GovernmentExecutive.com

Return to Article: New direction charted for wartime contracting

• 68449
  

  1.An army that cannot supply or maintain itself, through it's own organic resources, is a dommed army. 2. I remember- back in 1995 when "Contracting" was becoming more and more sought after in the army-thinking that the American peole would end up being ripped off- apparently I was right. 3. I am a "contracting Officer" and I wish I was involved more in acquisitions than "contracting". Contracting is neither effiecient or the best buy for the American taxpayer. Politicians need to bite the political bullet and enlist or draft more troops to do the work of Haliburton-oh and maybe stop serving ice cream in the mess halls too.

  Zachary R Posted February 6, 2009 7:11 PM
• 43167
  

  There seems to be a failure to ask why did the DoD go down this path. Yes, it's true that Contractors have been in the battlefield however never to this extent. The premise that it would be cheaper to have all these life support services provided by private industry versus the GI. Well, is there any real cost savings? I fear not (and no one is asking!). The only savings I can figure out is politcal. By not having to draft our young and our leadership Top~DOD are playing shell games as they know best. The American people truly does not see the impact of this war first hand in the streets. This is only one part of the problem but should be the genisis of the discussion to include soulions to fixing this problem and creating new contrating TTP to help our troops. God Blees America

  D Posted February 7, 2008 7:42 AM
• 42446
  

  These issues are no surprise to those of us who have experienced years of neglect in the health of the contracting community, which includes many more people than those engaged in writing contracts. We critically need more functional experts who can serve as inspector of services so we can be assured we're receiving what we're paying for. Without additional resources applied in correct balance, simply adding more contracting personnel will not hit the target of making us more effective in curbing potential waste. I'm anxious to see how NSPS cures this situation.

  former active duty Procurement Officer and current 1102. Posted January 29, 2008 7:45 AM
• 42420
  

  Adding 5 general officer's and an SES who understand contracting has no value added and verges on the ridiculous. The problem is not with contracting for major systems acquistion. The problems identified are at the camp post and station contracting level (supplies and services, contruction, repair and maintenance. In the Air Force, senior NCO's and company grade officers have established career paths and can perform, manage and administer all types of contract oversight or surveillance. The other services must follow suit. Given that the ultimate military customer for whom the contract was written provides a professionally written statement of work, adequately quantifiable and clearly measureable, and the customer provides a competent (contracting and quality) representative to measure and report results of contractor performance nothing can or will save the system. General Officer's will not add value and will only add to more top down pressure on the contracting officer(s) and technical folks. Normally the government fails to accurately define what it wants, when it wants it, who will use it, why it is needed and where it will be used. The base, post camp and installation procuremtnt system will fail without the DOD and Congress fully funding requirements up front and maintaining continuity of the contracting personnel and support staff. Integrating the contractor(s) community at all stages of the contracting process will reduce costs, minimize schedule variances, and ensure performance goals are met. Bottom line, government planning without funding is pure fantasy. We do not allow the incremental funding of our government workforce why do we incrementally fund the contractor and expect outstanding performance? on a promisory note? How and what are the additional general officer's and SES going to to add value to this process. All DOD should be mandated to follow the Air Force blue print for professional contracting.

  Dan B Posted January 28, 2008 5:08 PM
• 42414
  

  I was deployed and saw first hand all the problems that have been addressed above. But one also needs to address who made the selections that allowed the same incompetent and often times corrupt individuals to go back again and again.

  Colleen Rodriguez Posted January 28, 2008 4:07 PM
• 42413
  

  Whatever happened to the Stand-bye Reserves; i.e., all those 0-6 and above military contractor officers who as part of their retirement pay check are suppose to be available for call up in the wartime scenarios, the very scenario we now have in Iraq! The Army called up linguists, EODs and other critical skills in the enlisted stand-bye reserve ranks. I know of retired Army military contracting officers now working in the Pentagon as contractors for top dollar. Did the Army call up retired contracting officers to make up for the deficiency in acquisition? Why are taxpayers being told they need to support more current general officer positions in acquisition. I smell a rat in the woodpile over in the acquisition corner. The real fraud, waste, abuse are all of the ex-military who are collecting retirement paychecks, but who the Army chose not to call up to help in the Iraq. The Army has no excuses. The resources were available if the Army chose to get the job done.

  JET Posted January 28, 2008 4:05 PM
• 42410
  

  Actually the situation we are in today is more the fault of the leadership in the executive branch of government for the 36 years on and off. The worst of it was created by the present administration. All of them were and or are following the ill designed theories and philoshphies of Dr. Milton Friedman. Dr. Freidman has only one real world success "Boliva" directly due to the growth of cocoa converted and selling as cocaine. Dr. Friedman's policies are perfect for converting the middle class into the working poor. However, the very wealthiest of our population the top 1% are so happy to become America's future "sweatshop owners" and that is why we are this dangerous path.

  Ali Sue Posted January 28, 2008 3:11 PM
• 42385
  

  This is not only sinful but, wasteful as well and at the expense of taxpayers of which I'm one! Mr. Bell's insipid commentary justifying WHY and inception of 'comprehensive policy and program management' to correct problems is not only inexcusable but, abstruse. Nothing like closing the barn door after the horse has escaped. Those of us whom have deployed witnessed firsthand and commented upon inconsistencies and the inordinate number of unqualified contractual personnel. Utilization of contractors in lieu of military personnel was thrust upon the services and now one suggestion is to take retaliatory action upon high ranking individuals resulting in demotion or termination, while the idiot(s) responsible for devising this methodology of operation go unscathed is ludicrous. I find comments and action by Mr. Bell and his staff for their unpreparedness of this situation in its entirety both derisive and indefensible. Considering the Deputy Undersecretary for Defense, Logistics and Materiel Readiness, is a principal staff assistant/advisory position as well as principal logistics senior management official in DOD, the 'Peter Principle' has come to fruition at this organization. One would assume in his capacity as Deputy Undersecretary, Mr. Bell [and his staff] had a finger on the pulse point and rather than react, endeavored to take a more proactive approach eons ago, since the problem is not a recent development.

  CAE Posted January 28, 2008 11:53 AM
• 42363
  

  The hypocrisy amazes me. Congress wants to hold people accountable while not providing appropriate resources for either personnel or budget.

  Steve Allee Posted January 28, 2008 9:13 AM
• 42358
  

  Have heard it said, "What we really needed, was a better looting plan!" Se la guerre.

  Beldar Conehead Posted January 28, 2008 8:19 AM
• 42336
  

  Is it really misunderstanding on the poor contractors part or is the type of contract issued by the government. There seems to be NO oversight by the government on these contracts or like many contracts issued by them O-lets don't rock the boat. Well it's time to rock the boat it's our money there steeling.

  Jim H Posted January 27, 2008 12:57 PM