$
<
73
\
Ml
C
PRQrt^
o
2
Lll
(3
T
OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL
Catalyst for Improving the Environment
Followup Audit Report
Progress Made in Improving Use of
Federal Supply Schedule Orders,
but More Action Needed
Report No. 2007-P-00037
September 20, 2007

-------
Report Contributors:
Iantha Maness
Nancy Dao
John Trefry
Doug LaTessa
Abbreviations
CMM	Contracts Management Manual
F AR	F ederal Acqui siti on Regul ati on
FSS	Federal Supply Schedule
EPA	U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
GSA	General Services Administration
IGCE	Independent Government Cost Estimate
OAM	Office of Acquisition Management
OIG	Office of Inspector General

-------
tftD STA^
s	U.S. Environmental Protection Agency	2007-P-00037
£ %M \ Office of Inspector General	September 20,2007
/ fi

%; At a Glance
Catalyst for Improving the Environment
Why We Did This Review
The objectives of our audit
were to determine whether the
U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) implemented
the agreed-upon corrective
actions from a previous Office
of Inspector General (OIG)
report on Federal Supply
Schedule (FSS) orders. We
also sought to determine
whether EPA is following
established procedures in
awarding FSS orders.
Background
In September 2003, we issued
Audit Report No. 2003-P-
00015, EPA Can Improve Use
of Federal Supply Schedules
When Procuring Services.
EPA was in general agreement
with the report, and agreed to
implement several
recommendations to improve
the process for ordering from
the FSS. Ordering agencies,
such as EPA, can issue orders
directly to contractors that are
on the schedules approved by
the General Services
Administration.
For further information,
contact our Office of
Congressional and Public
Liaison at (202) 566-2391.
To view the full report,
click on the following link:
www.epa.qov/oiq/reports/2007/
20070920-2007-P-00037.pdf
Progress Made in Improving Use of Federal Supply
Schedule Orders, but More Action Needed
What We Found
EPA implemented all but one of the recommendations in our original report. As a
result of this previous report, EPA:
•	Published guidance in its Contract Management Manual for issuing orders
against the FSS.
•	Provided training to its contracting officers on the use of the General
Services Administration's Schedule, market research, and Performance-
Based Service Acquisitions.
•	Is acquiring a new, commercial off-the-shelf Federal acquisition system
for Agency-wide use over the Internet that will replace the Agency's
current systems.
Regarding the one recommendation not implemented, EPA did not provide
samples of sole source justifications to program offices as agreed. Agency
officials said this occurred due technology challenges in sharing files. However,
posting justifications on EPA's intranet should resolve the issue.
During our review, we noted other areas that require attention. By ensuring that
adequate market research is conducted, EPA can increase competition. Also,
Independent Government Cost Estimates need improvement to ensure EPA does
not overpay for services and supplies acquired via the FSS.
What We Recommend
We recommend that the Assistant Administrator for Administration and Resources
Management provide examples on EPA's intranet of adequate justifications for
limiting competition. We also recommend that the Assistant Administrator
emphasize Quality Assessment Plan requirements for evaluating: the effectiveness
of market research, justifications for limiting competition, development of
Independent Government Cost Estimates, and the use of the FSS order checklist.
Further, we recommend that Office of Acquisition Management market the
benefits of online procurement tools to contracting staff. EPA agreed with all of
our recommendations and plans to implement the corrective measures we
proposed.

-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460
OFFICE OF
INSPECTOR GENERAL
September 20, 2007
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: Progress Made in Improving Use of Federal Supply Schedule
Orders, but More Action Needed
Report No. 2007-P-00037
FROM: Melissa M. Heist
Assistant Inspector General for Audit
TO:	Luis A. Luna
Assistant Administrator
Office of Administration and Resources Management
This is our final report on the subject audit conducted by the Office of Inspector General (OIG)
of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). This audit report contains findings that
describe the problems the OIG has identified and corrective actions the OIG recommends. This
audit report represents the opinion of the OIG and the findings contained in this report do not
necessarily represent the final EPA position. Final determinations on matters in this audit report
will be made by EPA managers in accordance with established audit resolution procedures.
Action Required
In accordance with EPA Manual 2750, you are required to provide a written response to this
report within 90 calendar days of the date of this report. You should include a corrective action
plan for agreed upon actions, including milestone dates.
The estimated cost of this report - calculated by multiplying the project's staff days by the
applicable daily full cost billing rates in effect at the time - is $181,758.
If you or your staff have any questions regarding this report, please contact me at 202-566-0899
or heist.melissa@epa.gov. or Carl Jannetti at 215-814-2350 or iannetti.carl@epa.gov.
' A ¦
¦ ml!
\ PR0^°

