Transcript Conflicts of Interest - National Contract Management Association

1
Keynote Presentation
Timothy K. Dowd
Executive Director, Contracts,
Space and Navel Warfare Systems Command
SPAWAR
•
•
•
•
•
Navy’s Technical Authority and acquisition command for C4ISR,* Business
IT, and Space Systems
Exercise Technical Authority in support of programs acquired by 3 PEOs:
• PEO C4I; PEO EIS; PEO Space Systems
Support JPEO – JTRS
Provide advance communications and information capabilities to Navy,
Joint and coalition forces
More than 12,000 employees and contractors deployed globally and near
the fleet
*Command, Control, Communications, Computers, Intelligence, Surveillance & Reconnaissance
SPAWAR
SPAWAR Space Field Activity
PEO
Space
Systems
PEO EIS
Washington DC
SPAWAR HQ
Norfolk, VA
Charleston, SC
SPAWAR Systems
Center Pacific
New Orleans, LA
Germany,
Italy, UK
San Diego, CA
Japan, Guam, Hawaii
PEO C4I
JPEO JTRS
SPAWAR Systems
Center Atlantic
Collaboration
• Interaction via NDIA, AFCEA, NCMA, SPAWAR
Industry Forms – Working Groups (Ad Hoc)
• RFIs
• Draft RFPs
• Post award
• SBIR Program
Collaboration (Cont’d)
•
•
•
•
•
•
DoD Mentor-Protégé Program
Software Libraries
Cooperative Agreements
CRADAS
Work for Private Parties (Testing)
Work for Private Parties (Articles & Services)
Developments/Initiatives
Peer Reviews of DoD
Solicitations and Contracts
• A new DFAR 201.170 established a requirement for Peer
Reviews by DoD teams for solicitations and contracts
valued at $1B or more (July 29, 2009)
• OSD/DPAP organizes teams of reviewers and facilitates
the process
– To promote quality and consistency in DoD contracting
– To share best practices and lessons learned across DoD
• SPAWAR has had 2 OSD peer reviews and we have
participated as members in 2 peer reviews
Award Fee (Oct 14, 2009)
74 Fed. Reg. 52856
• An interim FAR amendment made a number of
changes for award fee contracts, including:
– Requiring that award fees be linked to acquisition
objectives in the area of cost, schedule, technical
performance
– Clarify that a base fee be at zero may be included in a
cost plus award fee type contract
Award Fee (Oct 14, 2009)
74 Fed. Reg. 52856
– Prescribes narrative ratings that will be utilized in award
fee evaluations
– Prohibiting award fees if the contractor’s overall
performance is not satisfactory
– Prohibiting the “rollover” of unearned award fees from one
evaluation period to another
– D & F is required (HCA Approves)
Organizational Conflicts of Interest
(OCI)
• Conflicts of Interest:
– Requires DoD to revise the DFARS to provide
uniform guidance and tighten existing
requirements for OCI
(Weapons System Reform Act of 2009)
Organizational Conflicts of Interest
(OCI)
• Possible areas of conflicts of interest:
– Lead system integrator contracts
– Companies that perform systems engineering & technical
assistance functions for the Government while competing
to perform as a prime contractor or supplier
– Award of subcontracts to affiliate business units
– Contractors performing technical evaluations on major
defense acquisition programs
National Defense Authorization Act 2010
(Oct 28, 2009)
• Non-Price Evaluation Factors
– The Comptroller General was directed to study DoD
procurements in which evaluation factors are more
important than cost or price. The study must consider:
• The frequency of such procurements
• Types of contracts for which such evaluation factors are most
frequently used
• The reasons for DoD’s use of such factors
• Extent to which the use of such factors is, or is not, in the interest of
the DoD
Personal Conflicts of Interest (PCIs)
• The National Defense Authorization Act for FY09
directed the Administrator of the Office of Federal
Procurement Policy (OFPP) to issue policy to prevent
PCIs by contractors performing acquisition functions
associated with inherently government functions.
• PCIs potential has increased due to the
Government’s reliance on contracted technical,
business and procurement expertise.
Personal Conflicts of Interest (PCIs)
• PCIs present lesser risk to Government on fixed-price,
supply contracts; however risk increases as the supply or
services become more sophisticated or the relationships
between Government and contractor blur into inherently
governmental functions.
• Additionally, guidance was issued from USD AT&L in Nov
’09 regarding PCIs related to Contractors supporting
Government.
