£
<
^eDsrx
o
o X£\]/jZ 9 U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
%%PR0^° OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL
Operating efficiently and effectively
Improved Acquisition Planning
Will Help EPA Reduce Hundreds
of Millions of Dollars in Hlgh-Risk
Contracts
Report No. 18-P-0038
November 15, 2017

-------
Report Contributors:
Myka Bailey-Sparrow
Eileen Collins
LaTanya Furdge
Madeline Mullen
Michael Petscavage
Abbreviations
CO
Contracting Officer
EPA
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
EPAAG
EPA's Acquisition Guide
FAR
Federal Acquisition Regulation
FFP
Firm-Fixed-Price
FY
Fiscal Year
GAO
U.S. Government Accountability Office
OAM
Office of Acquisition Management
OARM
Office of Administration and Resources Management
OIG
Office of Inspector General
OMB
Office of Management and Budget
Cover photos: Left: Contract file. Right: EPA contractor office building. (EPA OIG photos)
Are you aware of fraud, waste or abuse in an
EPA program?
EPA Inspector General Hotline
1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW (2431T)
Washington, DC 20460
(888) 546-8740
(202) 566-2599 (fax)
OIG Hotline@epa.gov
Learn more about our OIG Hotline.
EPA Office of Inspector General
1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW (2410T)
Washington, DC 20460
(202) 566-2391
www.epa.gov/oiq
Subscribe to our Email Updates
Follow us on Twitter @EPAoig
Send us your Project Suggestions

-------
tfED ST/,.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency	18-p-oo38
November 15, 2017
•	u• o• iv11uiiiiiciiidi n uiuuu
	 \ Office of Inspector General
® I
At a Glance
Why We Did This Review
The U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA),
Office of Inspector General
(OIG), conducted this audit to
address concerns identified in a
previous audit regarding the
agency's use of high-risk bridge
contracts. Our audit objective
was to determine whether the
EPA is performing acquisition
planning and conducting
market research to promote
competition and avoid high-risk
contracting authorities.
The March 4, 2009,
Presidential Memorandum on
Government Contracting
reports that noncompetitive and
cost-reimbursement contracts
have been misused across the
federal government, resulting in
wasted taxpayer resources,
poor contractor performance
and inadequate accountability.
Office of Management and
Budget Memorandum M-09-25,
Improving Government
Acquisition, issued on July 29,
2009, requires agencies to take
action to reduce the use of
high-risk contracting
authorities.
This report addresses the
following:
• Operating efficiently and
effectively.
Send all inquiries to our public
affairs office at (202) 566-2391
or visit www.epa.gov/oia.
Improved Acquisition Planning Will Help EPA Reduce
Hundreds of Millions of Dollars in High-Risk Contracts
Without improving its
acquisition planning process,
the EPA may continue to spend
hundreds of millions of dollars
on high-risk contracts that
waste taxpayer resources.
What We Found
The EPA's use of high-risk contracts could be
reduced if the agency implements additional
internal controls to strengthen and improve
its acquisition planning process. Low-risk,
firm-fixed-price contracts represented only
nine percent of the agency's total contract
obligations in the second quarter of FY 2017.
Other contracting vehicles pose higher risks to the EPA because they put the
burden of cost risk on the government.
We also found that planning difficulties were cited as factors in each of the
10 sole source bridge contracts we sampled, which were awarded to extend
existing contracts without full and open competition. The EPA allowed sole
source contracts even when there was adequate time to plan and conduct a
competitive award process. In addition, two of the sampled contracts did not
document acquisition planning as required by EPA policy and federal regulations.
Recommendations and Planned Agency Corrective Actions
We recommend that the Office of Administration and Resources Management
take the following actions:
•	Require the use of low-risk contracts and only permit high-risk contracts
when low-risk contracts are not possible.
•	Tighten scrutiny of the contract type selection and require higher level
approvals for high-risk contracts.
•	Issue guidance or policy to program offices and contracting staff regarding
requirements for sole source bridge contracts.
•	Permit sole source bridge contracts only when adequate and timely planning
has occurred and when serious injury to the EPA's mission would result from
a lapse of service.
•	Develop a tracking mechanism for bridge contracts.
•	Issue a memorandum to remind staff of the importance of including
acquisition planning documents as part of the official contract records.
We also recommend that the EPA Deputy Administrator issue an agencywide
memorandum to advocate and support Office of Administration and Resources
Management initiatives to achieve greater use of contracts that minimize risk and
maximize value to the government, including reducing the use of high-risk
contracts.
Listing of OIG reports.
The EPA agreed with the recommendations and provided proposed corrective
actions and completion dates. The proposed and completed corrective actions
meet the intent of the recommendations.

-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460
THE INSPECTOR GENERAL
November 15, 2017
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: Improved Acquisition Planning Will Help EPA Reduce
Hundreds of Millions of Dollars in High-Risk Contracts
Report No. 18-P-003:
FROM: Arthur A. Elkins Jr.
TO:
Mike Flynn, Acting Deputy Administrator
Donna Vizian, Acting Assistant Administrator
Office of Administration and Resources Management
This is our report on the subject audit conducted by the Office of Inspector General (OIG) of the
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). The project number for this audit was OA-FY16-0224.
This report contains findings that describe the problems the OIG has identified and corrective actions the
OIG recommends. This report represents the opinion of the OIG and does not necessarily represent the
final EPA position. Final determinations on matters in this report will be made by EPA managers in
accordance with established audit resolution procedures.
The Office of the Administrator is responsible for all offices within the EPA, including program offices
that are involved in the acquisition process. The Office of Acquisition Management within the EPA's
Office of Administration and Resources Management is responsible for planning, awarding and
administering contracts. The Office of Acquisition Management works with various program offices to
award contracts.
Action Required
In accordance with EPA Manual 2750, your offices provided completed and planned corrective actions
and completion dates in response to OIG recommendations. Therefore, a response to the final report is
not required. The OIG may make periodic inquiries on your progress in implementing these corrective
actions. Please update the EPA's Management Audit Tracking System as you complete planned
corrective actions. Should you choose to provide a final response, we will post your response on the
OIG's public website, along with our memorandum commenting on your response.
We will post this report to our website at www.epa.gov/oig.