-------
Progress Made in Improving Use of Federal Supply Schedule Orders,
but More Action Needed
Table of C
Purpose		1
Background		1
Noteworthy Achievements		2
Scope and Methodology		2
Results of Review		3
Improved Market Research Provides More Competition		3
IGCEs Need Improvement		4
Other Matters		4
Recommendations		5
Agency Response and OIG Evaluation		5
Status of Recommendations and Potential Monetary Benefits		6
Appendices
A OIG Prior Recommendations and
Office of Acquisition Management Corrective Actions	 7
B Agency Response to Draft Report 	 9
C Distribution 	 11

-------
Purpose
The objectives of our audit were to determine whether the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) implemented the agreed-upon corrective actions from a previous Office of
Inspector General (OIG) report on Federal Supply Schedule (FSS) orders. We also sought to
determine whether the Agency is following established procedures in awarding FSS orders.
Background
The FSS program, directed and managed by the General Services Administration (GSA),
provides Federal agencies with a simplified process for obtaining commonly used commercial
supplies and services at prices associated with volume buying. GSA issues FSSs with the
information necessary for placing orders with contractors. Ordering agencies issue orders
directly to these contractors for supplies and services.
On September 29, 2003, we issued Audit Report No. 2003-P-00015, EPA Can Improve Use of
Federal Supply Schedules When Procuring Services. This report discussed the need to improve
EPA's procedures for initiating FSS orders. Specifically, we noted that:
•	EPA staff could increase competition for FSS awards by seeking and obtaining
competitive quotes. Lack of sufficient quotes was attributed to insufficient sole source
justifications, ineffective planning, rushed procurements, insufficient market research,
and limited time offered to potential sources to submit quotes.
•	EPA awarded FSS orders without always complying with established policies,
procedures, and regulations. For example, Statements of Work were not always
performance-based, requests for quote lacked required evaluation factors, Independent
Government Cost Estimates lacked necessary information, and price reductions were not
sought from contractors.
EPA was in general agreement with the report and agreed to implement many of the
recommendations. Those recommendations and a discussion of corrective actions taken are in
Appendix A.
Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) Subpart 8.4 describes Government policy for FSS orders.
Since our report, FAR Subpart 8.4 has been amended twice regarding competition. In June
2004, the FAR was amended to incorporate revised ordering procedures for orders against the
FSS, including new documentation requirements for justifying sole source orders. In July 2005,
the FAR was amended again to clarify competition requirements for FSS orders.
EPA's Office of Administration and Resources Management, which includes the Office of
Acquisition Management (OAM), is responsible for policies, procedures, operations, and support
of the Agency's procurement and contracts management program. For the cases we reviewed,
EPA project officers submitted requests for FSS orders to Office of Administration and
Resources Management contracting officers, who issued the orders.
1

-------
Noteworthy Achievements
EPA implemented all but one of the recommendations in our original report. As a result of this
previous report:
•	In September 2005, EPA published procedures in its Contracts Management Manual for
issuing orders against the FSS. A new chapter in the manual addresses both project
officer and contracting officer responsibilities for acquisition planning, conducting
market research, competing FSS orders, requiring the use of an FSS order checklist, and
preparing sole source justifications.
•	EPA has provided training to its contracting officers on GSA schedule training, market
research, and Performance-Based Service Acquisitions.
•	EPA is in the process of acquiring a new commercial off-the-shelf Federal acquisition
system for Agency-wide use over the Internet to replace the Agency's current systems.
We noted a best practice regarding EPA's use of an online marketplace to streamline the
purchase of simple commodities. On September 20, 2006, EPA awarded a $15,300 FSS order
(EP06H002856) for laser printers, scanners, and associated maintenance agreements. EPA used
FedBid for this purchase - an online marketplace for the Federal Government acquisition of
commercial items. Using FedBid, EPA notified 1,584 sellers of its needs. Three sellers
submitted bids. EPA awarded the order to the lowest bidder, and saved almost $2,200, or
12 percent. The Office of Management and Budget encourages agencies to use online
procurement services for acquisition of commercial items. Use of these services could also
result in administrative savings.
Scope and Methodology
We performed this audit from May to July 2007 in accordance
with generally accepted government auditing standards. From
April 1 through September 30, 2006, EPA initiated 517 GSA
orders, valued at about $89 million. From these orders, we
selected a random sample of 10 FSS orders, valued at $680,000,
for this review. We visited EPA Headquarters in Washington,
DC, and reviewed the contract files for the orders sampled. We
also interviewed contracting and project officers, as well as the
EPA Competition Advocate.
In planning and performing our audit, we reviewed EPA's
implementation of recommendations from our previous audit.
We also reviewed management controls related to our objectives,
including the Agency's guidance for awarding FSS orders.
Further, we reviewed the Office of Administration and Resources
Management's Fiscal Year 2006 Assurance Letter and Integrity
Act Report. In addition, we reviewed Quality Assessment Plans
Table 1:
Sampled FSS Orders
EP06H001923
EP06W000379
EP06H002856
EP06H001419
EP07H000622*
EP06H001489
EP06H001665
EP06H002266
EP06H002848
EP06H001429
Source: EPA's OAM
* Although this order was
included in the universe
awarded between April 1 and
September 30, 2006, upon
further review we determined it
was awarded in January 2007.
However, we kept it in our
sample.
2