Increase Fixed Price &
Competitive Contracts
• White House Memo – March 2009: Non-competitive and
cost reimbursement contracts misused, wasteful, etc.
• Since 2001, spending on Government contracts has more
than doubled, reaching over $500 billion in 2008.
• Between FY00 and FY08, dollars obligated under costreimbursement contracts nearly doubled, from $71 billion in
2000 to $135 billion in 2008.
Increase Fixed Price &
Competitive Contracts
• Reports by the Inspectors General, the GAO, and other
reviewing bodies have shown that noncompetitive and costreimbursement contracts have been misused, resulting in
wasted tax-payer resources.
• A GAO study of 95 major defense acquisition projects found
cost overruns of 26 percent, totaling $295 billion over the life
of the projects.
• DoD established goals for increased competition and fewer
cost type contracts.
DoN Energy Strategy for Acquisitions
Memorandum (Jan 4, 2010)
• Five energy goals been established by the
Secretary of the Navy (SECNAV)
• Must ensure that in DoN source selections, careful
consideration is given to:
– The lifecycle energy cost of platforms, weapons systems,
and buildings
– The fully-burdened cost of fuel in powering these capital
investments
– The overall energy efficiency and the energy footprint of
competing companies
DoN Energy Strategy for Acquisitions
Memorandum (Jan 4, 2010)
• Contracts must be structured to hold industry
contractually accountable for meeting energy
targets and system efficiency requirements.
• Acquisition plans and source selection documents
must address these issues.
• A team of experts from the program management,
technical, financial and contracting communities, in
collaboration with the Navy Energy Coordination
Office, will develop evaluation policies and
procedures for the Department.
Naval Strategic Sourcing
Governance
• Background
– In November 2008, ASN (RD&A) formally established the DON
Strategic Sourcing Governance Structure and Charter
– The Naval Strategic Sourcing Working Committee (SSWC) is chaired
by RDML Baucom, (ASN, ALM) responsibility to approve DON-wide
strategic sourcing initiatives
– NAVSUP is Executive Agent via the Strategic Sourcing Program
Office
– Focus is now on services
Naval Strategic Sourcing
Governance
• Goals
– Optimize performance
– Streamline and standardize processes
– Minimize price
– Increase socio-economic acquisition goals
– Evaluate total life cycle management costs
– Improve vendor access to business opportunities
Comments / Questions?
22
Panel Discussion:
Legislative and Regulatory Update
•
•
Moderator
• Karen Wilson, Fellow, Director, Acquisition Policy, The Boeing
Company
Panelists
• Mary Ellen Fraser, Of Counsel, McKenna, Long and Aldridge, LLP
• James S. Latoff, Counsel, Committee on Oversight and
Government Reform, US House of Representatives
• Margaret DiVirgilio, Vice President, CFO and Treasurer, Concurrent
Technologies Corporation
• Susan Ebner, Attorney Government Contracts, Buchanan Ingersoll
& Rooney PC
Topics
“Findings and Recommendations”
House Armed Services Committee Panel on Defense
Acquisition Reform
March 23, 2010
Weapon Systems Acquisition Reform Act of 2009,
Public Law 111-23
Panel Examined
• Acquisition of Weapon Systems – WSARA
still being implemented; identified additional
issues
• Acquisition of Commercial Goods and
Commodities
• Acquisition of Services
• Information Technology – A hybrid/special
case
Recommendations - IT
• DoD is currently drafting a new process for IT
acquisition
• A cultural change is needed to capture and track
metrics
• IT must involve ongoing dialogue between system
developers and warfighters
• DoD should foster an open architecture approach
• Translate competitive prototyping used in weapon
systems into IT environment
Recommendations - PARCA
• Create comprehensive Performance Assessment and Audit
Function for Acquisitions - GAO-like capability
• Expand role of Performance Assessment and Root Cause
Analysis (PARCA), created in § 103 of the WSARA
– Assess performance (cost, schedule, and performance) for MDAPs against
established metrics
– Analyze root cause why MDAPs breach Nunn-McCurdy - examine
unrealistic performance expectation; unrealistic baseline estimates for cost
and schedule; immature technologies; unanticipated design, engineering,
manufacturing, or integration issues; funding instability; poor performance by
contractor/govt personnel
PARCA cont’d
• All PEOs and buying activities should have
measurable goals related to cost, quality,
delivery, acquisition workforce quality, market
research, small business utilization, utilization of
best practices
• PARCA assess performance and link
performance to positive incentives and
consequences.
