GovernmentExecutive.com

Return to Article: Obama orders contracting overhaul

• 80760
  

  We already have some very good policies on acquisition that if fully implemented, would resolve many of these problems. Look at Clinger Cohen Act for one. It's implementation has been watered down to a "check list" that no one validates. Joint Staff's Gen Cartwright was right when he told congress that DoD is proving itself irrelevant in the IT world. If we want to leverage both innovations and industry best practices (which are outside the reach of the Defense Industrial Base), then our leadership must start to engage non-traditional suppliers and non-profits who are not overly vested in protecting the status quo. These and other recommendations are making their way into the IT Acquisition Advisory Council recommendations do out by the end of July.

  John Weiler Posted June 19, 2009 7:24 AM
• 77737
  

  Since the announcement to curtail contractors to do government work there has been an increase in hiring the contractors (making them organic) as civilian employees. I can't see the difference in it -- you are still using the same people -- only now they are not contractors. What does this tell you? Simply that the ones that hired their buddies (the good ol boys club) as contractors are not converting them to regular civilian employees. Is that one of the definition of progress?

  Lavera Floyd Posted May 18, 2009 12:06 AM
• 75149
  

  I am anxiously awaiting the outcome of this. Currently the Dept of Commerce is continuing to look at possible A-76 studies. My organization is required to perform a feasiblity study starting in May to determine if an A-76 competition would be needed. I was told OMB directed agencies to continue all studies scheduled for this year. Seems to me, if competitions may stop, then OMB should direct all agencies to temporarily stop the studies and save money it costs to perform the studies.

  Margi Garner Posted April 20, 2009 7:59 AM
• 73970
  

  I worked with Contracting Officers for 3 1/2 years as a Contracting Quality Assurance Manager. As a government employee it was my job to evaluate the contracts performance in cost and quality and to ensure that the government would get the product specified in the contract and that the contractor would get the money that was due to them. The US Air Force decided that "we can trust our contractors" and that the office could be downsized from about 30 people to about 3. This was, in my view, a self-serving decision on the part of the chain of command since most of the officers in charge of making this decision later went on to work for the contractors that this decision benefited. Contraction Officers usally do not have the expertise and do not have the time to devote to ensuring that the contract performance is efficient, timely, withing government guidlines and specifications, and that costs are not being overrun. A conscience Contract Quality Manager who is a government employee and who can be held accountable for his or her performance and conduct is one answer to the cost containment problem.

  Darryl Posted April 5, 2009 1:55 PM
• 73661
  

  I have to say that I am looking forward to doing away with some of the contracting. I work for the VA, but not in the field that I have a master's degree in because they contract that work instead of hiring people to do the work in house. It would be cheaped and save taxpayers so much money if they would hire additional people. We can spend 10,000 dollars in a week with out taking care of many veteran's. I feel that it is a waste.

  lisa howard Posted April 1, 2009 11:15 PM
• 73243
  

  Being in the Government contracting field for many years and holding various levels of responsibility (to include holding a unlimited warrant) I believe that many contracting professionals have become stagnant in the practice of contracting. I believe it has become a "push the paper work" out the door as fast as you can environment. I would not disagree that there are not enough people in the contracting career field. But what I believe is that there are too many people in so called positions of power, whose decisions and input only hinder the contracting process. It is one thing to be in the trenches, trying to fulfill customer requirements. But, when you have so much over sight from above imposing so many new policies and procedures which are supposed to be aimed at trying to stream line the contracting process, it only produces a log jam. If the ratio of Contracting Officer to Contracting Specialist was evaluated you might find that we do not need more policies and procedures but more "trench workers". Contracting is not hard, it does not need so much red tape. The money and time being spent on streamlining or downsizing the career field could be better spent on training personnel, and lack of time should not be an excuse. People who actually work the requirements have become so status quo that competition standards, Small Business goals, and good innovative thinking have gone out the window. Contracting Officers have become complacent with their contractors and rather than compete their requirements they continually solicit the same contractors thus creating this vicious circle. Old Contracting Officers + Old Contractors + to many Positions of Power = Same continuous problems. What needs to be done is to provide proper training for both the Government and Contractor, use of multiple contractors so that new ideas and innovations may arise thus helping to curb the overuse on one contractor who has cornered the market on a particular commodity or service. This is not a time to add more red tape to the contracting process this is a time to utilize what industry is offering in a way that saves money, saves time, and makes sense. Work smarter not harder.

