Government Internet initiatives face real challenges

After reading (and writing) about the soon-to-be-adopted (by 2014) web-based contracting systems, I remembered this recent article. It cites the use of federal Internet sites by citizens throughout the country. [A similar article is here]

Maybe the explanation is in the traditional government practice of rice-bowling. Here is what the article says,

Karen Evans, administrator of OMB's Office of Electronic Government and Information Technology, said it is one thing for agencies to offer a service, but it is another for them to actually shut down their similar service and use the governmentwide solution. [my italics, of course]

That is why there is an Army Single Face to Industry website and FedBizOpps, a USAJobs site and the Army CPOL website (the Air Force has one and the Navy, too).

Of course, what about all the legacy systems that are procurement-related that can barely even talk to themselves.

The Coast Guard's contract writing system (see the article or read the report, see page 8) that doesn't talk to the federal government's new repository of procurement-related data (FDPS-NG) nor to other DHS contracting systems. The report says

Currently, however, DHS has several different contract writing systems that do not automatically interface with its Federal Procurement Data Systems - Next Generation (FPDS-NG) – a government-wide procurement reporting system accessible by the public. Some of the systems may need to be replaced. Additionally, not all DHS procurements are entered into FPDS-NG. For example, grants, mission assignments, and purchase card data may not be entered into FPDS-NG, resulting in an understatement of DHS’s procurement activities.

Wow! Why can't we just get along?

Interesting perspective on federal contracting in the future

Commercial practices in federal procurement as a "hot" issue may be back in style. A new report by Government Futures (get your copy of the report in .pdf format or view the webcast) talks about using commercial business practices. We are used to hearing about such practices as buying commercial, off the shelf items, for example.

However, this time, commercial business practices include such things as using web-based buying, tracking and spend analysis systems, strategic sourcing and something they call aggregate buying (buying in bulk throughout the "enterprise" (the whole Army, for instance, not the space ship)).

[Is it legal to have parenthesis inside parenthesis? Just wondering...]

The "quote of the article" is by the president of Government Futures who is quoted as saying

Pockets of excellence sit side by side with shops where innovation is not rewarded

Very interesting take on this topic. The most interesting thing to me, though, is the graphic that estimates how long it will take for federal government adoption of such practices. This report expects widespread adoption by 2014 of web-based procurement systems.

We may get SPS Increment 3 by then.

NASA's GWAC contract gets recertified

OFPP Chief says that Government Wide Acquisition Contracts (GWACs) are not a problem and that they solve strategic requirements for a narrow range of products and services.

Earlier this week, we discussed GWACs and interagency contracts. Now, NASA gets a shot to keep theirs.

Do you think GWACs and other interagency contracts are needed/desired? Do you think they serve a purpose?

How about intra-agency contracts (such as Army contracts used by the Navy, etc.). Do they have the same issues as interagency and GWACs?

Acquisition is a challenge at DHS, too!

Even at DHS- that includes the US Coast Guard- there is trouble in Contract Land. They need a new contract writing system. We have heard about Increment 3 of SPS and maybe that would be a great way to introduce our Coastie friends to our misery!

From before the blog: Size does matter

[Occasionally, I will resurrect something that I have found from the past and bring it to your attention.]

Cost for certifying as a small business as part of a GSA schedule proposal: $0
Cost for competitor to protest size certification: $.39
Cost for misrepresenting a large company as a small one: NOT Priceless- One million dollars!

Seriously, folks (I can't believe I said that)... There is a current controversy with large companies buying small companies and reaping small business contracting preferences. In fact, this fall, the Small Business Administration came up with new regulations to combat this issue.

Is that enough? Is that too much?

Another report saying "contract administration first!"

Once again, GAO manages to state the obvious, that contract administration is lacking in contracts for forward deployed contractors. One of the issues that GAO thinks is important is how many contractors and their employees there are.

There seems to be two issues here. First is a micro issue of how many employees need to be housed/fed/cared for at forward deployed installations. If this is an issue, perhaps something more than an annual report should be required.

Secondly, since we are buying performance and outcomes (FAR Part 37.1 says performance based contracting is still the method of choice), it is not relevant to the buying decision, so we don't require the contractor to report it anywhere, except for the Army's annual contractor manpower report.

There seems to be some sort of agenda in the Beltway about how many contractors are doing government work.

[Note: of course, some proposals have work breakdowns that include labor projections, however, contractors are not bound by them in most cases.]

The purpose of the A-76 and performance based contracting, as I understand it, was not to decrease or increase the workforce, but to save the government money. That should be the measure, not the number of employees.

Send me your comments. Post them right down here at the bottom of the post.

Not George Group wins Lean contract

The Army has relied on one sole contractor for Lean Six Sigma support. However, the Air Force is moving forward quickly using contractors located near their installations to move Lean throughout their manufacturing and depot processes.

Maybe the Army should re-focus on getting Lean Six Sigma to the field and not to getting more work for their contractor-of-choice.

Army seeks digital coaches

Just thought this was a cool requirement- digital coaches. If they can pull this off, it might be something that can transfer thoughout the Army, including contracting.

Hundreds of interagency contracts available for use

According to the results of a recent survey, there are over 250 interagency contracts. In case you didn't know, using interagency contracts is "not well understood."

While the chief of OFPP thinks 12 Government Wide Acquisition Contracts (GWACs) is not too many, but his deputy doesn't think so.

If someone comes up with a good contracting solution, why should we re-invent the wheel? Just need to get the details sorted out so we have better contract administration.