Transforming Government Acquisition Systems: Overview and Selected Issues
Released: 2013-06-20T00:00:00

Introduction

Increasingly, the federal government uses technology to facilitate and support the federal procurement (or acquisition) process. Primary beneficiaries of this shift to online procurement systems (i.e., websites and databases) are the government's acquisition workforce and prospective and incumbent government contractors. Web-based procurement systems are essential for completing certain processes and fulfilling various requirements including, for example, publicizing contracting opportunities, helping to ensure that the government only does business with responsible contractors, capturing subcontracting information, and collecting and maintaining contract award data. Possible benefits conferred by the suite of acquisition systems include enhanced efficiency, improved access to information, mitigation of the administrative burden shared by federal employees and contractors, and the timely collection of accurate data. The government's reliance on web-based systems is not surprising for yet another reason: the magnitude of government procurement. Beginning with FY2008, the federal government has spent over $500 billion and conducted at least 5.7 million contract actions each fiscal year through FY2012. During the same time period, federal agencies dealt with at least 154,000 contractors each fiscal year. This figure does not include entities that competed for, but were not awarded, any government contract.

Congressional interest in the executive branch's procurement systems (and, more broadly, government procurement) is fueled by a combination of its responsibilities. As the keeper of the federal purse and the body responsible for oversight of the executive branch, Congress takes a keen interest in how federal agencies spend the funds appropriated to them and, generally, how well the acquisition process works. While congressional oversight of government procurement includes overseeing web-based acquisition systems, these systems also serve as resources for congressional oversight efforts as well as legislative activities. Additionally, some online procurement systems may be useful when crafting responses to constituents who have commented on, or requested assistance related to, government procurement. Relatedly, Congress has demonstrated an ongoing interest in promoting the transparency of government spending data, including contract award information, for citizens and other interested parties.

This report begins with an overview of major online procurement systems that support certain acquisition processes, or contain data about agencies' procurements. This section includes a table that provides basic information about each system and that may serve as a reference guide. The next section of the report then examines several issues and topics, including data quality, the System for Award Management (SAM), and the posting of contracts online.

Major web-based, executive branch procurement systems are the focus of this report. This report does not include any agency-specific websites or databases. Additionally, it does not include all of the governmentwide online systems associated with government procurement, such as the Small Business Administration's Subcontracting Opportunities Directory and SUB-Net, or the RFP-EZ pilot program. Generally, only executive branch agencies are subject to the applicable statutes, regulations, policies, or guidelines that govern the use of the procurement systems covered in this report. Although individual legislative branch or judicial branch agencies might be permitted to use these systems, they are not necessarily required to do so.

Overview of Major Acquisition Systems

The past two decades have seen the federal government take "increasing advantage of technology to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of the acquisition lifecycle, from performing market research to recording contractor performance information." Initially, most online acquisition systems were established for the purpose of facilitating and improving the procurement process. Contracting officers, and other members of the government's acquisition workforce, post solicitations (and other documents, such as sources sought notices) on the Federal Business Opportunities (FedBizOpps) website. In turn, FedBizOpps is a resource for would-be government contractors seeking opportunities to sell their goods or services to the government. The System for Award Management streamlines the registration process for prospective and current contractors while providing a single repository of information for agency personnel to use, for example, to confirm business size, review contractors' certifications, and pay contractors. To aid in ensuring that the government does business only with responsible contractors, agency personnel also use SAM to determine whether a contractor is presently suspended or debarred, and query the Federal Awardee Performance Information and Integrity System (FAPIIS). Contracting officers submit performance information to the Past Performance Information Retrieval System (PPIRS) and, in turn, use information stored in the system when evaluating a contractor's past performance.

Some web-based acquisition systems may primarily serve other purposes and other users. Congressional staff and agency personnel may find the contract award data available on the Federal Procurement Data System-Next Generation (FPDS-NG) website useful when developing, or implementing, policy. A push for transparency led to the passage of the Federal Funding Accountability and Transparency Act of 2006 (FFATA, P.L. 109-282 ). FFATA mandated the development of a user-friendly system comprising a variety of government spending data, including procurement data. Another effort aimed at enhancing transparency involves FAPIIS. Subsequent to the establishment of FAPIIS, legislation was enacted which made the contents of this system, except for past performance data, accessible to the public.