-------
Improved Acquisition Planning Will Help EPA Reduce
Hundreds of Millions of Dollars in High-Risk Contracts
18-P-0038
	Table of Contents
Chapters
1	Introduction		1
Purpose		1
Background		1
Responsible Offices		2
Scope and Methodology		2
Prior Report		4
2	EPA Needs to Decrease Use of High-Risk Contracts		5
Memoranda, Regulations and Guidance Promote Low-Risk Contracts		5
EPA Relies on High-Risk Contracts		5
EPA Did Not Emphasize Use of FFP Contracts		8
Risky Contracts Cannot Reap Benefits of Cost Savings		9
EPA Recognizes Risk and Is Taking Steps to Address 		9
Recommendations 		10
Agency Response and OIG Evaluation		10
3	EPA Needs to Do More to Avoid Sole Source Bridge Contracts		12
Federal Directives, Guidance and Standards Promote Competitive
Awards, Require Risk Management		12
Planning Difficulties Cited as Factors in Sole Source Bridge Contracts		13
EPA Did Not Emphasize Requirements		15
Lack of Competition Creates Risk That Government Will Overpay		16
EPA Is Taking Steps to Address Risk 		16
Recommendations 		16
Agency Response and OIG Evaluation		17
4	EPA Needs to Improve Compliance With Acquisition Planning
Requirements		18
EPA Guidance, Federal Regulation Require Acquisition Planning 		18
Acquisition Planning Was Not Always Documented		18
EPA Recognizes Risk and Is Taking Steps to Address 		19
Recommendation		19
Agency Response and OIG Evaluation		19
Status of Recommendations and Potential Monetary Benefits		20
- continued -

-------
Improved Acquisition Planning Will Help EPA Reduce
Hundreds of Millions of Dollars in High-Risk Contracts
18-P-0038
Appendices
A Office of the Administrator Response to Draft Report		21
B OARM Response to Draft Report		23
C Distribution		27

-------
Chapter 1
Introduction
Purpose
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Office of Inspector General
(OIG), conducted this audit to address concerns identified in a previous audit
regarding the agency's use of high-risk, sole source bridge contracts to continue
the work performed under expiring contracts. Our audit objective was to
determine whether the EPA is performing acquisition planning and conducting
market research to promote competition and avoid high-risk contracting
authorities.
Background
According to the Presidential Memorandum on Government Contracting issued
on March 4, 2009, agency Inspectors General, the U.S. Government
Accountability Office (GAO) and others have found that noncompetitive and
cost-reimbursement contracts were misused, wasted taxpayer resources, and
resulted in poor contractor performance and inadequate accountability. The
presidential memorandum has been implemented through Office of Management
and Budget (OMB) Memorandum M-09-25, Improving Government Acquisition,
issued on July 29, 2009. The OMB memorandum sets a net $40-billion-per-year
savings target to be achieved through better acquisition and program practices. It
also requires agencies to act to reduce the use of high-risk contracting authorities.
High-Risk Contracts
The EPA defines "high risk contracting authorities" as anything other than firm-
fixed-price (FFP). Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) 16.104(a) states that "a
fixed-price contract is ordinarily in the Government's interest." Figure 1 displays
how cost-reimbursable contracts—such as cost-plus-fixed-fee and time-and-
materials contracts—result in higher risks to the government, while contractors
assume more of the risks in FFP contracts.
Figure 1: Risks of FFP versus cost-reimbursable contracts
GOVERNMENT
LOW	» HIGH
FFP
RISK
Cost


Reimbursable
HIGH I	LOW
CONTRACTOR
Source: Department of Defense Contracting Officer Representative Handbook.
18-P-0038
1

-------
Risk factors should be addressed in the acquisition planning process, during
which the personnel responsible for an acquisition work together to award a
contract in a timely manner and at a reasonable cost.
Bridge Contracts
GAO has defined a "bridge contract" as either an "extension to an existing
contract beyond the period of performance" or a "new, short-term contract
awarded on a sole source basis to an incumbent contractor to avoid a lapse in
service caused by a delay" in the follow-on contract. According to
Competitiveness in the Services Sector, an Institute for Defense Analyses report
dated March 2010, these types of contracts "are put in place when a delay in the
acquisition process prevents the award of a competitive contract until after the
contract in place is due to terminate." Intended to be temporary, bridge contracts
are awarded as modifications to current contracts or as U.S. General Services
Administration orders to continue services until a new contract can be put in place.
They can be sole source, which means they are awarded to the incumbent
contractor without competition for the best possible price or value.
GAO Report No. GAO-16-15, Defining and Tracking Bridge Contracts Would
Help Agencies Manage Their Use, issued in October 2015, states that the
reviewed agencies "had limited or no insights into their use of bridge contracts."
The report reveals that the agencies did not have "agency-level policies to manage
and track their use of bridge contracts" and that their acquisition regulations did
not define bridge contracts.
Responsible Offices
The Office of the Administrator is responsible for all offices within the EPA,
including program offices that have responsibilities in the acquisition process.
The Office of Acquisition Management (OAM) within the EPA's Office of
Administration and Resources Management (OARM) is responsible for planning,
awarding and administering contracts. OAM works with various program offices
to award contracts.
Scope and Methodology
We conducted this performance audit from July 2016 through August 2017 in
accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards. Those
standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain sufficient,
appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for our findings and
conclusions based on our audit objective. We believe that the evidence obtained
provides a reasonable basis for our findings and conclusions based on our audit
objective.
18-P-0038
2

-------
To answer our objective, we reviewed the following documentation:
•	GAO-14-704G, Standards for Internal Control in the Federal
Government, September 2014.
•	OMB Circular A-123, Management's Responsibility for Enterprise Risk
Management and Internal Control, July 15, 2016.
•	EPA's Acquisition Guide (EPAAG), January 2016.
•	EPA's Contracts Management Manual, February 26, 2009.
•	Presidential Memorandum on Government Contracting, March 4, 2009.
•	OMB Memorandum M-09-25, Improving Government Acquisition,
July 29, 2009.
•	FAR 1.704, 4.802, 6.301, 6.302, 7.104, 16.103 and 16.104.
During its preliminary research, the OIG audit team judgmentally selected a
sample of 10 bridge and high-risk cost contracts awarded in fiscal years
(FYs) 2014, 2015 or 2016. During fieldwork, the team judgmentally selected an
additional five sole source contracts awarded in FYs 2016 and 2017 for review.
The total sample of 15 contracts—with a combined $94,386,615 in funding
actions—is listed in Table 1.
Table 1: EPA contract sample
#
Contract number
Funding action
1
EP-C-14-012
$29,703,673
2
EP-C-16-001
29,141,267
3
EP-D-10-096
a 0
4
EP-D-11-027
a 0
5
EP-D-11-080
a 0
6
EP-D-11-081
a 0
7
EP-D-11-082
a 0
8
EP-D-16-009
10,643,140
9
EP-G15H-00933
218,617
10
EP-G15H-00935
91,226
11
EP-G103-00003
87,264
12
EP-G159-00280
33,072
13
EP-W-08-036
237,028
14
EP-W-11-003
1,998,046
15
EP-W-15-006
22,233,282
Total
$94,386,615
Source: OIG judgmental sample.
a These contract actions did not require funding
because obligated funds remained on the contracts.
In our sample of 15 contracts, 11 were bridge contracts. Of the 11 bridge contracts
offered by the EPA, one was signed by the EPA and declined by the incumbent
contractor; therefore, only 10 of the 11 sampled bridge contracts were finally
awarded. In addition, 10 of the 11 bridge contracts were sole source. The
remaining four contracts were cost-reimbursement, non-bridge contracts. Of the
four non-bridge contracts offered by the EPA, one was protested by a competitor
18-P-0038
3

