Podcasts about federal acquisition regulations

The Trump administration has mounted an attempt at the biggest overhaul of the Federal acquisition process since the 1990s. Two executive orders from President Donald Trump this week kicked off a rewrite and slimmed down of the Federal Acquisition Regulations the far it will renew the mandate to buy commercial products and services wherever possible. And for more on what they're up to Federal News Network's executive editor Jason Miller, got an exclusiveinterview with the Office of Management and Budget's Senior Advisor leading the FAR overhaul, Kevin Rhodes. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoicesSee Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

The Trump administration has mounted an attempt at the biggest overhaul of the Federal acquisition process since the 1990s. Two executive orders from President Donald Trump this week kicked off a rewrite and slimmed down of the Federal Acquisition Regulations the far it will renew the mandate to buy commercial products and services wherever possible. And for more on what they're up to Federal News Network's executive editor Jason Miller, got an exclusive interview with the Office of Management and Budget's Senior Advisor leading the FAR overhaul, Kevin Rhodes. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

It's no secret the Defense Department and other agencies have been using other-transaction-authority acquisitions more than more. One reason is they help agencies get things done faster. And easier without the conditions of regular buys under the Federal Acquisition Regulations. Plus, OTA acquisitions come without the headaches of protests. Or do they? We get the latest from Haynes Boone procurement attorney Zach Prince. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoicesSee Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

It's no secret the Defense Department and other agencies have been using other-transaction-authority acquisitions more than more. One reason is they help agencies get things done faster. And easier without the conditions of regular buys under the Federal Acquisition Regulations. Plus, OTA acquisitions come without the headaches of protests. Or do they? We get the latest from Haynes Boone procurement attorney Zach Prince. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Today's guest is Dallas Blattner, Senior Director, ServiceNow Practice at CRI Advantage. Founded in 1988, CRI Advantage is an industry-leading IT services provider with over three decades of experience serving federal, state and local government agencies and commercial clients. They help customers achieve business-driven digital transformation through their featured product suite., assisting you in eliminating tedious IT processes and maximizing the full potential of your technology. Dallas is a highly innovative Senior ServiceNow Delivery Director with over ten years of professional experience. He is a Subject Matter Expert regarding ServiceNow Product Suites, Applications and Modules, government, SLED and commercial subcontracts, especially within Information Technology and Service activities and the Federal Acquisition Regulations. Dallas is policy-driven and team-spirited with a talent for problem solving and strategic thinking. In the episode, Dallas discusses: His unconventional IT journey leading to a passion for ServiceNow, An overview of CRI as a specialized IT firm excelling in niche markets, Bridging sales and delivery to showcase ServiceNow's potential, His career growth through immersion, continuous learning and strong foundations, Excitement for AI advancements and growth in ServiceNow's capabilities, Emphasis on cultural fit, people and customer service

(4/15/24) - In today's Federal Newscast: Military pharmacies are finally back to business as usual after a February cyber attack. A new request for information is asking for feedback on a new part of the Federal Acquisition Regulations. And OMB disbands the Safer Federal Workforce Task Force and tosses all COVID-19 orders and guidance onto the syringe-heap of history. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

(4/15/24) - In today's Federal Newscast: Military pharmacies are finally back to business as usual after a February cyber attack. A new request for information is asking for feedback on a new part of the Federal Acquisition Regulations. And OMB disbands the Safer Federal Workforce Task Force and tosses all COVID-19 orders and guidance onto the syringe-heap of history. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoicesSee Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

In this week's episode, we had the honor of hosting Janetta Brewer, Esq., a luminary figure in federal acquisition regulations. With an illustrious career spanning multiple federal agencies, including pivotal roles in the US Navy, Defense Logistics Agency, Department of Homeland Security, and the Department of Defense, Janetta's insights into the dynamic landscape of FAR and DFARS are unparalleled. Her tenure as a senior member of the Defense Procurement and Acquisition Policy staff provided her with a unique vantage point in the evolution of acquisition regulations. She played a pivotal role in shaping and implementing regulations that have significantly impacted contract execution outcomes, streamlining processes for both government entities and industry stakeholders. During our conversation, she emphasized the challenges faced by both contractors and the government in implementing Congress-mandated directives. Her pragmatic perspective highlighted the limitations within which agencies must operate while striving to minimize the impact on contractors. One of the standout takeaways from the episode was her invaluable advice for small businesses navigating the intricate landscape of federal contracts. She emphasized the importance of comprehensive knowledge and understanding of obligations and responsibilities, empowering businesses to engage confidently and effectively with the government. Currently at the helm of Blue Alchemy Consulting, she continues to leverage her extensive experience to assist government and industry clients alike. Her company focuses on providing cutting-edge policy processes, IT systems, and workforce development solutions, further solidifying her status as a trailblazer in the realm of federal acquisitions. Tune in to this episode for an insightful discussion with Janetta, offering a roadmap for businesses seeking to navigate the complex terrain of federal acquisitions amidst evolving regulations. 

