Phil Reitinger, deputy undersecretary in DHS’s National Protection and Programs Directorate (NPPD), has resigned and will depart the agency June 3, according to an email he sent to DHS NPPD employees that was obtained by InformationWeek.

He did not mention whether the cybersecurity policy proposal the White House released last Friday influenced his departure, but said the delivery of that plan to Capitol Hill marked a good time for his exit.

The plan to overhaul the nation’s cybersecurity laws includes new provisions to solidify privacy protection, data breach reporting, critical infrastructure protection, and the security of federal government systems. It’s an attempt by the Obama administration to get comprehensive cybersecurity legislation through Congress, an effort that–although there are numerous bills before both chambers–has so far been unsuccessful.

“With significant progress having been made in activities across NPPD, with growing recognition of DHS’s roles and authorities, and the cybersecurity legislative proposal now delivered to the Hill, it’s a logical point for me to leave the Department of Homeland Security and allow the team that we have developed together to carry our initiatives forward,” Reitinger wrote in the email.

Reitinger does not have plans for his next move yet, but said he will spend more time with his family, including his young children, before deciding future plans for “how I can best play a role in advancing infrastructure protection and cybersecurity.”

One of Reitinger’s chief responsibilities at the DHS is to act as a liaison with other federal agencies also charged with providing cybersecurity protection for U.S. critical infrastructure and federal networks, such as the Department of Defense (DOD). The DHS and DOD are at the frontlines of federal cybersecurity efforts. He and his team also are responsible for centralizing how cybersecurity is handled across federal agencies.

Full article by Elizabeth Montalbano, InformationWeek

“After all, the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) has not existed since March 1, 2003,” says an exasperated official blog posted on the USCIS website on April 13.

USCIS correctly noted that most of the functions that had been performed traditionally by the INS were transferred in 2003 to three newly-created components of DHS: USCIS, Customs and Border Protection (CBP) and Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE).

“So if INS was abolished eight years ago, why do so many people think it still exists?” asks the blog. “Why are so many people still searching for it online? Why has the word not gotten out to everyone? Do movie and television portrayals of ‘INS agents’ keep the legend going?”

Members of the public posted more than 60 possible answers to those intriguing questions. Here are some of the best:

• “because the USCIS forms still state INS”
• “Instead of asking what’s wrong with the public that they can’t get it right . . . why you don’t you change the name back. INS is short and easy to remember. USCIS sounds like typical bureaucratic gov-speak. Simple is better.”
• “Many people do not understand the complexity of the immigration system, split among so many agencies, DOS for consulate matters, DOL for labor certs, DHS, DOJ. besides the split of ICE and CBP. Also, many people pronounce USCIS as ‘useless’, not a great combination of initials”
• “Until recently, even Wikipedia did not make it clear that INS no longer exists. And yes, the news has not made it to the popular culture.

The author of the USCIS blog reached the conclusion that the public apparently still thinks the INS exists based on an interesting monthly “Web Metrics Report” that summarizes traffic and activities on the agency’s website. That report shows that the third most popular search term used on external search engines (such as Google, Yahoo and others) which refer users to USCIS is the phrase “INS”. Almost 30,000 users searched on the term INS in January 2011 and were directed to the USCIS website, the report shows.

Full article  by Jacob Goodwin, GSN

Now, as GSA’s associate administrator for governmentwide policy, Turco wants to apply the same tough deadlines to regulatory reform proposals that budget officials face for closing their financial books on time.

In her new job, Turco has been frustrated by the process of changing the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR), which has often taken years to approve an amendment.

She held a “slam” of senior leaders and government policy experts and hashed out three key areas for improvement:

• More flexible teams to write and review regulatory proposals
• Better management processes for making critical decisions
• Address the learning curve to share the expertise of seasoned veterans with newcomers.

I said, ‘Golly, what’s the heck is going on here,’ ” Turco said in an interview Feb. 14 about the process for amending acquisition regulations. “In the government, we spend a lot of time thinking and contemplating.”

At the Feb. 9 slam, she gathered senior leaders and government policy experts from GSA, the Defense Department, NASA, and the Office of Federal Procurement Policy.

