestions to streamline the acquisition process,
the Section 809 Panel has proposed to eliminate the ability to file a protest
at GAO and the Court of Federal
Claims. Instead, the Panel would require protesters to choose between filing at
GAO or the Court.
Let’s take a look.
Under the so-called “once 8(a), always 8(a)” rule set forth in the FAR and SBA regulations, when a procurement has been accepted by the SBA for inclusion in the 8(a) Program, any follow-on contract generally must remain in the 8(a) Program, unless the SBA agrees to release it for non-8(a) competition.
Now, the Section 809 Panel has proposed a modest, but potentially important change to the “once 8(a), always 8(a)” rule–a change that would allow for acquisitions to be removed from the 8(a) Program without the SBA’s explicit consent.
Congress should require Government acquisition personnel to communicate with industry, according to the Section 809 acquisition reform panel.
In the third and final volume in its series on streamlining and improving DoD acquisition processes, the Section 809 Panel takes aim at Government reticence to communicate with industry, and says that merely permitting such communications doesn’t go far enough.
Counseling clients and prospective clients on a potential
bid protest, we often ask: Why would you
like to file this protest? Of course, the answer inevitably involves the discussion
of a flaw (or several) in the evaluation process that, had they not been
committed, would have resulted in a different award decision.
In its latest report, the Section 809 Panel offers another consideration: Will this protest ensure confidence in the acquisition system?
If, like us, you spend your days reading through the FAR, you might suppose that there are opportunities to streamline the regulations. Congress agreed, at least for DOD acquisitions, and as part of the 2016 National Defense Authorization Act, created the Section 809 panel, an independent advisory panel on streamlining acquisition regulations. The panel is working to improve many aspects of acquisitions law, including, as we’ve written about, the definition of subcontract.
A recent, small (but helpful) recommendation was the elimination of a FAR clause involving the $1 coin.
The FAR and DFARS have 27 distinct definitions of the term “subcontract,” according to an acquisition reform panel.
In its first report, the Section 809 Panel urges policymakers to adopt a consolidated definition of the term “subcontract,” as well as a common definition of “subcontractor,” a term that has 21 distinct definitions in the FAR and DFARS.