1.501) of the draft Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) now in preparation under the direction of OFPP. But the Defense Department (DOD), in the administration of its Defense Acquisition Regulation (DAR), does not appear to follow the first and second conditions we have noted. Indeed, the Institute which is normally requested to furnish comments on DAR, has repeatedly called to DOD's attention that DAR proposals are invariably submitted for comment without a statement of the background of and reasons for the change. Although DOD officials have indicated that they understand the problem and intend to take some corrective action, we have been unable to detect any improvements thus far despite these reassurances. This completes our comments relating to current problems concerning the federal procurement system. If we can be of further assistance, please let us know. Respectfully, Charles Mewat President mfm 1981 JUN 10 AM 11: 32 National Association of Counties Offices⚫ 1735 New York Avenue N.W., Washington, D.C. 20006⚫ Telephone 202/783-5113 June 8, 1981 The Honorable John C. Danforth Chairman Subcommittee on Federal Expenditure 467 Russell Senate Office Building Dear Chairman Danforth: Because of time restraints, the National Association of Counties (NACO) was unable to submit a statement of procurement problems facing county government. However, we appreciate the opportunity, and sincerely hope that the comments we have attached will be considered as you and the members of the committee pursue this matter. Procurement, as does general management issues, concerns many of our county governments. Last year, in response to federal efforts to revise the national procurement policy under grants, NACO and other public interest groups met with Karen Hastie Williams, former administrator of the Office of Federal Procurement Policy (OFPP). We voiced our concern that new policies were under consideration which were contrary to those established under Attachment 0 of A-102, and which were developed without any consultation with state or local government procurement officers. It is our belief that procurement policies under grants should be revised only in full consultation with state and local officials. The result of the federal task force proposed changes would have forced state and local governments to establish dual procurement systems, waste resources, and frustrate local management. We believe present policies, if fully implemented, provide the most appropriate system as a first step. Federal efforts should emphasize full implementation at all levels of government before drastically altering or proposing new systems. Should you have any questions regarding our concerns, please contact Linda Church Ciocci, our legislative representative for intergovernmental reforms, or Joan Paschal grant and regulations coordinator. On behalf of counties, nationwide, offer our sincere appreciation for all your efforts to improve and strengthen strong county government management. Attachment Sincerely, Hellexbran Bernard F. Hillenbrand NAFACTSHEET C LEGISLATION National Association of Counties 1735 New York Ave., N.W. Washington, D.C. 20006 (202) 783-5113 Bernard F. Hillenbrand, Executive Director The Office of Federal Procurement Policy (OFPP), Office of Management and Budget (OMB) released its draft proposal for a uniform procurement system in late summer of 1980. The process of formulating the draft was done without state or local knowledge or input. The current Attachment 0, Circular A-102 became effective in October, 1979, but only after a considerable period of coordination, discussion, and negotiation between OFPP, state and local recipients, and the public interest groups that represent them. As of this date, many state and local governments have incorporated, or are in the process of incorporating Attachment 0 regulations into their own procurement codes to bring them into compliance. The underlying premise of Attachment 0 is reliance upon the grantees procurement system if it meets federal standards. OFPP draft report on uniform procurement would effectively nulify that premise. In our October 10, 1980 meeting with Karen H. Williams, then administrator of OFPP, several material items of the OFPP proposal were discussed. Socio Economic Program The proposal calls for guidelines concerning local buying preferences. Counties feel that the area of local buying preferences is and should be a matter of local legislative concern. If local preference is not allowed many counties will be caught between a federal regulation and their own state or local laws. Protests and Remedies State and local govern No uniform requirement should be imposed in this area. ments should be free to develop their own procedures which guarantee a remedy of their own devising. The federal system should permit diversity of remedies. Types of Contracts The proposal requires new contract clauses to be added to contracts. We feel that many local governments have been successfully awarding contracts with clauses tailored to their own requirements. The addition of mandated new clauses will in no way help the process but will increase the paperwork burden at both the federal and local level. The proposal further specifies that guidance will be given regarding what types of contracts are to be used. We feel that this should be a local prerogative. The entity involved best knows what type of contract to use in a local marketplace. We feel that many counties could meet the requirements of the current Attachment 0. However, this is not the case with OFPP's final report to Congress October, 1980. For all the above stated reasons, new requirements, as specified in OFPP's report, would create the need for dual procurement systems on the part of counties. These dual systems would increase paperwork, bureaucracy and cost at the county level. The proposed changes would also carry a heavy paperwork and cost burden at the federal level. There is doubt, particularly at this time, whether a federal agency would have the personnel to enforce the changes. This could lead to costly problems for county governments during audits of their grants. The most positive aspect of the report to Congress is the statement, "All changes to Attachment 0 will be issued only after coordination with affected agencies, recipients, and other interested parties." Listed below are the names of county procurement officers you may want to contact for further information. Earl Hawkes, C.P.M. Director of Purchasing Clark County 300 South Fourth Street Suite 501 Las Vegas, NV 89101 (702) 386-4425 M.E. Poole, Jr. Director of Accounting and Purchasing Loudoun County 18 N. King Street Leesburg, VA 22075 (703) 777-0290 |