STREAMLINING TASK AND DELIVERY ORDER COMPETITIONS WITHIN FEDERAL ACQUISITION REGULATION SUBPART 16.5 FLEXIBILITIES

Includes supplementary materialThe flexibilities offered in Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) 16.505 allow contracting officers (COs) to establish streamlined ordering procedures for the award of task orders and delivery orders (TOs/DOs) among existing qualified multiple award contract (MAC) awardees. However, because there is no specific guidance in the FAR or its supplements regarding less formal fair opportunity competition strategies, COs often default to the more familiar FAR Subpart 15.3 procedures. As a result, agencies expend valuable time and resources and potentially waste both in the process. For the Space and Naval Warfare Systems Command, the time and resource constraints associated with frequent competitive MAC orders have led to the desire to identify best practices and perhaps formalize a streamlined approach to award. As such, the purpose of this research is to identify best practices for streamlining local TO/DO awards and provide recommendations for standardized streamlining procedures and documentation. The researchers analyzed 169 sources related to case law and six local MACs as well as policy and regulation to test their hypothesis that local MAC competitions could benefit from streamlining. Their hypothesis was confirmed, and the researchers utilized case law rulings to develop recommendations such as streamlining intentional use of terminology, simplifying evaluations through means like the decision authority and ordering instructions, and simplifying documents such as the BCM.Civilian, Department of the NavyCivilian, Department of the NavyApproved for public release; distribution is unlimited

Intervention and Outcomes of Children in Different Types of Listening and Spoken Language Programs

This study explores the impact of the type and dosage of listening and spoken language (LSL) services on speech and language outcomes in children with cochlear implants or hearing aids in two LSL programs. Identical demographic variables were collected across the two programs for use in the statistical analyses. Speech and language outcomes were examined at ages 3 and 5 using standardized test measures. At age 3, significant differences in LSL outcomes existed between programs for children using cochlear implants but not for children using binaural hearing aids. However, at age five, outcomes were similar between the different LSL programs for children with hearing aids and cochlear implants. Total hours of LSL services do not serve as a predictor of LSL outcomes at five years of age. However, early identification of hearing loss, early amplification, and early enrollment in a LSL program were highly influential factors affecting LSL outcomes at three and five years of age. Non-verbal IQ and maternal education levels also influence LSL outcomes. Children with earlier access to hearing technology and LSL intervention may need fewer hours of LSL services to achieve age-appropriate LSL outcomes. Overall, both of these LSL programs supported age-appropriate speech and language outcomes by age 5