Table 1 contains information regarding 11 web-based acquisition systems and a related Department of Labor system. The table reflects the current status of the General Services Administration's effort to consolidate eight procurement websites, plus the Catalog for Federal Domestic Assistance (CFDA), into one integrated system, SAM. Three websites—Central Contractor Registration (CCR, which includes Federal Agency Registration (FedReg)), Excluded Parties List System (EPLS), and Online Representations and Certifications Application (ORCA)—migrated to SAM in July 2012. None of the three is listed separately in Table 1 . Each of the five remaining procurement systems slated to migrate to SAM at later dates has its own entry in the table. These websites are the Electronic Subcontracting Reporting System (eSRS), FedBizOpps, FPDS-NG, PPIRS, and Wage Determinations Online (WDOL). Additional information about SAM is provided below.

Selected Topics

Quality of Procurement Data

Over the years, questions have been raised regarding the accuracy, completeness, and timeliness of the contract award data available from FPDS and its successor, FPDS-NG. FPDS was established in February 1978, and by fall 1982 the Government Accountability Office (GAO) had published three reports that documented deficiencies in the completion and accuracy of data submitted by federal agencies. A decade later, during preparations for the transition from FPDS to FPDS-NG, GAO reported to the Director of OMB in late 2003 that FPDS data were "inaccurate and incomplete." During the transition, agencies were asked to "review their data and identify and correct any deficiencies" before they transferred the data to FPDS-NG and certify "the accuracy and completeness" of their FY2004 data. Yet, in 2005, GAO shared its concerns with the OMB Director regarding the "[t]imeliness and accuracy of data" and "[e]ase of use and access to data" in FPDS-NG. In its 2007 report, the Acquisition Advisory Panel (AAP) catalogued several problems with FPDS-NG, including inaccurate data, unclear instructions, the system's failure to capture certain data, and validation rules that did not function as intended. An April 2008 review of "complex service acquisitions" by GAO revealed that "the FPDS-NG field identifying major programs was typically blank." Other GAO studies revealed difficulties in identifying interagency contracts in FPDS-NG because of the way they were coded, and reported that "some contracts were incorrectly coded as T&M [time and material] contracts while others were incorrectly coded as having acquired commercial services."

Reports of procurement data problems have been met by efforts to ensure the data are accurate and complete, and reported in a timely manner. Most recently, the Administrations of George W. Bush and Barack Obama have provided guidance to agencies regarding data submitted to FPDS-NG. The latest guidance, which was issued by the Office of Federal Procurement Policy (OFPP) in 2011, complements and expands upon FAR 4.604. Under FAR 4.604(a), an agency's senior procurement executive "is responsible for developing and monitoring a process to ensure timely and accurate reporting of contractual actions to FPDS [FPDS-NG]." Additionally, the chief acquisition officer of the agency "must submit to the General Services Administration (GSA), in accordance with FPDS [FPDS-NG] guidance, within 120 days after the end of each fiscal year, an annual certification of whether, and to what degree, agency CAR [contract action report] data for the preceding fiscal year is complete and accurate."

OFPP's 2011 memorandum provides instructions, sampling methodologies, and templates for agencies to use in calculating and reporting the accuracy and completeness of data submitted to FPDS-NG. Agencies are required to compute the accuracy of 25 "key data elements," including date signed, extent competed, type of set aside, and place of manufacture. Governmentwide, the four-year average (FY2008-FY2011) for completeness was 98.3% and for sample accuracy 94.0%. Data were not provided for individual agencies, and these are the most recent data available.

OFPP also stated in its memorandum that, in conjunction with GSA, it would carry out the following activities as part of its "sustained efforts to improve procurement data quality throughout the year":

"continue the interagency working group on data quality, focusing on emerging issues, challenges, solutions, guidance, and process improvements;" "revitalize the [online] community of practice ... to collect tools and agency best practices for improving data quality and host focused discussions on key issues; and" "collaborate with the Federal Acquisition Institute and the Defense Acquisition University to review and improve related workforce training and development and to develop a better understanding of how procurement data are used throughout the acquisition process."

