USD–ATL agreed that better acquisition planning, discipline, and oversight are required for interagency acquisition and noted that since the conclusion of the audit that DoD and GSA have been developing a “concrete action plan” addressing areas of concern identified in the audit.
The director of defense procurement and acquisition policy said however that the USD–ATL only partially agreed that a contracting officer should determine whether it is in the best interest of DoD to use interagency support, though the director felt that a threshold needed to be established to preclude all purchases being reviewed by contracting officers.
The director concurred with recommendations to develop an acquisition and contracting training course, establish contract administration policy for purchasing through non–DoD agencies, establish an agreement with GSA for contract administration and surveillance, as well as make use of a “past performance information retrieval system.”
However, GSA objected to some of the audit’s findings, and argued that the wording should reflect that DoD officials were responsible for the acquisition errors and mismanagement and reflect that the Defense IG found instances where GSA questioned its own compliance with fiscal law and the FAR.
Further, the GSA commissioner stated that “GSA used funds in a manner consistent with the FAR but inconsistent with the DoD guidance as it now appears to be evolving,” according to the audit.
The GSA IG insisted that interagency agreements and quality assurance surveillance plans were prepared in accordance with the FAR, and while the Defense IG said GSA has made progress improving its operation, that GSA was not blameless for the flawed acquisitions.
The Defense IG also stated that representatives of the USD–ATL and GSA acquisition executives have developed a draft corrective action plan that should bring GSA–assisted acquisitions into alignment with statutory and DoD regulatory guidance.