-------
and the results of the Quality Assessment Plan Oversight Reviews for both the Headquarters
Procurement Operations Division and Superfund/Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
Regional Procurement Operations Division.
We examined FAR Part 5 - Publicizing Contract Actions, Part 7 - Acquisition Planning,
Subpart 8.4 - Federal Supply Schedules, Part 10 - Market Research, and Part 11 - Describing
Agency Needs. We also examined the GSA Ordering Procedures for FSS Orders, Federal
Acquisition Circular Number 2005-05, and other policy documents related to our review.
Results of Review
EPA implemented all but one recommendation from our previous report. For the
recommendation not implemented, EPA had agreed to provide samples of sole source
justifications to program offices. EPA officials informed us they were going to provide
examples of those justifications on OAM's e-library. However, this initiative did not occur
because of technology challenges - the Agency was unable to share files across OAM locations.
We recommend these justifications be posted on EPA's intranet.
In addition, during our review, we noted a few areas that require more attention. Details follow.
Improved Market Research Provides More Competition
In its simplest form, market research is information gathering. FAR Part 10 provides that
agencies must conduct market research before developing new requirements, to determine if
there are sources capable of satisfying the agency's requirements and if commercial items are
available. FAR Subpart 8.4 allows restricted competition when only one source is available
because of the unique or specialized nature of the work, or when an urgent and compelling need
exists. Of the four FSS orders in our sample where competition was limited, we found that
market research for two was insufficient.
•	One order was to purchase additional furniture and to disassemble, transport, and
reassemble existing furniture at a new location. The furniture was "systems" furniture
that needed to be purchased and installed by one of the manufacturer's dealerships. This
manufacturer had authorized dealerships throughout the country. The project officer told
us she called the manufacturer and asked for a dealership that could work with the
Federal Government. She said she did not recall asking for more than one dealer, and
stated her standard practice is to contact only one potential vendor. Our own market
research identified seven dealers (similar to the vendor selected) authorized to work with
the Federal Government within 50 miles; four were within 13 miles of the new location.
However, the justification for limiting competition had stated that the awardee was the
only vendor qualified to provide the services needed. The contracting specialist stated he
had accepted the project officer's justification at face value.
•	Another order was to hire a firm to help EPA obtain a summer intern. The only
indication of market research in the contract file was the project officer's statements
regarding positive experiences with the vendor in the past. The justification for limiting
3

