GovernmentExecutive.com

Return to Article: Defense authorization bill mandates Army contracting reforms

• 51808
  

  The comments posted, particularly the ones about contract specialists, lets me know that this bill needs to be mandated and approved more than ever. The contract does not begin with signing off paperwork or approving vouchers. The contract begins with requirements that flow into a contract award or order. This is where our contract professionals need to engage to ensure the requirements of the contract are understood before any of member of the team, technical or administrative engage with the contractor. We know that there are competency gaps on all fronts, I think the report provides some avenues to address those gaps in the contracting/aquisition arena.

  V. Hill Posted June 5, 2008 10:06 AM
• 51281
  

  Far too much emphasis has been placed on having contracting specialist or contract officer representatives (COR) overseeing contracts. While they are necessary it is not sufficient and this is where the military fails. Contracting specialist and CORs are administrators and not technicians. They sign the invoices and verify that money is in the account. But rarely do they have the technical skills to validate that the contractor has completed the work to standards or that the Performance Work Statement has teeth. Frequently they do not know what the different is between 10/20 plus and FMC, yet they'll sign off on the work solely based on the contractor's word. The rational is that "the contractor is paid to complete the work". Consequently vehicles are sent to the combat zones that are not only defective but grossly defective. What does the government do then? Pay the contractor to fix what should have been done right the first time. Contracting specialist and CORs are fine, but it is skilled GOVERNMENT technicians (mechanics, electricians, armament techs, logisticians, etc) that are needed to perform "Government Quality Assurance" of contractor work.

  andy Posted May 27, 2008 7:36 AM
• 51214
  

  "So....why hasn't Halliburton been fired then? Can anyone give me a STRAIGHT answer to that one {minus smoke & mirrors}? DSR"

  The answer is in the form of a question, can anyone name another firm that can complete all the tasks required under the contract?

  Tom Posted May 23, 2008 11:18 AM
• 51138
  

  The hiring and firing comment is directed at those that make the sausage not the CEO. Check out how EASY it is to remove the US President even with a process in place. I agree that the execution of the process is the key but when that fails or is thwarted by EEO complaints, what are Federal managers left with? They can spend all their time documenting poor performance to mitigate litigation risk but doing so would preclude concentrating on achieving the agency's fiscal acquisition needs.

  There is a general misunderstanding about the contracts in Iraq. Part of the problem is the failure to provide proper oversight, so the Government is oftentimes unable to prove its case with actual facts when a dispute arises. By the way, when definitizing letter contracts, disputes almost always arise and if the Government fails to prove default, the cost would be even greater. Firing a contractor (the corporate entity not a single person) is handled with termination procedures---check out the FAR...no smoke and mirrors there just a drawn out process that typically involves a lot of lawyers.

  govcontractor Posted May 22, 2008 11:06 AM
• 51112
  

  Government civilian can be fired. The policies to so have existed for a long time and work very well. The key is having leaders who set objectives and hold their people to them and are not afraid to take action. Want to talk abouot the corporate world. Just look at Merril Lynch's CEO who almost bankrupted ML. He is fired but walks away with $300 million. Hell, fire me for $300 million!

  Andy Posted May 22, 2008 8:23 AM
• 51051
  

  So....why hasn't Halliburton been fired then? Can anyone give me a STRAIGHT answer to that one {minus smoke & mirrors}?

  DSR

  David Posted May 21, 2008 10:52 AM
• 51048
  

  Defining inherently governmental is a step in the right direction as it has certainly been a moving target. I agree with the comment about the lack of accountability in the FED buttressed by great benefits and salaries. Managing these folks is a nightmare and the unions DO tie the hands of management when it comes to taking any sort of action. I have worked with FED contract professionals that couldn't write a coherent sentence yet they could not be removed. Contractors have to get the job done or they are replaced. It is not hard to figure out how that pressure drives performance. The accountability begins in the training system which should include some sort of relatively rigorous standardized grading and testing as opposed to mere attendance at a course. The amount of money these folks are responsible for demands this and the American taxpayers deserve it!

  govcontractor Posted May 21, 2008 10:45 AM
• 50992
  

  glad you see the light. the unions drive up the long term costs exponentially with, raises based on attendance, promotions based on zero performance, health costs sky rocketing and a retirement that is every mush a golden parachute as any corporate executive. All this with no requirement to produce anything. At least the contractors can be fired while working for the gov is a job for life

  Dan ketter Posted May 20, 2008 12:57 PM
• 50991
  

  "You mean like Halliburton price gouging on billion+ $$ no-bid contracts?"

  Would companies like Halliburton exist if Clinton would not have cut Defense spending so much?

  But hey, he balanced the budget! lol!

  Tom Posted May 20, 2008 12:45 PM
• 50983
  

  Drive up the cost? Excuse me? You mean like Halliburton price gouging on billion+ $$ no-bid contracts? You mean federal unions are guilty of that as well? Whoa! I guess I learn something new every single day!

  David Posted May 20, 2008 12:01 PM
• 50971
  

  Contractors are the only way the military can gear up/down depending on its needs as usual we have a Democratic congress pandering to the unions which drive up cost and get less in return

  Dan ketter Posted May 20, 2008 11:04 AM
• 50966
  

  It should be easier to go outside of DOD, nad draw upon the acquisition expertise of GSA. The acquisition community needs to be accountable to the customer also. They should be part of an IPT, where they understand the big picture, and the impact of thier role. DOD needs to start long term planning, so that contractual vehicles are in place before we have a need. That would also get us out of this crises mode of how quickly can you get the funds obligated.

  Ex Contracting Officer Posted May 20, 2008 10:23 AM
• 50962
  

  This article points out one of the most overlooked aspects of any reform program that comes out of Washington. Congress CANNOT keep its fingers out of the pie. They have to tweek this and oversee that. Program after program is discussed in committee, rules and regulations are sent to department after department and in the end you get a frustrated workforce that has been used and abused again and again.

  Even the most "forward thinking" and "employee friendly" resolutions just end up being turned around by the next set of resolutions. There is no "right track" - only Congress' current whim.

  Michelle Posted May 20, 2008 9:38 AM
• 50944
  

  Why not put that money into our Armed Forces personnel in the form of larger paychecks and more benefits. We spend all this money on training Troops in a job speciality, i.e, plumbing, mechanic, cook, ect and then we hire contractors to do that same job. In my opinion, why not put the governments money to better use and get two for one. Troops have to know how to use their weapons no matter what plus they can be trained to do a job that the military needs. With higher pay and better benefits we can attract more recruits and retain quality military personnel. It's just a suggestion but I hear this from a lot of military personnel. I hear that if the benefits (during their service and retirement)were better for them and their families and if the pay were better they would stay in but as it is they are frustrated when they see a contractor getting $80,000 for a job they do at $40,000. Like I said it's just a thought and we need to keep our fighting force at higher standards as well as paying them well all the time and not just while they are on deployment. This would help keep the nations unemployment rate down as well.

  respectfully, Ren

  Ren Posted May 20, 2008 5:34 AM