-------
and canceled. However, throughout this report, when we refer to the contract
sample, we refer to all 15 sampled contracts because the EPA went through the
planning process for each of the sampled contract actions.
We interviewed management within OAM and obtained contract documents from
the EPA's Acquisition System and contract files. After reviewing these contract
documents, we interviewed contracting and program staff regarding the sampled
contracts. We also reviewed documentation provided by program staff.
Prior Report
In EPA OIG Report No. 13-P-0208, EPA Should Increase Fixed-Price
Contracting for Remedial Actions, issued on March 28, 2013, we report that the
EPA continued to rely on high-risk cost-reimbursement contracts and time-and-
materials task orders in the Superfund remedial program. The report makes six
recommendations; according to the EPA, all corrective actions were completed by
March 11, 2016.
18-P-0038
4

-------
Chapter 2
EPA Needs to Decrease Use of High-Risk Contracts
Low-risk FFP contracts represented only nine percent of the agency's total
contract obligations in the second quarter of FY 2017. According to the March
2009 Presidential Memorandum on Government Contracting, excessive reliance
on cost-reimbursement contracts produces a risk that taxpayer funds will be spent
on wasteful and inefficient contracts that are subject to misuse. The EPA did not
sufficiently promote the use of FFP contracts instead of high-risk contracts to
limit the government's risk. Because the EPA is not reaping the benefits of cost
savings from FFP contracts, the agency is not able to use any saved funds for
mission-critical activities.
Memoranda, Regulations and Guidance Promote Low-Risk Contracts
In accordance with the March 2009 Presidential Memorandum on Government
Contracting, OMB Memorandum M-09-25, Improving Government Acquisition,
issued in July 2009, directs agencies to reduce their use of cost-reimbursement,
time-and-materials, and labor-hour contracts because these high-risk contracting
authorities pose overspending risks.
FAR 16.103(a) explains that agencies should negotiate a contract type and price
that result in reasonable contractor risk and give the contractor the most incentive
for efficient and economical performance. FAR 16.103(d) requires, among other
things, federal agencies to maintain documentation that shows why a contract type
was selected; why that contract type will meet the government's need; and how
the government will manage the additional risk and burden of a cost-
reimbursement contract, if selected. FAR 16.104(d) notes that as requirements
recur, "the cost risk should shift to the contractor, and a fixed-price contract
should be considered."
EPAAG Section 7.1.1 requires that the agency perform acquisition planning,
considering such questions as "What are the risks associated with the contract
type?"
EPA Relies on High-Risk Contracts
Even after issuance of the presidential and OMB memoranda, the EPA still relied
heavily on high-risk contracts, as shown in Table 2.
18-P-0038
5

-------
Table 2: Number and value of active contracts—second quarter FY 2017

Number of
Total contract
Maximum
Award typea
contracts
obligation
potential value
Cost
1
$3,245,541
$0
Cost-plus-fixed-fee
79
1,742,810,247
3,629,225,842
Cost-sharing
1
5,638,950
25,959,148
FFP
191
406,420,048
1,195,279,635
Fixed price
3
52,389,017
0
Fixed-price economic price
adjustment
11
21,980,540
390,164,523
Fixed-price incentive
2
22,050,733
36,536,448
Indefinite-quantity
180
1,192,481,670
6,210,483,229
Labor-hour
3
6,118,236
27,497,545
Requirements
9
8,785,090
18,310,515
Time-and-materials
50
895,810,966
2,704,114,874
Totals
530
$4,357,731,038
$14,237,571,759
Source: OIG analysis of the EPA's second quarter FY 2017 data. The OIG did not independently
verify the EPA data.
a This table does not include blanket purchase agreements, purchase card orders, purchase
orders or basic ordering requirements.
In the second quarter of FY 2017, the majority (over 60 percent) of the EPA's
contracts were still not FFP, as shown in Figure 2. Furthermore, Figure 2
demonstrates that the dollar value of the EPA's FFP contract obligations
represented only nine percent of the agency's total contracting dollars.
Figure 2: EPA contract types and values as of second quarter FY 2017
Number of contracts
Value of contracts
$406,420,048
$3,951,310,990
FFP ¦ All other contracts
Source: OIG analysis of EPA data as of second quarter FY 2017. The OIG did not
independently verify the EPA data.
Our sample of 15 contracts focused on EPA's high-risk contracts and included
11 bridge contracts. As shown in Table 3, 10 of these 11 bridge contracts (all but
EP-G159-00280) were high-risk. The 10 high-risk bridge contracts—totaling
$2,632,181 in contract actions—were also sole source, enabling the incumbent
contractors to continue their work without having to compete for a new award;
18-P-0038

-------
however, awarding contracts without competition poses higher risks to the
government.
Table 3: Sampled bridge contracts
Contract number
Bridge issue date
Contract type
EP-D-10-096
December 21,2016
Cost-plus-fixed-fee
EP-D-11-027
June 30, 2016
Cost-plus-fixed-fee
EP-D-11-080
January 24, 2017
Indefinite-delivery-indefinite-quantity
EP-D-11-081
Not awarded
Indefinite-delivery-indefinite-quantity
EP-D-11-082
January 19, 2017
Indefinite-delivery-indefinite-quantity
EP-G15H-00933 a
May 11, 2016
Time-and-materials
EP-G15H-00935 a
June 29, 2016
Time-and-materials
EP-G103-00003 a
August 31, 2016
Cost-plus-fixed-fee
EP-G159-00280 a
September 21,2015
FFP
EP-W-08-036
January 14, 2016
Cost-plus-fixed-fee
EP-W-11-003
March 10, 2016
Cost-plus-fixed-fee
Source: OIG analysis of contract files and the EPA's Acquisition System files.
a These are U.S. General Services Administration contracts.
For the remaining four non-bridge contracts in our sample, the EPA did not issue
FFP contracts despite the presidential and OMB memoranda. Two Contracting
Officers (COs) said that they did consider a low-risk contract but did not
successfully advocate for or obtain one. Table 4 lists the four sampled cost-
reimbursement contracts, which represent $91,721,362 in contract actions.
Table 4: Sampled cost-reimbursement contracts
Contract number
Contract award date
Contract type
EP-C-14-012
May 27, 2014
Cost-plus-fixed-fee
EP-C-16-001
November 23, 2015
Cost-plus-fixed-fee
EP-D-16-009
February 25, 2016
Cost-plus-fixed-fee
EP-W-15-006
April 27,2015
Cost-plus-fixed-fee
Source: OIG analysis of contract files and the EPA's Acquisition System files.
High-Risk Contract Explanations
Per FAR 16.103(d), COs are required to explain the need for high-risk contract
vehicles in the formal written acquisition plans for high-risk contracts. However,
we found that the provided explanations regarding why cost-reimbursement
contracts were needed or how the government's risk would be managed were not
convincing. Instead, the explanations included only general language about
uncertainties and the need for services. For example, a contract for wastewater
and drinking water support (EP-C-16-001) cites "the level of effort and the scope
and nature of the required tasks cannot be specified with sufficient clarity to allow
for reasonable cost certainty" as justification for using a high-risk contract type.
Yet, the same requirements have been contracted for since 1990; there should be
sufficient history to attempt a FFP contract for at least some of the requirements.
The contract documentation also recognizes the government's additional risks and
burden to manage a cost-reimbursement contract:
18-P-0038
7

