GSA's newly-launched Apps.gov, the virtual storefront intended to revolutionize how federal agencies buy IT applications, is meeting mixed reviews from government and industry. As one of the most visible procurement modernization efforts, the new site is created to look and act like user-friendly e-commerce websites such as Amazon.com. With perhaps one of the sleekest site designs in all of federal government, the site's creators appear to have successfully made a splash with the new storefront--but it is a movement that will continue to evolve.

Proponents have hailed the site's usability, clear definitions, and up-front structure. The cloud-computing components are explained to users, and GSA has made it easy for federal staff to find what they need and buy it from the vendor. Unfortunately, underneath the shiny new site, some critics have found that Apps.gov has not improved on its predecessor, GSA Advantage--which provided agencies with access to the GSA Schedules. Its offerings are not extensive, and the process for ordering is much the same. Users identify the product, Apps.gov contacts the vendor, the vendor contacts the agency, the order is confirmed ... etc.

Federal Chief Information Officer Vivek Kundra, the site's most outspoken champion, has cautioned users from drawing conclusions about the site in its early stages. "We are just beginning this undertaking," Kundra said on the White House blog. It may be the first step toward the new and modern federal acquisiton environment, and as Apps.gov signals the first move, look for the site to continue its evolution.

A recent GAO report and subsequent Congressional hearing found that the Defense Contract Audit Agency (DCAA) is not abiding by government auditing standards. Sen. Joe Lieberman said that "DCAA still seems driven by a culture that emphasizes speed and production of audits over the quality of results."

The problem may extend back to a GAO report last year that found "abusive" auditing practices at several DCAA locations. Managers were praised for getting through a lot of audits quickly, not necessarily caring about results or audit content. This time around, GAO studied a sample of 69 DCAA audits--only 4 met basic government auditing standards.

"This work does not provide reasonable assurance that contractors have adequate controls in place to identify and correct overpayments and billing errors," the report said. DCAA Director April Stephenson blamed the policies of the 1990s which geared DCAA to be a streamlined audit organization, ready to handle a large number of fixed-price contracts. Unfortunately, she said, the high number of cost-type contracts has inhibited DCAA's ability to effectively churn out good audits.

It's another black eye for an organization that has been under fire in recent months for failure to coordinate with DCMA, and a recent history of auditing malfeasance. Lawmakers promised to stay on top of DCAA and ensure the organization starts to change its ways.

A recent hearing before the Commission on Wartime Contracting uncovered a disconnect between the two top defense contract oversight groups: DCAA and DCMA. While DCAA audits contractor business systems such as invoicing, payroll, and accounting, DCMA is the organization "calling the shots." It implements corrective actions or consequences for contractors that don't pass audit. It has the power, for example, to withold payments from deviant contractors.

Oddly, many of the recommendations that DCAA makes after finishing an audit are ignored by DCMA staff. Thus, many contractor systems that aren't up to snuff are still in use--a contractor only need submit a "corrective action plan" to avoid any payment witholds from DCMA. Contractors at the hearing said that they try to play by the rules, but that "a single voice from the govnernment" would be a great improvement. Regulations say one thing, DCAA says another, and DCMA has yet another take.

The CWC asked that DCMA report back in 60 days on how to improve the synchronization between DCAA and DCMA to ensure that contractor business systems are held accountable.

Widely talked about but rarely used: this used to be the story of past performance in federal contracting circles. But a new database aims to change that. The Federal Awardee Performance Integrity Information System (FAPIIS) launched this month to the chagrin of contractors with unpaid taxes and a history of shoddy work.

The FAR Council is proposing that contracting officers consider vendors past performance and work history before making award on contracts worth over half a million dollars. The smattering of other databases out there serving similar functions include DoD's past performance information retrieval system (PPIRS), the contractor performance assessment rating system (CPARS), and the excluded parties list system (EPLS). No agency strictly uses any of the systems to avoid awarding contracts to "bad" contractors.

Before the comment period ends in October, regulators are expecting that about 5,000 contractors will have to enter information into the website.