Financial Management
• DoD must plan to have financial statements validated
as ready for audit by Sep 30, 2017.
• Each service CMO should develop and implement a
specific plan
• Congress should consider penalties or withholds for
deficiencies in financial management and
accountability (Sarbanes/Oxley)
Industrial Base
• Repeal 3% withhold of contract payments
• Shift responsibility for review of contractor business
systems to independent teams within or outside DCAA
• Use data analysis tools to compile info on pricing of
commercial items and prices paid by DoD
• Multi-year procurement - should be based on totality of
situation not just “substantial savings” which does not
mandate 10% savings
Requirements
•
Approve Vice Chief JSC to improve process of setting requirements;
•
Service chiefs to improve requirements process for commercial goods
and commodities;
•
Mandate guidance for setting of requirements for acquisition of services
•
Appoint COCOM as end user capability proponent – improve dialogue
btwn acquisition community and warfighter.
•
Formally communicate DoD’s mission needs w/industry that is
independent of specific programs or contracts
31
Panel Discussion:
Legislative and Regulatory Update
•
•
Moderator
• Karen Wilson, Fellow, Director, Acquisition Policy, The Boeing
Company
Panelists
• Mary Ellen Fraser, Of Counsel, McKenna, Long and Aldridge, LLP
• James S. Latoff, Counsel, Committee on Oversight and
Government Reform, US House of Representatives
• Margaret DiVirgilio, Vice President, CFO and Treasurer, Concurrent
Technologies Corporation
• Susan Ebner, Attorney Government Contracts, Buchanan Ingersoll
& Rooney PC
Legislative and Regulatory
Update
• Insourcing
• Inherently Governmental and Critical Functions
• Conflicts of Interest - Personal and Organizational
Susan Warshaw Ebner
March 27, 2010
Insourcing
•
•
•
•
A Never-Ending Pendulum
– Efficiency and Funding Issues
– A-76, The FAIR Act, DOD IG Report (D-2008-111 in 2008)
Now Tied To Inherently Governmental, COI Concerns
What is Mission Critical? Where are Skill Gaps?/ How Will Accomplish?
Focus In This Administration and On Hill – Current Initiatives
– DOD Authorization Act FY ’10, PL 111-84, Sections 321 et seq., …
– Obama EO – Government Acquisition
– Gordon – Tools Coming
– Assad – Positions Are Being Brought In House; Contractors Are
Being Cut!!
Inherently Governmental and Critical
Functions
•
•
•
•
•
Ties to Insourcing, COI, PCOI
Key Questions -- How To Define? Evaluate? Implement?
Congress – What’s It Doing?
Need Build Appropriate Core / Corps – Assad, Gordon
New Regulations Being Proposed End of March - Gordon
• What is Inherently Governmental?
• What is Closely Related to Inherently Governmental
• What is Critical?
Conflicts of Interest –
Personal and Organizational
•
•
Traditionally Addressed in FAR Parts 3.1 and 9.5
– Prevent Conflicting Roles
– Prevent Bias
– Prevent Unfair Competitive Advantage
– OCI / PCOI – Identify, Avoid, Neutralize, Mitigate
Hot Button Issue For This Administration
– Obama EO – Ethics in Government “Rules”
– TARP OCI and PCOI Rules in 2009
– Focus of GAO Studies, Reports and Protests, OFPP, DOD
– FAR Case 2007-017 Service Contractor PCI
– Congress - DOD Auth. Act ’09, Sec. 841 and FAR Case 2008-018 OCI
– FAR Case 2008-025 Preventing Contractor Employee PCIs – Comments In,
COMING SOON!!!