  TWALK Posted March 27, 2009 5:29 PM
• 71496
  

  Increase the workforce of 1170 (Leasing Contracting Officers/Realty Specialist). Doubling the workforce is only a start!

  Thomas Bell Posted March 11, 2009 9:33 AM
• 71433
  

  Let me tell you how most of us really feel. We came into Contracting because it was a better paying job @ the time. It was different than anything I had ever worked in. In my group it would later be necessary to have a BS or BA degree which @ the time could be in "basket weaving. Those of us without full degrees and if 24 hours of your degree was in Business they would grandfather you if you had 10 years experience. It took over 2 years for me to be grandfathered. I became an unlimited warranted contracting officer in 1989 (GS-12) In order to get somewhere in the Agency you worked in, you needed a mentor. I never had one until I was a GS-9, Step 4. We were empowered for a time back then, where someone thought the people they had hired were actually intelligent but the empowerment didn't last long. It was soon back to micromanagement and is 100 times worse today. This is not because anyone in the trenchs sold out it was because the highest civilian procurement executive in the Government did. We still have too many Chiefs and not enough Indians. And then there is NSPS, Mr Rumsfield's pet project. I write 400 words on that subject. Oh well it will never change so I will leave with my 28 1/2 years and retire very, very, very soon. Hasta la vistas, amigos and amgias

  Susie Got-Rocks Posted March 10, 2009 2:21 PM
• 71427
  

  Contracting needs less restrictive hiring requirements, increase of the workforce, reduction of the workload for each contract specialist, decrease of Congressional mandates which causes an incredible amount of extra workload with no added benefits to the taxpayer. There are too many analysts collecting data, data, and more data. We are given computer systems to prepare contracts which are developed by contractors which are HORRIBLE and time-consuming to use. Also, re contract types...the current drive is to make contracts firm fixed price instead of cost reimburseable; however, it is not always a good idea nor in the best financial interests of the government to award firm fixed price contracts....often the cost reimburseable contract is a much better instrument for the American taxpayer. Since "Acquisition Streamlining" our processes have become 4-5 times more cumbersome and redundant. Congress doesn't realize that when they made a ruling, by the time it gets down to the working contract specialist level it has grown out of proportion and causes hours of additional work for each procurement. Actually, contracting has been around for a long time. Rules and regulations have been put into place to cover just about everything. We do not need more redundant rules...if Congress would look at the regs they would see that whatever they are concerned about is probably already covered. If Congress wants more acquisition oversight, the government is going to have to hire and train more contracting and technical personnel. We are spread way too thin.

  J Posted March 10, 2009 1:07 PM
• 71424
  

  It was a difficult decision for me to enter into contracting. I had first had knowledge of the difficulties of being a CO. Yet this was were the promotions were. So I took the step and for many years I refused to get a CO warrant - why - all that responsibility and no added pay. But I was HIGHLY encouraged to do so, so I did. First thing was I given three other COs workload. I used to think that cradle to grave administration referred to the contracting, later I learned it referred to my future in contracting. For being innovative - I was threaten to have my unlimited warrant taken - my response - take the da** thing, but of course they didn't. For handling muti-million contracts, training COPPER Caps, new government buyers, and contractor personnel; and for being acting supervisor on more than one occasion - only to be told on my NSPS apprasial that very very few gets a 4 and 5 is out of the questions. I could go one, but it will only fustrate me more - we lived through the additional oversight generated by the Lighting Bolt Queen, the Iraqi free for all; I guess until I retire (in 5 years with 40 years) we'll live through this too. So President Obama bring it on - this too will pass!

  Contracting Wonderland Posted March 10, 2009 12:23 PM
• 71420
  

  Want to make a change? Then stop all A76 studies and put an end to bringing contractor's into the workplace, especially the acquisition/contracting environment. Get rid of contractors working in the same space as Government employees. Give the agencies the power to hire more personnel in a shorter period of time. Direct the agencies to do training of the acquisition workforce, not via Internet training which is a farce, but class room training so the people can learn the rules and exchange ideas with one another. Get rid of the mentality that the money has to be spent now rather than doing the job correctly. Teach the people how to correctly write the specifications and then monitor the contractor's work properly. Lastly, rather than rushing to make changes, truly analyze what is broken, or bad, about the current system by asking questions not from the agencies leadership, but from the workers. Once the team has analyzed the problems, then and only then put together a plan to make the changes. Also, be willing to make more changes as you see if they are working or not.

