Senator proposes to end Alaska native contracting advantages

Started by dwgerard · Oct 12, 2010 · 4 replies

d
dwgerard
Oct 12, 2010 · 15y ago
Original post
Just saw this tidbit this morning, it seems a Senator from Mo (the show me state), has a beef with Alaska Natives getting unlimited value sole source contracts over other small businesses such as the 8/A program contractors. 8/A contractors are restricted to sole source contracts valued at no more than $3.5M or $5.5M in manufacturing.

Personally, I am more interested in whether or not my personal feelings are true that many of the ANC contracts involve a bit of fraud, but I guess that is not what the Senate is concerned about. My personal beliefs are from a number of unsolicited proposals I received a few years ago that did not pass the sniff test when I did a little research into the offers. The marketing techniques used by the ANC reps were also a bit on the unsavory side as well.

The fireworks over this should be quite interesting if it gets any traction in the Senate as a whole.

http://www.govexec.com/story_page.cfm?arti...7&dcn=e_tma
J
Jacques
Oct 12, 2010 · 15y ago
Those following this legislation should also follow FAR Case 2009-038, implementing Pub. L. 111-84, NDAA '10, sec. 811. The statute contemplates a change in FAR 6.302-5?(2) to require a written J&A for contracts over $20M, even when the award is 8(a).
G
Guest carl r culham
Oct 13, 2010 · 15y ago
Post removed
J
Jacques
Oct 13, 2010 · 15y ago
Thanks, Carl, you're right on both counts. I'll correct the original post.
f
formerfed
Oct 13, 2010 · 15y ago
The Washington Post and several other sources have written articles on the program for years alleging numerous abuses.

Here's a recent one:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...0100704859.html

I'm not a fan of the Post and learned to really question their motives. In this case, they may be upset because Alaskan companies potentially take business away from local DC based 8(a) firms. But even if parts of their claims are true, it is disturbing. For example, the cited article claims a non-native Bethesda, Md. consultant received $15 million over the past few years helping an Alaskan company.

I think this legislation makes sense. Any time non-competitive contracting is permitted, the potential for abuse is there. At the best case, there's no incentive to obtain the best possible deal. What I would like to see is some type of mini-competition required for all 8(a) contracts including those under the current thresholds of $3.5 and $5.5 million. This could consist of agencies be required to examine the offerings of say 3 companies through such means as obtaining submissions of past performance, experience, and qualifications, evaluating the sources, and documenting