1.  The Assistant Secretary of the Army for Installations and Environment (ASA(I&E)) is the Army’s Component Competitive Sourcing Official (CCSO) as designated by the Secretary of Defense Competitive Sourcing Official (CSO) (Deputy Under Secretary of Defense for Installations and Environment).  The CCSO may delegate the Inventory Process responsibility, outlined in OMB Circular A-76, to another Army level Secretariat Official.

2.  The CCSO will, in writing, appoint the ACSIM as the Delegated Competitive Sourcing Official (DCSO) who can re-delegate DCSO responsibilities 8-12 to each Major Command (MACOM), Direct Report Unit (DRU), Field Operating Agency (FOA), and Headquarters Staff Support Agency (HSSA) that will be conducting commercial activities A-76 studies.  The DCSO is responsible for appointing, in writing, Competition Officials and holding these officials accountable for the timely and proper conduct of streamlined or standard competitions through the use of annual performance evaluations.

3.  The Competition Officials (all inherently governmental) are the Agency Tender Official (ATO), Contracting Officer (CO), Performance Work Statement (PWS) Team Leader, Human Resource Advisor (HRA), and Source Selection Authority (SSA).

4.  The ASA(I&E) provides oversight and guidance for CS Program policies and will designate an agency official as the point of contact for resolving CS Program related issues.

SUBJECT:  Office of the Inspector General of the Department of Defense Report on Public-Private Competition for the Base Operating Support Functions at Picatinny Arsenal, New Jersey--OIG Report No. D-2004-073 April 22, 2004 (Project No. D2003CH-0137)

The subject report determined that the performance decision for the subject public-private competition and contract award to Johnson Controls World Services was appropriate.  This decision favored private sector performance of the base operating support commercial activities that were competed in a cost comparison under the previous OMB Circular A-76.  The cost difference between the agency cost estimate and the contractor’s cost proposal was supportable.  The report, however, states that the agency tender could have been more competitive and identifies four findings that should be considered by the agency tender official and most efficient organization (MEO) teams when developing agency tenders.  (See the report at http://www.dodig.mil/audit/reports/FY04/04-073.pdf) 

1.      Ensure the MEO corresponds to information in the agency tender. 

2.      Consider the use of a bottom-up approach to create an MEO rather than paring down an existing organization or eliminating a specific number of existing positions.

3.      Determine the viability of multi-tasking across job classifications when developing position descriptions for the MEO.

4.      Use competitive labor rates for MEO subcontracts, as permitted by the revised Circular.

Annie L. Andrews, ODUSD(I&E)H&CS, 12 May 2005