-------
The Government understands the risks associated with not using a
FFP contract, but has determined that adequate safeguards are in
place ... to mitigate the inherent risk in a cost reimbursable
contract.
The safeguards identified in the contract documentation include detailed annual
invoice reviews and the ability to review contractor accounting systems to address
the government's risk of paying more than necessary. However, we were told that
the contract's Project Officer only infrequently inquired about high costs and
asked for cost justifications. In addition, the contract requirements were renewed
via high-risk contracting vehicles for over 25 years. According to the Project
Officer, these high-risk vehicles were the only way the agency could make sure
the program requirements continued to be covered.
EPA Did Not Emphasize Use of FFP Contracts
The EPA did not sufficiently emphasize low-risk contracts or compliance with
requirements to limit the government's risk. After we shared our discussion
document with the EPA, the agency agreed that a FFP contract clearly reduces
price uncertainty but also stated that a CO must not blindly pursue FFP contracts.
The EPA said that COs must consider that, although FFP contracts may reduce
the uncertainty of the acquisition in one area, they may increase the uncertainty in
other areas.
COs and program staff provided various explanations for the use of high-risk
contracts. For example, although the CO ultimately determines the contract type,
the program offices provide the requirements for the contract and may press for
the continued use of high-risk contracts. In addition, EPA management has not
issued specific direction to promote the use of lower risk contracts. One OAM
Team Lead indicated that a message from the OAM Director encouraging more
FFP contracts would be helpful.
Through interviews with EPA staff, we determined that the EPA did not routinely
utilize or consider the use of FFP contracts instead of high-risk contracts for the
following reasons:
•	The needed work was broad, had uncertainties or was sporadic.
•	Staff did not realize that FFP or hybrid contracts were possible, although
they often had more than 5 years of history with the contract work being
performed.
•	Staff were more familiar with the contract types they previously awarded.
We also found that COs and program staff often provided different reasons for not
considering FFP contracts, as outlined in Table 5.
18-P-0038
8

-------
Table 5: Reasons why COs and program staff did not consider FFP contracts
COs
Program staff
•	Despite a long history with a specific
contract, program staff could not
specify the work that needed to be
done.
•	By the time a contract reached the CO,
the decision to award a cost contract
was already made.
•	Program staff were not open to
considering a FFP contract.
•	Program staff would not be happy and
would be annoyed with a FFP contract.
•	COs considered the contract type to be
mainly the program staff's decision.
•	FFP contracts may be an option but, for
research work, it would be difficult.
•	Program staff were unaware that hybrid
contracts were possible. FFP options
were not discussed for parts of the
contract because program staff did not
realize that an entire contract did not
have to be FFP.
•	The CO determined the type of contract
to be used.
•	Although they understood they should
consider moving away from high-risk
contract types when issuing new
contracts, program staff did not realize
this movement was a requirement.
Source: OIG interviews of EPA staff.
Risky Contracts Cannot Reap Benefits of Cost Savings
High-risk contracts present the highest risk to federal government dollars.
According to OMB Memorandum M-09-25, reliance on contracts other than FFP
provides the contractor with little incentive to control costs. However, the EPA
has not emphasized, as required by the FAR, the importance of negotiating a
contract type and price "that will result in reasonable contractor risk and provide
the contractor with the greatest incentive for efficient and economical
performance." The fact that cost-reimbursement contracts require more oversight
and monitoring, per FAR 16.103(d)(1), also means that there is an additional
oversight burden for the government. As a result, the EPA is not reaping the
benefits of cost savings from FFP contracting. The high-risk contract decisions
that we sampled—with a combined value of millions of dollars—did not support
that higher risk contract vehicles were necessary.
EPA Recognizes Risk and Is Taking Steps to Address
The EPA has recognized that acquisition planning should be improved. The
Federal Managers' Financial Integrity Act requires that federal agencies report
annually on the soundness of their internal controls and financial systems. Each
EPA program office submits a Federal Managers' Financial Integrity Act
Assurance Letter each year, which OARM then summarizes and submits to the
President and Congress along with a risk assessment. In its FY 2016 letter,
OARM reported that its internal controls were adequate to reasonably ensure
protection against fraud, waste, abuse and mismanagement. However, the
attached risk assessment recognized that the EPA had delays in contract awards
and was not maximizing the use of FFP contracts.
18-P-0038
9

-------
Furthermore, OAM decided in 2017 that the "Determination and Findings" form
for time-and-materials contracts—which, per FAR 1.704, must provide "enough
facts ... to clearly and convincingly justify the specific determination made" (e.g.,
statements of fact or rationale for the contract type selected)—must be approved
and signed at a level higher than the current approval delegation. This decision
means that only OAM Division Directors or higher have signatory authority for
these forms. Similar treatment is under consideration for all cost-reimbursement
type contracts and should provide additional oversight over high-risk contracts.
In its written response to our discussion document, OAM recognized that contract
type determination write-ups for the use of high-risk contracts must be more
substantive, detailed and robust, as well as provide technical details that fully
support the decision to award a contract that is not FFP. To further address issues
raised in this audit, the OAM Office Director identified a training and course
development plan that includes training on contract types. According to the EPA,
this plan is nearing completion and is expected to be rolled out in FY 2018. In
addition, the EPA reported that OAM is re-engineering business processes and
will include best practices and lessons learned from offices that have successfully
converted program requirements to another, lower-risk contract type.
Recommendations
We recommend that the Assistant Administrator for Administration and
Resources Management:
1.	Update policy and procedures to require the use of low-risk contracts, and
only permit high-risk contracts when low-risk contracts are not possible.
2.	Implement controls to tighten scrutiny of the contract type selection, and
require higher level approvals for all high-risk contracts.
We recommend that the EPA Deputy Administrator:
3.	Issue an agencywide memorandum to advocate and support Office of
Administration and Resources Management initiatives to achieve greater
use of contracts that minimize risk and maximize value to the government,
including reducing the use of high-risk contracts.
Agency Response and OIG Evaluation
The EPA agreed with Recommendations 1 through 3 and provided planned
corrective actions with completion dates. According to the agency's response,
OAM will complete the following actions for Recommendations 1 and 2:
18-P-0038
10