Martha Johnson, the GSA administrator, brought slams to government. She has led a number of the atypical government meetings where people talk about pertinent issues. Some slams have been described as rowdy and intense and others as polite and orderly. But in all the meetings, the participants are put on the same level to debate the issue at hand and no one leaves until the group reaches the specific goal.

The objective of Turco’s slam was to improve the process for reforming procurement regulations. And from 8 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., policy analysts and senior regulatory officials, including Linda Neilson, deputy director for defense acquisition regulations system and chairwoman for the Defense Acquisition Regulatory Council, and administration officials, including Dan Gordon, administrator of the Office of Federal Procurement Policy, debated possible fixes to the eight long steps to changing the FAR.

By the end of the day, they broke down the snags into three areas that need attention.

Officials found that the structure by which teams of analysts write and review regulatory proposals are out of date and rigid, Turco said. They need to be flexible to adjust to the changing demands of agencies. NASA officials will bring back a new proposal for improving the structure by March 31.

Full article by Matthew Weigelt, Washington Technology

Our active audience of contract professionals, government buyers and sales execs want to read your ideas and insights about government business and procurement on our seven different channels. Occasional posts just fine. We’ll include your author bio and link back to your company, agency or personal site.

More

Sign up or questions

So what do these terms mean? IDIQs are indefinite delivery indefinite quantity contracts. The government uses IDIQs when they do not know how much product or service they need or where and when they need to have it delivered. Once the contract is awarded, the government issues delivery orders when they know what they need.

GWACs are Government-Wide Acquisition Contracts. These are special IDIQs for Information Technology (IT) products and services that can be used by all of the Federal Government. Only special authorized agencies can award these. The most popular ones are awarded by GSA (Alliant, STARs, VETs), NASA (SEWP) and NIH (ECSIII and CIOSP). .

MACs are Multi-Agency Contracts. These are IDIQs that multiple agencies can use like GWACs but either they are not done by a GWAC authorized agency or they are not for IT products or services. The most recognized are for Telecommunications products and services awarded by GSA or the contracts awarded by DISA like Encore.

EWACs are Enterprise-Wide Acquisition Contracts. These are agency specific IDIQ contracts that cover the needs of an entire agency. They can be IT or non-IT. But other agencies cannot order from them. An example is Department of Homeland Security Eagle and First Source contracts.

There are a lot of benefits to the GSA Schedule contracts compared to IDIQs.

• None of the IDIQs have the breadth of products and services that are available on GSA Schedules.
• GSA Schedule ordering rules are simpler than the IDIQ rules.
• GSA negotiates the pricing terms and conditions so orders from GSA Schedules can be done in days instead of the months it takes to award an IDIQ.
• Unlike IDIQs, GSA Schedule contracts do not have a Maximum Order limit that limits the total dollar value of orders placed on the contract.
• GSA Schedule contracts go for up to 20 years whereas IDIQs generally are for 5-10 years.
• GSA Schedule contracts can be used by state and local governments under special circumstances.
• GSA Schedule customers can tailor orders to get what they need by customizing terms and conditions at the order level
• Alternatives such as blanket purchase agreements and contractor team arrangements can replace the need for agency indefinite delivery/indefinite quantity contracts
• GSA Schedule contracts are continuously negotiating with new contractors whereas IDIQs are awarded once every 5-10 years. If the company is not on it at award they have to wait until the next competition.

Things to Do Now:

• Subscribe to GovContracts to receive notices of federal opportunities (http://search.govcontractsmagazine.com/contracts/fbosearch.cfm)

• Identify the IDIQ contracts that cover your products or services. Be ready to submit a proposal when the competition is opened.

• Develop a teaming approach to subcontract with companies already on the IDIQs.

• To expand the government’s ability to access your products without worrying about which contract your products or services are on you can get your items on a GSA Schedule contract.
  - Locate partners now such as Technical Communities who will act for you in the market.
  - Make sure they have full access to the products or services that are in demand for the government markets.

The program will be closely watched by the contracting community as GSA’s first award, a $2.63 billion, 10-year task order to Northrop Grumman, saw losing competitors Lockheed Martin, General Dynamics, Serco and L-3 Communications quickly file protests with the Government Accountability Office.

GSA canceled the award and assigned a new procurement team, but Northrop Grumman then filed its own protest, arguing the GSA acted improperly when it rescinded the award.