Since May 2022, Congress has held three hearings looking into Unidentified Aerial Phenomena and the possibility of non-human intelligent life flying aircraft on Earth. In this episode, hear testimony from three Defense Department officials and three credible whistleblowers, whose testimony is often as contradictory as it is shocking. Please Support Congressional Dish – Quick Links Contribute monthly or a lump sum via Support Congressional Dish via (donations per episode) Send Zelle payments to: Donation@congressionaldish.com Send Venmo payments to: @Jennifer-Briney Send Cash App payments to: $CongressionalDish or Donation@congressionaldish.com Use your bank's online bill pay function to mail contributions to: Please make checks payable to Congressional Dish Thank you for supporting truly independent media! Background Sources Whistleblower Protections Clayton E. Wire. 2020. Ogborn Mihm LLP. Security Classifications Security Classification of Information, Volume 2. Principles for Classification of Information. Arvin S. Quist. Oak Ridge National Laboratory: 1993. UAP Background Brian Entin. June 6, 2023. NewsNation. Leslie Kean and Ralph Blumenthal. June 5, 2023. The Debrief. May 16, 2021. 60 Minutes. Ralph Blumenthal. December 18, 2017. The New York Times. Helene Cooper et al. December 16, 2017. The New York Times. Independent Research and Development National Defense Industrial Association. SCIFs Derek Hawkins et al. April 26, 2023. The Washington Post. Kirkpatrick Response Letter D. Dean Johnson (@ddeanjohnson). Twitter. Audio Sources July 26, 2023 House Committee on Oversight and Accountability, Subcommittee on National Security, the Border, and Foreign Affairs Witnesses: , Former Commanding Officer, United States Navy Ryan Graves, Executive Director, Americans for Safe Aerospace David Grusch, Former National Reconnaissance Office Representative, Unidentified Aerial Phenomena Task Force, Department of Defense Clips timestamps reflect C-SPAN video 4:30 Rep. Glenn Grothman (R-WI): The National Defense Authorization Act of 2022 established the All-domain Anomaly Resolution Office or AARO to conduct or to coordinate efforts across the Department of Defense and other federal agencies to detect, identify and investigate UAPs. However, AARO's budget remains classified, prohibiting meaningful oversight from Congress. 19:50 Rep. Robert Garcia (D-CA): We know the Senate is taking up an amendment to their defense authorization bill which will create a commission with broad declassification authority and we should all agree that that is an important step. 27:40 Ryan Graves: Excessive classification practices keep crucial information hidden. Since 2021, all UAP videos are classified as secret or above. This level of secrecy not only impedes our understanding, but fuels speculation and mistrust. 27:55 Ryan Graves: In 2014, I was an F-18 Foxtrot pilot in the Navy fighter attack Squadron 11, the Red Rippers, and I was stationed at NAS Oceana in Virginia Beach. After upgrades were made to our jet's radar systems, we began detecting unknown objects operating in our airspace. At first, we assumed they were radar errors. But soon we began to correlate the radar tracks with multiple onboard sensors, including infrared systems, and eventually through visual ID. During a training mission in Warning Area W-72, 10 miles off the coast of Virginia Beach. Two F/A-18F Super Hornets were split by a UAP. The object, described as a dark gray or a black cube inside of a clear sphere, came within 50 feet of the lead aircraft and was estimated to be five to 15 feet in diameter. The mission commander terminated the flight immediately and returned to base. Our squadron submitted a safety report, but there was no official acknowledgement of the incident and no further mechanism to report the sightings. Soon these encounters became so frequent that aircrew would discuss the risk of UAP as part of their regular pre-flight briefs. 29:00 Ryan Graves: Recognising the need for action and answers, I founded Americans for Safe Aerospace. The organization has since become a haven for UAP witnesses who were previously unspoken due to the absence of a safe intake process. More than 30 witnesses have come forward and almost 5000 Americans have joined us in the fight for transparency at safeaerospace.org 29:20 Ryan Graves: The majority of witnesses are commercial pilots at major airlines. Often, they are veterans with decades of flying experience. Pilots are reporting UAP at altitudes that appear above them at 40,000 feet potentially in low Earth orbit or in the gray zone below the Karman Line, making unexplainable maneuvers like right hand turns and retrograde orbits or J hooks. Sometimes these reports are reoccurring with numerous recent sightings north of y and in the North Atlantic. Other veterans are also coming forward to us regarding UAP encounters in our airspace and oceans. The most compelling involve observations of UAP by multiple witnesses and sensor systems. I believe these accounts are only scratching the surface and more will share their experiences once it is safe to do so. 31:30 David Grusch: I became a whistleblower through a PPD 19 urgent concern filing in May 2022 with the intelligence community Inspector General following concerning reports from multiple esteemed and credentialed current and former military and intelligence community individuals that the US government is operating with secrecy above congressional oversight with regards to UAPs. My testimony is based on information I've been given by individuals with a long standing track record of legitimacy and service to this country, many of whom also have shared compelling evidence in the form of photography, official documentation, and classified oral testimony to myself and my various colleagues. I have taken every step I can to corroborate this evidence over a period of four years while I was with the UAP Task Force and do my due diligence on the individual sharing it. Because of these steps. I believe strongly in the importance of bringing this information before you. 33:30 David Grusch: In 2019, the UAP Task Force director asked me to identify all Special Access Programs and Controlled Access Programs, also known as SAPS and CAPS. We needed to satisfy our congressionally mandated mission and we were direct report at the time to the [Deputy Secretary of Defense]. At the time, due to my extensive executive level intelligence support duties, I was cleared to literally all relevant compartments and in a position of extreme trust both in my military and civilian capacities. I was informed in the course of my official duties of a multi-decade UAP crash retrieval and reverse engineering program to which I was denied access to those additional read-ons when I requested it. I made the decision based on the data I collected to report this information to my superiors and multiple Inspectors General and, in effect, becoming a whistleblower. 35:20 Cmdr. David Fravor: We were attached to carrier 11, stationed onboard USS Nimitz and began a two month workup cycle off the coast of California. On this day, we were scheduled for a two v two air-to-air training with the USS Princeton as our control. When we launched off Nimitz, my wingman was joining out, we were told that the training was going to be suspended and we're going to proceed with real world tasking. As we proceeded to the West, the air controller was counting down the range to an object that we were going to and we were unaware of what we're going to see when we arrived. There, the controller told us that these objects had been observed for over two weeks coming down from over 80,000 feet, rapidly descending to 20,000 feet, hanging out for hours and then going straight back up. For those who don't realize, above 80,000 feet is space. We arrived at the location at approximately 20,000 feet and the controller called the merge plot, which means that our radar blip was now in the same resolution cell as a contact. As we looked around, we noticed that we saw some whitewater off our right side. It's important to note the weather on this day was as close to perfect as you could ask for off the coast of San Diego: clear skies, light winds, calm seas, no white caps from waves. So the whitewater stood out in a large blue ocean. All four of us, because we were in an F/A-18F F, so we had pilots and WSO in the backseat, looked down and saw a white tic tac object with a longitudinal axis pointing north-south and moving very abruptly over the water, like a ping pong ball. There were no rotors, no rotor wash, or any sign of visible control surfaces like wings. As we started clockwise towards the object, my WSO I decided to go down and take a closer look with the other aircraft staying in high cover to observe both us and the tic tac. We proceeded around the circle about 90 degrees from the start of our descent, and the object suddenly shifted its longitudinal axis, aligned it with my aircraft and began to climb. We continued down another 270 degrees, and we went nose low to where the tic tac would have been. Our altitude at this point is about 15,000 feet and the tic tac was about 12,000. As we pulled nose-on to the object within about a half mile of it, it rapidly accelerated in front of us and disappeared. Our wingmen, roughly 8000 feet above us, lost contact also. We immediately turned back to see where the whitewater was at and it was gone also. So as you started to turn back towards the east the controller came up and said "Sir you're not going to believe this but that thing is that your cat point roughly 60 miles away in less than a minute." You can calculate the speed. We returned to Nimitz. We were taking off our gear, we were talking to one of my crews that was getting ready to launch, we mentioned it to them and they went out and luckily got the video that you see, that 90 second video. What you don't see is the radar tape that was never released, and we don't know where it's at. 37:55 Cmdr. David Fravor: What is shocking to us is that the incident was never investigated. None of my crew ever questioned and tapes were never taken and after a couple days it turned into a great story with friends. It wasn't until 2009 until J. Stratton had contacted me to investigate. Unbeknownst to all, he was part of the AATIP program at the Pentagon led by Lue Elizondo. There was an unofficial official report that came out it's now in the internet. Years later, I was contacted by the other pilot Alex Dietrich and asked if I'd been contacted and I said "No, but I'm willing to talk." I was contacted by Mr. Elizondo, and we talked for a short period of time, he said we'd be in contact. A few weeks after that I was made aware that Lue had left the Pentagon in protest and joined forces with Tom DeLonge and Chris Mellon, Steve Justice, and others to form To the Stars Academy, an organization that pressed the issue with leading industry experts and US government officials. They worked with Leslie Kean, who is present today, Ralph Blumenthal, and Helene Cooper to publish the articles in the New York Times in 2017. It removed the stigma on the topic of UFOs, which is why we're here today. Those articles opened the door for the government and public that cannot be closed. It has led to an interest from our elected officials, who are not focused on Little Green Men, but figuring out where these craft are, where they are from, the technology they possess, how do they operate. It also led to the Whistleblower Protection Act in the NDAA. 39:45 Cmdr. David Fravor: In closing, I would like to say that the tic tac object we engaged in 2004 was far superior to anything that we had on time, have today, or are looking to develop in the next 10 years. If we, in fact, have programs that possess this technology and needs to have oversight from those people, that the citizens of this great country elected in office to represent what is best for the United States and best for the citizens. I thank you for your time. 40:20 Rep. Glenn Grothman (R-WI): Are your pilots, or pilots that you interact with as part of your organization, do you feel adequately trained and briefed on how to handle encounters with UAPs? Ryan Graves: No. Right now, military witnesses to UAP have limited options for reporting UAP. But more more concerning is that the commercial aviation sector has not adapted to the lessons that the military has implemented. The military and Department of Defense have stated that UAP represent a critical aviation safety risk. We have not seen that same language being used in the commercial markets, they are not acknowledging this. 41:05 Ryan Graves: Right now we need a system where pilots can report without fear of losing their jobs. There's a fear that the stigma associated with this topic is going to lead to professional repercussions either through management or perhaps through their yearly physical check. So having a secure system, reducing the stigma, and making this information available through the public is going to reduce the concerns that aircrew have. 41:30 Rep. Glenn Grothman (R-WI): Can you just give me a little idea the degree to which reports in the past are not made public right now? Ryan Graves: Well, I don't think there has been a proper reporting system to gather those reports and thus not report them. So to answer your question, I think there is a dearth of data due to the fact that the reporting has been limited up to this time. 41:45 Ryan Graves: There's certainly some national security concerns when we use our advanced sensors and our tactical jets to be able to identify these objects. However, there's no reason that the objects themselves would be classified. I would be curious to see how the security classification guideline actually spells out the different nuances of how this topic is classified from the perspective of UAP, not national security. 43:00 Rep. Glenn Grothman (R-WI): Mr. Fravor, the tic tac incident that you were engaged [in] occurred in 2004. What kind of reporting took place after that incident? Ryan Graves: None. We had a standard debrief where the back-seaters went down to our carrier intel center and briefed what had happened, and that was it. No one else talked to us. And I was in the top 20 in the battle group, no one came that the Captain was aware, the of Admiral was aware, nothing was done. Rep. Glenn Grothman (R-WI): Did your commanding officers provide any sort of justification? Ryan Graves: No, because I was the commanding officer of the quadron. So no. Rep. Glenn Grothman (R-WI): Was this incident the only UAP event that you encountered while you were a pilot? Ryan Graves: Yes, it was. 43:50 Rep. Glenn Grothman (R-WI): Do you believe UAPs pose a potential threat to our national security? Ryan Graves: Yes, and here's why: the technology that we faced was far superior than anything that we had, and you could put that anywhere. If you had one, you captured one, you reverse engineered it, you got it to work, you're talking something that can go into space, go someplace, dropped down in a matter of seconds, do whatever it wants and leave. And there's nothing we can do about it. Nothing. 44:20 Ryan Graves: I would also like to add from a commercial aviation and military aviation perspective, we deal with uncertainty in our operating space as a matter of our professional actions. Identifying friend from foe is very important to us. And so when we have identified targets and we continue to ignore those due to a stigma or fear of what it could be, that's an opening that our adversaries can take advantage of. 44:55 Ryan Graves: There needs to be a location where this information is centralized for processing and there needs to be a two-way communication loop so the operators on the front end have feedback and can get best practices on how to process information, what to do, and to ensure that their reporting is being listened to. Right now there is not a lot of back and forth. 46:25 Ryan Graves: When we were first experiencing these objects off the eastern seaboard in the 2014 to 2015 time period, anyone that had upgraded their radar systems were seeing these objects. So there was a large number of my colleagues that were detecting these objects off the eastern seaboard. They were further correlating that information with the other onboard sensors. And many of them also had their own eyesightings, as well, of these objects. Now, that was our personal, firsthand experience at the time. Since then, as I've engaged this topic, others have reached out to me to share their experiences both on the military side as well as the commercial aviation side. On the military aviation side, veterans that have recently got out have shared their stories and have expressed how the objects we are seeing in 2014 and 2015 continued all the way to 2019, 2020, and beyond. And so it became a generational issue for naval aviators on the Eastern Seaboard. This was something we were briefing to new students. This is something that was included in the notice to airmen to ensure that there was no accidents. And now with commercial aviators, they are reaching out because they're having somewhat similar experiences as our military brothers and sisters, but they do not have any reporting system that they can send this to. 47:55 Cmdr. David Fravor: It's actually, it's a travesty that we don't have a system to correlate this and actually investigate. You know, so if you took the east coast, there's coastal radars out there that monitor our air defense identification zone. Out to 200 miles, they can track these. So when you see them, they could actually go and pull that data and get maneuvering. And instead of just having the airplanes, there's other data sources out there. And I've talked to other government officials on this. You need a centrally located repository that these reports go to. So if you just stuck it in DOD, you wouldn't get anything out of the Intelligence Committee because they have a tendency not to talk. But if you had a central location where these reports are coming in, not just military, but also commercial aviation, because there's a lot of that going on, especially if you talk to anyone that flies from here to Hawaii, over the Pacific they see odd lights. So I think you need to develop something that allows you a central point to collect the data in order to investigate. 51:20 Rep. Robert Garcia (D-CA): Mr. Grusch, finally, do you believe that our government is in possession of UAPs? David Grusch: Absolutely, based on interviewing over 40 witnesses over four years. Rep. Robert Garcia (D-CA): And where? David Grusch: I know the exact locations and those locations were provided to the Inspector General, and some of which to the intelligence committees, I actually had the people with the firsthand knowledge provide a protected disclosure to the Inspector General 52:15 Rep. Tim Burchett (R-TN): Mr. Graves. Again, I'd like to know, how do you know that these were not our aircraft? Ryan Graves: Some of the behaviors that we saw in a working area. We would see these objects being at 0.0 Mach, that's zero airspeed over certain pieces of the ground. So what that means, just like a river, if you throw a bobber in, it's gonna float downstream. These objects were staying completely stationary in category four hurricane winds. The same objects would then accelerate to supersonic speeds 1.1-1.2 Mach, and they would do so in very erratic and quick behaviors that we don't -- I don't -- have an explanation for. 55:50 Rep. Tim Burchett (R-TN): Mr. Fravor, do you believe that you witnessed an additional object under the water in relation to your encounter? Cmdr. David Fravor: I will say we did not see an object. There was something there to cause the whitewater and when we turned around, it was gone. So there was something there that obviously moved. Rep. Tim Burchett (R-TN): Okay, it was not the same object, though, that you were looking at, correct? Cmdr. David Fravor: No, we actually joked that the tic tac was communicating with something when we came back, because the whitewater disappeared. 56:15 Rep. Tim Burchett (R-TN): We were, in another instance, told about the capabilities of jamming when there were some people chasing some of these objects. Did you experience any of that jamming, or interrupting your radar or weapon system? Cmdr. David Fravor: My crew that launched, after we landed, experienced significant jamming to the APG 73 radar, which was what we had on board, which is a mechanically scan, very high end system, prior to APG 79. And yes, it did pretty much everything you could do range, velocity, aspect, and then it hit the lock and the targeting pod is passive. That's when we're able to get the video on. Rep. Tim Burchett (R-TN): I'm about to run out of time, but are you aware of any of our enemies that have that capability? Cmdr. David Fravor: No, no. 57:40 Rep. Jaime Raskin (D-MD): You've identified these as taking place on the East Coast. Is it just on the East Coast where these encounters have been reported? Ryan Graves: No. Since the events initially occurred, I've learned that the objects have been detected, essentially where all Navy operations are being conducted across the world. And that's from the All-domain Anomaly Resolution Office reporting. 58:50 Rep. Jaime Raskin (D-MD): Are there common characteristics to the UAPs that have been sighted by different pilots? And can you describe what the convergence of descriptions is? Ryan Graves: Certainly. We were primarily seeing dark gray or black cubes inside of a clear sphere. Rep. Jaime Raskin (D-MD): I'm sorry, dark gray or black cubes? Ryan Graves: Yes, inside of a clear sphere where the apex or tips of the cube were touching the inside of that sphere. And that was primarily what was being reported when we were able to gain a visual tally of these objects. That occurred over almost eight years, and as far as I know, is still occurring. 59:45 Ryan Graves: I think we need both transparency and the reporting. We have the reporting, but we need to make sure that information can be propagated to commercial aviation as well as the rest of the populace. 1:05:00 Ryan Graves: In the 2003 timeframe, a large group of Boeing contractors were operating near one of the launch facilities at Vandenberg Air Force Base when they observed a very large, 100-yard-sided red square approach the base from the ocean and hover at low altitude over one of the launch facilities. This object remained for about 45 seconds or so before darting off over the mountains. There was a similar event within 24 hours later in the evening. This was a morning event, I believe, 8:45 in the morning. Later in the evening, post sunset, there were reports of other sightings on base including some aggressive behaviors. These objects were approaching some of the security guards at rapid speeds before darting off, and this is information that was received through one of the witnesses that have approached me at Americans for Safe Aerospace. 1:06:15 Ryan Graves: I have not seen what they've described. This object was estimated to be almost the size of a football field, and I have not seen anything personally that large. 1:07:05 Rep. Anna Paulina Luna (R-FL): With the FAA, to your understanding, pilots that are seeing this, commercial airline pilots, are they receiving cease and desist letters from corporations for coming forward with information in regards to safety for potential air airline passengers? Ryan Graves: I have been made privy to conversations with commercial aviators who have received cease and desist orders. Rep. Anna Paulina Luna (R-FL): So the American public should know that corporations are putting their own reputations ahead of the safety of the American people. Would you agree with that statement? Ryan Graves: It appears so. 1:08:15 Rep. Jared Moskowitz (D-FL): So what about G forces? Let's talk about G forces in those vehicles. Could a human survive those G forces with known technology today? Cmdr. David Fravor: No, not for the acceleration rates that we observed. 1:08:45 Cmdr. David Fravor: So we got within a half mile of the tic tac, which people say that's pretty far, but in airplanes that's actually relatively close. Now it was perfectly white, smooth, no windows, although when we did take the original FLIR video that is out there, when you put it on a big screen it actually had two little objects that came out of the bottom of it. But other than that, no windows, no seams, no nothing. 1:09:05 Rep. Jared Moskowitz (D-FL): Mr. Grusch, as a result of your previous government work have you met with people with direct knowledge or have direct knowledge yourself of non-human origin craft? David Grusch: Yes, I personally interviewed those individuals. 1:09:40 Rep. Jared Moskowitz (D-FL): Do you have knowledge or do you have reason to believe that there are programs in the advanced tech space that are unsanctioned? David Grusch: Yes, I do. Rep. Jared Moskowitz (D-FL): Okay. And when you say that they're above congressional oversight, what do you mean? David Grusch: Complicated question. So there's some, I would call it abuse here. So congressional oversight of conventional Special Special Access Programs, and I'll use Title X, so DOD, as an example. So 10 US Code section 119 discusses congressional oversight of SAPS, discusses the Deputy Secretary of Defense's ability to waive congressional reporting. However, the Gang of Eight is at least supposed to be notified if a waived or waived bigoted unacknowledged SAP is created. That's Public Law. Rep. Jared Moskowitz (D-FL): I don't want to cut you off, but how does a program like that get funded? David Grusch: I will give you generalities. I can get very specific in a closed session, but misappropriation of funds. Rep. Jared Moskowitz (D-FL): Does that mean that there is money in the budget that is set to go to a program but it doesn't and it goes to something else? David Grusch: Yes, have specific knowledge of that. Yep. Rep. Jared Moskowitz (D-FL): Do you think US corporations are overcharging for certain tech they're selling to the US government and that additional money is going to programs? David Grusch: Correct, through something called IRAD. 1:12:45 Rep. Virginia Foxx (R-VA): Mr. Grusch, in your sworn testimony you state that the United States government has retrieved supposedly extraterrestrial spacecraft and other UAP related artifacts. You go so far as to state that the US is in possession of "non human spacecraft" and that some of these artifacts have circulated with defense contractors. Several other former military and intelligence officials have come forward with similar allegations albeit in non-public setting. However, Dr. Sean Kirkpatrick, the Director of AARO, previously testified before Congress that there has been and I quote, "no credible evidence" thus far of extraterrestrial act activity or "off world technology" brought to the attention of the office. To your knowledge, is that statement correct? David Grusch: It's not accurate. I believe Dr. Kirkpatrick mentioned he had about 30 individuals that have come to AARO thus far. A few of those individuals have also come to AARO that I also interviewed and I know what they provided Dr. Kirkpatrick and their team. I was able to evaluate -- Rep. Virginia Foxx (R-VA): Okay, I need to go on. David Grusch: Sure. 1:21:25 Rep. Tim Burchett (R-TN): Has the US government become aware of actual evidence of extraterrestrial or otherwise unexplained forms of intelligence? And if so, when do you think this first occurred? David Grusch: I like to use the term non-human, I don't like to denote origin, it keeps the aperture open scientifically. Certainly, like I've just discussed publicly, previously, the 1930s. 1:21:45 Rep. Tim Burchett (R-TN): Okay, can you give me the names and titles of the people with direct, first-hand knowledge and access to some of these crash retrieval programs and maybe which facilities, military bases that the recovered material would be in? And I know a lot of Congress talked about, we're gonna go to area 51. And, you know, there's nothing there anymore anyway, it's just you know, we move like a glacier. And as soon as we announce it, I'm sure the moving vans would pull up, but please. David Grusch: I can't discuss that publicly. But I did provide that information both to the Intel committees and the Inspector General. Rep. Tim Burchett (R-TN): And we could get that in the SCIF, if we were allowed to get in a SCIF with you? Would that be probably what you would think? David Grusch: Sure, if you had the appropriate accesses, yeah. 1:22:30 Rep. Tim Burchett (R-TN): What Special Access Programs cover this information? And how is it possible that they have evaded oversight for so long? David Grusch: I do know the names, once again, I can't discuss that publicly. And how they've evaded oversight in a closed setting I could tell you this specific tradecraft used. Rep. Tim Burchett (R-TN): Alright. 1:22:50 Rep. Tim Burchett (R-TN): When did you think those programs began and who authorized them? David Grusch: I do know a lot of that information, but that's something I can't discuss publicly because of sensitivities Rep. Tim Burchett (R-TN): Alright. 1:24:05 Rep. Tim Burchett (R-TN): Title 10 and title 50 authorization, they seem to say they're inefficient. So who gets to decide this, in your opinion, in the past? David Grusch: It's a group of career senior executive officials. Rep. Tim Burchett (R-TN): Okay. Are they government officials? David Grusch: Both in and out of government and that's about as far I'll go there. Rep. Tim Burchett (R-TN): Well, that leads to my next question, which private corporations are directly involved in this program? How much taxpayer money has been invested in these programs? David Grusch: Yeah, I don't know the specific metrics towards the end of your question. The specific corporations I did provide to the committees in specific divisions, and I spent 11 and a half hours with both Intel committees. 1:25:30 Rep. Tim Burchett (R-TN): Has there been an active US government disinformation campaign to deny the existence of Unidentified Aerial Phenomena? And if so, why? David Grusch: I can't go beyond what I've already exposed publicly about that. Rep. Tim Burchett (R-TN): Okay, I've been told to ask you what that is and how to get it in the record. Rep. Anna Paulina Luna (R-FL): What have you stated publicly in your interviews, for the Congressional Record? David Grusch: If you reference my NewsNation interview, I talk about a multi-decade campaign to disenfranchise public interest basically. 1:28:00 Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY): When it comes to notification that you had mentioned about IRAD programs, we have seen defense contractors abuse their contracts before through this committee. I have seen it personally, and I have also seen the notification requirements to Congress abused. I am wondering, one of the loopholes that we see in the law is that there is, at least from my vantage point, depending on what we're seeing, is that there are no actual definitions or requirements for notification, are there? What methods of notification did you observe? When they say they notified Congress, how did they do that? Do you have insight into that? David Grusch: For certain IRAD activities....I can only think of ones conventional in nature. Sometimes they flow through certain out of say SAP programs that have cognisant authority over the Air Force or something. And those are congressionally reported compartments, but IRAD is literally internal to the contractor. So as long as it's money, either profits, private investment, etc, they can do whatever they want. Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY): To put a finer point on it, when there is a requirement for any agency or company to notify Congress, do they contact the chairman of a committee, do they get them on the phone specifically, is this through an email to hypothetically a dead email box? David Grusch: A lot of it comes through what they call the PPR, Periodic Program Review process. If it's a SAP or Controlled Access Program equity, and then those go to the specific committees. 1:30:40 Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY): For the record, if you were me, where would you look? Titles, programs, departments, regions? If you could just name anything. And I put that as an open question to the three of you. David Grusch: I'd be happy to give you that in a closed environment. I can tell you specifically. 