The government contracting rules and regulations dictate the manner in which individuals do business with the government. The major legislation acts that have affected contracting and legislation include the Federal Acquisition Regulations (FAR) as well as the Federal Acquisition Streamlining Act (FASA). The legislations were passed due to several occurrences of government contractor misconduct that were traceable to 80 of the top 100 contracts issued by the government (Patrignani, 2014). The contractor misconduct brought about hefty fines and settlements, leading to the consideration by the U.S. Senate to institute the Subcommittee on Financial and Contracting Oversight to conduct investigation that would look into the practices of the government contracting business (Sonn & Gebreselassie, 2010). In an effort to reduce the contractor misconduct, FAR was instituted.
The Federal Acquisition Regulations (FAR) created a list of the penalties that would be subjected for contractor misconduct. The penalties are inclusive of the exclusion of an organization from bidding on the current as well as future contracts, the prosecution of cooporate executives on individuals involved in outlined violations, and the debarment of the contractors or individuals found to have committed violations. According to Patrignani (2014), these punitive actions were put in place to ensure the reduction or elimination of contractor misconduct. For this reason, it would be essential for individuals and corporations to understand the implications attached to contractor misconduct, which is essential for ensuring that they do not engage in practices that might attract punitive measures. In this regard, contractors are expected to be aware of the rules that characterize the contracting process, including the forms and clauses that should be used in contracts, which is a fundamental element that can assist in avoiding penalties.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
FASA is the other legislation that has affected contracting and acquisition. According to Snider and Rendon (2008), the fundamental purpose of enacting FASA was to simplify the process used by the government to procure commodities using third-party entities. On the other hand, FASA had an impact on the federal acquisition process in the sense that it revoked or modified more than 200 statutes substantially (Snider & Rendon, 2008). Among other elements, FASA made the federal procurement process much simpler, including the transformation of the acquisition process to the use of electronic commerce. The changes reduced the paperwork burdens that were initially required. Before the implementation of this law, the Federal Acquisition Reform Act of 1996 had to be passed to rectify some of the deficiencies that were existing in earlier legislation (Snider & Rendon, 2008). FASA and FARA created significant differences regarding the manner in which the government was conducting its business.
In addition to the changes identified, FASA altered the small purchase level that was initially below $25,000 to between $3,000 and $100,000 (Clark & Moutray, 2004). Consequently, the act provided that contracting entities could enjoy simplified acquisition procedures that reserve all of the purchases for small businesses. For this reason, it is vital to take note of the idea that the fundamental function of simplifying the acquisition procedures involved the need to reduce administrative costs. Conversely, the simplification was essential for improving the contract opportunities for small businesses, service-disabled-veteran owned businesses, and entities owned by the women in the society (Clark & Moutray, 2004). The transformations made it possible for individuals and small business entities to do business with the government.
References
Clark, M. & Moutray, C. (2004). The Future of Small Businesses in the U.S. Federal Government Marketplace. Journal of Public Procurement, 4 (3), 450-470.
Patrignani, J. (2014). Impact of Federal Acquisition Regulation Change on Contractor Misconduct (Ph.D.). Walden University.
Snider, K. F. & Rendon, R. G. (2008). Public Procurement Policy: Implications for Theory and Practice. Journal of Public Procurement, 8 (3), 310-333.
Sonn, P. K., & Gebreselassie, T. (2010). The road to responsible contracting: Lessons from states and cities for ensuring that federal contracting delivers good jobs and quality services. Berkeley Journal of Employment & Labor Law, 31 , 459-487.
