GovernmentExecutive.com

Return to Article: House backs big increase in contractor oversight

• 40639
  

  Concur with Wits End and Lane Narrows. READ THE GANSLER REPORT! More oversight is not the answer. Fix the PROBLEM of insufficient acquisition workforce, not the SYMPTOM of poor contract results. UGH.

  Jennifer Posted January 3, 2008 10:06 AM
• 40201
  

  All I can say is it's about time, some of the contractors down range in particular require oversight. After deploying to Iraq in support of our military on numerous occasions and seeing the level of support provided by contract personnel, the situation is abhorrent. You always reflect on the previous deployment and contract support, telling yourself it cannot worsen and unfortunately, that is not the case. Contractors in most instances could not correct the problem or, misdiagnosed problems and the federal worker had to go behind and correct these deficiencies. In addition, parts received were manufactured of the wrong material, not made according to spec and the worst case was vendors not providing the necessary parts until P/Ns of a newly manufactured part were approved and assigned (since their previous part was considered deficient), even though vehicles were deadlined and required for missions. The problems entailed by our military going out beyond the wire were too improbable to believe and this is what we are paying for at substantial salaries free from tax. Talk about a waste of resources. If the federal workforce performed their job in this manner, termination would be the operative word.

  CAE Posted December 20, 2007 1:07 PM
• 40152
  

  Isn't the baseline of this problem what the Federal Civil Service was established to prevent; fraud, waste, abuse of authority, corruption and favoritism (driven by greed). It is about time that the civil service and 'civil servants' are better protected and preserved in the interest of the mission and the taxpayer.

  One can only hope that the taxpayer will wake up and require such built in oversight of services. The public generally misdirects its frustration with the bureaucracy and blames the person with which they are communicating. Oh there are some that don't provide the quality of effort that they could. But this is just as true whether it is a civil servant or a contractor doing the job.

  Here is an exercise to test the theory: Just go shopping and see what level of service you receive from private industry. Such service is reflective of what the idea of "service", i.e. doing your job, has evolved into. Not what it was when I was learning and growing in my professional path initiated in those early public service jobs.

  There is generally more dedication to responsibility, better efficiency, and continuity of corporate knowledge gained through a "civil servant' who invests many years working in a government organization. Somehow the value in such has been overshadowed by private profit at taxpayer expense.

  Lee Hurlock Posted December 20, 2007 9:17 AM
• 39752
  

  Additional inefficient levels of management oversight is a bad idea. Rather, The government should fire problems companies and hire better talent to encourage better performance from all contractors. Government should also relook what tasks and functions to perform itself, and hire the appropriate talent internally, not just establish more oversight and procedure. Do we really want private businesses (which can legally be bought or sold) securing our national interests and diplomats, overseeing selection processes, or interrogating prisoners? The government hires contractors to get things done efficiently. More oversight defeats that purpose.

  Ray Posted December 14, 2007 3:21 PM
• 39728
  

  Gosh does anyone rememmber the acquistion reforms of the late 1980's and 90's. I seem to remember the contractors all told congress and the political appointees to get rid of all the oversight that it was adding too much cost and delays. another swing of the pendulum...

  jack Posted December 14, 2007 12:42 PM
• 39722
  

  I suggest very strongly that many read the Gansler Report on the state of Army Acquisition. For the first time, it tells it "like it is." Now if someone will only react to it in a meaningful way.

  Wits End! Posted December 14, 2007 11:52 AM
• 39708
  

  Who's going to do this work? We don't have enough people to get the job done now! May not be anyone left to do the actual fighting in the next iteration of this war!!! I hope they remember this "enhanced" level of second-guessing and oversight when no one answers the next call for surge support.

  Michael McManus Posted December 14, 2007 10:59 AM
• 39697
  

  The biggest hole in the revolving door in acquisition is when retiring commanding officers go to work for the same defense contractors they were supposed to be overseeing on their last tour of duty. They particularly make sure that the civilians don't exercise the authority to enforce contracts. That might mess up post-retirement plans and the big payoff for keeping those pesky civilians in line.

  Marsha Roepe Posted December 14, 2007 9:54 AM
• 39668
  

  All of these measures are desperately needed, especially the quoted enhanced oversight and pay raise. The services, especially Army, are stressed and digging a deeper and deeper hole...at some point we have to stop digging. Next, someone has got to reverse the decline at the VA.

  Don Posted December 14, 2007 7:47 AM
• 39664
  

  Marvelous. Now is Congress going to pony up the money required for a quality acquision workforce to conduct this oversight?

  Lane Narrows Posted December 14, 2007 7:19 AM