1:35:40 Cmdr. David Fravor: Things are over-classified. I know for a fact the video or the pictures that came out in the 2020 report that had the stuff off the east coast, they were taken with an iPhone, off the east coast. A buddy of mine was one of the senior people there and he said they originally classified a TSS CI, and my question to him was what's TSS CI about these? They're an iPhone, right, literally off the vacates, that's not TSS CI. So they're over classified, and as soon as they do that, they go into the vault, and then you all have to look for them. 1:37:20 Rep. Eric Burlison (R-MO): Has any of the activity been aggressive, been hostile in your reports? David Grusch: I know of multiple colleagues of mine that got physically injured. Rep. Eric Burlison (R-MO): By UAPs, or by people within the federal government? So there has been activity by alien or non-human technology and or beings that has caused harm to humans? David Grusch: I can't get into the specifics in an open environment, but at least the activity that I personally witnessed, and I have to be very careful here, because they tell you never to acknowledge tradecraft, right. So what I personally witnessed, myself and my wife, was very disturbing. 1:38:20 Rep. Eric Burlison (R-MO): You've said that the US has intact spacecraft. You said that the government has alien bodies or alien species. Have you seen the spacecraft? David Grusch: I have to be careful to describe what I've seen firsthand and not in this environment. But I could answer that question behind closed doors. Rep. Eric Burlison (R-MO): Have you seen any of the bodies? David Grusch: That's something I've not witnessed myself. 1:40:45 Rep. Eric Burlison (R-MO): These aircraft, have they been identified that they are being produced by domestic military contractors? Is there any evidence that that's what's being recovered? David Grusch: Not to my knowledge. Plus the recoveries predate a lot of our advanced programs. 1:48:05 David Grusch: I've actually never seen anything personal, believe it or not. 1:51:00 Rep. Nancy Mace (R-SC): If you believe we have crashed craft, stated earlier, do we have the bodies of the pilots who piloted this craft? David Grusch: As I've stated publicly already in my NewsNation interview, biologics came with some of these recoveries. 1:51:15 Rep. Nancy Mace (R-SC): Were they human or non human biologics? David Grusch: Non human and that was the assessment of people with direct knowledge on the program I talked to that are currently still on the program. Rep. Nancy Mace (R-SC): And was this documentary evidence video, photos, eyewitness like how would that be determined? David Grusch: The specific documentation, I would have to talk to you in a SCIF about that. 1:53:10 Rep. Nick Langworthy (R-NY): Commander Fravor, we've all seen the floating tic tac video that you engage with on November 14, 2004. Can you briefly talk about why you were off the coast of San Diego that day? Cmdr. David Fravor: Yeah, we were at a work up with all the battle groups. So we integrate the ships with the carrier, the airway with the carrier and we start working. So we were doing an air-to-air defense to hone not only our skills, but those of the USS Princeton, and when they had been tracking him for two weeks. The problem was, there were never manned aircraft airborne when they were tracking them. And this was the first day and unfortunately, we were the ones airborne and went and saw it. Rep. Nick Langworthy (R-NY): Do you remember the weather that day? It was a cloudy or windy or anything out of the ordinary on the Pacific coast. Cmdr. David Fravor: If you're familiar with San Diego, it was a perfect day. Light winds, no whitecaps, clear skies, not a cloud. For flying, it was the best. Rep. Nick Langworthy (R-NY): Now, is it true that you saw, in your words, a 40 foot flying tic tac shaped object? Cmdr. David Fravor: That's correct. Or for some people that can't know what a Tic Tac is, it's a giant flying propane tank. Rep. Nick Langworthy (R-NY): Did this object come up on radar or interfere with your radar or the USS Princeton? Cmdr. David Fravor: The Princeton tracked it, the Nimitz tracked it, the E2 tracked it. We never saw it on our radars, our fire control radars never picked it up. The other airplane that took the video did get it on a radar as soon as it tried to lock in to jam the radar, spit the lock and he's rapidly switched over to the targeting pod which you can do in the F/A 18 Rep. Nick Langworthy (R-NY): From what you saw that day and what you've seen on video. Did you see any source of propulsion from the flying object including on any potential thermal scans from your aircraft? Cmdr. David Fravor: No, there is none. There is no IR plume coming out. And Chad who took the video went through all the EO, which is black and white TV and the IR modes, and there's no visible signs of reflection. It's just sitting in space at 20,000 feet. Rep. Nick Langworthy (R-NY): In your career. Have you ever seen a propulsion system that creates no thermal exhaust? Cmdr. David Fravor: No. Rep. Nick Langworthy (R-NY): Can you describe how the aircraft maneuvered? Cmdr. David Fravor: Abruptly, very determinant. It knew exactly what it was doing. It was aware of our presence. And it had acceleration rates, I mean, it went from zero to matching our speed and no time at all. Rep. Nick Langworthy (R-NY): Now if the fastest plane on Earth was trained to do these maneuvers that you saw, would it be capable of doing that? Cmdr. David Fravor: No, not even close Rep. Nick Langworthy (R-NY): Just to confirm, this object had no wings, correct? Cmdr. David Fravor: No wings. Rep. Nick Langworthy (R-NY): Now the aircraft that you were flying, was it armed? Cmdr. David Fravor: No, never felt threatened at all. Rep. Nick Langworthy (R-NY): If the aircraft was armed, do you believe that your aircraft or any aircraft in possession of the United States could have shot the tic tac down? Cmdr. David Fravor: I'd say no. Just on the performance, it would have just left in a split second. 1:58:10 Rep. Andy Ogles (R-TN): Is there any indication that these UAPs could be essentially collecting reconnaissance information? Mr. Graves? Ryan Graves: Yes. Rep. Andy Ogles (R-TN): Mr. Grusch? David Grusch: Fair assessment. Rep. Andy Ogles (R-TN): Mr. Fravor? Cmdr. David Fravor: Very possible. 1:59:05 Rep. Andy Ogles (R-TN): Mr. Graves and Fravor, in the event that your encounters had become hostile, would you have had the capability to defend yourself, your crew, your aircraft? Ryan Graves: Absolutely not. Cmdr. David Fravor: No. 2:00:55 Rep. Tim Burchett (R-TN): I might have asked this before, but I want to make sure. Do you have any personal knowledge of someone who's possibly been injured working on legacy UAP reverse engineering? David Grusch: Yes. Rep. Tim Burchett (R-TN): Okay. How were they injured? Was it something like a radioactive type situation or something we didn't understand? I've heard people talk about Havana syndrome type incidences. What what was your recollection of that? David Grusch: I can't get into specifics, but you could imagine assessing an unknown unknown, there's a lot of potentialities you can't fully prepare for. 2:02:10 Rep. Tim Burchett (R-TN): Are you aware of any individuals that are participating in reverse engineering programs for non terrestrial craft? David Grusch: Personally, yes. Rep. Tim Burchett (R-TN): Do you know any that would be willing to testify if there were protections for them? David Grusch: Certainly closed door, and assurances that breaking their NDA, they're not going to get administratively punished. 2:03:45 Rep. Anna Paulina Luna (R-FL): Referring to your news nation interview, you had referenced specific treaties between governments. Article III of the nuclear arms treaty with Russia identifies UAPs. It specifically mentions them. To your knowledge. Are there safety measures in place with foreign governments or other superpowers to avoid an escalatory situation in the event that a UAP malevolent event occurs? David Grusch: Yeah, you're referring to an actual public treaty in the UN register. It's funny you mentioned that, the agreement on measures to reduce the risk of outbreak of a nuclear war signed in 1971, unclassified treaty publicly available. And if you cite the George Washington University national security archives, you will find the declassified, in 2013, specific provisions in this specific Red Line Flass message traffic with the specific codes pursuant to Article Three and also situation two, which is in the the previously classified NSA archive. What I would recommend and I tried to get access, but I got a wall of silence at the White House, was the specific incidents when those message traffic was used, I think some scholarship on that would open the door to a further investigation using those publicly available information. 2:05:20 David Grusch: I have concerns, based on the interviews I conducted under my official duties, of potential violations of the Federal Acquisition Regulations, the FAR. 2:06:10 Rep. Jaime Raskin (D-MD): What was your general attitude or perspective on the UFO discussion before that happened? Cmdr. David Fravor: I never felt that we were alone with all the planets out there. But I wasn't a UFO person. I wasn't, I wasn't watching History Channel and MUFON and all that. Rep. Jaime Raskin (D-MD): And have you had any experiences or encounters since that happened? Cmdr. David Fravor: No. Rep. Jaime Raskin (D-MD): And so, have you formed any general conclusions about what you think you experienced then? Cmdr. David Fravor: Yes, I think what we experienced was, like I said, well beyond the material science and the capabilities that we had at the time, that we have currently, or that we're going to have in the next 10 to 20 years. 2:06:55 Rep. Jaime Raskin (D-MD): You've been able to answer in great detail on certain questions, and then other things you say you're not able to respond to. Can you just explain where you're drawing the line? What's the basis for that? David Grusch: Yeah, based on my DOPSR security review and what they've determined that is unclassified. Rep. Jaime Raskin (D-MD): I see, so you're answering any questions that just call upon your knowledge of unclassified questions, but anything that relates to classified matters you're not commenting on in this context? David Grusch: In an open session, but happy to participate in a closed session at the right level. 2:08:15 Ryan Graves: Certainly I think the most vivid sighting of that would have been near mid air that we had at the entrance to our working area. One of these objects was completely stationary at the exact entrance to our working areas, not only geographically but also at altitude. So it was right where all the jets are going, essentially, on the Eastern Seaboard. The two aircraft flew within about 50 feet of the object and that was a very close visual sighting. Rep. Jaime Raskin (D-MD): And you were in one of the aircraft. Ryan Graves: I was not. I was there when the pilot landed. He canceled the mission after. I was there. He was in the ready room with all his gear on with his mouth open. And I asked him what the problem was and he said he almost hit one of those darn things. Rep. Jaime Raskin (D-MD): He said he was 50 feet away from it? Ryan Graves: Yes, sir. Rep. Jaime Raskin (D-MD): And his description of the object was consistent with the description you gave us before? Ryan Graves: A dark gray or black cube inside of a clear sphere. Rep. Jaime Raskin (D-MD): Inside of a clear sphere. With no self evident propulsion system. Ryan Graves:: No wings, no IR energy coming off of the vehicle, nothing tethering it to the ground. And that was primarily what we're experiencing out there. April 19, 2023 Senate Committee on Armed Services Witnesses: , Director, All-domain Anomaly Resolution Office Clips 2:00:50 Dr. Sean Kirkpatrick: The AARO team of more than three dozen experts is organized around four functional areas: operations, scientific research, integrated analysis, and strategic communications. 2:01:25 Dr. Sean Kirkpatrick: Consistent with legislative direction, AARO is also carefully reviewing and researching the US government's UAP-related historical record. 2:02:05 Dr. Sean Kirkpatrick: AARO is the culmination of decades of DOD, intelligence community, and congressionally directed efforts to successfully resolve UAP encountered first and foremost by US military personnel, specifically navy and air force pilots. 2:03:15 Dr. Sean Kirkpatrick: However, it would be naive to believe that the resolution of all UAP can be solely accomplished by the DOD and IC alone. We will need to prioritize collection and leverage authorities for monitoring all domains within the continental United States. AARO's ultimate success will require partnerships with the inner agency, industry partners, academia and the scientific community, as well as the public. 2:04:15 Dr. Sean Kirkpatrick: I want to underscore today that only a very small percentage of UAP reports display signatures that could reasonably be described as anomalous. The majority of unidentified objects reported to AARO demonstrate mundane characteristics of balloons, unmanned aerial systems, clutter, natural phenomena, or other readily explainable sources. While a large number of cases in our holdings remain technically unresolved, this is primarily due to a lack of data associated with those cases. Without sufficient data, we are unable to reach defendable conclusions that meet the high scientific standards we set for resolution, and I will not close a case that I cannot defend the conclusions of. 2:06:00 Dr. Sean Kirkpatrick: AARO is a member of the department's support to the administration's Tiger Team effort to deal with stratospheric objects such as the PRC high altitude balloon. When previously unknown objects are successfully identified, it is AARO's role to quickly and efficiently hand off such readily explainable objects to the intelligence, law enforcement, or operational safety communities for further analysis and appropriate action. In other words, AARO's mission is to turn UAP into SEP, Somebody Else's Problem. 2:07:30 Dr. Sean Kirkpatrick: I should also state clearly for the record that in our research, AARO has found no credible evidence thus far of extraterrestrial activity, offworld technology, or objects that defy the known laws of physics. In the event sufficient scientific data were ever obtained that a UAP encountered can only be explained by extraterrestrial origin, we are committed to working with our interagency partners at NASA to appropriately inform [the] U.S. government's leadership of its findings. For those few cases that have leaked to the public previously and subsequently commented on by the US government, I encourage those who hold alternative theories or views to submit your research to credible peer reviewed scientific journals. AARO is working very hard to do the same. That is how science works, not by blog or social media. 2:13:20 Dr. Sean Kirkpatrick: How are we going to get more data? We are working with the joint staff to issue guidance to all the services and commands that will then establish what are the reporting requirements, the timeliness, and all of the data that is required to be delivered to us and retained from all of the associated sensors. That historically hasn't been the case and it's been happenstance that data has been collected. 2:17:20 Dr. Sean Kirkpatrick: As of this week we are tracking over a total of 650 cases. 2:17:45 Dr. Sean Kirkpatrick: Let me walk everyone through what our analytic process looks like. We have essentially a five step process. We get our cases in with all the data, we create a case for that event. My team does a preliminary scrub of all of those cases as they come in, just to sort out, do we have any information that says this is in one of those likely categories? It's likely a balloon, it's likely a bird, it's likely some other object, or we don't know. Then we prioritize those based off of where they are. Are they attached to a national security area? Does it show some anomalous phenomenology that is of interest? If it's just a spherical thing that's floating around with the wind and it has no payload on it, that's going to be less important than something that has a payload on it, which will be less important than something that's maneuvering. So there's sort of a hierarchy of just binning the priorities, because we can't do all of them at once. Once we do that and we prioritize them, we take that package of data in that case and I have set up two teams, think of this as a Red Team Blue Team, or competitive analysis. I have an intelligence community team made up of intelligence analysts and I have an S&T team made up of scientists and engineers, and the people that actually build a lot of these sensors are physicists, because you know, if you're a physicist, you can do anything. But they're not associated with the intel community, they're not intel officers. So they they look at this through the lens of the sensor, of what the data says. We give that package to both teams. The intelligence community is going to look at it through the lens of the intelligence record, and what they assess, and their intel tradecraft, which they have very specific rules and regulations on how they do that. The scientific community, the technical community is going to look at it through the lens of "What is the data telling me? What is the sensor doing? What would I expect a sensor response to be?" and back that out. Those two groups give us their answers. We then adjudicate. If they agree, then I am more likely to close that case, if they agree on what it is. If they disagree, we will have an adjudication. We'll bring them together, we'll take a look at the differences, we'll adjudicate. Why do you say one thing and you say another? We will then come to a case recommendation that will get written up by my team. That then goes to a Senior Technical Advisory Group, which is outside of all of those people, made up of senior technical folks and intel analysts and operators retired out of the community. And they essentially peer review what that case recommendation is. They write their recommendations, that comes back to me, I review it, we make a determination, and I'll sign off one way or the other, and then that will go out as the case determination. Once we have an approved web portal to hang the unclassified stuff, we will downgrade and declassify things and put it out there. In the meantime, we're putting a lot of these on our classified web portal where we can then collaborate with the rest of the community so they can see what's going on. In a nutshell, that is the process. 2:27:10 Dr. Sean Kirkpatrick: There are emerging capabilities out there that in many instances, Russia and China, China in particular, are on par or ahead of us in some areas. So previously, I used to be the Defense Department's intelligence officer for science and technical intelligence. That was our job to look for, what does all that look like? And then my last several years of course, in Space Command, doing space. The adversary is not waiting. They are advancing and they're advancing quickly. If I were to put on some of my old hats, I would tell you, they are less risk averse at technical advancement than we are. They are just willing to try things and see if it works. Are there capabilities that could be employed against us in both an ISR and a weapons fashion? Absolutely. Do I have evidence that they're doing it in these cases? No, but I have concerning indicators. 2:43:45 Dr. Sean Kirkpatrick: So the vision is, at one point, at some point in the future, you should not need an AARO. If I'm successful in what I'm doing, we should be able to normalize everything that we're doing into existing processes, functions, agencies and organizations, and make that part of their mission and their role. Right now the niche that we form is really going after the unknowns. I think you articulated it early on, this is a hunt mission for what might somebody be doing in our backyard that we don't know about? That is what we are doing, but at some point, we should be able to normalize that. That's why it's so important the work we're doing with joint staff to normalize that into DoD policy and guidance. We are bringing in all of our interagency partners. So NASA is providing a liaison for us, I have FBI liaison, I have OSI liaison, I have service liaisons, half of my staff come from the [Intelligence Community], half of my staff come from other scientific and technical backgrounds, I have DOE. So what we're trying to do is ensure, again, as I make UAP into SEP they get handed off to the people that that is their mission to go do, so that we aren't duplicating that. I'm not going to go chase the Chinese high altitude balloon, for example. That's not my job. It's not an unknown, and it's not anomalous anymore. Now it goes over to them. May 17, 2022 House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, Subcommittee on Counterterrorism, Counterintelligence, and Counterproliferation Witnesses: , Deputy Director, Office of Naval Intelligence , Under Secretary of Defense Intelligence and Security, Department of Defense Clips 10:00 Ronald Moultrie: The NDAA for fiscal year 2022 has helped us to establish a dedicated office to oversee processes and procedures for the timely collection, processing, analysis, and reporting of UAP related data. 10:15 Ronald Moultrie: What are UAP? Put simply, UAP are airborne objects that, when encountered, cannot be immediately identified. 10:25 Ronald Moultrie: It is the department's contention that by combining appropriately structured, collected data with rigorous scientific analysis, any object that we encounter can likely be isolated, characterized, identified and if necessary, mitigated. 10:40 Ronald Moultrie: We know that our service members have encountered unidentified aerial phenomenon. And because UAPs pose potential flight safety and general security risks, we are committed to a focused effort to determine their origins. Our effort will include the thorough examination of adversarial platforms and potential breakthrough technologies, US government or commercial platforms, Allied or partner systems, and other natural phenomena. 11:15 Ronald Moultrie: We also understand that there has been a cultural stigma surrounding UAP. Our goal is to eliminate the stigma by fully incorporating our operators and mission personnel into a standardized data gathering process. We believe that making UAP reporting a mission imperative will be instrumental to the effort's success. 11:45 Ronald Moultrie: To optimize the department's UAP work, we are establishing an office within the Office of the Secretary of Defense. That office's function is clear: to facilitate the identification of previously unknown or unidentified airborne objects in a methodical, logical, and standardized manner. 13:50 Scott Bray: Since the early 2000s, we have seen an increasing number of unauthorized and or unidentified aircraft or objects in military controlled training areas and training ranges and other designated airspace. Reports of sightings are frequent and continuing. We attribute this increase in reporting to a number of factors, including our work to destigmatize reporting, an increase in the number of new systems such as quad copters and unmanned aerial systems that are in our airspace, identification of what we can classify as clutter (mylar balloons and other types of of air trash), and improvements in the capabilities of our various sensors to detect things in our airspace. 14:50 Scott Bray: The basic issues, then and now, are twofold. First, incursions in our training ranges by unidentified objects represent serious hazards to safety of flight. In every aspect of naval aviation, safety of our air crews is paramount. Second, intrusions by unknown aircraft or objects pose potential threats to the security of our operations. Our aviators train as they would fight, so any intrusions that may compromise the security of our operations by revealing our capabilities, our tactics, techniques or procedures are of great concern to the Navy and Department of Defense. 16:40 Scott Bray: The direct result of those efforts has been increased reporting with increased opportunities to focus a number of sensors on any objects. The message is now clear: if you see something, you need to report it. And the message has been received. 18:55 Scott Bray: As detailed in the ODNI report, if and when individual UAP incidents are resolved, they likely fall into one of five potential explanatory categories: airborne clutter, natural atmospheric phenomena, US government or US industry developmental programs, foreign adversary systems, or another bin that allows for a holding bin of difficult cases, and for the possibility of surprise and potential scientific discovery. 22:20 Scott Bray: If UAP do indeed represent a potential threat to our security then the capabilities, systems, processes and sources we use to observe, record, study, or analyze these phenomena need to be classified at appropriate levels. We do not want, we do not want potential adversaries to know exactly what we're able to see or understand or how we come to the conclusions we make. Therefore, public disclosures must be carefully considered on a case by case basis. 23:35 Rep André Carson (D-IN): This is the third version of this task force and, to be frank, one of Congress's concerns is that the executive branch, in administrations of both parties, has been sweeping concerns about UAPs under the rug by focusing on events that can be explained and avoiding events that cannot be explained. What can you say to give the American people confidence that you aren't just focusing our attention on low hanging fruit with easy explanations? Ronald Moultrie: Congressman, I'll start and then Mr. Bray, please feel free to weigh in. So the way that we're approaching it is with a more thorough, standardized methodology than what we have in the past. First and foremost, the Secretary Defense is chartering this effort, this is not someone lower in the Department of Defense, and he is assigned that task to the Office of Secretary of Defense's Under Secretary for Intelligence Security, that's me, because I'm responsible for looking at intelligence matters, I'm responsible for security matters, and this is potentially both. So we're concerning ourselves with the safety of our personnel, the safety of our installations and bases. There's no other higher power than what we have in actually getting after this. And as you have stated, we have been assigned that task to actually stand up an office, the AOIMSG, which I believe the name server will likely change, but we have moved forward in terms of moving to establish that office. We have, as of this week, picked the director for that effort, a very established and accomplished individual. 42:00 Scott Bray: I would say that we're not aware of any adversary that can move an object without discernible means of propulsion. The question then becomes, in many of these cases where we don't have a discernible means of propulsion in the data that we have, in some cases, there are likely sensor artifacts that that may be hiding some of that, there's certainly some degree of something that looks like signature management that we have seen from some of these UAP. But I would caution, I would simply say that there are a number of other events in which we do not have an explanation. There are a small handful in which there are flight characteristics or signature management that we can't explain with the data that we have. 43:40 Rep. Adam Schiff (D-CA): With respect to the second two videos showing the small triangles, the hypothesis is that those are commercial drones that because of the use of night vision goggles appear like triangles, is that the operating assessment? Scott Bray: Some type of drone, some type of unmanned aerial system, and it is simply that that light source resolves itself through the night vision goggles onto the SLR camera as a triangle. 47:55 Scott Bray: Allies have seen these, China has established its own version of the UAP task force. So clearly a number of countries have observations of things in the airspace that they can identify. Rep. Brad Wenstrup (R-OH): And do we share data with some, with all? Are they sharing with us? Scott Bray: We share data with some and some share data with us. Rep. Brad Wenstrup (R-OH): But not necessarily all that have publicly reported something? Scott Bray: That's correct. 52:25 Scott Bray: When I say we can't explain, I mean, exactly as you describe there, that there's a lot of information, like the video that we showed, in which there's simply too little data to create a reasonable explanation. There are a small handful of cases in which we have more data that our analysis simply hasn't been able to fully pull together a picture of what happened. Those are the cases where we talked about where we see some indications of flight characteristics or signature management that are not what we had expected. When it comes to material that we have, we have no material. We have detected no emanations within the UAP task force that would suggest it's anything non-terrestrial in origin. 59:35 Rep. Raja Krishnamoorthi (D-IL): There have been no collisions between any US assets and one of these UAPs, correct? Scott Bray: We have not had a collision, we've had at least 11 near misses though. 59:55 Rep. Raja Krishnamoorthi (D-IL): And there's been no attempt, there's no communications, or any kind of communication signals that emanate from those objects that we've detected, correct? Scott Bray: That's correct. Rep. Raja Krishnamoorthi (D-IL): And have we attempted to communicate with those objects? Scott Bray: No. Rep. Raja Krishnamoorthi (D-IL): So we don't we don't even put out an alert saying, you know, "U.S., identify yourself, you are within our flight path," or something like that? Scott Bray: We haven't said anything like that. We've not put anything out like that, generally speaking. For example, in the video that we showed earlier, it appears to be something that is unmanned, appears to be something that may or may not be in controlled flight, and so we've not attempted any communication with that. 1:00:55 Rep. Raja Krishnamoorthi (D-IL): And I assume we've never discharged any armaments against a UAP, correct? Scott Bray: That's correct. 1:01:05 Rep. Raja Krishnamoorthi (D-IL): How about wreckage? Have we come across any wreckage of any kind of object that has now been examined by you? Scott Bray: The UAP task force doesn't have any wreckage that isn't explainable, that isn't consistent with being of terrestrial origin. 1:01:20 Rep. Raja Krishnamoorthi (D-IL): Do we have any sensors underwater to detect on submerged UAPs, anything that is in the ocean or in the seas? Ronald Moultrie: So I think that would be more properly addressed in a closed session. 1:05:30 Ronald Moultrie: So one of the concerns that we have is that there are a lot of individuals and groups that are putting information out there that that could be considered to be somewhat self serving. We're trying to do what's in the best interests of, one, the Department of Defense, and then two, what's in the best interest of the public, to ensure that we can put factually based information back into the mainstream and back into the bloodstream of the reporting media that we have, so people understand what's there. It's important because we are attempting, as this hearing has drawn out to understand, one, what may just be natural phenomenon, two, what may be sensor phenomenology or things that were happening with sensors, three, what may be legitimate counterintelligence threats to places that we have or bases or installations, or security threats to our platforms. And anything that diverts us off of what we have with the resources that have been allocated to us, sends us off in the spurious chases and hunts that are just not helpful. They also contribute to the undermining of the confidence that the Congress and the American people have that we are trying to get to the root cause of what's happening here, report on that, and then feed that back into our national security apparatus so we are able to protect the American people and our allies. So it is harmful, it is hurtful, but hopefully, if we get more information out there, w