As it did the first time around, GSA is making the program open to contractors that have already won a spot on the Alliant contract vehicle. According to a schedule provided to these contractors, GSA will relaunch the program with presentations at two events in late January.

In February, GSA will issue a draft solicitation and meet with individual contract holders. The agency plans to release the final solicitation in late February or March.

The GAO said it is still set to rule on Northrop’s protest by March 2.

Full article by Marjorie Censer, The Washington Post

“Over the past year, our efforts have been guided by one simple yet powerful idea: homeland security begins with hometown security,” said Secretary Napolitano. “Working hand in hand with first responders, state, local, tribal and territorial governments, community groups, our international partners and the private sector, we have made great strides in protecting our nation from terrorism and other threats while building a culture of resiliency and preparedness in our communities.”

Napolitano noted DHS led a global initiative to strengthen security of the international aviation system through partnerships with governments and industry, investments in new technology, and enhanced targeting measures. Napolitano also launched a nationwide expansion of the department’s “If You See Something, Say Something” public awareness campaign, along with an expansion of Nationwide Suspicious Activity Reporting (SAR) Initiative, an effort to train state and local law enforcement to recognize behaviors and indicators related to specific threats and terrorism-related crime and report and share information on suspicious incidents or activity nationally so it can be analyzed to identify broader trends. DHS, said Napolitano, also continued to strengthen the national network of fusion centers.

Napolitano said DHS continued to deploy historic levels of personnel, technology, and resources to the Southwest border, including Predator Unmanned Aerial System (UAS) coverage along the entire Southwestern border—from the El Centro Sector in California to the Gulf of Mexico in Texas—along with new agreements with international partners to increase information sharing and bolster cooperative efforts to crack down on transnational threats while facilitating travel and trade.

DHS set a record for overall removals of illegal aliens, she said, prioritizing the identification, apprehension and removal of criminal aliens who pose a threat to public safety. The agency also announced new initiatives to strengthen the efficiency and accuracy of the E-Verify system; formalized a longstanding Departmental policy to expedite and streamline the citizenship process for men and women serving in the U.S. armed forces; launched the Blue Campaign to Combat Human Trafficking; and continued major reforms of the immigration detention system.

Secretary Napolitano signed an agreement with the Department of Defense aimed at enhancing protection against threats to critical civilian and military computer systems and networks; launched the National Cybersecurity Awareness Campaign Challenge and the “Stop. Think. Connect.” national public cybersecurity awareness campaign; hosted Cyber Storm III, an exercise that brought together participants from 13 countries, 11 states and seven Cabinet-level federal agencies to simulate a large-scale cyber attack on critical infrastructure, testing the federal government’s full suite of cybersecurity response capabilities; and has launched an early warning system for intrusions to federal executive branch civilian networks at 13 Departments and agencies to date.

Napolitano also said DHS played a key role in the country’s response to the BP oil spill, leading the federal government’s efforts to leverage resources to mitigate the impact of the oil on the environment, the economy and public health. The department also mobilized the Department’s extensive operational capabilities in response to the earthquake in Haiti; announced nearly $3.8 billion in fiscal year 2010 Preparedness Grants for nine federal programs to assist state, local and tribal governments and the private sector in strengthening preparedness for acts of terrorism, major disasters and other emergencies; and signed bilateral international agreements to strengthen emergency management cooperation. In addition, the Department, through the Federal Emergency Management Agency has supported 79 major disaster declarations, 18 fire management assistance declarations and nine emergency declarations, to date, including historic flooding in Tennessee and Rhode Island and severe weather related to Hurricanes Alex and Earl, and Tropical Storms Nicole, Otto and Tomas.

To mature and strengthen the homeland security enterprise DHS unveiled a Department-wide plan for increased consultation and coordination with tribes; launched the Department’s Open Government Plan to enhance transparency, public participation and collaboration; delivered the first ever Quadrennial Homeland Security Review and Bottom Up Review reports to Congress; instituted an ambitious series of management integration reforms to ensure the Department has the proper management structures and acquisition strategies necessary to succeed and attract and retain top talent; and announced new Efficiency Review initiatives, which build upon the 20 initiatives launched in 2009, to cut costs, streamline operations and enhance the Department’s ability to fulfill its security mission.

Full article by Mark Rockwell, Government Security News