-------
•	Recommendation 1. Review acquisition policy and procedures to ensure
that contract type selection is emphasized and "that the use and discussion
of firm-fixed price contracts is given serious consideration" during the
planning phase. Communicate and collaborate with stakeholders to assure
the clarity of policy and procedure updates and that implementation of these
updates "is supportive of program goals and objectives." The OIG
confirmed with the EPA that relevant "policy and procedures would be
updated and low-risk contracts would be required unless it is not possible."
The estimated completion date is March 31, 2018.
•	Recommendation 2. Enhance oversight and enforcement of FAR and
EPAAG procedures "that require documentation of the rationale for
contract type selection" when it is not FFP, including determination and
findings preparation and approval for time-and-materials and labor-hour
contracts. Exercise "greater scrutiny of contract type discussions, decisions
and supporting documentation" based on an "analysis of current needs,
issues, and vulnerabilities." The estimated completion date is March 31,
2018.
In response to Recommendation 3, the acting Deputy Administrator will issue an
agencywide memorandum informing staff of OARM initiatives and "emphasizing
the importance of participation and compliance." The estimated completion date is
December 31, 2017.
The EPA's planned corrective actions meet the intent of Recommendations 1
through 3, which are therefore resolved with corrective actions pending.
18-P-0038
11

-------
Chapter 3
EPA Needs to Do More to Avoid
Sole Source Bridge Contracts
Planning difficulties were cited as factors in each of the 10 sole source bridge
contracts that we sampled, per the written justifications for conducting other than
a full and open competition included in the contract files. According to the FAR,
however, a lack of advance planning does not justify contracting without full and
open competition. Furthermore, per OMB Memorandum M-09-25,
noncompetitive contracts present a price risk to the government. The EPA has not
sufficiently emphasized the requirement to reduce spending on sole source
contracts and has allowed sole source contracts even when there was adequate
time to plan for a competitive award process. Also, the EPA does not define or
identify bridge contracts, and the agency does not have policies to manage and
track their use. When noncompetitive contracts are used, the agency risks
overpaying for goods and services. With limited insight into the extent and
volume of bridge contracts, the EPA cannot identify, analyze and reduce the risks
associated with achieving the contract objectives.
Federal Directives, Guidance and Standards Promote Competitive
Awards, Require Risk Management
Federal regulations, memoranda and EPA policy emphasize the benefits of and
need for a competitive award process. The Presidential Memorandum on
Government Contracting notes that the risk of excessive reliance on sole source
contracts is that taxpayer funds will be spent on wasteful and inefficient contracts
that are subject to misuse. OMB Memorandum M-09-25 specifies that "non-
competitive contracts present a risk because there is not a direct market
mechanism for setting the contract price." FAR 6.301(c)(1) states, "Contracting
without providing for full and open competition shall not be justified on the basis
of ... [a] lack of advance planning by the requiring activity." Also, FAR 7.104(b)
states, "Requirements and logistics personnel should avoid issuing requirements
on an urgent basis ... since it generally restricts competition and increases prices."
In addition, Section 7.1.1 of the EPAAG underscores that, without proper
acquisition planning, the EPA may face harmful consequences:
... the result may be poorly defined requirements, lack of
competition, and ultimately, a detrimental effect on the agency's
ability to receive mission critical goods and services.
18-P-0038
12

-------
There are some exceptions to the competitive award process. FAR 6.302 outlines
circumstances that permit other than full and open competition:
•	FAR 6.302-1—Only one responsible source and no other supplies or
services will satisfy agency requirements.
•	FAR 6.302-2—Unusual and compelling urgency (i.e., when the agency's
need for the supplies or services is of such an unusual and compelling
urgency that the government would be seriously injured).
•	FAR 6.302-3—Industrial mobilization; engineering, developmental, or
research capability; or expert services.
•	FAR 6.302-4—International agreement.
•	FAR 6.302-5—Authorized or required by statute.
•	FAR 6.302-6—National security.
•	FAR 6.302-7—Public interest.
Government internal control standards describe management responsibilities
regarding risk assessment and addressing risk. The GAO's Standards for Internal
Control in the Federal Government requires management to use quality
information to achieve objectives and address risks. Also, GAO states that
management should identify, analyze and respond to risks related to achieving its
objectives. OMB Circular A-123, Management's Responsibility for Enterprise
Risk Management and Internal Control, notes management's responsibility to
continuously monitor, assess and improve internal control effectiveness. Further,
OMB states that management should identify and correct control deficiencies.
Planning Difficulties Cited as Factors in Sole Source Bridge Contracts
Planning difficulties were cited as factors in each of the 10 sole source bridge
contracts we sampled. Within the documentation for these contracts, the EPA
provided written justifications that emphasized the importance of extending these
contracts to fill critical needs. Although FAR 7.104(b) cautions against issuing
contract requirements on an urgent basis, the EPA did not consider that better
planning could have reduced the potential need for last-minute, sole source bridge
contracts. Table 6 lists the EPA's written explanations regarding the necessity of
these bridge contracts, which totaled $2,632,181.
18-P-0038
13

-------
Table 6: Sole source contract explanations
Contract
number
Explanation excerpts
EP-D-10-096
"Using another contractor would result in a substantial duplication of
effort. In addition to the time/expertise considerations discussed ... a
substantial amount of resources would be required for another
contractor to acquire a level of knowledge and expertise equivalent to
that of" the current contractor.
EP-D-11-027
"The Government is not stating that there are no other contractors
who can support this Onsite Technical Support Services requirement
... no other contractor could transition this workload ... and efficiently
continue performance without potential reduced services, increased
costs, and unnecessary risks to the Government."
EP-D-11-080
"... considering the short period of performance contemplated within
this extension that no other contractor could transition this workload
... and efficiently continue performance without potential reduced
services, increased costs, and unnecessary risks to the Government."
EP-D-11-081
"... it is not reasonable to believe that a contractor could take over
and provide the High Throughput Screening services required ... of
this size, scope and complexity at this time. Therefore, a sole source
extension to the current contractor is the only responsible way to
meet this essential Government requirement."
EP-D-11-082
"The purpose of this document is to justify the need to extend the
period of performance an additional six (6) months to prevent a lapse
in services that are critical to the continuity of scientific research ...
while the new contract is negotiated and awarded."
EP-G15H-
00933
"This interim bridge contract cannot be competed or awarded to
another contractor because" the current contractor "is most familiar
with a large amount of varied complex components." The current
contractor "will not burden ... with start-up cost that another vendor
would encounter, nor... incur the initial learning curve."
EP-G15H-
00935
"While other contractors, in the long-term, may be able to develop
that specialized knowledge for the planned and on-going projects, it
has been determined that it is not feasible in the short-term.
Additionally, because the tasks under the current task order have
begun and are in-progress, the interim bridge contact is a natural and
vital product of these existing tasks."
EP-G103-
00003
"The services required ... provide a logical continuation of services
currently being performed by the incumbent, ... which are necessary
to protect property of the U. S. Government and to ensure the
occupants of this federally owned facility have a safe and properly
maintained environment to work in."
EP-W-08-036
"This contractor is the only responsible contractor that can fulfill this
requirement at this time because of the program office's ongoing
need for preparedness in the event of an emergency situation."
EP-W-11-003
"... the only contractor that has the requisite expertise and
qualifications to perform the work within budget and so that there is
no gap in service. Additional costs, which would not be recovered
through competition, would be necessary if this support was
transitioned to another contractor and would cause significant delays
in completing the required tasks identified."
Source: OIG analysis of contract files and the EPA's Acquisition System files.
18-P-0038
14

