An influential group representing numerous industry associations called the Multi-Association Group (Group) has issued criticisms of recent Acquisition Advisory Panel recommendations revising commercial practices in government procurements. Though the group says some of the findings and recommendations of the Panel are “useful” three represent a “step backward” from decades of reform:

1. FAR Definition of Stand Alone Commercial Services. The Panel determined that the FAR improperly expands the definition of stand alone “commercial services” when it states that “services of a type offered and sold competitively in substantial quantities in the commercial marketplace” and concludes it should be narrowed by eliminating the phrase “of a type.” The Group states eliminating the phrase from the FAR definition would restrict the government from procuring serves similar but not exactly like those offered in the commercial marketplace where now the government can acquire services that are not necessarily sold in substantial quantities.
2. Government Objectives and Requirements for T&M Contracts. The Panel, citing a GAO report finding the government does not provide adequate oversight of time and material/labor hour contracts, recommended rigorous enforcement of exiting policies and stressed the government should not award T&M task orders unless the overall effort and objectives of the contract is sufficiently described. The Group states the recommendation is unclear and will eliminate or severely limit the ability of contracting officers to consider use of T&M contracts even when it is appropriate. The Group says that FAR 16.601 effectively limits use of improper T&M contracts by stating such a contract may only be used when the extent or duration of work and anticipated costs are reasonably stated.
3. Protests of Task and Delivery Orders on Multiple-Award Contracts. The Group disagrees with a Panel recommendation to set a $5 million threshold for allowing protests of task and delivery orders under MAS contracts. The Group prefers the current prohibition to protesting these orders and states that by expanding protest rights the Panel hinders the government’s ability to have contracted work completed on time. 

{TAG_FORM_TITLE}