GovernmentExecutive.com

Return to Article: Contractors, administration officials voice concerns about contracting bills

• 45385
  

  While many companies have no problem disclosuring CAS and corporate pricing methods, there is still the notion to nickel and dime taxpayers for the actual conduct of business in addition to contract performance. The OFPP has taken steps to ensure that government personnel participating in contract and acquisition programs are adquately trained and accountable (which is still a part of problem) for ensuring taxpayer dollars are used in accordance with applicable legal statutes and regulations. This, however, does not change a culture which feeds fraud, waste and abuse.

  Cynthia Posted March 7, 2008 11:07 AM
• 44833
  

  I must agree with Helen, as long as the contract has been awarded after a competitive bid. With multiple bids vying for business, free market forces should (yes, I used the conditional) bring a fair price for a product provided or service rendered. That is all we can really expect; to get a fair bid and service/product delivered for a fair market value.

  What I THINK this legislature is trying to do is to address the insane profits forked over to private companies without a competitive bidding process. Folks, I think both sides will agree that we've been giving away the store. Regardless, after the fiasco of the past 8 years, any review will be a better review and process.

  Tip off Posted March 3, 2008 11:18 AM
• 44663
  

  What is so wrong with full discloser? A lot of defense contractors deliver great services. But on the flip side a lot of the same companies, but different divisions, also nickle and dime the tax payer to death. After having spent 3 tours in SWA I am sickend at some of the waste that goes on in the contracting realm. A good many of the contracts I've seen let shouldn't have been made in the first place. They were overseen by COR's a half a world away who had NO CLUE what was going on in country. They just sat back and relied on reports. I say it's time some of these "Acquisition Corps Members" got out from behind the desk and actually see the performance first hand every once in awhile. I am not against contracting in the least. It has a place and is needed. I just think that some types of contracts need to be reevaluated to determine if they are truly in the best interest of the tax payers. Again this goes back to full discloser.

  noname Posted February 28, 2008 11:30 PM
• 44655
  

  I think in fairness that the information should be avaiable to the public that includes govt employee's pay as well

  dan m ketter Posted February 28, 2008 6:37 PM
• 44642
  

  Guess what? If they don't want to disclose the required information they don't have to bid for government contracts. I have news for the CEO's, they are not worth what they make. If you don't believe me take a look at the economy they have produced thus far. No, their motives for secrecy are far more sinister than just privacy issues. This is the most rogue government on the face of the earth. My outrage and disgust renews every time I read a headline. I have an even better idea of where those contractors and this administration can go, but I will leave it to the readers imagination.

  Brenda Posted February 28, 2008 2:58 PM
• 44629
  

  A bill for tracking performance reporting is unnecessary. DoD already has one. It's the Navy's CPARS system. Contractor performance is reported for services over $1 million and supplies over $5 million. The contractor is given a chance to respond before the final rating is given.

  That's not gossip, that's validated performance data.

  Regarding executive compensation, the issue is only relevant if we are contracting on a sole source basis. Otherwise, competition solves that problem for us.

  GovtPCO Posted February 28, 2008 1:36 PM
• 44610
  

  Because of the lack of a central database government agencies typically have no awareness when a contractor has failed to meet requirements at another agency and even sometimes within their own agency. When I was COR, the contractor added an extra $100,000 in the last month of a contract that we had told them was on hold and would likely be (and was) terminated. I grudgingly accepted the legal department's opinion that due to a technical loophole it was not worth trying to recoup these funds. However, I have never been able to stomach the fact that there was and is no place for the COR or CO to specify that the vendor was unable to provide a useable product after spending more than a million dollars of government money, nor that they drastically increased expenses in the last month for no discernible reason.

  Stuart Posted February 28, 2008 11:55 AM
• 44597
  

  I don't see that requiring disclosure of compensation packages for privately held companies is necessary in order to have transparency in contracting. It is our job as contracting officers, and cost and price analysts to ensure that the government pays a "fair and reasonable" price for the goods and services we purchase. Not all information relative to an acquisition is public information. Cost data such as compensation packages is source sensitive information and is not currently releasable. I think this new bill stems from lack of confidence in my acquisitions partners (and me!) in our ability to perform this task. If that's the case, then hold us accountable!

  Helen Posted February 28, 2008 10:03 AM
• 44583
  

  Let's make sure everyone understands something, the USG has to be OPEN about contracting. I don't see how private companies are being punished when they are held to the same standard as public companies with respect to contracting with USG. In fact, I would argue that there should be no dollar limits on this rule. What are they afraid of, that the staff and public will see just how badly overpaid the management is? The executive/worker pay ratios are way out of line in the U.S. As a federal worker, I'm subjected to various disclosure requirements and our agency is must contract openly. Why do private companies think they are special? If they don't want to reveal this information, they don't have to bid.

  William Ward Posted February 28, 2008 8:29 AM
• 44582
  

  Idiot politicians!

  mike Posted February 28, 2008 8:03 AM
• 44578
  

  Another requirement for the contracting workforce to have to deal with to slow down the process. And of course without resources.

  Jennifer Posted February 28, 2008 7:16 AM
• 44555
  

  "The presidents of those private companies don't want their employees to know what they're making."

  Why not...unequal distribution of wealth? What are they afraid of?

  noman Posted February 27, 2008 6:54 PM