GovernmentExecutive.com

The House Oversight and Government Reform Government Management Subcommittee approved three bills Tuesday aimed at increasing federal contractor accountability that are likely to be passed Thursday by the full committee.

In unanimous votes, the panel passed measures requiring creation of a database on federal contractor performance and misconduct, barring contractors with significant tax debts from receiving large government contracts and grants, and requiring companies that rely on federal contracts to disclose the names and salaries of their top officers.

All three proposals have generated criticism from trade groups and some Republicans. But they have support from House Oversight and Government Reform Committee Chairman Henry Waxman, D-Calif., and other committee Democrats, backers said.

Introduced by Rep. Carolyn Maloney, D-N.Y., the first measure would require the General Services Administration to create a list of completed criminal, civil and administrative proceedings involving federal contractors in the last five years.

The bill would not change rules that govern how federal contract officers determine if contractors are reliable. But it is designed to give officers more information before awarding contracts.

At hearings on the bill, Oversight and Government Reform ranking member Tom Davis, R-Va., Rep. Brian Bilbray, R-Calif., and the Professional Services Council have raised concerns that it would allow unsubstantiated allegations against contractors to be included in the database without due process.

Government Management Subcommittee Chairman Edolphus Towns, D-N.Y., said he hoped opponents would be satisfied by an amendment that limits information in the database to completed proceedings and allows contractors to enter their views on any notations.

The second measure would require the Office of Management and Budget to create a process to block companies that failed to file tax returns or were seriously delinquent on tax debts from receiving large contracts or grants. The measure does not specify the size of contracts or grants that debtors would be unable to receive. Introduced by Rep. Brad Ellsworth, D-Ind., the bill would make permanent a provision in the fiscal 2008 omnibus spending bill.

The third measure would mandate that companies that earn 80 percent of annual gross revenue and more than $5 million a year from government contracts publically disclose to a federal contracting officer the names and salaries of their senior officials.

The measure was introduced by Rep. Chris Murphy, D-Conn., after an Oversight and Government Reform Committee hearing in which Blackwater Worldwide CEO Erik Prince, whose company relies on federal contracts to protect U.S. officials overseas, refused to disclose his compensation.

The bill likely will face opposition as it advances. At a hearing last month, Paul Denett, administrator of OMB's Office of Federal Procurement Policy, said allowing public access to contractors' salary information might dissuade companies from competing for federal contracts. The Professional Services Council, which represents contractors, has also voiced opposition.

COMMENTS

• I'd like to see one additional measure added to this bill: that all companies being awarded government contracts must do the work with 80% or more US citizens / taxpayers. This means that if the contract requires manufacturing a product that all subcontractors for that product also comply with this requirement. Too much of our work - both intellectual and manufacturing - is being off-shored. If the taxpayer is paying for the product then that same taxpayer should not risk loosing his job to another country. Global marketplace is fine for commercial but not for defense - all funded by taxpayer dollars! Sharon Posted March 13, 2008 3:28 PM
• Accountability ???? That word does not exist in this administration. Retired Air Traffic Controller Posted March 13, 2008 9:02 AM
• There are a three points I'd like to bring up. First, we already have the Excluded Parties List; commonly referred to as the "Debarred List". Why can't that be modified to include contractors who shouldn't be receiving contracts for reasons other than fraud? Second, the Government has the option for Set-Offs, whereby if a contractor owes money to a federal agency, payments on existing contracts can be routed to that agency, instead of to the contractor. The IRS can avail themselves of this process for firms who are behind in paying their taxes. Third; The United States prides itself on being a market-based economy, where the laws of supply and demand rule. Unless we award contracts where we require Certified Cost and Pricing Data, competition should dictate price. I repeat here, as I've frequently done before, as Contracting Officers, it is incumbent upon us to ensure that we award contracts to contractors who are responsible (read FAR part 9), and for a fair and reasonable price. One last thought, if I may. It's a simple matter to run a Dun and Bradstreet report on any contractor. You might be surprised to see the type of information that is available. Helen Posted March 13, 2008 7:34 AM