  Bob Moore Posted March 10, 2009 11:59 AM
• 71419
  

  If something is done poorly and at a huge cost that by definition is "inherently governmental"

  dan ketter Posted March 10, 2009 11:54 AM
• 71412
  

  The big thing I read in all the posted comments is this. Most comments are for hiring contracting officers "CO's" of one type or another. Only one clearly calls for additional contracting administration personnel. The acquisition "team" is made up of many types of personnel to complete a successful acquisition. From the quality assurance (QA) inspector, who in many instants is the first person to "see" what is being acquired. The engineer (and there are many types of engineers) who provide insight when problems are found by the QA. Then the contracting administration types (ahh yes the 1102's) and there are many types of these also, from pricing to contract specialists. All of these personnel are in dire need. The quantity of many of these team members has been, to put it bluntly, decimated over the past years. It may take an equal number of years to replace them. You don't go out and pull a technically competent QA of the shelf at your local technical school. The QA, in many instants is the "ONLY" person a contractor will see and they must understand many of the functions of the "1102" and those of the engineer. Also, and engineer can come in many varieties. Not all engineers are ready to discuss the out of oven times of a metal or the atmosphere of the oven itself. Ohh, by the way, the QA types will be checking with the contractor to assure the oven has been properly maintained to heat correctly through-out the oven. The contracting type also must have some knowledge of what requirement to have on the contract. What good is it when you have an oven requirement that doesn't include an oven that will pull a vacuum that may be required for the composite that is being made? Or worse, a contracting type who resorts to use the old adage of, "this requirement worked on the contract for a truck it should work on the contract for a tank." After all both are Army vehicles. Or, even better this requirement worked on the "first" M1 it should also work on all other M1's, and they didn't look to see the first M1 was a rifle and the second one is a tank. Now for the bottom line! Be careful in what you require and what you hire, all are equally important and equally needed!!!

  Retired OF Posted March 10, 2009 11:28 AM
• 71402
  

  What a joke. I've been in contracting over 25 years and looking at it now is a little too late. Just recently an organization was created in the VA that only hires contractors to perform the work. It isn't that Government personnel couldn't do the job they don't want Govt personnel. Instead we pay big dollars to them to come do what a Government employee could and should do. These contractors are teaching contracting personnel how to do contracting. Waste of taxpayer dollars sure, but Congress approved this organization to be created but they don't know or understand how it is actually being ran.

  Sure Posted March 10, 2009 10:38 AM
• 71392
  

  Nothing but rhetoric. If Mr. Obama wants to truly overhaul contracting he can start by increasing the 1102 workforce by 50 percent. Next, he can replace a very large percentage of the SES workforce that does not have sufficient experience in contracting to hold their current position. Lastly, he can appoint someone at a cabinet-level position to advise him on Government procurement...someone with 20-plus years of experience in contracting.....this person could properly advise him why some contracts are called sole-source....not no-bid and why some of these contracts are truly necessary.

  CO in CO Posted March 10, 2009 9:49 AM
• 71386
  

  Major cost increases come with high-level Government Program Managers glad handing their industry counterparts. Deals are negotiated outside of contracting's purvue or knowledge and then employees are told that aren't a team player and indirectly intimated. I can't accept a donut from a contractor but I bet Senior Level Management at all agencies has no such mandate.

  Marialyn Achille-Argaez Posted March 10, 2009 9:25 AM
• 71370
  

  Nearly 20 years have passed since an initiative to define inherently governmental tasks. In fact a video was made by Air Force Materiel Command to be used as a training aid. Some of the best and brightest people in the Command worked the problem .. only to be ignored or compromised by zealous program managers and a decline in organic acquisition workers.

  RA Posted March 10, 2009 6:45 AM
• 71346
  

  Things are a bit out of wack, But With so many things are not doing well everyone is doing the best we Can.

  Wilma V Ranger Posted March 9, 2009 6:55 PM
• 71264
  

  Talk is cheap - the new bill was passed without a mandate for E-verify - which means our tax dollars can go to anyone - even illegle aliens. We should be using few, if any, contracted employees.

  CJS Posted March 9, 2009 9:39 AM
• 71194
  

  I agree we can tighten our procedures to save money, but We should be more focused on the TRILLIONs being handed out during this Bailout process to ensure taxpayers are not only the ones who gain from this process, but that we track where every penny is being spent. The last thing I want to hear in a year from now is that some undeserving CEO is receiving and disbursing million dollar bonuses.