Additionally, policies, system limitations, and regulations can be sources of seemingly inaccurate, or incomplete, data; lead to unusual, or anomalous, results; or hamper transparency. Examples include the following:

FPDS-NG does not contain classified data, or information about purchases for "petroleum or petroleum products ordered against a Defense Logistics Agency Indefinite Delivery Contract." DOD's procurement data are not available immediately through FPDS-NG; the data are "subject to a 90-day delay." When registering in SAM, a business may choose to identify itself as, for example, a woman owned business or minority owned business. Independent verification of these designations is not required, which leaves open the question of the accuracy of this type of information. Data in FPDS-NG are identified, or organized, as data elements, and, over the years, data elements have been added, deleted, or revised. It is possible that the inclusion of a recently added data element, or one that is scheduled to be removed, in a user's search could affect the results. For example, conducting a search for FY2007 procurement data that includes a data element added to FPDS-NG in FY2010 might yield anomalous results. Regarding transparency, some might argue that it is hampered by regulations that permit the use of a generic Data Universal Numbering System (DUNS) number. Generally, an entity is required to have a unique DUNS when registering in SAM. Under certain circumstances, an entity may use an authorized generic DUNS number (e.g., 123456787, which is identified as "Miscellaneous Foreign Awardees"), which precludes identification of the contractor.

System for Award Management (SAM)

As mentioned above, an initiative is underway to consolidate eight procurement websites, and the Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance, into one system. The eight procurement websites are Central Contractor Registration, Electronic Subcontract Reporting System, Excluded Parties List System, Federal Business Opportunities, Federal Procurement Data System-Next Generation, Online Representations and Certifications Application, Past Performance Information Retrieval System, and Wage Determinations OnLine.gov. When discussing SAM, these websites are referred to as "legacy systems."

The history of SAM begins with the Integrated Acquisition Environment (IAE). Established by OMB in 2001 and housed within GSA, IAE "was initiated to integrate, standardize, and streamline some of the many different acquisition data systems used throughout the government." The development and implementation of web-based acquisition systems occurred independently and, accordingly, without an overarching, comprehensive plan, as the federal government shifted from paper-based systems to web-based systems for its procurement processes. The mix of government procurement systems also included "unique data systems" that had been developed by some agencies for their own use. IAE's initial strategy was to "adopt, adapt, acquire," which involved adopting existing data systems that had been developed by federal agencies (e.g., DOD's CCR), adapting existing systems (e.g., transforming FPDS into FPDS-NG), and acquiring systems to fulfill unmet needs (e.g., ORCA).

Although IAE improved the acquisition systems it inherited, questions remained regarding, among other things, the efficiency, responsiveness, and coherence of the existing systems. Testifying at a congressional hearing in fall 2009, the Federal Chief Information Officer (CIO) described the problems associated with the multiple procurement systems.

Each of the eight IAE systems was originally developed independently, used different software, and operated on different hardware platforms run by different contractors. In this complex and stove-piped environment, it was difficult to respond to policy or technology changes in a timely manner.

Specific issues, or problems, included separate logins, which are "inefficient and confusing"; overlapping data, which is "inefficient and creates opportunity for error"; no single or uniform level of service, which could subject users to varying levels of service; and multiple vendors hosting the systems, which is "more expensive than consolidated hosting."

At the same hearing where he described the problems with the existing acquisition systems, the Federal CIO stated that consolidating the eight systems into "an integrated platform for procurement" would improve data quality, simplify access to procurement data, and improve the usability of the procurement systems.

The effort to develop an integrated platform began in February 2010 when GSA awarded a contract to IBM US Federal to consolidate nine systems (eight procurement systems plus the CFDA) into SAM. Table 2 shows how SAM will be organized when completed.