Predictions
• 2010 – A Year For Setting Standards
• 2010 and on – Implementation
• A Rocky Road Ahead
Contact
Susan Warshaw Ebner*
Buchanan Ingersoll & Rooney PC
1700 K Street, NW, Suite 300
Washington, DC 20006
Tel: (202) 452-7995
Email: [email protected]
*Not admitted to practice in California
38
Panel Discussion:
Program Case Study: Transformational
Satellite Communications
• Panelists:
• Lt. Col. Tim Cunningham, Chief, Corporate Branch/Deputy
Chair, RDT&E Panel Office of the Deputy Assistant
Secretary of the Air Force (Acquisition Integration)
• Robert Jacobsen, Director of Finance, Space & Intelligence
Systems
• Ed McNamara, Director, Subcontract Management Global
Communications Systems, Lockheed Martin
39
TSAT Space Segment
Program Structure
• System Definition/Risk Reduction – 2 contractors
–
–
–
–
Competitive prototyping with independent Gov’t testing
Tech requirements and System Design Review
Preliminary integration w/ larger TSAT system
~$500M/contractor
• Development & Production – full and open competition
–
–
–
–
5 satellites + spare through launch and activation
2 ground elements
Integration into TSAT system
~$10-20B over 10+ years
Key RRSD and Acquisition Timeline
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
J A S O N D J F M AM J J A S O N D J F M AM J J A S O N D J F M AM J J A S O N D J F M AM J J A S O N D J F M AM J J A S O N D J F M AM J J A S O N D J F M AM J J
Program Milestones
SRR
ATP
SDR
SSRR
PDR
Award (S)*
CDR
Original Program Milestones
ISSDR
SSDR
CCR
Phase B
Point of Departure (POD) Design Cycles
Key Technology Maturity
Major Demonstrations
Proposal Milestones
Industry
ATP 10/7
Award
*Multiple segment Day 1 (of 5)
Awards possible
TSI Pt-3
RFP
DRFP RFP
SOW PDM
Down Select
9/20
*Several CRAD/IRAD project bids for technology development risk reduction
Cost Submittals
DRFP 1
(of 5)
Final
RFP
Initial
Proposal
Submittal
Competitive
Range
ENs
D&P
Award
RRSD
Contract
closure
41
TSAT Space Segment
Acquisition Priorities
• Two viable contractor teams that could perform
• Mission assurance
• Lowest risk approach to achieve threshold
requirements
• TRL-6 or better maturity on all key technologies
• Flexibility going forward
• Realism: Risk, Schedule, Cost
42
TSAT Space Segment Friction Points
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Maintaining competitive fairness vs. making firm progress
Scope of RFP & proposals – drove scope of source selection
Point at which to break off source selection team from RRSD effort
Degree of rigor and openness in discussions
Ensuring business proposition remained sound amidst ‘DC churn’ and
multiple budget cycles
Fee plan – increased objectivity, long-term hook to ensure mission assurance
OCI , Data Rights, IA (with international partners) Requirements
Requirements were unsettled with changing Military priorities
Several Changes to funding profile during RRSD execution and discussions
Maintaining resources in uncertain economic times with space programs in
development trouble
43
TSAT Take Aways
• TSAT Acquisition Plan with Risk Reduction Study Phase,
Demonstrations, and Technical Readiness is part of future
Acquisition Reform
• Current Environment in Washington and OSD is not favorable
for large new system starts like TSAT
• RR&SD and Acquisition took too long for both Government and
Industry
• TSAT did not have a single champion as it tried to be all things
to all people
44
Luncheon Speaker
Craig Cooning, Vice President and
General Manager, Space and
Intelligence Systems, Integrated
Defense Systems
The Boeing Company
45
Background
Government
Industry
• PCO
• AFPRO/DPRO
Commander
• Program Director x 2
• Director of Contracting
• Program Executive
Officer
• Congressional Advocate
• VP and Deputy GM
• VP and General
Manager
– Government
– Commercial
– Intelligence
– 6200 people
– $3 Billion Revenue
46
A Day Without Satellites
Boeing Video
47
Observations
Similarities
Differences
• Mission focus
• Budget vs.
Profit & Loss culture
• Understanding of
Business Plan
– Measures of merit
– Velocity vs.