-------
competition stated that the vendor's unique internship program added value to EPA's
program office through its ability to identify interns with strong academic skills and
interest in the environmental field. However, before the program office created the
purchase request and the contracting officer awarded the order, the project officer
instructed the contractor to extend an offer for an internship to a named individual.
Therefore, the project officer was inappropriately involved in pre-award decisions, since
such decisions are only the contracting officer's responsibility. As a result, the Office of
Acquisition Management will need to have this unauthorized commitment ratified.
IGCEs Need Improvement
Three of the 10 orders in our sample were for complex services requiring an Independent
Government Cost Estimate (IGCE). The IGCE is to consider the level of effort and labor
categories needed to perform the specific task ordered, and determine whether the total price
proposed by a vendor is reasonable. The Government should use IGCEs to determine the best
value for dollars expended; without such estimates, the Government runs the risk of overpaying.
However, for one of the three orders in our sample, the IGCE was significantly underestimated,
while for a second the IGCE matched the vendor's estimate almost exactly.
•	For one order, the program office's cost estimate was $270,000. EPA received two
proposals in response to its request for quote, at $286,000 and $498,500. EPA selected
the firm with the higher price. The Government's evaluation of the technical aspects of
the two proposals indicated that the higher bid contained a superior approach. With
respect to cost, the Government's evaluation and comparison of the two offers stated:
"On the matter of cost, the government's estimate of resources required to meet the terms
of expertise was underestimated. However, EPA feels the added cost of the [vendor's
name redacted] proposal is justified based on the proposed excellent technical approach
and expertise that this company will bring to the project." Both the contracting officer
and project officer said the understatement occurred because the program office was not
familiar with the cost and rate of the highly sought after contractor staff. They also cited
the inexperience of EPA staff in developing an IGCE for the type of service acquired.
•	For another order, the program office identified 10 labor categories (Senior Executive
Consultant, Executive Consultant, Principal Consultant, etc.) in its undated IGCE with
corresponding hours required to complete the tasks identified in the order. The only
proposal received was from the incumbent, which included the same number of labor
hours as EPA's IGCE for 9 of the 10 labor categories. The difference for the tenth
category was negligible. The EPA and vendor estimates for travel were also identical.
A contracting officer told us that, in general, IGCEs tend to be recycled and cursory in
nature.
Other Matters
None of the 10 orders in our sample contained an FSS order checklist. Such a checklist is
required by EPA procedures. These procedures state that the checklist will be included in the
official file as documentation of the award, and that it should be supplemented by narratives to
4

-------
support decisions made during the award process of an FSS order. Several contracting staff were
unaware of the checklist. Six of the contract files did contain a Simplified Acquisition
Worksheet instead of the FSS order checklist designed for FSS orders.
One order for complex services was only open for 2 business days and issued late on a Friday
afternoon. EPA's revised procedures recognize that competition can be enhanced when
solicitations are open to quotes for an adequate period. These procedures prescribe 10 business
days as the norm for solicitation periods, although simple quotes for standard supplies may
require less time while complex quotes may require more. One vendor provided the request for
quote stated it would not submit a proposal in part because of the short timeframe for responses.
The contracting officer told us the program office had an existing FSS order in place with the
vendor, and wanted to award this vendor additional work under a sole source justification. The
contracting officer said she convinced the program office to compete the new requirement, but
because the program office needed the services quickly the solicitation was kept open only
2 days.
Recommendations
While improvements were made, a few areas require more attention. We recommend that the
Assistant Administrator for the Office of Administration and Resources Management:
1.	Provide examples on EPA's intranet of adequate justifications for limiting competition.
2.	Emphasize Quality Assessment Plan requirements for evaluating: the effectiveness of
market research, justifications for limiting competition, development of IGCEs, and the
use of the FSS order checklist.
3.	For the order to obtain an intern, ensure the unauthorized commitment entered into by the
program office is ratified.
4.	Require OAM to market the benefits of online procurement tools such as FedBid.
Agency Response and OIG Evaluation
OAM concurred with all four recommendations and indicated it would post good examples of
justifications for limiting competition on its Web site. OAM also indicated it will emphasize, in
a report to be issued by September 30, 2007, Quality Assessment Plan requirements for effective
market research, justifications for limiting competition, developing IGCEs, and using the FSS
checklist. OAM plans to ratify the unauthorized commitment by October 2007, and conducted
several training sessions on Fedbid. Moreover, it will continue to promote procurement tools
such as Fedbid and e-Buy through various means. OAM's actions taken and planned meet the
intent of our recommendations and should improve the Agency's use of FSS orders. The
Agency's full response is in Appendix B.
5

-------
Status of Recommendations and
Potential Monetary Benefits
RECOMMENDATIONS
POTENTIAL MONETARY
BENEFITS (In $000s)
Rec.
No.
Page
No.
Subject
Status1
Action Official
5 Provide examples on EPA's intranet of adequate
justifications for limiting competition.
5 Emphasize Quality Assessment Plan requirements
for evaluating: the effectiveness of market
research, justifications for limiting competition,
development of IGCEs, and the use of the FSS
order checklist.
5 For the order to obtain an intern, ensure the
unauthorized commitment entered into by the
program office is ratified.
5 Require OAM to market the benefits of online
procurement tools such as FedBid.
Planned
Completion
Date
Claimed
Amount
Agreed To
Amount
Assistant Administrator, 12/31/07
Office of Administration and
Resources Management
Assistant Administrator, 09/30/07
Office of Administration and
Resources Management
Assistant Administrator, 10/31/07
Office of Administration and
Resources Management
Assistant Administrator, 12/31/07
Office of Administration and
Resources Management
1 O = recommendation is open with agreed-to corrective actions pending
C = recommendation is closed with all agreed-to actions completed
U = recommendation is undecided with resolution efforts in progress
6

