Industry s experience with GSA s Electronic Systems

Transcription

1 WHITE PAPER Industry s experience with GSA s Electronic Systems Developed by the ACT/IAC Acquisition Management Special Interest Group 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) A 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 June 6,

3 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, 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) or June 6,

4 Purpose and Background - ACT-IAC Acquisition Management Subcommittee on 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 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. 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. June 6,

5 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 Confusing file names Difficulty in tool use Recommendation for Action Change SIP Electronic Catalog File to SIP Electronic Administrative File 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. June 6,

6 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 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 ( notice). Provides quick scan for all opportunities by highlighting a linked ebuy number for which the vendor was directly selected. Provides 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. June 6,

7 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 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 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 Description of Item Need a mandatory structure to the ebuy notification message Increase User Help tools Mandatory response to vendors on order status Change status code Not Awarded to Not Selected Recommendation for Action 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) 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. For all vendors submitting a quote, have the system send a notice of status change upon award or cancellation. 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. June 6,

8 Description of Item Make RFI results known to vendors Establish a separate questions and clarifications window in each order for all vendors to use and view responses Efficiency of user process Expand notification criteria Limit Schedule selection based on requirements Open market/incidental items Open to other GWACS Post an operations message window showing pending ebuy change actions Single sign-on limitation for Schedule holders with dealers or teaming agreements Recommendation for Action 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. A common window would allow all vendors to ask questions and view all responses equally and openly. Have ebuy click directly to the order after sign on for directed users. Include criteria such as key words, dollar value, NAICS codes 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. 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. Gain permission of the other GWAC Agencies, and open the tool to these vehicles. Some vendors have automated interfaces to ebuy for more efficient scanning of opportunities. Unplanned changes cause severe business process interruptions. 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. June 6,

9 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., s, 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. June 6,

10 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 Description of Item Modification/clarification capability is missing Signature process Digital certificate replacement Training Recommendation for Action 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. Modify the e-mod application to allow for clarifications, communication, and negotiations. 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 Modify the system to allow for replacement digital certificates. Expand training for all GSA and contractor personnel June 6,

11 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 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). 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). June 6,

12 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 s 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 Description of Item Quick Order status requires exact match Creating Order Mods differs Recommendation for Action All order search functions need to operate the same way (e.g., take you to the closest order with the data entered). 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. June 6,

13 Registration process Description of Item Make new user guides more efficient Award notices are incomplete Not all Client Acceptances have a rating Contractor employee selected to receive order does not match intended contract Fees charged as hourly rates not supported Funding sources Recommendation for Action 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. Review the Guide Me windows and titles to ensure all match and can be followed. Enhance award notice s 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. Make the rating of vendors a mandatory (gold dot) action. The approving person cannot leave the page until a rating is accomplished. 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. Modify the system to also allow the fee charged by GSA to be input as hourly rates. Modify the system to allow tracking of multiple funding sources per task order. June 6,

14 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., 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 Description of Item Recommendation for Action Use an automated system, ebuy, to send solicitation documents. June 6,

15 Searching for invoices Description of Item Changing corporate profile File size limitation Designation of users to receive automated notifications of actions is not clear No comment block in system for invoices Recommendation for Action 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. 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. Increase the file size limitation. Enhance user guides to include more detail about setting up notifications. 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). June 6,

16 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 ( 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 Description of Item Reports Payment acknowledgement Payment system navigation Recommendation for Action Add the ability for the contractor to review and print the variance report. Add the contract number on the receipt that prints from the confirmation number screen. 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. June 6,

17 Description of Item Limited payment flexibility Recommendation for Action 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. June 6,

18 SF294/295 Electronic Subcontracting Reporting System (esrs) Purpose and Description esrs ( 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 Description of Item Ensure Consistency with FPDS Enhance the esrs Recommendation for Action Validate FPDS data input and data transfer. Add the capability to forward communications. June 6,

19 Contractor Assessment Initiative (CAsI) Purpose and Description The Contractor Assessment Initiative ( 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. June 6,

20 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 Description of Item Develop a uniform evaluation CAsI s evaluation criteria Error correction after report card completion Recommendation for Action Revise the report card to evaluate all contractors with the same review cycle and the same criteria. Redesign the CAsI metrics to reflect only those items within the contractors control. Allow the IOA edit rights after completion to correct data entry errors and set timeframes for timely correction. June 6,

21 GWAC Quarterly Sales Reporting System Purpose and Description GWAC Contractors are required to report contract sales to GSA on a quarterly basis. Web site 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: Description of Item Exception processing Partial input Recommendation for Action Suggest a process for exceptions that does not hold up processing the non-exception portions of the CAF submission. Update the system to allow partial contract updates/edits prior to final submission of CAF information. June 6,

22 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 ( 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: Description of Item Improve throughput Eliminate redundant processes Ensure maximum data usage Recommendation for Action Reduce the delays between the end of the reporting date and the availability of the data. Redesign system to enter contract data once per session instead of for each report. 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. June 6,

23 Central Contractor Registration (CCR) Purpose and Description CCR ( 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.). June 6,

24 Recommendations Description of Item Visualization around time line for a complete registration Ability to hyperlink to other IAE systems from the CCR public profile if data resides there Review the look and feel Recommendation for Action 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. 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. 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. June 6,

25 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 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 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 , 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, 2 Wikipedia, June 6,