The keys to proposal writing are to make sure you clearly understand what the government agency is asking for and can meet their requirements. This is your “Go - No Go” decision point and saves you time and resources from chasing solicitations you cannot qualify for or fulfill. Be realistic in your approach and prepare in advance so you can compete for and win on the proposals that meet your capabilities.In this episode of FedBiz'5 we host Darrell Hammond, a senior proposal development consultant that handles capture management and proposal management. For over 10 years Darrell has helped companies bind, track, and create federal, state, local and commercial bids. Darrel has worked with a variety of 8(a), small and disadvantaged businesses, as well as businesses transitioning from small to large, and large multibillion dollar businesses. What is the main component of a successful government contract bid and how does it differ from proposal management in the private sector? The most important part of proposal management in the government space is compliance. The government is typically looking for more information than you would submit for a commercial bid. Government proposals have additional compliance components for submission known as the Federal Acquisition Regulations ("FAR").The federal government is compelled to request certain disclosures and information prior to awarding any contract. This is the primary difference from the private sector, government compliance to the solicitation format. A good starting point for preparing your response to a government proposal is creating an outline document, sometimes referred to as a compliance matrix, so that you carefully follow the directions and the evaluation criteria to make sure all sections are thoroughly completed.What common mistakes do businesses make when submitting bids?One common mistake many businesses make is not understanding how many people and what specific skills are needed for the proposal process. This is especially true for smaller businesses and those new to government contracting. It's important to have enough people available with the skills required to make sure your bid is submitted on time and in compliance.Another common mistake comes from not having prior experience with government contracts. If you've never seen a solicitation or proposal format for a government contract in your industry, it's difficult to deliver a bid that meets the same quality, compliance, and completeness standards as a more experienced competitor. How can businesses avoid these common mistakes? It's important to understand the requirements, have a schedule for submitting documents, and a process for reviewing and adjusting your proposal. Once you gain mastery in identifying the necessary compliance steps, information required, and experience for your team, the process of developing your proposal flows much smoother. Starting from scratch with no outside help can be challenging as you have no existing context for what's required and no pre-defined content. However, as you gain experience and submit compliant bids, you can reuse and adapt content from previous proposals for future bids. This is a big time-saver for future turnaround time in proposal management.CLICK HERE TO CONTINUE READINGStay Connected: Signup for our Once-Monthly "Contractor Chronicle" Newsletter Follow Us on Facebook Follow Us on LinkedIn

