DoD IG says requiring activity should justify cost of going to non-DoD contract

The acting DoD IG, Thomas Gimble, appeared before the Senate Armed Services Readiness and Management Sub-committee last week. He listed a lot of reasons that DoD program officials (he really didn't blame DoD contracting folks) went to non-DoD contracts. Among the reasons are:

the non-DoD agency processed the purchases faster than DoD and they could generally get the contractor they wanted

He went on to say that by going to non-DoD contracts, contracting and funding issues were a big problem. Contracting problems such as insufficient competition, failure to determine price fairness and reasonableness, and inadequate contract surveillance. The biggest funding issue is that GSA and Department of Interior helped DoD "park" money that was expiring. According to the report,

Most of the contracting and funding problems were driven by three factors: the desire to hire a particular contractor, the desire to obligate expiring funds, and the inability of the DoD contracting workforce to timely respond to its customers.

Finally, the IG said that DoD requiring activities spent $23 million in surcharges to GSA and DOI for

for purchases that could have been routinely handled by junior DoD contracting personnel. DoD often paid surcharges for GSA and the Department of the Interior to purchase low-cost military equipment or commercial items that could have been obtained from existing DoD contracts.

Finally, the report recognized that the requiring activity shouldered much of the responsibility for correcting this. It also says that when the requirement was initiated, the requiring activity

...did not determine whether it was in DoD’s best interest to make the purchase through a DoD contracting office or pay a 2 to 5 percent fee for assistance from a non-DoD agency.