TOPICS
TOPICS
Industry concerned over details of contracting reforms
Industry groups said on Thursday that they generally agree with the principles outlined in President Obama's March 4 memorandum on contracting reform, but have some concerns about related guidance to be issued by the Office of Management and Budget in September.
During a public meeting hosted by OMB in Washington, contractor associations and other interested parties offered input on increasing competition in procurement, the most beneficial contract types, strengthening the acquisition workforce and determining when it is appropriate to outsource federal jobs. Speakers applauded the Obama administration for making contracting a priority, but urged that change stem from facts rather than perception.
Chris Braddock, senior director of procurement policy at the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, said industry fully supports expanding competition where appropriate, but asked OMB to recognize that sole-source contracting is necessary and helpful in some circumstances. He noted, for instance, that sole-source awards can increase the government's flexibility and responsiveness in times of crisis.
"There are a number of situations in which single award contracts are beneficial to the government and should be utilized," Braddock said, noting that competition is more prevalent than people might think. Sixty-seven percent of fiscal 2008 contracting dollars governmentwide were subject to full and open competition, he said.
The industry groups seemed most passionate when discussing contract types. In the March 4 memo, Obama stated: "There shall be a preference for fixed-price type contracts. Cost-reimbursement contracts shall be used only when circumstances do not allow the agency to define its requirements sufficiently to allow for a fixed-price type contract."
Alan Chvotkin, senior vice president and counsel for the Professional Services Council, noted the Federal Acquisition Regulation already establishes a preference for fixed-price contracts. Chvotkin suggested that agencies be required to document and share their reasons for choosing any contract type so officials would not feel overburdened if they deemed a cost-type arrangement best for a project.
Eleanor Spector, vice president of contracts for Lockheed Martin Corp., speaking on behalf of the Aerospace Industries Association, warned against using fixed-price contracts for complex research-and-development programs, citing multiple instances in which such projects came in grossly behind schedule and over budget.
"The forced use of fixed-price development has not controlled cost growth and transfers risk to contractors," Spector said. "The current FAR policy is essentially appropriate. When it's not followed is when the government and contractors get into trouble."
A number of speakers cited the diminished acquisition workforce as the thread tying together all these issues. Without a strong, well-trained cadre of contracting officers and program managers, agencies are more likely to mismanage any contract type or to cut corners by making sole-source awards, industry leaders said. They unanimously supported the administration's attempts to strengthen the procurement staff governmentwide.
They urged caution, however, in beefing up other areas of the federal workforce through insourcing. Chvotkin said PSC strongly supports further guidance on defining "inherently governmental" work.
"We don't have a single uniform definition of inherently governmental functions and since we don't know what an inherently governmental function is, I've always been amused by how Congress can expect agencies to understand what functions are closely associated with an inherently governmental function," Chvotkin said.
Identifying critical functions is even more difficult, and, unlike defining inherently governmental, must be done on an agency-by-agency basis, he said. Each agency must determine what skill sets it needs to perform its mission and find the right balance of contractors and federal employees to meet those needs.
Discussion moderator Jeff Liebman, executive associate director of OMB, thanked the speakers for coming to the town hall-style meeting and offering their opinions. He urged interested parties to continue to engage with OMB by submitting written comments on Regulations.gov by July 17.
COMMENTS
- 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
- 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
- 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
PROMO RIGHT: GBC
Advancing the business of government through analysis, insight and the sharing of best practices.
SPONSORED RESEARCH
Achieving a Greener Federal Government IBM
Federal Cybersecurity: Securing the Nation's Information IBM
American Recovery and Reinvestment Act: New Requirements for Tracking and Reporting Federal Workforce Data Kronos
Managing the Stimulus: A Candid Survey of Federal Program Managers Accenture and Microsoft
Improving Collaboration and Productivity in 21st Century Government: The Role of Communication for Government Executives Cisco