  KNB Posted March 7, 2009 11:32 AM
• 71193
  

  I agree we can tighten our procedures to save money, but We should be more focused on the TRILLIONs being handed out during this Bailout process to ensure taxpayers are not only the ones who gain from this process, but that we track where every penny is being spent. The last thing I want to hear in a year from now is that some undeserving CEO is receiving and disbursing million dollar bonuses.

  KNB Posted March 7, 2009 11:32 AM
• 71160
  

  As former contracted support to work with contracting agencies that facilitated contracted...it is a MESS! The things I have seen were out right thievery! Take the retired military personnel who started these companies and threaten those "commrades" Officer/Enlisted Evaluations/Promotions if they don't win. Talk about reach back capabilities!! How about the government project managers that give the price quotes to the vendor they want to win so the person who has been doing their job can continue. How about the vendors that come in and RUN the organizations. Duuuhhhh! Of course they are going to recommend things that will take a round about approach (5 years) to a point where the organization has only 25% progress. This will require the vendor get another contract for 5 more years because they are vested and have the most "unique" experience at getting NOTHING DONE! Not all their fault - Get a government worker that actually works. I was government 15 years and watched others get promoted before me that could not take gum out of the wrapper - let alone chew it! I went to the private sector so I could support my family and worked as a contractor. While there, I HAD to do the work of the government liaisons just so my work as a contractor could be raelized! I get back in the government and now have to work with these unprofessional, uneducated people and do their job so we will not need to outsource! The only thing most of them are professional at is getting a welfare check while sitting at a government desk! I hope this reform does work...America needs it!

  Former Government - then Contractor - Now Government Again Posted March 6, 2009 2:25 PM
• 71139
  

  Bring back our government support admin for contracting officers and specialists! Our workload has tripled with the layered approvals and crippling downsized workforce. Everyone places the blame on the 1102s. The 1102s can't be everywhere especially with the upcoming mass exodus (retirements), large IN-DEPTH and DETAILED workloads. The government has cut too far and now someone is finally talking about it! The federal government wants reform. Well, the federal government needs to treat the acquisition workforce with the pay, training, and respect it deserves. Give us the resources, time, and human capital to do everything the government is promising our taxpayers.

  Annoyed 1102 Posted March 6, 2009 12:50 PM
• 71106
  

  I feel the problem is the government knee jerk reactions. Like a pendulum, it reacts to private industry for awhile then the great old government union gets in and it sways back the other way. Part of the problem is that contracts are written poorly and there is not always a clear understanding of what was "meant" to be bid on and what was "actually" stated to be bid on. Another reason for contract support is the government has less trouble firing a contractor then one of their own due to labor union support. Government retirement benefits, training suck up the TAX dollars but we don't want to discuss that.

  KLS Posted March 6, 2009 10:57 AM
• 71105
  

  I feel the problem is the government knee jerk reactions. Like a pendulum, it reacts to private industry for awhile then the great old government union gets in and it sways back the other way. Part of the problem is that contracts are written poorly and there is not always a clear understanding of what was "meant" to be bid on and what was "actually" stated to be bid on. Another reason for contract support is the government has less trouble firing a contractor then one of their own due to labor union support. Government retirement benefits, training suck up the TAX dollars but we don't want to discuss that.

  KLS Posted March 6, 2009 10:57 AM
• 71022
  

  As a Procurement Professional (Contract Specialist and Contracting Officer) for more than 25 years, it took the debacle of Iraq to bring to light the issues the acquisition workforce has been talking about for YEARS - that of needing more trained staff!!! I have watched contracting organizations suffer a 50%+ decrease in their workforce, yet the work keeps coming and the number of reviews/approvals/hoops you have to go through increases. Now Congress and the President want it fixed - well that is easier said than done. Many of the contracting offices across the Federal Government experienced 10+ years of not hiring interns and training them to be skilled/educated and most of all experienced Contracting Officers/Specialists - instead they were told to downsize, "do more with less" and here we are. Even today, to hire back a retired annuant we have to show the job is hard to fill. It's not that the job is hard to fill, but trying to find someone who can walk in and execute the mission is what is really needed, at least in the short term until the current interns have the time to become trained and experienced.

