GovernmentExecutive.com

After spending much of 2005 on the defensive in the wake of countless contracting scandals spurred by Hurricane Katrina, acquisition offices at civilian federal agencies had hoped for a more low-key, back-to-basics year. It didn't go quite as planned.

Within weeks of assuming control of Congress, Democrats initiated a renewed level of oversight of procurement, shining a light on noncompetitive deals, mismanaged and wasteful contracts and ethical missteps at the General Services Administration. Procurement reform now has become a hot topic on Capitol Hill, and companies are preparing - albeit begrudgingly - for some of the most significant contracting legislation in recent memory.

Click here for a full list of the Top 100 civilian agency contractors, from Government Executive's Aug. 15 special Procurement Preview issue.

The leading proponent for change has been Rep. Henry A. Waxman, D-Calif., who has held hearings examining abuse in Homeland Security procurements, sponsored a bill to reduce the use of sole-source contracts and released a database of 189 contracts linked to waste, fraud or mismanagement. "A major problem is that while contract spending has soared, oversight has been discouraged and account-ability undermined," Waxman said in May at a contracting forum hosted by the Center for American Progress. "The result is mistakes have been made in virtually every step of the contracting process, from pre-contract planning through contract award and oversight to recovery of contract overcharges."

In April, for example, the Education Department inspector general found the agency's management of a key information technology services contract was inadequate. The same month, the National Toxicology Program terminated a contract with a consulting firm it had hired to assess how dozens of potentially toxic chemicals affect women's reproductive health, after reports surfaced that the company had ties to the chemical industry.

Waxman, chairman of the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, in particular has focused on the rise of no-bid contracts. The committee released a report in late June concluding that half the $412 billion in federal procurements in fiscal 2006 were awarded with less than full and open competition. A Waxman bill that has passed the House would require agencies to reduce the use of sole-source contracts.

The nonprofit Project on Government Oversight says about 40 percent of government contracts are let without competition. Industry representatives say those numbers are inflated, in some cases counting sole-source task orders from competitively awarded contracts as no-bid. But an analysis of data from the nonprofit watchdog OMB Watch reveals that most civilian agencies de-creased contract competition from fiscal 2005 to 2006, in some cases substantially.

Interagency contracting has been another area of concern, making the Government Accountability Office's list of high-risk areas. When an agency buys commonly needed goods and services through another agency's contract for a fee, it can save money by leveraging the government's buying power. But GAO and watchdog groups say this type of spending has soared without a commensurate rise in the number of personnel needed to manage it. Spending through General Services Administration schedules has increased by $4 billion in the last two years, according to GAO.

The shortage of procurement workers is another looming problem receiving attention. The Acquisition Advisory Panel, which after two years of work released in December a slew of recommendations on the contracting system, called for the expansion of the acquisition workforce. And Waxman's bill would set aside 1 percent of federal procurement spending for contract management and oversight. "Procurement experts can debate whether that's the right percentage or not," Waxman said at the contracting conference. "But we need more resources, and that should not be in dispute."

COMMENTS

• There is no dispute the contracting career field is in flux; however, comments like those made by Mr. DeVico on Sept 5th do not help our case and justifies the end-users ignorance and lack of willingness to learn. I believe he oversimplified a complex issue. I agree that end-users are not 1102s and thus aren't experts on the FAR, but that is where I believe they need to sit back and take and act upon the experts (us) advice. I would never think to go on trial and try to dictate how my lawyer handles my case, nor should an end-user try to dictate an acquisition. I would like to ask the people who work for Mr. DeVico how many times he "just says no" compared to the amount of times he succumbs and finds his acquisition in the gray, trying to find some strecth of a justification/loophole in the FAR..."If it doesn't say I cant't, I can" may be true, but it still has to make good business sense and must be documented as to why the action was taken (something that is lacking throughout the career field). Most 1102's I've come across are really procurement clerks with signing power. They structure contracts and make awards as their agency dictates not necessarily by the FAR or its supplements. Most of contracting's issues come from the "whatever it takes" mentallity. We have groomed our customers to expect a certain level of service and now that we want to tighten up they understandably want to know why. Why did this justification work last time, but is not good enough now? Bottomline is we need more customer training and contracting leaders with a backbone to tell customers "No. Do your part and then we will do ours.". DAU offers a class called Contracting for the Rest of Us here is the link for dispersing to your favorite end-user (https://learn.dau.mil/html/clc/FindCourse.jsp?course_prefix=CLC&course_number=011) Jamaal Posted September 18, 2007 3:12 AM
• I hope Congress, especially Waxman, reads the postings to this article. It seems a sad state-of-affairs that the center of focus is either that COs must be strong enough to deflect harsh treatment by requestors or that COs are unduly pressured. They are equally disgraceful positions. Shame on a system that breeds this type of issue. Should not the requirements persons accept some responsiblity. They must be coached into understanding both the need and desirability of competitive requirements. And shame on Congress for not recognizing that it's own socio-economic policies in contracting sometimes conflict with the government's ability to increase competitive actions. Should socio-economic polices be thrown-out the window in favor of broader competition? Richie Posted September 6, 2007 11:02 AM
• I agree that Contracting Officers sometimes do get pressured by their superiors to do everything possible to support the customer. While no superior openly advocates violation of regulations, the constant pressure to "succumb" to customers' wishes (not necessarily their needs) is very obvious and prevalent. Sadly some COs, due to their own desire to please their superiors or due to their inexperience give in quite easily. Yet, there are those who uphold the integrity to which they have sworn when they were presented with their coveted CO warrant. One should be prepared to take a firm stance when facing such situations. Sure, it may cost them a promotion or two (as it did for me, but I have moved on just fine into more lucrative areas)! I do agree with some of the previous comments. There is also a lot of political pressure on the superiors, as was evident in my case while working on the rebuilding of Pentagon after the 9/11 crash. Someone has to address these issues and revamp the entire system. Although FAR allows a CO a wide latitude to be creative to get the mission accomplished, it also requires them to use "independent business judgement" to ensure all requirements of law, executive orders, regulations and all other applicable procedures have been met. This is a tremendous responsibility and requires a CO to be proficient in a lot of areas even though they may be surrounded by excellent advisors. The CO must not take anything for granted and must independently satisfy themselves that the advise they receive is consistent with all applicable regulations. Agencies can avoid the actions of a "corrupt or deficient" CO by being pro-active and hiring competent personnel rather than someone whom they know or have known in the past. I empathize with the comentator who writes, "I have no career aspirations left, so I am immune to this type of crap." Such comments from seasoned procurement professionals should serve as lessons to the procurement community. Rather than justifying bad procurement practices under the age-old concept of "procurement personnel doing more with less", we should also examine if "the desire of dissatisfied competent professionals to get out" might not be the root cause! Madhu LeFevre Posted September 6, 2007 10:56 AM