GovernmentExecutive.com

Return to Article: Rule requires contractors to set, follow codes of ethics

• 38959
  

  Duplicative of existing rules and regulations. But if you must do it, why an exemption for work performed outside of the US? That is where the majority of high profile scandals are occuring. This rule misses the point, and adds new administrative requirements, but nothing that will alter a bad actor's behavior.

  Glenn Posted December 5, 2007 2:57 PM
• 38785
  

  Bob & Robert have a twisted view of GV contracting. Profit is NOT #1 eval factor. We do NOT think ALL GV contractors are crooks and robbers, but many are! When their internally training documentation encourages unlawful behavior (ie, influencing source selection officials) and that their personel do whatever is necessary to prolong the revenue stream at the expense of the taxpayer (God forbid they should solve the problems they were hired to) - that is UNETHICAL in my opinion

  If contractors acted ethically, there would be no need to impose ethics requirements. Just read the news lately and you will understand the requirement!

  Ethics - either you have them or you don't.

  Bob Posted December 4, 2007 8:30 AM
• 38736
  

  Admin of contracts a problem, you bet when you don't have the workforce to do the job. What's really damning is when the procuring activity want's the material so bad they chide the admin folks for doing the right thing. CO's & PCOs, EVER HEARD of signed approved deviation and required contract mod to accept nonconforming material? Yes the government has its demons too; all the more reason we need a trained competent oversight workforce to keep the contractors and the buying agencies in check.

  mike Posted December 3, 2007 11:48 AM
• 38723
  

  It is all fine and dandy to impose ethics requirements upon contractors, but I see this as a double edged sword and government acquisition personnel also need to practice what they are required to follow. Most contractors are honest and have a code of business ethics program in place, but the government has this weird idea that all contractors are crooks and should work for free. They expect the contractor to bid low and make a profit so low that it doesn't even cover their cost of money (lending rate). The government normally makes profit the number 1 evaluation factor and technical performance lower down the scale. If a contractor wants to win the award, they have to bid their profit low and therein lies the problem. Low profit forces contractors to cut corners to make a decent profit and that where most unethical activity takes place. Also, I have often said that if a contract is administered properly,unethical activity will not take place. A contract is only as good as it is administered. The government executives should share some responsibility here!

  Bob Posted December 3, 2007 9:50 AM
• 38652
  

  Can you say whistle blower protection? Code Ethics is being forced down to the contractor, but no Code of Ethics for Government employees in having to deal with violations being reported by contractors. If a contractor reports violations or even unethical behavior on part of federal agency; then that contractor is put out to pasture and the federal agency (employee) continues to present a violation in motion.

  Robert Edwards Posted November 30, 2007 3:06 PM
• 38638
  

  The exceptions impact the overall effectiveness of this ... consider how much is bought and sold under FAR Part 8 FSS and FAR Part 12 Commercial Items?

  Pete Posted November 30, 2007 12:25 PM
• 38623
  

  This seems to be the usual all encompassing way government/schools etc deal with bad behavior. In my son's school class, all were lectured, though few had done wrong. I've worked now for four different contractors. They all seemed to have highly ethical behaviour as far as I could tell and did their best to meet government requirements. What as an employee was discouraging were no performance appraisals, no recognition of high or low performance unless it was low enough for firing, no pay raises unless forced by government. Except for the first contractor who actually paid bonuses for excellent performance, all the rest had no incentive whatsoever to do a better than average job. So giving the contractors even more paperwork, which of course will not encourage better moral behaviour, will, I agree "have little impact on the performance of federal contractors." Except to give them more paper to fill out.

  Sharon Hyland Posted November 30, 2007 11:03 AM
• 38622
  

  Ethics and Contractors....what an oxymoron. The Government needs to enforce regulatory requirements, peruse plans upon submission - not wait until a problem arises, and follow through with checks/tests to ensure contractors are complying with established standards. Otherwise, why bother?

  CAE Posted November 30, 2007 11:00 AM
• 38621
  

  It's not surprising that the Navy and Coast Guard are having so much trouble controlling cost overruns in shipbuilding contracts if there haven't been any federal regulations mandating ethical behavior of contractors!

  Jim Ertner Posted November 30, 2007 10:50 AM
• 38615
  

  There are many reasons why the Government Acquistion Career field has problems. This is a good example of one reason. The regulators continue to write new regulations on top of new regulations when all that needs to be done is the existing laws and regulations be enforced by the regulators. Working level procurement types are unable to enforce the law without clear backing of the regulators. It all begins to feel like a "feel good" for those of us in this field. Who is going to ensure the contractors have a training program? Who is going to enforce the regulation if they don't? Who is going to take on a Corporation with ties? Who is going to take on the senior leadership that know the Corporate gurus? Who is going to ensure that the Corporations are ethical and morale? WHO????

  L Posted November 30, 2007 10:03 AM
• 38594
  

  The following quote from the article says it all: "But some industry experts suggest the change will have little impact on the performance of federal contractors"...

  Paul Posted November 30, 2007 5:46 AM