  As for seeing the big picture, the Army "encourages" their contracting staff to take courses that will provide them a dual certification in either Project Management or Production Management. This is suppose to help them better understand the "customer's needs". I agree, but who has time - again - not enough staff means everyone carries a larger workload. I have chosen to leave the Contracting Career field and cross train in a technical field to gain this dual certification. It wasn't an easy decision giving up my warrant, but one that I believe will make me a better Contracting Manager. I hope to take the technical experience and skills I learn at my new organization and pass them along in the future. If the US Government wants better contracts, then they need to take seriously the training and resourcing of the Acquisition Workforce.

  CO Cross Training Posted March 5, 2009 7:27 PM
• 71011
  

  We've had our jobs sliced, diced & parsed so finely to strip out functions to contract out, now no one knows what the he** they are doing anymore. You have someone doing a 1/3 of your old job sitting next to you making twice as much money as you do, while you are doing what 4 other people used to do! Time to take it all back and start over.

  ritgar Posted March 5, 2009 5:59 PM
• 70995
  

  I concur with Don, Fed-Up, and other fellow professionals on this subject. This top-down, amateurish broad-side at Government contracting will have unintended consequences rivaling the Iraq war. As usual, no one consults with those doing the work - those who know the problems inside-out. Popularized notions of "corrupt" and "wasteful" Government contracting look great in the first news cycle, but the implementation of knee-jerk fixes will be horrendous. By the way, if anyone thinks throwing newly-hired bodies at this is the answer, they are sadly mistaken. If you don't think experienced professionals are needed, try doing it without us - and let me know how that works for you.

  35-Year Contracting Professional Posted March 5, 2009 3:43 PM
• 70985
  

  Fed up, I totally concur! I can't wait to get get the heck out of the 1102 series, or retire, whichever comes first. Everybody's a contracting officer now, we have umpteen levels of reviews, it takes forever to get things awarded, protests are the cost of an email message. I detest it. It is a thankless, hateful job.

  Another Fed Up CO. Posted March 5, 2009 2:19 PM
• 70968
  

  Defense contracts? I think Obama needs to examine the wastful spending in the other, often useless, executive departments and agencies. At least we are actually getting some tangible benefit from Defense.

  Katana Posted March 5, 2009 12:50 PM
• 70967
  

  Finally, change is coming for the better. The first thing to reform before the contract award types are the acquisition workforce because they ultimately will/will not execute. Start with the reforming the DCAA, obviously. Fire and demote those responsible for active abuse against whistleblowers and selling out the taxpayers for their own promotion and benefit. Offer promotions to the brave whistleblowers who came forward to out negligent agency. I can't think of better people to run the agency for the taxpayers. Reform the very rigid top-down structure and flatten it out with reducing management positions, requiring all managers to audit directly and not charge a bogus, wasteful indirect audit no., much like the GAO. And, of course, remove the audit oversight of DCAA out of the DoD to make sure it is independent in its audits.

  At Last Posted March 5, 2009 12:48 PM
• 70962
  

  I think it is odd that a former lobbyist for Raytheon is going to "reform" the contracting system, that is like having the wolf watch the sheep. Also, there is no mention at all about any of the ongoing abuses in the small business programs...it sounds like "change" for the sake of change with no real changes actually coming from this.

  Kevin Posted March 5, 2009 12:38 PM
• 70938
  

  The acquisition field over a period of years become too political. The grade/pay structure for the quality of contracting needs to be reassessed. The purchase of the Katrina trailers and environmental problems is an example of waste resulting from inexperience. An Indefinite Qantity Type Contract should have been issued to enable the Government to buy a limited number of trailers as needed. Education/training alone is not going resolve the current contracting problems. Current contracting are adequate, if used and interpreted correctly.

  Sophie C Moore Posted March 5, 2009 11:01 AM
• 70936
  

  Go Obama! Contracting out is a boon for fraud waste and abuse. Big contractors all come out ahead. Even those, when caught stealing, only have to reimburse what is found and that is rarely all. Then they just get another contract and recoup. By rights, Haliburton should be banned from working any contracts or subcontracts for the federal government after all those "ghost" charges.

  Cindy Posted March 5, 2009 10:53 AM
• 70916
  

  Defense contracting is bounded within three behaviors: 1) Maximize the profits of the politically well connected, 2) Minimize scandal, and 3) Take the path of least resistance.

