In-House 
|
How federal agencies include outsourcing and privatization in their strategic use of resources to accomplish agency missions, and how this strategy provides opportunities for contractors, particularly in light of the recent revisions to Circular A-76. An accelerated day-and-a-half learning program on:
Includes a comprehensive analysis and review of the recent changes to A-76 law and the implications of the Commercial Activities Panel Report, the revisions to Circular A-76 and the legislative response and initiatives, and recent FAIR Act developments. The past two years have witnessed significant changes to the policies and procedures governing A-76 contracting and competitive sourcing. With the release of the long-awaited Commercial Activities Panel Report on April 30, 2002 and the draft of Revised Circular A-76 on November 14, 2002, the final version of Revised Circular A-76 on May 29, 2003, and the legislative response and initiatives following the release of the Revised Circular, the entire A-76 process is in a state of flux. In order to survive this transition process, agencies and contractors must not only maintain an understanding of A-76 policies and procedures (which may vary from agency to agency), but also consider the lessons learned from GAO decisions and focus on the current developments in this rapidly changing process. Participants must keep an eye on a moving target. Deciding what work to outsource, or privatize, and how to do it successfully can be difficult. In identifying outsourcing opportunities, Federal decision-makers must balance the potential for cost savings associated with using private sources against the need to preserve “core” or “inherently Governmental functions”. Moreover, when transferring significant work from public to private entities, agencies must follow certain procedures for measuring and evaluating outsourcing opportunities. Once a decision has been made to outsource, agencies must structure the transaction to meet the Government’s need and to provide sufficient incentives to the contractor to produce the desired results. In many cases, an agency’s decision to contract out for services being performed by Government employees is governed by the policies and procedures outlined in the Revised Circular A-76. OMB's Revised Circular A-76 requires Federal agencies to compare the cost of contracting and the cost of in-house performance to determine whether commercial activities should be performed with commercial services or performed in-house using Government facilities and personnel. This course will focus special attention on recent changes to A-76 policy and procedure and the recognized "problem areas" in A-76 competitions: best-value competitions and performing technical leveling; identifying and avoiding conflicts of interest; and performing cost comparisons in accordance with the costing procedures in the Revised Circular. Special focus will also be given to explaining the impact of legislative developments on the application of the Revised Circular. In this accelerated learning program, you will learn and review:
Course Curriculum
Course Faculty Kenneth M. Bruntel Partner in the Washington, D.C. law offices of Crowell & Moring • Concentrates his practice on Government procurement matters, especially in the area of service contracting • His areas of expertise include contract formation and performance disputes, cost allowability and cost accounting counseling and litigation, criminal fraud investigations, and civil False Claims Act cases (both direct Government and qui tam actions) • He practices before Federal district courts, the United States Court of Federal Claims, a majority of the agency boards of contract appeals, as well as other administrative tribunals • Author and co-author of a number of articles on contracting subjects, including a number of articles for the Briefing Papers series and for the Costs, Pricing & Accounting Report • Lectured and written extensively on a variety of government contract issues, such as procurement fraud, claims preparation and litigation, the Truth in Negotiations Act, the Service Contract Act, and procurement integrity • He has taught Government Contract Law at the University of Virginia Law School and at SUNY-Binghamton • Lectured on Government Contract Costs and Accounting for National Contract Management Association National Education Seminar Series • Bachelor of Arts degree from Dartmouth College; Juris Doctor degree from The George Washington University. Amy E. Laderberg Practices law in the Government Contracts practice group of Crowell & Moring • She represents corporate clients in bid protests - including numerous A-76 protests, qui tam actions, and entitlement claims such as the recovery of unabsorbed overhead • She has represented clients in A-76 Administrative Appeals and protests before both the GAO and the United States Court of Federal Claims, engaged in settlement negotiations, prepared certified claims for reimbursement of protest costs, and has been involved in complex commercial litigation • Received her B.A. with honors from Williams College • She graduated from William & Mary School of Law where she served as Notes Editor of the William & Mary Law Review and Articles Editor of the William & Mary Journal of Women and the Law. Daniel R. Forman Counsel in the Washington, D.C. office of the law firm of Crowell & Moring • Works on a wide variety of procurement matters, including prosecuting and defending bid protest actions before the federal courts and the General Accounting Office, False Claims Act and qui tam litigation, and investigations of potential criminal matters • Experience includes work on a number of telecommunications issues, including wireless number portability, cellular priority access, instructional television fixed service, customer proprietary network information, and electronic eavesdropping • Graduate of Vassar College and the Benjamin Cardozo School of Law, where he graduated cum laude, was a member of the Cardozo Law Review, and was named to the Order of the Coif • Member of both the Bar of the District of Columbia and the Bar of New York. |