A-76 veteran offers tips on what to do when employees win

For agencies looking to develop systems for accountability following public-private job competitions, communication about performance obligations and thorough performance reviews are crucial tools, a competitive sourcing official said at an educational forum Monday.

Robert Knauer, a competitive sourcing specialist with the Transportation Department who has both military and civilian experience handling public-private competitions, discussed post-competition accountability as part of a speaker series sponsored by the Transportation Department and the National Contract Management Association.

Describing the Office of Management and Budget's Circular A-76 rules for public-private competitions as "very basic" when it comes to administering an in-house team after a performance award, Knauer focused primarily on strategies for managing work under a letter of obligation, the equivalent of a contract for in-house work performance.

The first step, he said, is to ensure communication starting before an award is made among the contracting officer, the contract technical representative who has functional expertise in the work area, bidding contractors and the agency's "most efficient organization," or MEO, submitting the in-house bid. Pre-award communication should ensure that all parties clearly understand what monitoring will take place once the award is made, Knauer said.

Post-award meetings between the agency and the winning bidder should be conducted -- whether the winner is a private contractor or the MEO -- about the transition plan and performance expectations under the contract or letter of obligation, he said.

"What's good for the goose is good for the gander," Knauer repeated throughout his presentation, arguing that familiar procedures governing contract award and administration described in the Federal Acquisition Regulation should also be applied to in-house teams working under a letter of obligation.

Knauer said agencies should continue that communication on in-house performance through daily, weekly, monthly and quarterly reports and interactions among the contracting officer, contracting officer technical representative and site manager, using many of the same mechanisms for information sharing with an in-house team as with a contractor.

Noting that Circular A-76 requires agencies to perform post-competition accountability reviews after one year of full performance but makes them optional after that, Knauer recommended that agencies continue to use the review process annually. The resulting data can assist in documenting conditions that lead to adjustments in cost or workload, he said, while also serving as an effective management tool.

Knauer noted some differences between contracts governing private performance and the letters of obligation used for the in-house team agreements. Contracts are legally enforceable, he said, while agreements also are binding but not necessarily under the same regulations. For changes, especially, the laws can be different, he said, because an in-house team's work is not subject to the 1978 Contract Disputes Act. For example, an agency can unilaterally decide it wants less work to be done under a letter of obligation, and modify it.

Knauer argued that rules should be changed so that letters of obligation more closely match contracts.

He said agency heads can terminate a letter of obligation for poor performance just like they would a contract, after which responsibility would shift to the human resources department to address resulting workforce issues. "A dumb contracting officer" could also take that step independently, he said, but the internal controversy it would trigger would make that inadvisable.