  There is absolutely no incentive for managers to reduce costs/profits of contractors. No Program Manager or Acquisition Executive ever got promoted by cancelling a dysfunctional program. In fact, those that have tried have been replaced. It is far easier just to let the schedule slide, and the costs soar.

  Those that feed the Bear, get rewarded. Those that fight the Bear, get eaten.

  Helobite Posted March 5, 2009 9:52 AM
• 70904
  

  It is hard to keep contracting personel when they are tasked with 30 to 60 projects.... We need more human capital become the U.S. Government we all knew and loved.

  Thomas Bell Posted March 5, 2009 9:33 AM
• 70903
  

  Get rid of wasteful - multi contract levels and awards - especially in commodity groups. GSA Schedule - then compete amounst themselves.

  Carol Anderson Posted March 5, 2009 9:27 AM
• 70895
  

  This could be a start but if it turns into the same old need for exhaustive paperwork to "justify" issuing orders via contract mods "sole source" for things already planned for on award or forces more inadequately planned and described work into "fixed price" (really fixed price plus huge claim) rather than cost plus contracts it will be insufficient and add more heat than light. But it makes good politics if you don't know any better.

  Herb Posted March 5, 2009 9:17 AM
• 70893
  

  This could be a start but if it turns into the same old need for exhaustive paperwork to "justify" issuing orders via contract mods "sole source" for things already planned for on award or forces more inadequately planned and described work into "fixed price" (really fixed price plus huge claim) rather than cost plus contracts it will be insufficient and add more heat than light. But it makes good ploitics if you don't know any better.

  Herb Posted March 5, 2009 9:16 AM
• 70887
  

  The contracting community as well as most of the Federal Work force faces the 800 lb gorilla in the closet - retirement ready federal employees. Today, we all are facing huge gaps in our available contracting professionals, but in the next 3-5 years there will be a mass exit of experienced contracting officers. That will only add to the problem. Good, experienced contracting professionals are not grown overnight. All of the federal agencies are facing human capital shortages and there is not a concerted effort on the part of OPM to recruit new people.

  CDC - Warranted Contracting Officer Posted March 5, 2009 9:00 AM
• 70882
  

  Great sound bits and emotionalism but show me that the talking heads really understand the issues. First of all, the definition of a contract begins with an offer (aka bid), so there is no such animal as a "no bid" contract - cannot happen. Then after 20 years as a federal contract specialist, contracting officer and procurement analyst in both DoD and Federal Civilian agencies I will agree that we have contractors doing inherently governmental functions. Why you ask? Because over the last 15 years Congress has systematically reduced the authorized positions in our career field by almost half while the work has more than tripled. The current cadre of government contracting professionals are now so overburdened that many are looking to escape this career field. And for those who believe that you can just hire new contracting officers off the street, most professionals will tell you it takes 10-12 years to develop a competent contracting officer. Go ahead and eliminate the contractor support (which is highly staffed by retired government contracting professionals) and will your remaining skeleton staff can perform the duties assigned to them? Then explain how you expect to hire the best and brightest to fill behind those of us who are retiring when Congress makes it very clear they intend to provide intense oversight and condemning judgment of those who accept the mantle of government contracting officer. Unless the rhetoric ends quickly and some real thoughtful strategic planning backed by intelligent action surfaces, I see nothing but disaster in the very near future for the attempts of the Federal Government in the arena of procuring the supplies and services the American people expect it to provide.

  Fed-Up Posted March 5, 2009 8:35 AM
• 70877
  

  Just as expected with a change in the in-charge political party. I concur in essence of the other comments -- how can/will the savings be realized and measured? Is the directive enough, or must there also be substantive change in the quality and numbers of federal managers/employees committed to the initiative?

  jim campbell Posted March 5, 2009 8:23 AM
• 70876
  

  In my 35 years as a PCO and ACO, I haven't seen one overhaul that hasn't made the problem worse. No mas.

  John Posted March 5, 2009 8:21 AM
• 70873
  

  Like Pedro, I believe that Project Managers and other technical experts are part of the acquisition workforce. We need to hire these knowledgeable people to be the eyes and ears of the Contracting Officer and provide vigilent oversight of a project once it has been awarded. THAT is what prevents cost overuns.

  a taxpayer and a federal worker Posted March 5, 2009 8:18 AM
• 70870
  

  There is no line between inherently governmental activities that should not be outsourced and commercial activities that may be subject to private sector competition has been blurred. No inherently governmental activities should be outsourced!