The first phase, launched in July 2012 after a two-month delay, saw the entity management functions—CCR (including Federal Agency Registration), EPLS, and ORCA—migrate to SAM. However, several news articles reported that problems with SAM prompted GSA to shut down the system for several days, until August 6, 2012. GSA also contacted the contractor responsible for SAM, summarizing, in a notice of concern, the problems encountered by users.

The overall performance issues and functionality defects that materialized with the initial release of SAM Phase 1 on July 28, 2012, have prevented a majority of users from performing a variety of award management process with SAM Phase 1. The performance issues and defects continue to impact end to end award management processes within the system, forcing users to rely on emergency system workarounds.

Concerns about the operability of SAM also prompted GSA to re-establish temporarily its Excluded Parties List System website in fall 2012. Contracting officers use EPLS to determine whether prospective contractors have been excluded from receiving government contracts.

DOD responded to SAM performance issues by issuing a class deviation from registration requirements and annual representations and certifications requirements for contractors. The Defense Department's memorandum noted that "SAM has experienced performance issues that have affected the timely processing of awards," and added that GSA had been working aggressively to resolve the issues promptly. Reportedly, the Administrator of OFPP stated, in September 2012, that "'GSA has a lot of thinking to do before they implement future phases of SAM.... OFPP is working hand-in-hand with them and CIO [U.S. Chief Information Officer] Steve VanRoekel, and other users such as DOD, to make sure the system moves forward in the right direction.'"

Several months after Phase 1 was implemented, GSA shifted management responsibility for SAM from its Office of Government-wide Policy to the agency's Federal Acquisition Service (FAS) and the Office of the Chief Information Officer. Specifically, the Acting FAS Commissioner and the Deputy CIO have taken over management of SAM. The same announcement noted that the Acting Administrator of General Services has "called for the development, reporting and monitoring of key metrics around the SAM implementation."

While performance problems were not apparent publicly until implementation had begun, budget and schedule problems were identified earlier. In March 2012, GAO reported that the project has been plagued by cost increases, funding shortages, and schedule delays. Failure to "adequately execute the SAM hosting strategy as initially planned" and increased "demand for help desk services" contributed to higher development costs. GAO estimated that the cost of SAM-related contracts increased from $96.0 million (initial contract award amounts) to $181.1 million (GAO estimate). The increase in cost was due mostly to "higher than expected hosting costs." While costs have been increasing, "the program also did not receive funding increases it requested." GSA's response has been to modify and delay the schedule, and defer payments or revise contract requirements. GAO recommended that GSA "[r]eassess the SAM business case to compare the costs and benefits of various alternatives," and, if it makes sense to continue the project, then "reevaluate the hosting strategy" and "take steps to ensure that the SAM development contract payments are more closely aligned with the program schedule and delivery of capabilities."

Access to and Comprehension of Procurement Information and Data

Public access to procurement information and data, which is often couched in terms of transparency, has grown over the years. Some procurement processes, such as the posting of solicitations, have moved online, and statutory requirements and policies have led to the creation of procurement data systems, such as USAspending.gov. Transparency can yield significant benefits, such as contributing to an informed citizenry, enhancing policy planning and decisionmaking, and fostering accountability.

Access to online systems and procurement information and data, however, does not necessarily equate to comprehension. Without sufficient knowledge of government procurement and expertise in using the government's online acquisition systems, users may face challenges identifying which system(s) can be used meet their needs; understanding the capabilities and limitations of the different systems; determining how to access, or find, the data or information they seek; and understanding how to analyze and interpret the data or information they obtain. The following examples demonstrate situations users might encounter.

The dollar amounts associated with some contract actions in FPDS-NG (and, relatedly, USAspending.gov) are either negative or zero. A negative dollar amount represents a deobligation and a dollar amount of zero represents an administrative action. The Federal Awardee Performance Information and Integrity System may contain information for a particular contractor that covers a five-year period. However, "some of that information may not be relevant to a determination of present responsibility" for the contractor, including "a prior administrative action such as debarment or suspension that has expired or otherwise been resolved." Moreover, a contractor's Certification Regarding Responsibility Matters only covers three years, not five years. For certain types of businesses, such as minority-owned and woman-owned, a business owner self-certifies that the business belongs in a particular group. A business owner's interpretation of a particular designation might differ from a user's interpretation. Thus, a user who is unaware self-certification is permitted for certain types of businesses might obtain incorrect data. FPDS-NG is a dynamic system in that data elements (e.g., type of contract, date signed, and vendor name) may be added, merged, or eliminated. For that reason, some searches could yield potentially inaccurate results.