-------
The justifications generally explain that there is only one source ready to do the
work immediately, but they do not explain how the government would be
seriously injured if the sole source contract was not approved.1 Therefore, the
explanations do not meet the intent of the FAR, particularly when lack of
sufficient planning was noted as a reason why other than full and open
competition was needed in all 10 sole source bridge contracts sampled. For
example, the documentation for one of the contracts included the following
justification:
No other contractor could perform these tasks without a significant
delay in service, a steep learning curve and potential duplication of
effort and a waste of Government resources.
This explanation does not meet the sole source criteria that there be only one
responsible source and that no other supplies or services will satisfy agency
requirements. Instead, it focuses on a steep learning curve. It also does not explain
how the government would be seriously injured if a sole source contract was not
used.
EPA Does Not Track Bridge Contracts
Although the EPA uses bridge contracts, the agency does not have guidance or
policy to define, identify, manage or track the use of bridge contracts. As a result,
there is no readily identifiable way to determine how many bridge contracts the
EPA has awarded. For example, in response to our audit request for a list of
awarded bridge contracts, the EPA had to perform a word search of contract data
for "bridge."
EPA Did Not Emphasize Requirements
The EPA did not sufficiently emphasize the requirement to reduce spending on
sole source contracts and allowed sole source bridge contracts to be awarded,
even when there was adequate time to plan and conduct a competitive award
process. Although planning is supposed to begin years in advance, some contract
award activities were delayed. One CO we interviewed indicated that, during the
preceding 2 years, the use of sole source contracts increased because there was
not enough time for the full competitive process. Another CO found that the
contracting office was so far behind schedule that a bridge contract became
necessary. In another instance, an OAM manager explained that a bridge contract
was necessary due to delays in acquisition planning. Yet another OAM manager
explained that delays in obtaining a statement of work from the program office
necessitated a bridge contract. These explanations relate to a lack of planning. The
FAR states that a lack of advance planning does not justify contracting without
full and open competition.
1 Neither the FAR nor the EPAAG define "serious injury."
18-P-0038
15

-------
During discussions with OAM, we asked whether the EPA had considered the
findings in the GAO report, Defining and Tracking Bridge Contracts Would Help
Agencies Manage Their Use, which highlights the need for federal agencies to
track bridge contracts. OAM explained that they were aware of the GAO report
but had not considered tracking or addressing bridge contracts prior to our
discussion.
Lack of Competition Creates Risk That Government Will Overpay
Inadequate acquisition planning results in noncompetitive contracts. The use of
noncompetitive contracts frequently or for prolonged periods of time creates a
risk that the government will overpay for goods and services. Also, EPA policy
notes that a lack of acquisition planning may result in a detrimental effect on the
agency's ability to receive mission-critical goods and services. We found that the
use of sole source contracts totaling millions of dollars could potentially have
been avoided if the EPA permitted such contracts only when adequate and timely
planning had occurred.
Furthermore, since the EPA does not define, identify or track bridge contracts,
there is limited insight into how often the agency uses bridge contracts and
whether the agency circumvents the FAR. The EPA's lack of policies on the use
of bridge contracts means that the EPA cannot identify and analyze risks, nor can
the agency make management decisions regarding bridge contracts.
EPA Is Taking Steps to Address Risk
An OAM manager explained that the EPA's Acquisition System solicitation
module would soon be modified to add special coding to track bridge contracts. In
its written response to our discussion document, the EPA confirmed that this
tracking mechanism will help address issues raised in this audit. In addition, the
agency stated that the Office of Federal Procurement Policy may develop a
regulatory definition for "bridge contracts." The OIG asserts that, meanwhile, the
EPA can develop and use an interim definition. Also, the OAM Office Director
identified a training and course development plan that will include training on the
need for and use of bridge contracts, as well as provide examples of "good" and
"weak" justifications for other than full and open competition.
Recommendations
We recommend that the Assistant Administrator for Administration and
Resources Management:
4. Issue guidance or policy to program offices and contracting staff regarding
requirements for sole source bridge contracts, including a definition of
18-P-0038
16

-------
"bridge contracts" and "serious injury," the authorization for use, and the
impact on competition and agency goals.
5.	Permit sole source bridge contracts only when adequate and timely
planning has occurred and serious injury to the EPA's mission would result
from a lapse of service, and require deputy-level approval for sole source
bridge contracts over a specific dollar threshold.
6.	Develop a tracking mechanism for bridge contracts.
Agency Response and OIG Evaluation
The EPA agreed with Recommendations 4 through 6 and provided planned
corrective actions with completion dates. In response to Recommendations 4
through 6, OAM will complete the following actions:
•	Recommendation 4. Develop and issue guidance to program and
contracting staff regarding sole source bridge contract requirements,
including the definition of "bridge contracts and 'serious injury', the
authorization for use, and the impact on competition and agency goals." The
estimated completion date is January 31, 2018.
•	Recommendation 5. Enhance oversight and enforcement of FAR and
EPAAG acquisition planning processes and procedures, and "assure that
senior acquisition personnel and leadership ... reach out to their
counterparts" to hold acquisition planners accountable for timely
performance of required planning. Exercise "greater scrutiny of the
acquisition planning process, including contract type discussions,
decisions, and the quality and substance of supporting documentation" for
sole source bridge contracts "through higher level review and approvals."
Base reviews and approvals on an "informed analysis of the current needs,
issues, and vulnerabilities in this area." The OIG confirmed with the EPA
that "OAM will permit sole source bridge contracts only when it is evident
that adequate and timely planning has occurred and serious injury to the
EPA's mission would result from a lapse of service; and require deputy-
level approval for sole source bridge contracts over a specific dollar
threshold." The estimated completion date is March 31, 2018.
•	Recommendation 6. Develop a bridge tracking mechanism in the EPA's
Acquisition System no later than September 30, 2017. Implementation of
reporting on bridge contracts using this new tracking mechanism will be
deferred until the agency's definitions of "bridge contracts" and "serious
injury" are finalized. The estimated completion date is February 28, 2018.
The planned corrective actions meet the intent of Recommendations 4 through 6,
which are resolved with corrective actions pending.
18-P-0038
17

