Senator takes aim at acquisition revolving door
Lawmakers next week may take up a proposal that would place new limits on where federal procurement officials can work after they leave government.
Sen. Robert Byrd, D-W.Va., has crafted an amendment to the 2005 Defense authorization bill that would broaden the reach of the
Under current procurement law, contracting officers must wait at least a year before leaving the government to work for a company to which they've awarded a contract worth more than $10 million. Byrd's language would extend the waiting period to two years.
The amendment also expands the ethics law to procurement policymakers, including political appointees, members of the Senior Executive Service and military officials. Before leaving the government, covered employees would need to file with the Office of Government Ethics a list of projects and policies on which they worked.
A spate of scandals uncovered in the late 1980s led to a strengthening of procurement ethics rules. But alleged breaches by former Air Force procurement executive
"When such a revolving door continues to turn, year after year, creating a perception of public servants -- exaggerated or not -- greedily trying to cash in on their knowledge of the procurement system, the Congress has a responsibility to address the laws of ethics," Byrd said.
Sen. Peter Fitzgerald, R-Ill., has said that current ethics rules are "laughable" and that Druyun's case has served to spotlight a problem that arises every day in government. "I don't think it would hurt to tighten the rules, and if we do it right it might prevent people from being corrupted," Fitzgerald said.
Agency officials, however, have argued against tightening the rules, fearing that such a move would make it difficult to recruit and retain procurement personnel and to do business with contractors. "The rules we have today have been tried and tested," said David Drabkin, deputy associate administrator for acquisition policy at the General Services Administration. He called Druyun's situation an "aberration" that should not lead to more regulation.
Larry Farrell, president of the National Defense Industrial Association, said the government benefits when companies hire former federal managers and executives. "It's good to have been on both sides because then you know how the system really works and can improve it," he said.
But the Project on Government Oversight, a watchdog organization, has called for increased restrictions on where former federal employees can work. "The revolving door has become such a part of federal contracting in recent years that frequently it makes it difficult to determine where the government stops and the private sector begins," the group stated in a recent report.
Byrd's proposal is "a great step in closing some revolving door loopholes," said Scott Amey, general counsel at POGO. He said that most civil servants do not use their jobs as steppingstones to higher-paying positions in the private sector, and that it demoralizes them when they see colleagues who do.
COMMENTS
- Byrd is on the right track but his bill is far too simpleminded to be effective. The law should be that no government employee can work as a government resource in any way for at least three years after leaving government! Especially the military! A military guy retires and appears the next day as a contractor doing essentially the same thing. That in part is why the military systems and proceduresd never improve and never develop improved processes, such as CFO requirementsd and procurement actions. Limiting this bill to procurement officials is ridiculous. Procurement officials do what the purchaser wants - not what they want! It is the purchasers that cause much of the problem but the bill doesn't even cover them! Byrd obviously does not know how things work or he is whitewashing the problem for political reasons. Easy bill: No government employee may work as a government contractor for three years after leaving government service - military or civilian. Likewise, no government contracting employee may work for the government as a civil servant for at least three years following employment by a government contractor. tax payer Posted June 14, 2004 6:53 AM
- I think that the dollar value should be lowered to $5M. I see our past commanders come in here and work as contractors and it's pretty obvious that the reason they are here is because they were commanders. I believe that a number of firms get contracts awarded to them based only on the name recognition of their personnel. When a tech review of a proposal is done and the name of the firm is redacted, how stupid do you need to be to figure out from a resume that your hiring a previous commander.....I figure if they couldn't figure out how to better the organization when they were in command, why would you assume they could do it as a consultant? And don't assume that those in charge of initiatives don't know which contractors employ their old friends....and don't assume that there aren't any goings on that magically result in an award to that firm. Things that make you say "hhhhmmmmm". I may have been born at night, but it was last night! GovExec.com reader Posted June 16, 2004 10:24 AM
- In my opinion contract officials are not always at fault, but many of the upper level managers who do much of the arm twisting and sign off on a lot of watered down requirements. There use to be meat written into contracts with checks and balances. When requirements are written out of contracts and replaced with vague meaningless performance requirements, its no wonder ethics in procurement is in question! The lastest Darleen A. Druyun corruption case casts a shadow on the integrity of many who are involved with procurement! GovExec.com reader Posted June 15, 2004 9:23 AM