Posting Contracts Online

Presently, the federal government does not have a database of contracts awarded by federal agencies. (FPDS-NG includes discrete information, in data fields (data elements), about contract awards.) Since June 2003, at least two separate executive branch initiatives have explored the possibility of posting contracts online, and at least one bill, if enacted, would have led to posting contracts online.

The General Services Administration led the initial executive branch effort, posting a notice in the Federal Register in 2003. The stated goal of the initiative was to increase transparency and "further the [Bush] Administration's global vision of a citizen-centric E-Government" while the notice sought comments that could aid in implementing a pilot. GSA noted that any proprietary information would be redacted from a contract before it would be posted. Whereas some respondents supported the proposal, suggesting that implementation would increase visibility of and transparency in federal procurement, others stated that existing information sources, policies, and regulations were sufficient.

Working through its Integrated Acquisition Environment, GSA established a working group, which consisted of representatives from several federal agencies, to examine the feasibility, challenges, and anticipated benefits of posting federal contracts online. The project was named Contract Award Documents Online (CADO). The CADO working group considered how the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) process might integrate with, or affect, making contracts publicly available as a matter of course, because agencies use the FOIA process when responding to most requests for copies of contracts. The CADO working group identified the following challenges:

"CADO removes the FOIA staff from the process, exposing Agencies to legal challenges by minimizing active FOIA participation in the document release process." "Proactive posting to the public increases the potential for inadvertently releasing sensitive information." "Agency Staff limitations—CADO would require drastic increases in administrative and technical staff to maintain and operate proactive systems in both the vendor and government communities." "Lack of current federal regulation or policy guiding agencies and contractors in the procedures and processes of obtaining contract award documents outside of the current FOIA process."

Anticipated benefits of making contracts publicly available include "[i]ncreased transparency of contract award documents … [p]otential reduction in the number of FOIA requests … [and] [r]educed cost of operations and maintenance of manual response systems in each agency." The CADO working group concluded, however, "that there is insufficient data supporting a Business Case to recommend the design, development and implementation of a centralized federal system to present contract award data online."

More recently, DOD, GSA, and NASA issued an advance notice of proposed rulemaking regarding posting contracts online. Anticipating that, in the future, a requirement to post contracts, task orders, and delivery orders online might be established, in 2010 the Civilian Agency Acquisition Council (CAAC) and Defense Acquisition Regulations Council (DAR Council) solicited comments with the goal of learning how to post contracts "without compromising contractors' proprietary and confidential commercial or financial information." Additionally, the councils sought suggestions that would "facilitate uniform, consistent processing methods that are fair and equitable as well as cost effective and efficient, while at the same time simplifying access to acquisitions once posted."

In responding to a particular set of comments elicited by the advance notice of proposed rulemaking, the CAAC and DAR Council identified several issues they believed warranted consideration prior to implementing a scheme for the posting of contracts online.

Any contract-posting initiative must give consideration to the cost involved (in technology and software as well as the time of contractor and Government employees) and the risks associated with posting this information (e.g., lawsuits against the Government for inadvertently releasing information that could be damaging to national security and/or the competitive positions of companies doing business with the Government). DOD, GSA, and NASA advocate a judicious approach to establishing contract-posting requirements, one that will appropriately conserve resources and identify information that should be protected from general release to the public. Our assessment is that any contract posting requirement, at a minimum, should involve … a high dollar threshold [regarding the value of a contract], a requirement for only the successful offeror to redact the contract and/or proposal that will be posted, and an incentive for the successful offeror to do so.