bureaucracy
• Risk/Reward
Interpretations
• Commitment to
product success
• Drive to a fair deal
48
Oxygen Depletion
•
•
•
•
•
Program “fits and starts”
Lack of trust
Oversight that migrates to the “how-to”
Inability to make decisions
Security as a “weapon”
49
Déjà vu All Over Again
•
•
•
•
The promise of commercial
Fixed price development contracts
Competition for competition’s sake
Degree of collaboration on
proposal/cost
50
Execution and Partnership
•
•
•
•
•
•
Mission readiness
Skilled people
Industrial partnership
Collaboration and partnership
Flexible Acquisition Process
NCMA great forum to work issues
51
Panel Discussion:
Defining Inherently Governmental And the Obama
Insourcing Policy
• Moderator:
• Ric Sylvester, Vice President, Aerospace Industries
Association
• Panelists:
• Kimberly S. Rupert, CPCM, Senior Vice President for
Contracts, Procurement, and Pricing, SAIC
• Terry Raney, Senior Vice President, CACI
• Karl C. Bird, CPCM, Acquisition Division Manager, Jet
Propulsion Laboratory
52
Section 841, Duncan Hunter National
Defense Authorization Act for FY 2009
• Develop policy to prevent personal conflicts of
interest by contractor employees inherently
governmental functions
- Proposed rule – FAR Case 2008-025, Preventing Personal
Conflicts of Interest for Contractor Employees Performing
Acquisition Functions
53
President’s Memorandum, “Government
Contracting,” March 4, 2009
• Assess the acquisition workforce and clarify when
governmental outsourcing for services is appropriate
- OMB Policy Memo, “Managing the Multi-Sector Workforce,”
July 29, 2009
- DoD Policy Memo, “In-sourcing Contacted Services –
Implementation Guidance”, May 28, 2009
- OFPP Policy Memo, Acquisition Workforce Development
Strategic Plan for Civilian Agencies - -FY2010-2014,” October
27, 2009
- Memo on Inherently Governmental Functions pending
54
Weapon Systems Acquisition Reform Act of
2009
• DoD to revise acquisition regulations to address
potential organizational conflicts of interest
– Public hearing December 8, 2009
– Proposed rule expected soon
55
Defining Inherently Governmental and the
Obama In-Sourcing Policy
Moderator – Ric Sylvester, Aerospace Industries Association
Panel Members –
• Terry Raney, CACI
• Kim Rupert, SAIC
• Karl Bird, JPL
March 26, 2010
PANEL ON IN-SOURCING,
ORGANIZATIONAL CONFLICTS OF
INTEREST AND PERSONAL CONFLICTS OF
INTEREST
NATIONAL CONTRACT MANAGEMENT ASSOCIATION
DEFENSE AND AEROSPACE CONFERENCE
25-26 MARCH 2010
Dr. Terry Raney
VIEWS OF IN-SOURCING
• Legislation – DoD & Civilian Agencies To “Consider Insourcing” – no limitations
• Administration Direction – Proper Mix, Best Mix, Reduce
Excessive Reliance On Contractors, Conduct Pilots, Develop
In-sourcing Guidelines
• Deputy Secretary of Defense In-sourcing Direction & DoD
Service Execution (Budget Execution)
• Government Workforce Longevity Realities & Need To Fill
Government Vacancies
• Re-Balancing Ideology – No Cost Comparison Needed
• Death By Slow Blood Transfusion Till None Is Left Scenario
57
- Pilot Program
- Statutory
Requirements
Application
Only Federal
Employees
- Framework
Either Federal or Contractor Performance
Administration’s Approach
What Are The Realities?
• In-sourcing Will Continue To Impact Contractors Over The
Next 3-4 Years
– Administration And Agencies Are Starting To Execute Their Plans
• Hiring Of Contractor Personnel Will Continue For The
Foreseeable Future Because Of Labor Market Realities
– Partnership for Public Service estimates the government needs to
hire 300,000 skilled professionals by 2014—just to keep up
– Some activities have current vacancy rates of 20% or more
• There Is Pressure From Congress To Expand The Definition
Of Inherently Governmental Functions Which May Lead To
Further In-sourcing Over Time
Contractor Personnel Personal
Conflicts of Interest
FY09 National Defense Authorization Act
Section 841
Ethics Safeguards Related To Contractor Conflicts of
Interest
• OFPP Administrator To Develop A Policy To Prevent
Personal Conflicts of Interest (PCI) By Contractor
Employees Performing Acquisition Functions
Closely Associated With “Inherently Governmental
Functions” Including The Development, Award and
Administration of Government Contracts
Legislation Requirements For Policy
• Provide A Definition Of Personal Conflict of Interest As It
Relates To Contractor Employees Performing Acquisition
Functions Closely Associated With Inherently Governmental
Functions
• Require Contractors To:
– Identify and prevent employee PCIs
– Prevent employees with access to non-public government information
from using it for personal gain
– Report PCI violations to the CO or COR
– Maintain effective oversight to verify compliance
– Implement procedures to screen for potential PCIs
– Take appropriate disciplinary actions when employees fail to comply
with established policies
Legislation Policy Requirements (cont)