What happens when the Administration's "whole-of-government approach" to climate change meets federal contracting? The Department of Defense, the Government Services Administration, and NASA have jointly proposed a revision to the Federal Acquisition Regulations that would require government contractors to publicly disclose greenhouse gas emissions and climate-related financial risk and to set science-based reduction targets. The agencies cast the proposal as a way to reduce climate-related risks, increase U.S. competitiveness, and promote economic growth. But critics say that the proposed rule would exceed the agencies' authority, increase federal procurement costs, and unconstitutionally delegate policy-making authority to the private entities that would be charged with policing contractors' compliance.The panel will discuss the origins as well as the potential benefits and risks of this innovation in government contracting policy.Featuring:John Kostyack, Ceres Accelerator for Sustainable Capital Markets, CeresBrian Richman, Associate, Gibson, Dunn & CrutcherMarkus Speidel, Procurement Law Alumnus, The George Washington UniversityModerator: Adam Gustafson, Senior Counsel for Environmental and Regulatory Affairs, BoeingVisit our website - www.RegProject.org - to learn more, view all of our content, and connect with us on social media.

"I want to give back to the community that gave me so much."     This week on the FourBlock Podcast, we are honored to be joined by Labor and Employment attorney Allison Kruse, a U.S. Air Force veteran and current associate at Stinson LLP, who serves as the chair of the firm's Veterans Employee Resource Group (ERG).     In conversation with FourBlock Founder Mike Abrams, Allison shares what first inspired her to attend the Air Force Academy and join the military and details her experience transitioning from the Air Force into law school and then the private sector.    Allison delves into her unique familiarity with Federal Acquisition Regulations and how it benefits and supports her clients at Stinson. She then shares more about her participation with the firm's Veterans ERG, why she is inspired to continue giving back, how Stinson helps support and integrate veterans within the law firm, and her advice for veterans transitioning into the civilian workforce.    As we close out Women's History Month, Allison also shares some of the women veterans and leaders who inspired her in her career and influenced her professional values, as well as words of wisdom for young women starting their journey in the military or transitioning out.     Allison is an associate at Stinson LLP, a law firm with 450 attorneys and 12 offices nationwide. She primarily focuses on employment related matters and navigating various facets of employment relationships. She handles each case with precision and integrity, working diligently to deliver results that take her clients to new heights.    Before attending law school, Allison was a Contracting Officer in the U.S. Air Force. Her prior experience in leadership roles enables her to relate quickly with clients and solve complex issues. Allison has received multiple awards and recognitions for her outstanding service while serving.    ABOUT US Welcome to the FourBlock Podcast, a show that examines veteran career transition and the military-civilian divide in the workplace. General Charles Krulak coined the term "Three Block War" to describe the nature of 21st-century military service defined by peace-keeping, humanitarian aid, and full combat. But what happens next? Veterans are often unprepared to return home and begin new careers. We call this the Fourth Block.  FourBlock is a national non-profit that has supported thousands of transitioning service members across the nation in beginning new and meaningful careers.  Mike Abrams (@fourblock) is an Afghanistan veteran, founder of FourBlock, and author of two military transition books. He represents the military transition perspective. Lindsey Pollak (@lindsaypollak) is a career and workplace expert and New York Times bestselling author of three career advice books. Lindsey represents the civilian perspective of this issue.  Veterans, explore new industries and make the right connections. Find a career that fits your calling. Join us at fourblock.org/ Sponsor our program or host a class to equip more of our veterans at fourblock.org/donate. Follow FourBlock on Social Media  LinkedIn Facebook Instagram Twitter Podcast episodes are produced and edited in part by the Columbia University Center for Veteran Transition and Integration.  

In this episode Strategic Institute discusses the forces pushing back against innovation in business processes for federal R&D.    Other Transactions authorities are flexible contracts that permit the government to experiment with different business approaches and arrangements in effort to improve the delivery of the fruits of federal R&D activities.  They are intended to be used by smart interdisciplinary teams, equipped with high levels of business acumen, creativity, and critical thinking skills to deliver solutions to challenges and normative problems facing the DoD and more broadly. They are best matched with intellectual prowess and awareness.  When it comes to federal acquisition the government created the game, makes the rules, controls the board, and most of the players.  It represents a system by and for insiders.  It has partitioned itself off.  There are “kept” contractors who cannot compete commercially due to all the additional regulatory overhead, and highly innovative commercial companies that are functionally locked out.  The divide, think wall, that favors the few while excluding the many, is known as Federal Acquisition Regulations.  The “kept contractors” welcome every new rule and regulation, it is at the core of their business model.  They'll just hire more people to deal with the new regulation and charge it to the taxpayer. The government eliminates their competition and increases timelines - cha-ching!  Another feature of the system is that it is so irrational, arcane, and esoteric that legions of high-priced go-betweens and consultants, often former federal officials, familiar with the inner workings, are employed to decipher and translate to those outside the system.  There are powerful interests and forces maintaining the status quo, while there is ostensibly no incentives or support to do anything else.  