Necessary protections for information and personnel involve, at a minimum, a FOIA analysis, which is time consuming and requires senior analysts and attorneys. DOD, GSA, and NASA are concerned, too, that the on-going efforts to identify protections essential for safeguarding unclassified information are not yet sufficiently mature that such efforts can be bypassed to establish a contract-posting requirement prior to guidance on unclassified information. To avoid inadvertent disclosures, the Government would be required to review contractor-redacted documents before such items are posted to a public Web site. The contract or contractor's proposal may contain information that requires protection beyond trade secrets or proprietary information.

Offering the following rationale, DOD, GSA, and NASA withdrew the advance notice of proposed rulemaking.

[A]t this time … [we] do not plan to amend the FAR because some of the existing acquisition systems … provide certain information on Government contracts that is readily available to the public, and most of the content of a contract solicitation or contract action not already available on one of the [government] acquisition systems … is either standard FAR terms and conditions … agency specific terms and conditions … or sensitive information that may be releasable under FOIA.

Congress also has shown interest in making procurement documents, including contracts, available to the public. If enacted, S. 3077 (110 th Congress) would have required that "the request for proposals, the announcement of the award, the contract, and the scope of work to be performed" for all "contracts, subcontracts, purchase orders, task orders, lease agreements and assignments, and delivery orders" be posted on the website required by the Federal Funding Accountability and Transparency Act (FFATA) of 2006. Neither this bill, nor its companion bill, H.R. 6411 , was enacted.

During the 113 th Congress, a bill was introduced that, if enacted, would require executive branch agencies to make public records available on the Internet at no charge." Whether S. 549 would apply to government contracts probably would depend, at a minimum, on the interpretations of public record and record , and any regulations that would be promulgated to implement this bill. The term public record , as defined in S. 549 , "means any record, regardless of form or format, that an agency discloses, publishes, disseminates, or makes available to the public." The bill's definition of record "includes contracts entered into by persons working as agents of the Federal Government, including records in the possession of Government contractors."

Digital Accountability and Transparency Act (DATA Act)73 and FPDS-NG

The DATA Act—which is the title of two similar bills, H.R. 2061 and S. 994 , that were introduced during the 113 th Congress—would amend the Federal Funding Accountability and Transparency Act (FFATA; P.L. 109-282 ; 31 U.S.C. §5101 note).

If the DATA Act (i.e., either bill) is enacted, responsibility for the operation of the website established pursuant to FFATA, USAspending.gov, would shift from the Director of OMB to the Secretary of the Treasury. Generally, the DATA Act would require, among other things, the following:

The Treasury Secretary, in consultation with the heads of OMB, GSA, and other federal agencies, to establish governmentwide "financial data standards for Federal funds"; The Director of OMB to lead an effort to consolidate financial reporting requirements for recipients of federal awards; and The Recovery Accountability and Transparency Board, in consultation with the Secretary of the Treasury and the head of OMB, to establish a pilot program for recipients of federal funds that meet certain conditions. The pilot program would involve reporting financial data related to receipt of federal funds.

Neither bill would establish a procurement database. A key distinction between the thrust of the DATA Act and the purpose of most procurement databases is that the former focuses on spending data and using it as a tool to detect fraud, waste, or abuse while the latter facilitate the acquisition process. Possible implications for FPDS-NG involve the connection between it and USAspending.gov. FPDS-NG is the source of the prime contracting procurement data available through USAspending.gov. The implications of a requirement to develop and implement financial data standards for FPDS-NG.

Concluding Remarks

Web-based systems increasingly have become embedded in the federal government's acquisition process, providing the means for collecting, storing, searching, or disseminating a variety of data and other information to the acquisition workforce and other interested parties. Many of the systems were designed to facilitate the acquisition process; some of them also promote transparency. Recognizing the potential benefits of integrating certain online procurement systems (and the Catalog for Federal Domestic Assistance), GSA has undertaken an effort to consolidate nine systems into the System for Award Management. It remains to be seen whether efforts to disclose additional procurement information (such as posting contracts online), or to present procurement data in a new portal, or format (such as proposed in the DATA Act), come to fruition. No matter the source of information or data, though, some would argue that access does not necessarily confer comprehension, which may require some knowledge of government procurement.