  William Cox Posted March 5, 2009 8:16 AM
• 70869
  

  From my very first day as a buyer, some 35 years ago it was ingrained in me that the goal of EVERY acquistion, whether "no-bid" or competitive was to obtain the best value for the government. Anyone with a modicum of knowledge about the acquisition process knows the primary culprits are ill-defined requirements, the myriad and ever-changing laws passed by congress, the budgeting process where telling the "truth" results in no or reduced funding, and finally a workforce that is overtaxed and undertrained. Requiring more competition, which is a more resource intensive process will only worsen the problem. My guess this will result in more overruns and more program delays.

  Don Posted March 5, 2009 8:07 AM
• 70866
  

  How many times do we have to go through this pain. A recent report, "The Acquisition Advisory Panel-report to OFPP and Congress",published in January of 2007, lists all of the same ideas and proposes solutions to them all. The report was prepared by a panel of recognize procurement experts and is available to all.

  Rick Smith Posted March 5, 2009 8:03 AM
• 70865
  

  There's a "reasonable premise" that industry is more efficiant that government workers? Where's the data to support this propaganda? It's nonsemse. There is no general rule on that. We nationally outsourced our IT services and it has been a disaster. Costs are up, customer service is non-existent and the people hired to help us with problems range from incompetant to unsure. They have no concept of what the mission of the agency is, nor any desire to learn. Staff is constantly hopping to the requirements of the contractor, while we wait for days sometimes to fix problems. The only "reasonable premise" here is that contractors will get rich off these contracts. And when the contract is over, they will move on, so there is no hope of maintaining institutional knowledge.

  JT Posted March 5, 2009 7:55 AM
• 70864
  

  I'll be happy if the "real" cost of a contract is published along side of the contracted cost and the cost that would have happened had the function been performed by Federal employees.

  jane Posted March 5, 2009 7:54 AM
• 70862
  

  Clarification is good. However, I don't see anything productive coming out of this. The problem is not clarity - its organizational. The recent paper by Dr. Burman and the IBM Center for the Business of Government provided more practical advice, particularly the suggestion of integrating project management and contracting so that both functions are accountable to single top-level people. As an aside, I hate the term "no-bid" - that is not a term in the FAR and serves to confuse the public. Is "no-bid" a negotiated contract? An IDIQ contract with negotiated delivery orders? A letter contract? All 3 types of contracts can be the wrong acquisition strategy, but for different sets of circumstances.

  Will Posted March 5, 2009 7:49 AM
• 70829
  

  Gulp. gulp, gulp,goes the koolaid!

  1102 Posted March 4, 2009 8:35 PM
• 70820
  

  Contracting basically went unchecked during the past administration. We are all paying the price for that now. The private sector cannot be trusted. Obama's plan is a good one. Having had dealings with D. Issa, I can tell you he has no clue what he is talking about. Just another Republican that did nothing during the past 8 years but vote with Bush on just about everything. He only has to look in the mirror to see who is to blame for this mess.

  Retired Air traffic Controller Posted March 4, 2009 6:40 PM
• 70782
  

  This sounds good but if the Government does not increase the standards for the contracting community then all the rule changes in the world will not make a difference.

  VET Posted March 4, 2009 1:36 PM
• 70770
  

  $40 billion saved in competition. How the heck are you going to measure that? It does sound good though and provides the needed pablum for the unquestioning supporters to consume.

  TDK Posted March 4, 2009 12:57 PM
• 70760
  

  With 15 years of contracting experience, including as a warranted Contracting Officer, under FAR, GSAR, and DFARS, I have seen professional people and working tools come and go, yet THE GOAL has always remained the same. Today's announcement is simply an acknowledgement of the lessons learned from the GAO and the IGs, and the pledge to "change." What has been and remains needed that lies behind the curtain is a stable huamn asset of professional acquisition workforce and upper tier managers who "make it happen." Additionally, a dual, collaborative responsibility and call to action is required of Project Managers and their quality assurance oversight functions that rarely shows its face in front of the curtain, much less from the vigilant oversight of GAO and the IGs. Only from both groups will an accurate picture of the cost-benefit that has been publicized be possible.

  Pedro Posted March 4, 2009 11:47 AM
• 70756
  

  This an excellent move! Competition will reduce our orders by 30%.

  Phil-Senior Contracting Officer Posted March 4, 2009 11:36 AM