SAM ("System for Award Management") is a federal registration that is required if you are going to participate in the federal market.  It is sometimes called your “accounting record” and is used as the primary database of vendors doing business with the federal government. In this episode of FedBiz'5, we are hosting Cassie Elbany from FedBiz Access to discuss the importance of your SAM registration.SAM can be found on the official government website (SAM.gov) used to register entities for government contracts or grants.When you register in SAM you are assigned a CAGE code (Commercial and Government Entity) and a  UEI number (Unique Entity ID) as your official federal government identifiers.  Within the SAM website federal buyers can search for your business, and you can use the system to search for contract opportunities using search features such as keywords, NAICS codes (North American Industry Classification System), or PSC codes (Product and Service Codes).That is why it is important to properly identify is your industry classification using NAICS and PSC codes. Simply put, NAICS codes are for your business function or commercial activity, and PSC describe your products or services themselves.  These codes let the federal government, or the federal buyers know what it is you do and makes it easier for them to identify you for award opportunities based on your industry and your products or services offered.A business can self-certify in SAM, but because of the complexity of the registration process many businesses are better suited to use a professional service to complete their registration.  This may be considered in the same way that many businesses use a professional accountant to file their tax returns to ensure they are complete and compliant.For businesses looking to work with the federal government, they must remain compliant and keep their registration active to be awarded a federal contract. As your business evolves, so should your SAM be updated to reflect your most current information. SAM must be renewed annually, but can be updated more frequently.Additionally, businesses must conform to the Federal Acquisition Regulations, referred to as the FAR.  The FAR are the overriding set of regulations for federal procurement and agreement to adherence to the FAR is required to be registered in SAM.  Having a clear understanding of the FAR as you are completing your SAM registration is very critical. A misrepresentation or wrong answer could not only get you in trouble but could bar you from federal work.Businesses also register their business size and socio-economic status while completing the required solicitation clauses and certification. By completing the required solicitation clauses and certifications you certify that the information provided about your company and its business activities are correct.In addition, it is very important that your SBA registration in the Dynamic Small Business Search be properly aligned with your SAM for marketing purposes.One source federal buyers turn to to easily find information you register in SAM is FedBiz Connect, a searchable database of businesses registered for federal contracting that highlights their business to contracting officers and prime contractors.  The database is searchable by keywords, business name, CAGE code, UEI No., location, socio-economic status, NAICS Codes, PSC, capability statement, past performance, FEMA registered, smart cards, points of contact, etc. FedBiz is a leading government contracting business development and marketing firm that offers SAM registration services, as well as research and engagement strategy coaching, and certification and GSA Schedule registrations.

In this episode Strategic Institute talks about DoD's continued reliance on a procurement system for R&D and advancing new capability.  "When the only tool you use is a hammer, every problem looks like a nail."   The DoD habitually uses the wrong contractual instrument to achieve its stated  goals for the important work of advancing knowledge and delivering new capability to the field.  The Federal Acquisition Regulations-based procurement system forces a buyer/seller relationship.  However, the business and desired outcomes of R&D are very different from purchasing stuff and services.   For at least three decades, some of our Nation's brightest minds and experts have indicated the need for the use of flexible "commercial-like" contracts and business arrangements by empowered and protected teams to better support objectives and improve outcomes for R&D, prototyping, and most importantly getting new capability into the war-fighters hands.  Performance has gotten so bad for the ancient and beleaguered procurement system, that several years ago Congress mandated that DoD develop a 'preference' for using flexible contracts and business arrangements, and went on to mandate that 'management, technical and contracting' personnel get spun up.  While DoD has expanded its use of flexible contracting authorities, they remain limited by the  framework and understanding of the existing system, and education is virtually non-existent.   Unfortunately the mandated flexible contracting authorities are viewed through the lenses of the current procurement system.   By and large, minus a few bright spots,  no significant change in acquisition for R&D has occurred, though the need becomes more dire with every passing day.  Our near peers are catching up, have caught up, or are passing us by.  This seems like a red alert, all hands on deck situation, yet the response has been confusion and inaction.  This is a straightforward fix: use the correct contractual instruments for the mission.  The use of Other Transactions Agreements for R&D have been mandated by Congress, have been specifically created for R&D, and ARE the correct contractual instruments.  Related article:  Appropriate Contractual Instruments for R&D: https://strategicinstitute.org/other-transactions/appropriate-contractual-instruments-for-rd/  

 YES!  This episode begins with a snippet of President Eisenhower's farewell address warning the public of the corrupting influence of the Military Industrial Complex, and ends with his warning about squandering future generation's resources for present day comforts.  Strategic Institute refers to the mission statement of the Federal Acquisition Regulations (FAR 1.1) to illustrate how the acquisition system, at least for R&D, prototyping, and delivering new capability, utterly fails at its original purposes and is thus institutionally corrupt.  The Federal Acquisition Regulations, what Coopers and Lybrand called "a mass and maze of regulations", benefits government and industry insiders at the expense of the warfighter, taxpayer, a healthy industrial base, and innovation; decades of expert study and findings confirm this.   Due to the overly complex nature of the system which is inherently unfair, lacks transparency, and is largely closed off to outsiders, the results are chronically poor performance, ridiculous costs, lack luster solutions, destruction of creativity, and tremendous waste.  The arcane mass and maze of the rules has given rise to the preeminence of the contracting regime, which subordinates program managers, technical experts, developers, performers, creatives, producers, and doers.  In all other industries and business, contracting personnel support mission and goals.  Unfortunately, too often in the Federal Government, expertise and accomplishing goals is secondary to fulfilling the diktats of the acquisition system rules.  These rules grew in a willy-nilly fashion with the aid of undue influence of special interests. This has corrupted otherwise straight-forward common sense business processes, etiquette, and culture.      DoD and other federal agencies have been given authorities and a Congressional mandate to develop a 'preference' for using these to explore and conduct business in new and different ways.  Minus a few bright spots, business-as-usual thinking has been applied with the expected results - we are STILL having the exact same conversations today as we were 40 years ago and according to the 809 Panel has only gotten worse.     If you want resources and information on how this can be situation can be improved, visit: https://strategicinstitute.org/

In this episode of Innovation in Government Business, Strategic Institute discusses OTAs and compliance issues and myths.  Other Transactions Agreements (OTA) are unlike procurement contracts under the Federal Acquisition Regulations System (FAR).  The primary objective under FAR system is to ensure compliance with the myriad of rules and regulations that grew, often nonsensically, over time.  OTAs differ in that they are agreements that focus on achieving objectives and goals.   In other words the FAR focuses on compliance, OTAs focus on creation - they are very different.  

In this episode of FedBiz'5 we are discussing the importance of having a Federal Connections Marketing Campaign, and the strategy to create market visibility for your business to federal buyers.  Federal buyers are busy and take their fiscal responsibility very seriously. As part of this responsibility, they have quotas to meet small business contracting goals, especially for orders under the $250,000 Simplified Acquisition Procedures threshold. The key is to begin forming federal buyer relationships in advance of contracts and solicitations. Many of these awards are for a particular set-aside category and the majority these opportunities never get publicly posted.There are two ways to create these relationships with federal buyers: (A) they find you, or (B) you market to them.A.  They find you. – Federal buyers are required to do market research to find buyers. According to FAR 10 of the Federal Acquisition Regulations, buyers are required to “take advantage of commercially available market research methods in order to effectively identify the capabilities of small businesses and new entrants into federal contracting.”Common means of market research include FedBiz Connect, the SAM and DSBS databases, Google, LinkedIn, etc.B.  You market to them. – This is similar to how you would market your products or services in the commercial marketplace; however, relationships and timing are particularly important in the government arena.  For example, in an emergency a federal buyer might need thousands of facemasks. If you are in their rolodex, then you are most likely to be contacted if you have made yourself known, including being properly registered in SAM and DSBS, as well as having a professional Capability Statement.Besides emergency purchases, federal buyers like to have pre-vetted vendors to speed up their ordering cycle. To accomplish this, you need to be proactive with your marketing to build relationships.Federal marketing means finding the buyers who buy what you sell. Identifying those agencies and offices to get the specific points of contact and reaching out to them on consistent basis.You want to create top-of-mind awareness and your capability statement let's them know your core competencies, differentiators, past performance, socio-economic set-aside, etc.While marketing to federal buyers may be more difficult than commercial marketing because you have to peel back the layers of department and agency offices. The first task is research to identify the buyers.  The second task is to create an engagement plan, which includes an email strategy.  Government emails have strict security so the wrong subject line, image, or attachment can make the email undeliverable behind government firewalls. The third task is your actual engagement. This is when you make that human connection. You need to be prepared for what questions might be asked of you and know what questions you should be asking them.You have a short window to speak with these buyers. You want to make a good first impression and create an ongoing dialog to develop the relationship.FedBiz Access offers Engagement Strategy sessions, as well as marketing packages to targeted buyers in the federal government with its Federal Connections Package and on the state, local, and education market with its Local Connections Package.  