-------
Appendix A
OIG Prior Recommendations and
Office of Acquisition Management Corrective Actions1
OIG Recommendation
Corrective Actions Taken
2-1
Develop and implement policies
or guidelines to assure FSS
awards are competed to the
maximum extent practicable.
•	Updated its Contracts Management Manual (CMM) policies and
procedures to address FSS awards, project officer and contracting
officer responsibilities regarding market research and Requests for
Quote, and acquisition planning requirements for FSS orders.
•	Developed/provided additional outreach and training on the use of
FSSs and market research to the Agency's acquisition staff.
•	Mandated that all acquisition staff take GSA on-line training on recent
revisions to FAR Part 8.4.
•	Had divisions and regional contracting officers review FSS awards as
part of their annual Quality Assurance Plan.
2-2
Develop and implement a
coordinated program office
procurement planning strategy
with Senior Resource Officials
to avoid rushed FSS awards
and allow more contractors to
bid for requested services.
•	Revised CMM policies/procedures to (a) reflect the increased
emphasis on market research, and (b) provide general guideline for
soliciting more than three quotes where practicable and determining
appropriate time frames for receipt of quotes.
•	Trained acquisition staff on the use of FSS.
•	Addressed acquisition planning requirements for FSS orders by
including all known/upcoming GSA FSS awards over $100,000 in
acquisition plan and EPA's annual acquisition forecast to the
maximum extent possible.
•	Required that each OAM Division and Regional Contracting Office
shall include an activity in their Quality Assurance Plan to ensure
quality control of FSS orders.
2-3
Develop and enforce policies
and procedures to (a) ensure
that FSS sole source awards
are adequately justified and
(b) provide a format for program
offices to use in documenting
sole source justifications.
•	Updated CMM policies/procedures to address the required contract
file documentation of sole source justifications and require that a copy
of all sole source justifications for FSS orders be provided to the
Agency Competition Advocate for trend analysis purposes.
•	OAM agreed that the quality of file documentation can be improved
and planned to post samples of quality documents, such as sole
source justifications, on OAM's e-library. However, this initiative did
not occur because of technology challenges (i.e., inability to share
files across OAM locations).
•	OAM ensured that its Quality Assurance Plans address reviews of the
quality of file documentation for FSS orders and other acquisitions.
3-1
Provide training to emphasize
FAR requirements and GSA
special ordering procedures.
•	Provided acquisition guidance on Performance-Based Service
Acquisition and Other Alternative Contract Vehicles on OAM's policy
Web paqe, http://intranet.epa.qov/oamintra/policv/index.htm.
•	Continued to provide training on use of FSS orders and Performance-
Based Service Acquisition at its Acquisition Training Conferences.
1 From September 29, 2003, report, EPA Can Improve Use of Federal Supply Schedules When Procuring Sen'ices
7

-------
OIG Recommendation
Corrective Actions Taken
3-2
Periodically provide Senior
Resource Officials, contracting
officers, and project officers with
information/actions taken in
response to systemic or
significant problems, and best
practices identified from prior
and current oversight reviews of
individual Quality Assurance
Plan implemented.
•	Modified CMM policies/procedures requiring that each Division and
Regional Contracting Office shall include an activity in their Quality
Assurance Plan to ensure quality control of orders against FSS
contracts.
•	Prepared a consolidated list of all best practices identified in Quality
Assurance Plan reviews (that were published in Flash Notice and/or
the quarterly Hot Tips publication on OAM intranet Web site).
3-3
Develop and distribute
checklists for managing the
processing of FSS task orders
that ensure all FAR
requirements and GSA special
ordering procedures are
followed.
• Updated CMM policy/procedure to include a FSS Order Checklist in
the guidance on the use of FSS.
3-4
Enter contractor's past
performance appraisals for FSS
orders over $100,000 in the
National Institutes of Health
system.
•	Amended CMM policy/procedure to require the contracting office and
project officer to evaluate and document the contractor's performance
in the National Institutes of Health's Contractor Performance System
following completion of an FSS order.
•	Included OAM intranet links in training Web sites and the guide on
using National Institutes of Health's Contractor Performance System.
4-1
Convene a high level workgroup
of EPA procurement and
information technology
personnel to review the
databases used to record FSS
information, and develop a plan
for bringing a consolidated
system online that permits all
users to accurately record
information for FSS orders.
•	OAM's Information Technology Service Center investigated the
feasibility of expanding existing coverage to require Integrated
Contract Management System entry for all FSS orders.
•	Conducted a Sources Sought for information purposes only in search
of a commercial-off-the-shelf Federal acquisition system to replace its
current automated procurement systems.
4-2
Provide training on FSS data
entry, and provide contracting
officers and program office
personnel with user guides,
checklists, and best practice
examples to re-emphasize the
importance of complete and
reliable FSS data entry.
•	Revised CMM policy/procedure to address the importance of timely
and accurate FSS data entry in the Agency's automated systems.
•	Continued to provide system training, including data entry (such
training for data entry in the Agency's automated systems is now
captured as part of on-the-job training).
•	The operational divisions performed periodic reviews and validation
of data on contract actions.
4-3
Periodically reconcile FSS data
to the Integrated Financial
Management System and
source documents.
•	Updated CMM policy/procedure to reflect the data entry requirement
of all FSS orders into the Agency's automated data systems.
•	Conducted periodic exercises to ensure that automated data is
reconciled to Integrated Financial Management System data/source
documents; future exercises will emphasize verification of FSS data.
8

