The Government imposes a variety of socio-economic programs on its contractors as part of long-standing federal efforts to further affirmative action through federal contracting. Affirmative action regulations apply not only to minorities and women but to handicapped individuals, special disabled veterans, and veterans of the Vietnam era (FAR 52.22-35 and -36). For almost fifty years Former President Lyndon B. Johnson’s answer to “balance the opportunities” for minorities and women, affirmative action has attempted to eradicate America’s historical discrimination against minorities, women and individuals with disabilities. Affirmative action began as a plan to enable the disadvantaged and the disenfranchised (minorities, women and …show more content…
Strict adherence to formal procedures characterizes sealed bidding which attempts to provide a “level playing field” or as a multitude of references point out equal footing to all bidders who compete for a contract. Competitive negotiation is a more flexible process that enables the agency to conduct discussions, evaluate offers, and award the contract using price and other factors. The Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR), whose origins can be traced back to the ASPA of 1947 was codified at Title 48 of the Code of Federal Regulations and became effective 1 April 1984. The FAR contains the uniform policies and procedures for acquisitions by all federal agencies to date. It addresses nearly every procurement related statute or executive policy; and subsequently encompasses every stage of the acquisition process. In a nutshell, FAR appears to have modernized and thus enveloped the aforementioned three acts.
At this point in the discussion, the information provided should enable any/all reader(s), to formulate a purpose or justification for. Regardless of the verbiage, the apparent purpose of affirmative action in procurement is to address existing discrimination or compensate for past discrimination by promoting and insuring all governmental/educational programs to include procurement allow for the fair and equitable representation of the
Federal Acquisitions Regulation (2005). General Services Administration, Department of Defense. Retrieved from http://www.acquisition.gov/far/current/pdf/FAR.pdf 21 June 2014.
Federal policy has attempted to address the issue of discrimination in housing choice with the enactment of the Fair Housing Act (United States Department of Housing and Urban Development, 2010). In fact, “in 1988, the Fair Housing Act expanded protection to include persons with mental and physical disabilities” (Ziaja, 2002, p. 313) in an effort to thwart discrimination in housing choice for disabled individuals. Ziaja (2002) noted that the enactment of the Fair Housing legislation has led to other federal policies dedicated to ensuring the rights of disabled individuals, such as the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA); however, disabled adults continue to experience discrimination in housing
Discrimination against race, gender, religion, or other social characteristics is occurring in all parts of the United States almost every day. Unfortunately, the U.S. has a history of extreme case of discrimination, which has evoked controversy and in worse cases, violence. To discourage any more of adverse discernment towards certain individuals, the Federal government has imposed legislation called affirmative action. According to At Issue: Affirmative Action, “Affirmative action is designed to promote access to opportunities in education, employment, housing, and government contracts among certain designated groups, such as women and minorities“ (At Issue). This law is necessary in today’s society in order to maintain equality and
The Truth in Negotiations Act was passed on December 1, 1962 requiring government contractors to submit cost or pricing data if the procurement met specific requirements in order to establish that the offer is fair and reasonable. The history of The Truth in Negotiations Act will set the stage for its significance in the twenty-first century. Prior to World War II, the United States government conducted its bidding process for procurement in an open bid environment. What was required for a bid was a complete description of the requirement, two or more suppliers capable and willing to complete the requirement, a selection based on price competition and sufficient time to prepare a complete statement of the government’s needs and terms.
This case shows how men and women of all races can be affected by the two headed monster called affirmative action. Affirmative action was established so that members of society such women, minorities or those with handicaps would be guaranteed an honest opportunity to achieve goals, professions or pursue higher education without discrimination. However, when a person’s sex, nationality, social settings and race compete against one another even those the act is intended to protect become
“ . . . [Government] contractor[s] will take affirmative action to ensure that applicants are employed, and that employees are treated during employment, without regard to their race, creed, color, or national origin.”
This paper will explore how Sealed Bidding and Competitive proposals compare against each other. In order to compare them one must understand how, when and why each topic is used. The primary source of federal procurement information and guidance is the Federal Acquisition Regulation, which consists of Parts 1-53 of Title 48 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR). FAR parts 14 and 15 explains in full detail Sealed Bidding and Competitive Proposals. This paper like the federal government will rely heavily on the FAR as a source document to help explain the details of this topic.
The purpose of affirmative action is to ensure equal opportunity for minorities. But it has strayed from its original intent and has become largely a program to achieve not equal opportunity but equal results. It is a system of quotas forced upon American businesses and working class by the federal government. A law which forces people to look at race before looking at the individual cannot promote equal opportunity. Affirmative action continues the judgement of minorities by race; it causes reverse discrimination, and contradicts its purpose.
Part 15 of the Federal Acquisition Regulations (FAR) “prescribes [the] policies and procedures governing competitive and noncompetitive negotiated acquisitions.” One component of negotiated acquisitions that occurs early in the acquisition process is the solicitation of proposals. FAR 15.201, titled, “Exchanges with Industry before Receipt of Proposals,” regulates the type and manner of communications, also sometimes referred to as exchanges, which can – and cannot – take place between the Government and potential suppliers prior to the receipt of a potential supplier’s proposal and the subsequent award of a contract.
Affirmative Action is an employment legislation protection system that is intended to address the systemized discrimination faced by women and minorities. It achieves this by enforcing diversity through operational intrusions into recruitment, selection, and other personnel functions and practices in America. Originally, Affirmative Action arose because of President Lyndon B. Johnson’s desire to integrate society on educational, employment, and economic levels, yet it was John F. Kennedy who issued Executive Order 10925 to create the Commission on Equal Employment Opportunity, a commission that evolved into our modern Equal Employment Opportunity Commission
Affirmative action is an action taken by an organization to select on the basis of race, gender, or ethnicity by giving due preferences to minorities like women and races being not adequately represented under the existing employment. To make the presentation of all these compositions almost equal in proportion to do away the injustice done in the past. The Supreme Company need to design an affirmative action program in the light of recent Supreme Court judgment passed in favor of affirmative actions to be adopted by various companies.
When addressing legal issues of diversity in the modern day era, one main topic is brought to discussion, affirmative action. It was put into place by the federal government in the 1960’s and was initially developed to close the gap in relation to the privileged majority and the unprivileged minority in America (Aguirre Jr. & Martinez, 2003). While it has been controversial since its origin, it remains controversial as critics argue it tries to equalize the impact of so many
(Goldman, 1976, p. 181) An affirmative action program is a management tool designed to ensure equal employment opportunity. A central premise underlying affirmative action is that, absent discrimination, over time a contractor's workforce, generally, will reflect the gender, racial and ethnic profile of the labour pools from which the contractor recruits and selects.
In 1971, the Department of Labor under Richard Nixon issued an order requiring all federal contractors to develop "an acceptable affirmative action program," including "an analysis of areas within which the contractor is deficient in the utilization of minority groups and women, and further, goals and timetables to which the contractor's good faith efforts must be directed to correct the deficiencies." (3) By now, affirmative action goals had become the full-fledged policy of U.S. government contracting.
“For federal contractors and subcontractors, affirmative action must be taken by covered employers to recruit and advance qualified minorities, women, persons with disabilities, and covered veterans.