  ACEC was honored to welcome Rep. Peter DeFazio, Chair of the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee onto the show to discuss the next steps for the bipartisan infrastructure bill and budget reconciliation in the House. Transcript: Host: Welcome to Engineering Influence, a podcast from the American Council of Engineering Companies. Today, we are honored to be joined by a longtime friend of ACEC and the engineering industry and a strong advocate for America's infrastructure, House Transportation and Infrastructure Chair Peter DeFazio, who has represented Oregon's 4th Congressional district since 1987. Chair DeFazio is a powerful advocate for transformative federal infrastructure investment and consequential action on climate change. He drafted the INVEST in America Act, which passed the House in early July and became the vehicle for the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act, which cleared the Senate last week. With passage of that bill, the issue of infrastructure once again squarely lands in the House, which is expected to return from the August district work period later this month to address it, as well as a budget reconciliation bill.  I'm also pleased to be joined by ACEC CEO Linda Bauer Darr for today's conversation. Thank you both for taking time to join the podcast today. And with those introductions out of the way, I will throw it over to Linda for the conversation. Linda Bauer Darr: Great. Thanks for doing this, Jeff. And thank you, Chairman DeFazio for being with us. When we were getting started, you mentioned that you just adopted a dog, a Labrador. So, what's the dog's name? Chair DeFazio: Liddy. She's now learning her name. She came from a pound in Texas. They named her Lydia, and we've stuck with it. Linda Bauer Darr: So, you're sticking with it. So how old is she? Chairman DeFazio: A year and a half. The story was that she had pups and was in the kennel with the pups. The pups got adopted. She didn't. They put her on a transport, she came to Oregon, and we got her. So there are a lot of dogs in Texas that are apparently neglected. Linda Bauer Darr: Well, you've joined a long line of people who have adopted pets during COVID. I'm down one pet during COVID, so I'm on the other side of that fence, but congratulations, and I'm sure you will have a great time with Liddy. Linda Bauer Darr: We'll go ahead and get started. You were able to secure passage of the Invest Act in the House. By the way, great job. I know that was a Herculean effort. No doubt that had an impact in showing people that the bipartisan package was on its way and that it was going to make it through the Senate. What stands out to you as the most important provision that you secured in the bill? Or what would you be most proud of? Chair DeFazio: First that we went through a real legislative process. We were in committee for a total, I think, of close to 60 hours over the two years. Hundreds of amendments in committee, hundreds of amendments on the Floor. An actual legislative process. Yeah, I didn't get a lot of Republicans for it in the end, but quite a number of their amendments were included in the bill, in contrast to the Senate bill written behind closed doors principally by people who don't even serve on the committees of jurisdiction in the Senate. So, you know, my bill was transformative. It was really to take the country beyond Eisenhower 8.0 and into the 21st century for transportation policy, dealing with climate change, resilience, and social equity and creating one whole hell of a lot of jobs. Unfortunately, their bill is Eisenhower 8.0 for the most part with a little green dressing on the side, Chair DeFazio: There's more money spent on subsidies for fossil fuels in their bill than on alternative fuels. When you add it up properly you know, they, they say that 25 percent of the zero-emission bus policy has to be spent on polluting buses. Half of the $18 billion for fossil fuel reduction can be transferred to highways. There are a number of provisions like that in their bill. Their bill is slightly bigger on highways than mine, but way less on rail and transit and way less on social equity, way less on wastewater drinking water and lead pipes, which came out of Frank Pallone's committee. So we're going to deal with those deficiencies in Reconciliation, which is in part why we're pairing the two. Chair DeFazio: Reconciliation is going to continue a lot of the democratic agenda. I'm unwilling at this point to pass this bill without some changes. It's been made clear that the cabal who wrote it are not interested in going to regular order and having a conference. That the chairs of the committees of jurisdiction in the Senate were not consulted during the drafting is an absolute insult to them, to the legislative process, and to the House of Representatives. And it's not how you get the best legislation when a group of people write something behind closed doors. So we're going to do our best to fix it. Linda Bauer Darr: I will applaud you on regular order. I think people who have been in Washington for a long time have been very eager to get us back into that good rhythm. And even if neither the Senate nor the House has the perfect bill, the fact that we're exercising those muscles again, I think is hopeful. So, you talked a little bit about Reconciliation and you know, how you're going to marry these things. Can you talk a little bit more about that and the strategy and how you think that's going to work? Chair DeFazio: Reconciliation is going to go through—at least in the House—a committee process. I assume it will in the Senate. It came out of the Budget Committee. The House will pass the budget, and then the committees of jurisdiction will be given their apportionments and we'll work through a legislative process committee-by-committee to put together a bill by mid-September. I think the deadline for us to have legislated our parts is the 15th of September. I'm going to mark up on the 12th of September in my committee. Chair DeFazio: And I'm dealing with the White House since there have been some vague pledges that I'm not quite sure of from the President saying no more money for things that are in this bill, but I didn't make that agreement and I think there are ways to work around that. It can be just a little bit different but I'm working to add back money to transit. We got $100 billion just to bring it up to a state of good repair, let alone to provide new options for people. My bill critically included frequency, which would really help with ridership. Their bill has no decent policy in it. They don't understand transportation. Then rail, Amtrak's doing pretty well, but high speed rail didn't and I very much hope to come up with a different novel high-speed rail category. Then social equity, again, under-funded in the Senate bill. Didn't include my sidebars for affordable housing and to prevent gentrification, which has happened in a couple of cases where we removed freeways. Great, we've just rejoined a community that's been split asunder, and now they're all being driven out. So, I'm not sure how we can deal with that under the Dead Guy Rule, so-called Reconciliation, the Byrd rule, but we're going to try and deal with that. Wastewater is a tiny fraction of the investment we need and way less than I had in my bill. I'm hoping to increase wastewater. I'm hoping also to figure out how to bring back in a green infrastructure for wastewater, which has tremendous promise in addition to methane capture and electricity generation. And then certainly again, I partnered with Frank Pallone on this, drinking water and lead pipe removal were way under-funded. Hopefully we can deal with those things. And then EV  charging is very lacking also, and they didn't include Park and Rides. I mean, seriously, I know that truck stops were fighting viciously against including rest areas, but I didn't know anybody was against EV charging at Park and Rides. Unless you're trying to tell people not to take transit. I don't get that one. It might by a that might be a Toomey amendment as he hates transit. I don't know. Linda Bauer Darr: You said that high-speed rail didn't get what you felt it deserved. And then, of course, Amtrak did pretty well. I imagine that had to be one of the President's "This is the deal, and you're going to have to accept it." I imagine it was a huge priority for him. And probably also something that ultimately was pushed by Senator Carper. Obviously their long-term friendship was helpful. Chair DeFazio: Carper didn't have a voice in writing this bill. I talked to him. They did not consult the chairs of the committees of jurisdiction. It was written by the likes of Sinema and Portman and Collins and a cabal of other people and Manchin who got his $8 billion for blue hydrogen, which by the way, if you read the New York Times three days ago—and I've known this for a long time—so-called blue hydrogen is more polluting than CNG. And there are a lot of elements in that bill that are parochial and not dealing with climate change and not dealing with the investments we need to make. Linda Bauer Darr: So how does this all get worked out? You put a lot of time and effort into your bill. It goes over to the Senate and the Senate has negotiated, or some of the leaders in the Senate have negotiated, with the President. We've got it through the Senate. Now we have to come back together. How does this play out ultimately, and how can you have a voice in this process? Chair DeFazio: We are going to have a voice in the process because Reconciliation originates in the United States House of Representatives. We are intending both for the Build Back Better agenda, the things the President wants to do for families, for childcare—so more women can get into the workforce—all those things, in addition to what we can do to at least mitigate some of the shortcomings of the Senate infrastructure bill. Which is why we are pairing the two together. If we moved this infrastructure bill tomorrow, first off, it doesn't go into effect until October 1st, so what's the rush? And secondly, I predict that then we wouldn't even get a Reconciliation bill. It's very likely that wouldn't happen. Often around here, the next thing doesn't happen. Chair DeFazio: I remember when I voted against Obama's recovery act because they had dramatically reduced real investment in jobs, investment in infrastructure, school construction, and other things for tax cuts too small to notice because of that jerk Larry Summers. I tried to get Jim Oberstar to vote the whole committee against it, and I said, Jim, we've got to fix this. He said, "No.They promised me the next thing would be a big infrastructure bill," which then Obama killed. So next thing never happens around here. And that's my opinion on Reconciliation. If we were to just blithely pass. without addressing some of these concerns in the infrastructure bill, we would never see reconciliation. Linda Bauer Darr: You've talked a lot about sustainability and climate and those issues are very important, and frankly that engineering plays an enormous role in—as well as equity—so, you've been vocal about these things. What are the other differences that you see in the Senate bill that stand out to you as red flags? Chair DeFazio: The fact that there is more investment in promoting fossil fuels, requiring that one quarter of the zero-emission buses be fossil fuel buses, allowing the transfer of half the funds into highways, no fix-it-first provisions. Not to make states look at whether more lanes are the best way to go. Senator Kaine tried to do this as an amendment in the Senate because Virginia is the poster child for this. Republicans were in charge. They said, More lanes on 95. It's backed up all the time." But the projections were, in 10 years with two more lanes, one each way, that it would be just as congested as it is today with induced demand and no alternatives at a cost of 10 to $12 billion. Chair DeFazio: And they instead are coming up with an innovative rail project, working with CSX, new right-of-way, new bridge over the Potomac River for rail, the other one's at 99 percent of capacity. CSX likes it. And they're going to run fast trains—not high-speed trains—but fast trains down to Richmond from DC at half the cost, reducing all that pollution. And they have great projections on how much it'll reduce congestion. I was doing a press conference with the mayor of Richmond and he said he never really wanted to be a bedroom community in DC, but it's way less expensive down here. So, things like that that were left out, and they're going to be hard to fix. The other thing is that Secretary Buttigieg under this bill is going to have $100 billion of discretionary grants. I'm working with the White House on how we're going to mitigate some of the boneheadedness in the Senate bill through that $100 billion dollars of discretionary spending. Linda Bauer Darr: That brings to mind years ago when I was at the Department of Transportation, and they were talking about a talent drain, how people were leaving government. And the last Administration, obviously, made an effort to reduce the size of government. How are we prepared in the Department of Transportation to take this money and run with it, considering a lot of it is going to be discretionary and there's going to be a process that needs to be taken on? Chair DeFazio: I'm hopeful that DOT will act with unusual dispatch, and hopefully this won't require a lot of laborious rulemaking. I'm not totally conversant with the details of the discretionary money yet, but we will certainly look at ways to expedite it. If DOT needs more staff to deal with these things or people with different talents, I'd be happy to look at dealing with that either in Reconciliation or in appropriations. I'm already looking at that with the FAA. They lack inspectors both to deal with air rage and with ongoing problems with the industry and the manufacturers. So, if other parts of DOT have been hollowed out—I wasn't aware of DOT getting as hollowed out as the State Department or a whole bunch of other agencies that Trump decimated—but I'll ask on my next conversation with the Secretary what he needs. Linda Bauer Darr: Well, that'd be interesting, if after all this effort, we ran into that bureaucracy, when the money is finally flowing towards projects, that we are all excited to get started on. So, this one is not a question. It's really more a word of thanks. You know that the engineering industry is facing a challenge among firms that took these PPP loans to save jobs and are now being told that they have to give those forgiven loans back because of a quirk in the Federal Acquisition Regulations. You and your great staff on the T&I Committee were very helpful in getting language attached to the Invest Act to lessen the impact of the problem. It didn't make it through in the Senate. At one point, we were making great progress with Senator Braun and some others who had actually even expanded on the work that you did. We were excited about that. Ultimately, it got held up by the process. A lot of the amendments that had a good support behind them fell out, particularly by Rand Paul. He was kind of the party killer. We were very close to getting it done. Linda Bauer Darr: If it comes back to the House, I hope that we're going to be able to count on your support. We've talked about this issue before. It really is unfair. We've got contractors and everyone else that contracts with the government being treated differently than the engineering industry. We're being pulled out and told that "This money that you were given as basically a grant. Well, everybody else doesn't have to give it back, but we're going to take it out of your hides going forward in future projects. So, in some cases you're not going to be paid for the work that you're doing." That, to me, is just insane. We're hoping very much that we're going to be able to get this taken care of, and we hope that will be something that's important to you as well. Chair DeFazio: It's important. It's outrageous. I was not a big fan of the PPP program. The restrictions that were put on people. This is one glaring example. The fraud that occurred through that program. The thing I did for aviation, the Payroll Support Program, had zero fraud and no questions. I know the fix I did in the House wasn't everything you wanted. Unfortunately, I don't have complete jurisdiction. I deal with two other committees who objected. I didn't know how close you came in the Senate. And it's sad that that's a body where one person can stop something that has I think extraordinary merit and we'll continue to work on it, continue to work with the green eyeshade people at DOT, and see what we can do in the House. Chair DeFazio: We're very bound by the Dead Guy Rule, the so-called Byrd rule, the Reconciliation rules, but we'll see what we can do. Policy is tough under his rules. It's pretty absurd that we're held up by a rule written by a Senator dead 12 years and written 28 years ago. It makes no sense to me. And the Senate does have discretion, which they seem loathe to use to just have the chair rule things in order. And then it takes 60 votes to overrule the chair, which turns the filibuster on its head and ultimately in a good reconciliation bill, if the parliamentarian and seance with Robert Byrd is saying, you can't do these things, I'm hopeful that the Senate leadership puts Harris in the chair to rule it in order. And then the Republicans are going to have to get 60 votes to overturn her ruling. And they can just go forward with the bill with 50 votes. Linda Bauer Darr: We will be in there pitching, and we'll do everything that we can to try to make sure that people have the information they need to make a decision. We absolutely appreciate, again, your support and hope that we can continue to count on it, which it sounds like we can. It's just the process and anything can happen with the process, so let's work towards that. Let's assume and hope that we're successful and we get this major infrastructure package to the president's desk this year. Then what? Other than a vacation, clearly, what's next on your list of committee priorities? What else is up? Chair DeFazio: We've already started working on the Water Resources Development Act, which we try to do every two years. And this time not to use the around-the-barn, indirect way of funding individual projects. I intend to go through a similar process to that that I went forward with, which is very rigorous and scandal free on member directed spending, in the Surface Transportation bill, which, by the way, I haven't given up on yet, We have some ideas of reconciliation. Although individually we can't do a projects, we have some ideas. And then some water resources, Coast Guard authorization, reforms at the Federal Emergency Management Agency I'm hoping in reconciliation to create a new pre-development program substantially funded at the Economic Development Administration, which could help a lot of the smaller communities who don't even know how to begin to try to access a federal grants for wastewater, drinking water, housing, or any other thing that relates to economic development. So that that's also something that we'll be working on, plus all the usual burdens of oversight and trying to get the money out the door. This bill will go into effect October 1st, and we want to have a really robust construction season. Linda Bauer Darr: We're with you on hoping for that. I know you don't have a lot more time, but you did reference member-directed projects, which to me is code for earmark. Is that right? Chair DeFazio: Yes, except technically an earmark is something the Appropriations Committee does that isn't authorized. We always did designated spending in surface transportation bills in the House, and they always went through a legislative process. In the Senate, not so much. Things got airdropped in. We went through a rigorous process. 109 Republicans and almost all the Democrats had projects up to $20 million. They had to work with their local governments with their states. And there are a lot of really good projects in there that the state bureaucracy or the federal bureaucracy is never going to get to in people's districts. It was about 1 percent of the bill, and I'm still working on that because I think it has a lot of merit. There are some ways—I'm not going to go into detail—but we have a couple ideas to get around the Dead Guy rule. Linda Bauer Darr: You and I had talked about this over a year ago. I'm with you on the need to give the members some ownership of these projects, give them something to bring back to their communities, because frankly they're there to represent their communities and make the case for their communities when infrastructure projects are required. It seems to me like this is an even bigger issue than what we're working on with infrastructure. It's the ability for Congress to collaborate and compromise. The opportunity to  reach across the aisle and say, “I want to help you on this priority. Will you help me on this?” Or “I can do this. It's just doing business.” And it seems like when we were deprived of that. Regular order came to a halt, the wheels of Congress grinded to the halt, and there was less bipartisanship as a result. So, I think you feel passionately about that. I know we at ACEC feel very passionately about it. I think it's important going forward. We thank you for recognizing that. And you know, before we wrap, I am curious, how did you go about vetting those member requests? That's got to be a difficult job, right? Chair DeFazio: It just about killed the staff. We brought in hired some additional staff. First we had to get a vendor to create a software program. And then they had to be submitted online, posting online all of their documentation, showing local support, affidavits of no pecuniary interest, all those things that in the past led to scandals. Plus, obviously, I created equity. I got 20 million bucks and the newest freshmen got 20 million bucks. And you can do a lot. I spread it around between wastewater that'll help a small port in my district attract a fish processor, worked with the port of Coos Bay on rail sidings that will enhance the port activity and get more product on rail instead of truck, and I had a number of projects for electric buses and multi-modal facilities. There were a lot of things that people liked. Chair DeFazio: Quick story, when the whole earmark thing blew up back after ‘06 and the Tea Party came in and they got this bad name and Republicans banned them. I was down in my second most conservative county. Most of my counties are red except for two. And a guy stood up and said that earmarks are horrible. And I said, “I know there have been some issues, but what do you think about the Weaver River Road bridge,” which is a bridge over the freeway that opened up an industrial park. He was “Wow. It's great.” And I said, “Sir, that was an earmark. He said, “That wasn't bad.” And I said, “Yeah, the state wasn't going to do it and the county couldn't afford it. I got it done.” I did a lot of them in my years on the committee and there's never been a scandal. I had some people object to joining North Bend and Coos Bay with a bike path, but tourism is a really important part of our economy. Linda Bauer Darr: That's a great example there. And who knows better than your constituents about what the needs are and who is better positioned to deliver for them than you, but you have to have that opportunity. The reason for us having this federal program is because it all needs to tie together ultimately. It's like the circulatory system of the body, right? At the center of it maybe is the federal government, but then the state portions and the local portions go out from there and they need to be right on, and we need to make sure that the blood is flowing between the heart and the end of the system and make sure that all the communities are weighing in and earmarks are a way for us to do that. So, we agree with you. It's good for the nation, and I think, it's good for government. And it's good for your constituents ultimately. So again, thanks for being bold and going forward with that, because I don't think without your pushing that it would have entered into the frame again. So, thank you for that. Chair DeFazio: Okay. I enjoyed doing the interview. Liddy and I have done three Zooms in a row. She needs a break. Host: So. Mr. Chairman, I do appreciate it. And thank you for your time today. Good luck in the legislative session ahead. And we appreciate your strong voice for the built environment and for infrastructure. And we do appreciate for everything that you do, and Linda, thank you very much for joining us today on the program. Thank you. Chair DeFazio: Thanks Jeff. Thanks Linda. Hi to everybody who listens to this podcast. Host: And again, this has been Engineering Influence, a podcast from the American Council of Engineering Companies. We will see you next time.