-------
Appendix B
Agency Response to Draft Report
September 12, 2007
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: Response to Draft Follow-up Audit Report: Progress Made in
Improving Use of Federal Supply Schedule Orders, but More Action
Needed
FROM: Luis A. Luna
Assistant Administrator
TO:	Carl A. Jannetti
Director, Contact Audits
Thank you for the opportunity to submit comments on the draft report entitled,
"Progress Made in Improving Use of Federal Supply Schedule Orders, but More Action
Needed," dated August 16, 2007. As you note in your draft report, EPA has successfully
implemented 3 of the 4 recommendations made in your September 2003 report. We
concur with your further recommendations in this report, and offer the following
comments:
Recommendation 1 - Provide examples on EPA's intranet of adequate justifications
for limiting competition.
Response: We concur. OAM will work with its program and Regional customers to
find good examples of justifications for limiting competition, and will post them on
OAM's intranet website by December 31, 2007.
Recommendation 2 - Emphasize Quality Assessment Plan requirements for
evaluating: The effectiveness of market research, justifications for limiting
competition, development of independent Government cost estimates (IGCEs), and
the use of the Federal Supply Schedule (FSS) order checklist.
Response: We concur, and will address and emphasize these requirements in an
upcoming report on best practices and lessons learned from QAP reviews performed to-
date by OAM. We expect this report to be issued by September 30, 2007.
9

-------
Recommendation 3 - For the order to obtain an intern, ensure the unauthorized
commitment entered into by the program office is ratified.
Response: We concur, and will ratify this unauthorized action by October 31, 2007. We
will also list this action in our upcoming annual report to the Office of the Chief Financial
Officer (OCFO) on FY 2007 contract ratification actions.
Recommendation 4 - Require the Office of Acquisition Management to market the
benefits of online procurement tools such as FedBid.
Response: We concur, and note that training sessions on FedBid have been recently
conducted in Headquarters, several Regions, RTP, and Cincinnati. We will continue to
promote tools such as FedBid and e-Buy within the organization through various other
means, such as a Policy Hot Tip notice (the next one due by the end of October 2007),
and putting an on-line banner on OAM's intranet home page which promotes such
acquisition tools. We expect to have this banner in place in Headquarters, and discuss its
potential use in the Regions, RTP, and Cincinnati, by December 31, 2007.
OAM will continue to improve its use of Federal Supply Schedule Orders. We
look forward to receiving your final report. Should you have any questions, please
contact Kerrie O'Hagan, Director, Policy, Training, & Oversight Division in the Office
of Acquisition Management, at (202) 564-4315.
cc: Denise Benjamin Sirmons
John Gherardini
Joan Wooley
Kerrie O'Hagan
John Oliver
Juan Common
10

-------
Appendix C
Distribution
Office of the Administrator
Assistant Administrator for Administration and Resources Management
Director, Office of Acquisition Management
Deputy Director, Office of Acquisition Management
Agency Followup Official (the CFO)
Agency Followup Coordinator
General Counsel
Associate Administrator for Congressional and Intergovernmental Relations
Associate Administrator for Public Affairs
Audit Followup Coordinator, Office of Administration and Resources Management
Audit Followup Coordinator, Office of Acquisition Management
Acting Inspector General
11

-------