-------
Chapter 4
EPA Needs to Improve Compliance With
Acquisition Planning Requirements
Two of the 15 contracts we sampled did not have documentation regarding
acquisition planning, as required by EPA policy. As previously noted in this
report, the EPAAG states that proper acquisition planning is critical to avoid
"poorly defined requirements, lack of competition, and ultimately, a detrimental
effect on the agency's ability to receive mission critical goods and services." The
EPA's inattention to thorough and timely acquisition planning may have a
detrimental effect on the agency's ability to receive mission-critical goods and
services at the best price.
EPA Guidance, Federal Regulation Require Acquisition Planning
Paragraph 7.1.1.2 of the EPAAG requires acquisition planning for all acquisitions.
The EPAAG defines "acquisition planning" as the process by which all personnel
responsible for an acquisition coordinate to fulfill agency needs in a timely
manner and at a reasonable cost. Preceding the publication of the EPAAG in
January 2016, the EPA's February 2009 Contracts Management Manual provided
the following definition in Section 7.1.2:
Acquisition planning means that the efforts of all personnel
responsible for an acquisition are coordinated and integrated
through a comprehensive plan for fulfilling agency needs in a
timely manner.
In addition, FAR 4.802(a) specifies that a contract file should generally consist of,
among other things, documentation of the basis for the acquisition and award, the
assignment of contract administration, and any subsequent contracting office
actions. The EPAAG also requires that a copy of the final procurement plan and
market research be documented in the official contract file.
Acquisition Planning Was Not Always Documented
Although the majority of the 15 contracts we sampled had documented
acquisition planning, two contract files (EP-W-08-036 and EP-W-11-003) did not
include documentation of those efforts, as required. For those two contracts, the
COs were not able to locate the acquisition planning documents.
Although EPA policy provides guidance on acquisition planning and reasonable
lead times, OAM management said that staffing and resource issues have had a
negative impact. In response to our audit request for documentation, one CO
could not locate pre-award acquisition planning documents due to staff changes
18-P-0038
18

-------
and did not know whether these documents were drafted in the first place. The
CO for the other contract stated that the contracting office had resource issues,
and the written acquisition plan required by the FAR was not in the contract's file.
Inattention to thorough and timely documentation of acquisition planning
potentially results in a detrimental effect because the suitability and rationale for
high-risk contracts are not supported for audits or management review.
EPA Recognizes Risk and Is Taking Steps to Address
In its written response to our discussion document, the EPA noted that increased
attention to thorough and timely acquisition planning offers a strong foundation
for mission-critical goods and services contracts. Also, to address issues raised in
this audit, the OAM Office Director identified a training and course development
plan that includes acquisition planning training.
Recommendation
We recommend that the Assistant Administrator for Administration and
Resources Management:
7. Issue a memorandum reminding staff of the importance of including
acquisition planning documents as part of the official contract records.
Agency Response and OIG Evaluation
The EPA agreed with Recommendation 7 and on September 29, 2017, issued a
"Flash Notice" email reminding COs to include all required documentation in the
contract files. It also noted the importance of improving the documentation of
contract type selections. This corrective action meets the intent of
Recommendation 7, which is complete.
18-P-0038
19

-------
Status of Recommendations and
Potential Monetary Benefits
RECOMMENDATIONS
Rec. Page
No. No.
Subject
Status1
Planned
Completion
Action Official	Date
10 Update policy and procedures to require the use of low-risk
contracts, and only permit high-risk contracts when low-risk
contracts are not possible.
10 Implement controls to tighten scrutiny of the contract type
selection, and require higher level approvals for all high-risk
contracts.
-I o Issue an agencywide memorandum to advocate and support
Office of Administration and Resources Management
initiatives to achieve greater use of contracts that minimize
risk and maximize value to the government, including
reducing the use of high-risk contracts.
16	Issue guidance or policy to program offices and contracting
staff regarding requirements for sole source bridge contracts,
including a definition of "bridge contracts" and "serious injury,"
the authorization for use, and the impact on competition and
agency goals.
17	Permit sole source bridge contracts only when adequate and
timely planning has occurred and serious injury to the EPA's
mission would result from a lapse of service, and require
deputy-level approval for sole source bridge contracts over a
specific dollar threshold.
17 Develop a tracking mechanism for bridge contracts.
-I g Issue a memorandum reminding staff of the importance of
including acquisition planning documents as part of the official
contract records.
Potential
Monetary
Benefits
(In $000s)
Assistant Administrator for	3/31 /18
Administration and
Resources Management
Assistant Administrator for	3/31118
Administration and
Resources Management
Deputy Administrator	12/31/17
Assistant Administrator for 1/31/18
Administration and
Resources Management
Assistant Administrator for 3/31 /18
Administration and
Resources Management
Assistant Administrator for 2/28/18
Administration and
Resources Management
Assistant Administrator for 9/29/17
Administration and
Resources Management
1
C = Corrective action completed.
R = Recommendation resolved with corrective action pending.
U = Recommendation unresolved with resolution efforts in progress.
18-P-0038	20

-------
Appendix A
Office of the Administrator Response to Draft Report
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460
September 21, 2017
OFFICE OF
THE ADMINISTRATOR
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: Response to Office of Inspector General Draft Report No. OA-FY16-0224
"Improved Acquisition Planning Will Help EPA Reduce Millions of Dollars in
High-Risk Contracts," dated August 9, 2017
Thank you for the opportunity to respond to the issues and recommendations in the
subject audit report. The agency concurs with Recommendation 3, that the Deputy Administrator
issue an agency-wide memo regarding initiatives undertaken by the Office of Administration and
Resources Management in response to this report. OARM is issuing a separate response to the
other six recommendations in the report.
If you have any questions for the Office of Administrator regarding this response, please
contact Ellen Treimel at (202) 564-0557 or Silvina Fonseca at (202) 564-1955.
Attachments
cc: Ryan Jackson
Henry Darwin
Michael Petscavage
Madeline Mullen
LaTanya Scott
Myka Sparrow
Silvina Fonseca
Ellen Treimel
Donna Vizian
Reginald Allen
FROM: Michael P. Flynn, Acting Deputy Administrator
Office of the Administrator //s//
TO:
Arthur A. Elkins, Jr.
Office of Inspector General
18-P-0038
21

-------
Attachment 1
Agency Response to High Level Recommendations
No.
Recommendations
Assigned
to:
Corrective Actions
Estimated
Completion
3
Issue an agency-wide
memo to advocate and
support OARM
initiatives to achieve
greater use of contracts
that minimize risk and
maximize value to the
government, including
reducing the use of
high-risk contracts.
OA
The Acting Deputy
Administrator will issue an
agency-wide memo
informing staff of the
initiatives being undertaken
by OARM and emphasizing
the importance of
participation and compliance.
Q1 FY 2018
18-P-0038
22