In this episode we will learn about the importance of your DSBS (Dynamic Small Business Search) and its relationship with your SAM registration.The Small Business Administration (the “SBA”) maintains the DSBS database that government agencies use to find small business contractors for upcoming contracts.  Small businesses can also use the DSBS to find other small business to work with or to be found by prime contractors.The information provided when registering a business in SAM (System for Award Management) is qualified by size standards based on NAICS (North American Industry Classification System) Codes and used to auto-populate a portion of the DSBS to create your business profile.The SBA's size standards are numerical thresholds that qualify a small business based on Total Receipts (sales) and/or Number of Employees.  The SBA's Table of Small Business Size Standards lists small business size standards matched to industries defined by their NAICS Code.The DSBS is important because federal buyers are required to do market research find small business to fulfill federal contracts.  This is part of the Federal Acquisition Regulations that buyers are required to use “commercially available market research methods in order to effectively identify the capabilities of small businesses.”The DSBS is one of the primary platforms that they are going to use to find and select a small business to procure their products or services, especially for any awards that are not posted or not competed.Registering in SAM makes you eligible for government contracting, but that does not make a business competitive.  While the SAM is considered a business and accounting profile, the DSBS is considered the marketing profile.   This is how businesses are found through keyword, capability narrative, socio-economic categories, past performance, and industry code searches.  If a business has no DSBS listing or is poorly organized with omission in their DSBS, they may miss out on early-notice opportunities.  These include:Sole Source ContractsSmall Business Set-AsidesSources Sought Notifications“Rule of Two” - Simplified Acquisition ProceduresCredit Card / Micro-PurchasesFor example, if a business does not have the proper industry codes or keywords based on their goods or services and the contracting official or prime contractors uses the DSBS for research, the business does not show up in their search.The next level of search once this initial research is pulled on industry codes and keywords is the business' capability narrative.  Do they have a capability narrative?  Is it descriptive and concise?  Then the contracting official or prime contractor may drill down to look for differentiators including socio-economic qualifications and past performance.    An error, an omission, a ‘none given', an empty field can all be red flags and may disqualify a business before given an opportunity for consideration.  Therefore, it is critically important to ensure the DSBS profile is done properly.FedBiz Access' fulfillment team takes the time to understand the client's business and asks questions to pull information from the client to ensure their SAM registration and DSBS profile are complete, compliant, optimized, and competitive in the eyes of contracting officials and prime contractors.This podcast is sponsored by FedBiz Access - https://fedbizaccess.com.  For government contracting made simple, call (888) 299-4498.

What is SAM, the System for Award Management?  It is your first step toward becoming a federal contractor.Welcome to our podcast FedBiz 5, where you get informed, get connected and get results.  In our last episode we discussed some of the fundamentals of federal contracting, evaluating your finances, and preparing your business. Now you are ready for your first step - registration in the System for Award Management, commonly referred to as SAM.SAM is a federal registration that is required if you are going to participate in the federal market.  It is sometimes called your “accounting record” and is used as the primary database of vendors doing business with the federal government.  A business can self-certify in SAM, but because of the complexity of the registration process many businesses are better suited to use a professional service to complete their registration.  This may be considered in the same way that many businesses use a professional accountant to file their tax returns to ensure they are complete and compliant.One of the registration areas that is important to properly identify is your industry classification using NAICS and PSC codes. NAICS codes are the North American Industry Classification System, and PSC are Product (and/or) Service Codes. Simply put, NAICS codes are for your business function or commercial activity, and PSC describe your products or services themselves.  These codes let the federal government, or the federal buyers know what it is you do and makes it easier for them to identify you for award opportunities based on your industry and your products or services offered.Additionally, businesses must conform to the Federal Acquisition Regulations, referred to as the FAR.  The FAR are the overriding set of regulations for federal procurement and agreement to adherence to the FAR is required to be registered in SAM.  Having a clear understanding of the FAR as you are completing your SAM registration is very critical. A misrepresentation or wrong answer could not only get you in trouble but could bar you from federal work.Businesses also register their business size and socio-economic status while completing the required solicitation clauses and certification. By completing the required solicitation clauses and certifications you certify that the information provided about your company and its business activities are correct. SAM is also a marketing tool for businesses. SAM allows government agencies and contractors to search for your company based on your ability, size, location, experience, ownership and more. SAM also informs searchers of firms certified by the SBA under the 8(a) Development and HUBZone Programs, as well as veteran-owned, women-owned, and minority-owned small businesses.  In addition, it is very important that your SBA registration in the Dynamic Small Business Search or DSBS be properly aligned with your SAM for marketing purposes.This podcast is sponsored by FedBiz Access - https://fedbizaccess.com.  For government contracting made simple, call (888) 299-4498.

A form of contracting known as lowest-price, technically acceptable, or LPTA, has long bugged federal contractors. Defense authorization legislation, and subsequent updates to the Federal Acquisition Regulations, were supposed to limit agency use of LPTA. But contractors say they're seeing a resurgence. For more, the Federal Drive turned to the president and CEO of the Professional Services Council, David Berteau.

F.A.R. (Federal Acquisition Regulations) --- Support this podcast: https://anchor.fm/sjccsitesurvey/support

In this episode I talk about how to improve your understanding and utilization of the Federal Acquisition Regulations

We discuss the varying debrief requirements across sections of the Federal Acquisition Regulations. We get insight from contracting officers and an attorney in how they handle debrief requests and attempt to be as transparent as possible.

Sometimes the Federal Acquisition Regulation calls for meaningful discussions between government and would-be contractors. The lack thereof can result not only in a bid protest - it can come up long after a contract has been awarded but runs into performance problems. That's the heart of an issue between the Navy and one of its suppliers. Procurement attorney Joseph Petrillo brought Federal Drive with Tom Temin more details on the case.

In this video I discuss the importance of the Federal Acquisition Regulations (FAR) and announce the launch of myFAR.io Check out myFAR.io to learn more If you want to contribute to the videos visit patreon.com/agileacq #agileacquisitionsandalcohol #themoreyouknow #myFAR

In this episode I take a coffee break, and breakdown rule number two of Innovation: Knowing the Rules” as I talk about the key sections of the Federal Acquisition Regulations. Check out myFAR.io on your computer or mobile device to review the sections in more details or to ask questions. #agileacquisitions #themoreyouknow

The Outer Space Treaty is vague. Rebekah believes there’s a way to encourage the international community and develop education to balance opportunities for everyone to use and benefit from the resources space can provide.  We talk Space Force, NASA, private space companies, international and domestic treaties and everything in between. When it comes to space law and policy, sometimes the answers can be as interesting as the questions. So let’s dive in and discuss!    “I think we need to be more responsible about space. I think we need to look at space as this avenue for uniting rather than dividing. In some ways, I’m a real optimist.” -Rebekah Rounds on Casual Space Podcast    Valuable resources Rebekah mentions on the show:  A certificate program for non-lawyers (ideal for CEOs and executives of space start-up companies) at The University of Mississippi https://law.olemiss.edu/academics-programs/llm/ The American Bar Association https://www.americanbar.org/groups/air_space/divisions/divisions/ The New Space Conference https://spacefrontier.org/newspace2020/     About Rebekah: Rebekah Rounds is a Maryland and California-licensed attorney whose private practice focuses on corporate law, start-ups related to emerging technologies and industries, telecommunications, and domestic and international space law and policy.  Before graduating with her J.D. from Mississippi College School of Law in 2014, Rebekah served as a legal fellow for the Chairman of the Space Subcommittee in the U.S. House of Representatives, Rep. Steven Palazzo.  Under Chairman Palazzo, Rebekah researched international and domestic space law, space law issues related to Federal Acquisition Regulations and Space Act Agreements, and various legal issues pertaining to NASA Reauthorization, commercial space policy, and liability and indemnity regimes for private space launch actors.In 2017 Rebekah published her paper “The Intersection of U.S. Space Policy Goals and National Security Needs: An Argument for a Regulatory Regime Oversight Commission That Balances Space-Related Policy Interests” in the Journal of Space Law. In 2018 she graduated with her LL.M. in Air and Space Law from the University of Mississippi.    Rebekah believes that the future of space activity relies on a well-established education pipeline.

In an era of trade wars, espionage, and executive orders, how can companies who wish to dive into government procurement or are already involved in procurement abide by Federal laws and data security regulations and increase the likelihood of proper procurement? Joining me to explore the current government contracting legal landscape is Townsend Bourne. Townsend is a partner in the Government Contracts, Investigations & International Trade Practice Group in Sheppard Mullin’s Washington, D.C. office. She represents companies that do business with the Federal Government, either directly or through a prime contractor or reseller. What We Discuss in This Episode: What does the legal landscape look like for doing any type of commercial business with the U.S. government? What various layers of federal laws apply to government contracting? When it comes to cybersecurity, what new developments have emerged that affect government contracts? What type of security controls should contractors implement to protect data? What are security control “families”? What security rules are specific to government contractors and why are they important for companies of all types to be familiar with them? Why is it important to be open to checking where your sensitive data and documenting your plan to protect that data? The “Plan of Action” the Department of Defense requires What does the National Defense Authorization Act establish? How has the 2019 Executive Order affected information and telecommunications technologies? How are the Federal Acquisition Regulations playing a role in the trade war with China? Understanding your supply chain and where your components are coming from Contact Information: Townsend.bourne@sheppardmullin.com Townsend's Sheppard Mullin attorney profile Thank you for listening! Don’t forget to SUBSCRIBE to the show to receive every new episode delivered straight to your podcast player every Wednesday. If you enjoyed this episode, please help us get the word out about this podcast. Rate and Review this show in Apple Podcasts, Stitcher Radio, Google Play, or Spotify.  It helps other listeners find this show. Be sure to connect with us and reach out with any questions/concerns: LinkedIn Facebook Twitter Sheppard Mullin website This podcast is for informational and educational purposes only. It is not to be construed as legal advice specific to your circumstances. If you need help with any legal matter, be sure to consult with an attorney regarding your specific needs.

The people responsible for the Defense supplement to the Federal Acquisition Regulations, known as the DFARS, just issued a number of final and proposed rules. Together they add up to something a lot of people need to watch. Jeffery Chiow, an attorney with Rogers, Joseph O'Donnell, joined Federal Drive with Tom Temin for the highlights.

Those responsible for the Federal Acquisition Regulations and their DoD supplement are working through mandates from the 2017 Defense Authorization Act. The law required lots of picky little changes but also some fairly sweeping ones. Procurement attorney Joseph Petrillo of Petrillo and Powell offered an update on Federal Drive with Tom Temin.

In this episode Kevin and Paul discuss the cost of writing a proposal in response to a Government RFP.  How much does it cost to write a proposal?  What drivers can increase or decrease the...

In this episode Kevin and Paul answer listeners’ questions. Specific topics are: What is an Award Fee Contract? What does “incremental funding” mean? What is “Certified Cost and Pricing Data? What is meant by the...

What is a Protest?  When Should I Protest?  What Can I Protest?  How Do I Submit a Protest? In this episode Kevin and Paul provide answers to these questions and more.   The discussion goes far...

What are weighted guidelines? In this episode Kevin and Paul discuss the Government’s use of a structured approach to determine fair and reasonable profit during sole source negotiations. They explain what weighted guidelines are and...

How much communication between the Government and Industry is necessary prior to release of the RFP?   In this episode Paul and Kevin the reasons why increased communications are critical to the Government acquisition process, leading...

Federal Acquisition Regulations (FAR) ensure checks and balances, no conflicts of interest, and government employees and contractors are not misusing taxpayers' money. #motivationalpodcast #Makemoney #financialIndependance #businessAdvice #professionalgrowth --- Send in a voice message: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/mentup/message