GovernmentExecutive.com

So, $5 Million Is Now Chump Change

That seems to be the message delivered by the Office of Federal Procurement Policy in response to a report by the Services Acquisition Advisory Panel that protests should be allowed on any order on a task or delivery order contract valued at more than $5 million.

OFPP told the Government Accountability Office that the threshold for protests should be higher than $5 million, but the office did not specify how much higher.

I realize that inside the-Beltway, a mere $5 million is viewed as less than a rounding error, but as Warren Suss, president of Suss Consulting, said, such a sum is real money to some and "could make or break a small company." Federal agencies don't like protests, Suss said, and he views the OFPP stance as part of a governmentwide push to develop protest-proof contracts.

Yes, there are frivolous protests, but protests also serve as a balance to sometimes injudicious use of the taxpayer's money. That goes doubly for task order contracts that Suss rightly calls "a black hole," due to lack of visibility into those contracts by your average taxpayer or cranky reporter.

Agencies such as the Defense Information Systems Agency have removed from public view all information on task orders such as its Encore contract. Protests just might help shed some light on what has become an almost secret process for dispensing the massive amounts of money the Defense Department spends on service contracts (some $151 billion in 2006, up a whopping 82 percent since 2000, according to GAO).

It sure would be nice to know exactly where that money went and what it bought. But today, almost every Defense acquisition -- with the possible exception of an Army Corps of Engineers procurement to collect fees at the Corp's Lake Whitney, Texas, campground -- seems to be a military secret.

The FedTeds' Iron Curtain

I planned to do a story this week on an upcoming enterprise IT procurement by the Army Information Technology Agency, which provides IT support for the Pentagon as well as networks to all Defense users in the Washington area through its Defense Telecommunications Service-Washington unit.

But, it turns out, all information on this procurement has been stashed on the Federal Technical Data Solutions (FedTeds) Web site, designed to "to safeguard sensitive acquisition related information." The site is restricted to folks who have a central contractor registration marketing partner identification number, or CAGE code, whatever that is -- and evidently I don't have a need to know.

ITA said it decided to put all technical and engineering data related to its enterprise procurement on FedTeds for security reasons, and I can understand why ITA does not want to put out for the public to see the network wiring diagram of the Pentagon, for example.

There should be a middle ground between security and public insight into the procurement process, and it seems ITA could provide a high-level view of this enterprise procurement, which looks like it might be a pretty big deal. I asked the Army's Office of Chief Information Officer if it could provide me with a high-level, security-scrubbed version of the ITA enterprise IT buy.

The CIO public affairs officer passed me on to the PAO for the Army's Technology, E-Commerce and Commercial Contracting Center.

I'm waiting for an answer.

Transparent Iraq IT and Network Buy

It turns out the Army Corps of Engineers runs open procurements not only for campground fee collection, but also key systems in Iraq. This week the Corps put out for bids an indefinite delivery-indefinite quantity contract to provide a range of IT and network services for its Iraq-based Gulf regional division.

This contract, according to the statement of work, also will support the Joint Contracting Command Iraq, multiple joint and coalition forces, the State Department, and the Iraq government. The statement of work details in depth the requirements, including a satellite reach-back capability to an Ashburn, Va., data facility and fiber-optic connections throughout the Washington area.

The SOW for the Iraq job also said bidders need to provide voice phone service over that satellite link, with 1,500 phone numbers in the Virginia 703 area code for use by personnel in Iraq.

If the Corps can publicly provide this level of detail for an Iraq system, I have a hard time understanding why the ITA cannot provide a high-level view of its Pentagon enterprise IT buy.

The No-Enchilada Cyber Command

Last month I reported that New Mexico was working hard to woo the Air Force Cyber Command from its current location at Barksdale Air Force Base to the land of enchiladas and red (or green) chile.

The Air Force was supposedly in the midst of a basing decision on where to put all its cyberwarriors, but it looks like chances of a move to New Mexico have been lessened by an earmark end run by a Louisiana congressman.

Rep. Jim McCrery, R-La., whose congressional district includes Barksdale, earmarked $4 million for the Cyber Command in the 2008 Defense appropriations bill. The funds are to be used only at Barksdale, according to his request letter unearthed by Taxpayers for Common Sense and posted in the group's database of 2,161 earmarks worth $7.9 billion in the 2008 Defense bill.

Kudos to Laura Peterson, senior policy analyst, and to other staffers at TCS for copying and then posting the earmark request letters on the best pork database around.

Marines Seek One Good Composer

The Marine Reserve command, headquartered in New Orleans is looking for a composer to write a piece of music for the Marine Forces Reserve Band Symphonic Wind Ensemble, which will "musically capture the spirit of the City of New Orleans in an anthem of rebirth following the hurricanes of 2005."

Maybe the Marine Reserves should try the Everly Brothers, who served in the Reserves in the 1960s after going through boot camp together -- and while on active duty appeared in their dress blues on The Ed Sullivan Show in 1962.

COMMENTS

• I am not sure why the author conveniently igonores the fact that basic contract awards are fully publicized, and any business that is an interested party has the opportunity to protest at that time. What is being proposed is the ability to protest orders placed against an already legally awarded contract, when those orders are placed in accordance with the existing terms. It's not as if no one had a chance to protest the contract. This kind of reporting is more than just a little disingenuous. GovtPCO Posted February 5, 2008 2:06 PM