-------
Appendix B
OARM Response to Draft Report
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460
SEP 21 2017
OFFICE OF
ADMINISTRATION
AND RESOURCES
MANAGEMENT
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: Response to the Office of Inspector General's Draft Report "Improved Acquisition
Planning Will Help EPA Reduce Millions of Dollars in High-Risk Contracts"
(Project No. OA-FY16-0224)
Thank you for the opportunity to respond to the subject audit report, "Improving Acquisition
Planning Will Help EPA Reduce Millions of Dollars in High-Risk Contracts'', dated August 9,
2017. The Office of Administration and Resources Management is providing a response to
recommendations 1-7 with the exception of #3, which will be addressed by the Office of the
Administrator. The agency concurs with the recommendations of this report and has included a
summary response with the corrective actions and estimated completion dates.
Should you have any questions for the Office of Administration and Resources Management
regarding this response, please contact Celia M. Vaughn, Chief of Staff, Office of Acquisition
Management at (202) 564-1047 or vaughn.celia@epa.gov.
Attachment
cc: John Showman
Kimberly Patrick
Pam Legare
Celia Vaughn
John Oliver
Madeline Mullen
LaTanya Scott
Myka Sparrow
Marian Cooper
Lauren Lemley
Matthew Bell
18-P-0038	23
FROM: Donna J. Vizian, Acting Assistant Administrator//s//
TO:
Michael Petscavage, Director
Office of Audit, Contract and Assistance Agreement Audits
Office of Inspector General

-------
Attachment 1
AGENCY'S RESPONSE TO REPORT RECOMMENDATIONS:
No.
Recommendations
Assigned
to:
Corrective Actions
Estimated
Completion
1
Update policy and
procedures to require
the use of low-risk
contracts and only
permit high-risk
contracts when low-
risk contracts are not
possible.
OARM
OARM/OAM will review
existing agency acquisition
planning policy and
procedures to ensure that
emphasis is given to contract
type selection and that the
use and discussion of firm-
fixed-price contracts is given
serious consideration during
the acquisition planning
phase, in compliance with
Federal Acquisition
Regulation requirements in
FAR 7.102 and FAR 16.1.
OARM/OAM will involve
agency stakeholders in
communication and
collaboration on this matter
at the earliest possible time
through the Acquisition
Management Council, Policy
Acquisition Council and
Client Engagement Meetings
to assure clarity of any
updates to policy and
procedures, and that their
implementation in the
acquisition planning process
is supportive of program
goals and objectives.
March 31, 2018
2
Implement controls to
tighten scrutiny of the
contract type selection
and require higher
level approvals for all
high-risk contracts,
reports include all
required information.
OARM
OARM/OAM will enhance
oversight and enforcement of
existing FAR & EPA
Acquisition Guide specified
acquisition planning process
& procedures (and any
updates thereto) that require
documentation of the
rationale for contract type
March 31, 2018
18-P-0038
24

-------
No.
Recommendations
Assigned
to:
Corrective Actions
Estimated
Completion



selection for other than firm-
fixed-price (including
determination & findings
preparation and approval for
time & materials or labor
hours type contracts).




0ARM/OAM will exercise
greater scrutiny of contract
type discussions, decisions,
and the quality and substance
of supporting documentation
through higher level review
and approvals, based on its
conduct of an informed
analysis of the current needs,
issues, and vulnerabilities in
this area.

4
Issue guidance or
policy to program
offices and contracting
staff regarding
requirements for sole
source bridge
contracts, including a
definition of bridge
contracts and "serious
injury", the
authorization for use,
and the impact on
competition and
agency goals.
OARM
OARM/OAM agrees with
this recommendation and
will develop and issue
guidance to program offices
and contracting staff
regarding requirements for
sole source bridge contracts,
including the agency's
definition of bridge contracts
and "serious injury", the
authorization for use, and the
impact on competition and
agency goals.
January 31, 2018
5
Permit sole source
bridge contracts only
when adequate and
timely planning has
occurred and serious
injury to the EPA's
mission would result
from a lapse of service,
and require deputy-
level approval for sole
source bridge contracts
OARM
OARM/OAM will enhance
oversight and enforcement of
existing FAR & EPA
Acquisition Guide specified
acquisition planning process
and procedures (and any
updates thereto) and assure
that senior acquisition
personnel and leadership
within OARM/OAM reach
out to their counterparts
within the agency's
March 31, 2018
18-P-0038
25

-------
No.
Recommendations
Assigned
to:
Corrective Actions
Estimated
Completion

over a specific dollar
threshold.

acquisition and program
community, to hold
accountable acquisition
planners in timely
performing the required
acquisition planning.
0ARM/OAM will exercise
greater scrutiny of the
acquisition planning process
in general, including contract
type discussions, decisions,
and the quality and substance
of supporting documentation
when requesting sole source
bridge contract procurement,
through higher level review
and approvals, based on its
conduct of an informed
analysis of the current needs,
issues, and vulnerabilities in
this area.

6
Develop a tracking
mechanism for bridge
contracts.
OARM
0 ARM/O AM is currently
working on the
implementation of a tracking
mechanism in EAS and
expect this capability to be in
place no later than September
30, 2017. However,
implementation of reporting
in EAS will be deferred
pending the finalizing of the
agency's definition of bridge
contracts and "serious injury"
which we expect to complete
in January 2018.
February 28, 2018
7
Issue a memo
reminding staff of the
importance of
including acquisition
planning documents as
part of the official
contract records.
OARM
0 ARM/O AM will issue a
Flash Notice via agency
email to remind staff of the
importance of including
acquisition planning
documents as part of the
official contract records.
September 30, 2017
18-P-0038
26

-------
Appendix C
Distribution
The Administrator
Deputy Administrator
Chief of Staff
Chief of Staff for Operations
Deputy Chief of Staff for Operations
Assistant Administrator for Administration and Resources Management
Agency Follow-Up Official (the CFO)
Agency Follow-Up Coordinator
General Counsel
Associate Administrator for Congressional and Intergovernmental Relations
Associate Administrator for Public Affairs
Deputy Assistant Administrator for Administration and Resources Management
Director, Office of Acquisition Management, Office of Administration and Resources
Management
Director, Office of Resources, Operations and Management, Office of Administration and
Resources Management
Deputy Director, Office of Resources, Operations and Management, Office of Administration
and Resources Management
Audit Follow-Up Coordinator, Office of the Administrator
Audit Follow-Up Coordinator, Office of Administration and Resources Management
Audit Follow-Up Coordinator, Office of Acquisition Management, Office of Administration and
Resources Management
18-P-0038
27

-------