Industry Organizations Say Advisory Panel Would “Roll Back” Procurement Reform A coalition of leading contractor groups accuses the federal Acquisition Advisory Panel of trying to turn back the clock on procurement reform by proposing new restrictions on the government’s purchases of commercial products and services. “These recommendations threaten to roll back a decade of procurement reforms that have considerably improved the federal government’s ability to serve its citizens,” the industry groups said. “Panel recommendations would limit the government’s access to cutting-edge solutions, encourage frivolous post-award protests, and restrict the government’s ability to use common commercial contracting tools such as time and materials agreements.” They said the recommendations would make federal procurement “less efficient, less effective and less fair for all stakeholders involved.” The comments came in a joint statement by the Information Technology Association of America, the Professional Services Council, the Contract Services Association, the Aerospace Industries Association, the National Defense Industrial Association and the Government Electronics and Information Technology Association. The Acquisition Advisory Panel, created by Congress in 2004 and made up of experts from inside and outside government, was chartered to review all federal acquisition laws and regulations. It is completing its work and plans to issue its recommendations this fall. In preliminary votes in July, the panel approved several recommendations of its Commercial Products Working Group. It recommended that the definition of stand-alone commercial services in the Federal Acquisition Regulation should be amended to require that a service qualifies as “commercial” only if it is actually sold in substantial quantities in the commercial marketplace. The current rule says services are commercial if they are “of a type” sold in the commercial market. The industry groups said that restriction would limit the government’s ability to take advantage of innovations. The panel proposed tight restrictions on the use of time and materials contracts. The industry coalition opposes the restrictions and says such contracts are common in commercial transactions. The panel recommended allowing protests of task and delivery orders over $5 million under GSA schedules and other multiple award contracts. The industry groups said that “would ultimately cost the taxpayer and it hurts the government’s ability to get the contracted work accomplished on schedule.” The panel proposed that non-price factors should rarely be “significantly more important” than price in awarding a contract. The industry coalition objected to what it called “a fundamental change in procurement philosophy” and said government buyers should be allowed to “seek the best value, not simply minimally acceptable, lowest cost, as determined for specific agency needs.” The industry groups generally endorsed the panel’s recommendations for improving competition. The panel said civilian agencies should adopt the Defense Department’s requirement that buyers attempt to get at least three bids on all task orders under GSA schedules and other multiple award contracts, the so-called Section 803 rule.