GovernmentExecutive.com

Return to Article: Industry concerned over details of contracting reforms

• 81132
  

  Higher costs, eh Dan? So, did you notice how CITIGROUP is now generously raising the base pay of its employees, in spite of being bailed out by we the taxpayers? Is that your idea of a private sector "best business model" Dan? Do you REALLY think that CITIGROUP is the only company out there that delights in skewering the taxpayers? You don't think this is 1,000X more wasteful than anything a civil servant could possibly do? I'm listening, Dan; it would be nice if for once in your life you answered a direct question. In the past you have always dodged my questions.

  DSR

  David Posted June 24, 2009 11:50 AM
• 80920
  

  The contractor abuse has been going on forever not just under the Bush Administration. Remember years ago when a toilet seat cost $500 and a Hammer an outrageous amount? Nobody cares because it's not their checkbook. The same goes on Capitol Hill, just look at our Budget (Stimulus); spending money we don't have!

  B Schell Posted June 22, 2009 10:07 AM
• 80862
  

  Ms Spector is correct that Firm Fixed Price contracts are inappropriate for today's complex research-and-development programs, but her explanation directly supports those who want these contracts more widely used. It is argued that the behind schedule and over budget status of so many programs is the result of not using the FFP contract; the contractor has no risk in the contract type and can cause (and benefit from) the schedule and cost problems. The arguement which needs to be made is for more well defined program requirements at the onset - requirements which are technically realistic and supported with sound schedule and cost forecasts. And then for Government program management which stays with those requirements rather than making repeated program changes. And management which stops programs which get off-track. This, rather than contract type, will contain the schedule and cost problems and, in many cases, permit reasonable use of FFP contracting where it is not feasible today.

  M. Goldstein Posted June 19, 2009 9:43 PM
• 80850
  

  bringing work in house is meant to mean more bureaucracy, slower movement and much higher cost

  dan m ketter Posted June 19, 2009 5:38 PM
• 80834
  

  To bad the only contractors represented are large corportions and their lobbyists.

  C. Young Posted June 19, 2009 3:25 PM
• 80809
  

  Can anyone say government will run everything you do. Obama will tell them how to tell you to do it. Hope you like it becuase there will be few other options. Sounds like socialism because it is.

  Alex badme Posted June 19, 2009 11:33 AM
• 80805
  

  There are already ethics regulations and criminal statutes that prevent government employees from steering contracts to friends or any other entity that will be a personal benefit to the government employee. The real change needs to be made in (1) Leadership that will allow their plans and agenda to be challenged. When Druyan was steering contracts to Boeing, few in the Air Force could question her decisions. Turns out her approach was rooted in criminal intent and not risky business strategies. Bottom line was no one could question it. (2) Get away from contractors are on the government team. Contractors have a legal responsibility to their stockholders and/or employees. Government has responsibility to the tax-payer. Often, the two responsibilities conflict, especially when the work can be done cheaper by the government or another contractor. Leadership hesitates to dismiss another "team member" although it is exactly what responsibility to the tax-payer requires. The concept over decades has been that the private sector does it cheaper and less government employees are better. Over decades, look at the bottom line: Government spent the same or more out of different accounts. If smaller government was the theme, leaders could point to the diminishing numbers of government employees. If smaller budget was the theme, leadership could transfer funds to different operational accounts spread over fiscal years. However, add it all up and no one saved any money, and the government lost capability.

  ABX Posted June 19, 2009 11:25 AM
• 80789
  

  Contractors need to be held accountable. My husband worked in an IT Contracting company. He said it was common practice to promise the world and then not be able to deliver a good project on time. (That is why he got out.) They need to be honest up front. LOL Will never happen, right?!

  Susan Posted June 19, 2009 10:17 AM
• 80787
  

  Any trained CO that has made the effort to fully comply with the FAR on a major acquisition already knows that no FAR rewrite is needed for these initiatives. There are numerous directives throughout the FAR that require a justification to the file for the acquisitions being made. Here is a brief excerpt for those who apparently are not yet aware that the FAR is available in it's entirety on the web (yes, searchable too!). "FAR 16.103(d) Each contract file shall include documentation to show why the particular contract type was selected." Any real acquisition plan must address the reason for a particular contract type or it does not meet the dictionary definition of an "acquisition plan". Yes many changes are needed, but not to the FAR. These discussions of acquisition challenges have become extremely boorish as they quickly migrate to regulatory action and ignore the stated but as yet unaddressed reality that the problem is with the acquisiton workforce (HCA, SADBUS, PO, CO, COTR, COR, you name 'em). Here are two suggestions that seem obvious: annual testing (yes testing, tailered to grade) on basic FAR regulations for all acquisition employees (to separate the wheat from the tare, primarily to restrict career advancement for those who are not qualified at the base level) and a mentoring requirement for senior employees in acquisition as part of their performance evaluation. What contracting needs are COs that can actually address the requirement at FAR 16.103 (d) with a statement other than "That's the type the Project Officer wants."! Here is another regulatory example of proper administration of any cost-type contract which apparently is a secret: "FAR 16.103 (c)...In particular, contracting officers should avoid protracted use of a cost-reimbursement or time-and-materials contract after experience provides a basis for firmer pricing." At a minimum, logic dictates that at least the fee amount be reduced over time as at least some of the risk must (and if it doesn't, explain why Mr. Contractor) mitigate over time on most cost contracts. Would close by saying "Enough said", but sadly the debate continues.

  Procurementologist Posted June 19, 2009 10:08 AM
• 80783
  

  If industry leaders are worried, then that's a good sign. It's a positive to note that companies are apprehensive that they're no longer going to free rides that they enjoyed for 8yrs under the Bush administration. Progress may be slow, but it appears to actually be happening!

  DSR

  David Posted June 19, 2009 9:48 AM
• 80777
  

  I think it is important to distinguish sole source and single award contracts. The FAR provides the basis upon which procurements can be handled on a sole source/non-competitive basis. The FAR also provides for the notice requirements that must be met to assure transparency on such transactions.

  A single award contract is typically proceeded by a competition. Depending on the acquisition method [GSA Schedules, GWAC, EWAC or DWAC, open market, set-aside]the extent of competiton might be limited, but nonetheless there is a recognized competitive field of offerors. As a result of this competition a single award is made. Consideration must be given to why [typically program requirements and/or funding] dictate that a larger program be executed on a more incremental basis by a single contractor. Had the project been fully funded, as they should be on a fixed price contract, the single award would receive less attention. However, frequently the funding requires a more incremental and segmented approach. In the case of IT projects this might be an effective way of also executing modular contracting.

  Michael Del-Colle Posted June 19, 2009 9:24 AM
• 80763
  

  Did anyone NOT expect lobbyists for contractors to cry foul? They are not going to sit still while tax-payers try to reduce their fat profits. Try taking a meat-bone from a junkyard dog. The food is yours, but the dog thinks its his!

  Don Posted June 19, 2009 7:52 AM
• 80758
  

  The gravy train is reaching the end of the track and the contractors are worried.

  Cicero Posted June 19, 2009 7:23 AM
• 80756
  

  There will be no "true reform" until Congress puts tougher ethics rules into law that stop government employees steering contracts to their friends so they have a job when they retire. There are very few real competitions out there.

  Kathleen Breen Posted June 19, 2009 7:13 AM