• Develop a personal conflicts of interest clause or set of clauses for
solicitations, contracts and task or delivery orders (above the simplified
acquisition threshold) that sets forth policies and contractor
responsibilities
• In consultation with the Office of Government Ethics review the Federal
Acquisition Regulation (FAR) to:
– Identify contracting methods, types and services that raise concerns for
potential organizational conflicts of interest (OCI) and personal conflicts of
interest
– Determine if revisions to the FAR are required to address PCI and OCI by
contractor employees with respect to functions other than acquisition functions
closely related to inherently governmental functions
– Achieve sufficiently rigorous, comprehensive and uniform government-wide
policies to prevent and mitigate organizational conflicts of interest in Federal
Contracting
Proposed FAR Rule
• Acquisition Function Closely Associated With Inherently Governmental
Functions
– Supporting or Providing Advice or Recommendations With Regard To:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Planning Acquisitions
Developing Statements of Work
Defining Requirements and Evaluation Criteria
Evaluating Contract Proposals
Determining Whether Contract Costs Are Reasonable, Allocable & Allowable
Awarding, Administering & Terminating Contracts
Determining What Supplies or Services Are To Be Acquired
• Covered Employee
– An Employee of the Contractor or Subcontractor, a Consultant, a Partner or a
Sole Proprietor That Performs An Acquisition Function Closely Associated
With Inherently Governmental Functions
Proposed FAR Rule
• Personal Conflict Of Interest
– A Situation In Which A Covered Employee Has A Financial Interest, Personal
Activity, or Relationship That Could Impair The Employee’s Ability To Act
Impartially And In The Best Interest Of The Government When Performing
Under The Contract
• Sources Of Personal Conflicts Of Interest
– Financial Interests Of Covered Employee, of Close Family Members or Of
Other Members Of The Household
– Other Employment or Financial Relationships
– Gifts
Proposed FAR Rule
•
•
Contractor Shall Have In Place A Process To Screen Covered Employees For
Potential Personal Conflicts Of Interest
– Obtain and Maintain Financial Disclosure Statements From Each Employee
– Ensure Disclosure Statements Are Updated Annually
– Ensure Disclosure Statements Are Updated When Financial Changes Occur
– Flow down To Subcontracts Above $100K
For Each Covered Employee Contract Must
– Prevent Personal Conflicts Of Interest
– Prohibit Use Of Non-Public Government Information
– Obtain Signed Non-Disclosure Agreements
– Avoid Even The Appearance Of Personal Conflicts Of Interest
– Maintain Effective Oversight and Verify Covered Employee Compliance
– Take Appropriate Disciplinary Action
– Report Personal Conflict Of Interest Violation To Contracting Officer
Proposed FAR Rule
• Penalties For Non-Compliance
– Suspension Of Contract Payments
– Loss Of Award Fee
– Termination For Default of Contract
– Disqualification From Future Contracts
– Suspension or Debarment
Proposed FAR Rule
• Industry Concerns
– Compliance System Requirements And Audits
– Corporate Policies On Employee Privacy Relative To Personal
Financial Information
• Who Will See The Information; How Will The Information Be Used;
How Will The Information Be Maintained; How Will Employee
Privacy Be Protected
• Industry Input On Proposed Rule
–
–
–
–
Objection To Inclusion Of List Of Violations & Remedies In Clause
Most Definitions Are Imprecise And Broad
Privacy Issues Not Addressed
Request For Proposed Rule To Be Reissued
Questions & Issues
• Many Different PCI Clauses Already In Use
• There Seems To Be A Desire To Combine OCI and
PCI As A Contractual Issue
• Will Government Auditors Have Access To
Contractor Personnel Personal Financial
Information?
• Unclear What Procedures and Processes Will Work
Organizational Conflicts of
Interest
Kim Rupert
Agenda
• What’s New Since WSARA Section 207
• Agency Trends in Setting OCI Rules of the Road
• Protests on OCI: Recent Case Law
• Current Outlook: Word on the Street
What’s New Since WSARA Sec. 207
• AF issues guidance on OCI and mitigation
• Northrop Grumman sells TASC
• DoD and OFPP hold public meeting on OCI in December 2009
Agency Trends in Setting OCI
“Rules of the Road”
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
DARPA
IARPA
Missile Defense Agency
NRO
Air Force
NAVSEA
SPAWAR
Protests on OCI: Recent Case Law
• Cahaba Safeguard Administrators & C2C Solutions – January 25, 2010
• The Analysis Group, LLC – November 13, 2009
• Raydar & Associates – September 1, 2009
• L-3 Services, Inc. – September 3, 2009
• Nortel Government Solutions, Inc. – December 30, 2008
• Axiom Resource Management v. United States – September 28, 2007
75
Current Outlook:
Word on the Street