Do you use criminal background checks for contractor responsibility determinations?

The Government Accountability Office (GAO) was asked (by the Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations of the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs) to comment on whether criminal background investigations were used to determine contractor responsibility before contract award.

In a nutshell, the GAO said, "no" and that the FAR doesn't say to do that. Then, as part of their discussion, GAO mentioned that the only use of them in the contracting world is when allowing access to military bases or for security clearances.

Perhaps this is another of the "oversight" categories that the current session of Congress will be focusing on. The "good" news is that all the focus on the failings of contractors will mean more emphasis on government employees doing that work.

Until we all retire and go away.

GSA IG to do pre-award audits and surveys

The GSA budget includes funding authority (my recently acquired fiscal law knowledge tells me that means there is no real dollars here, just "permission") to perform pre-award audits and surveys. They will be performing them on a reimbursable basis, so I assume the costs will be included in the service fee charged to their customers.

No comment, just the facts.

Army raked over coals for third tier subcontractor actions

A subcontractor for a subcontractor for a subcontractor to the Army's Logistics Civil Augmentation Program, or LOGCAP, contract turns out to be a private military contractor (PMC). The "news" is that this company used armed guards to protect the transportation of cash used to pay vendors and employees and were part of a contract that does not allow contracting for armed security.

Since the prime contractor is a Halliburton subsidiary (KBR) and the security firm is Blackwater, Inc, from Moyock, NC, it makes headlines and a congressional hearing.

What is interesting to me is that the KBR contract administrator recognized the problem with this and understood his firm's role in flowing the proper clauses down to the subcontracts. He recommended not following the direction that the eventual sub-sub-subcontract went.

Of course, he wrote all this in an email and for some reason "top officials" at KBR were unaware of it. It seems logical that all email traffic is not forwarded to the senior officials at this company that has 57,000 employees.

That happens to me all the time. No one at the Pentagon ever reads these important postings nor my emails and nor takes my opinion seriously. I can't understand why KBR doesn't do a better job with far fewer employees.

I am not sure what the true issue is here. Is it the numbers of contractor personnel in Iraq? Is it the number of contractors that are needed to protect other contractors? Or is this something not contract-related at all- perhaps an issue of rules of "behavior" in-theater- or maybe it is just politics.

FEMA searching for contracting expertise

The Federal Emergency Management Agency is having a job fair to fill 50 positions, 41 of which are for their Procurement Division. This Homeland Security agency is seeking to get up to a 95 percent hiring level, but has fallen short in the past.

Their procurement division has had its challenges. They hired a contractor to help in the short term right after Hurricanes Rita and Katrina, had to justify themselves before Congress, and were even impersonated by thieves.

They have a dynamic leader in Deidre Lee and are trying to get themselves together. Now, it seems, if you need a change, this might be a great time to move to FEMA.

DHS procurement woes and opportunity for improvements- Part 2

The second article I saw about the challenges facing the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) addressed improving the professionalism of their acquisition workforce. While this is an oft-used solution to procurement issues, perhaps in the case of DHS, it is an appropriate step.

Legislation has been introduced (DHS Procurement Improvement Act (H.R. 803)) to create specific curriculum and training programs, plus stregthens policies that will improve the quality of contracts. This bill, if approved will

require a new Council on Procurement Training, to be headed by the deputy chief procurement officer (CPO) at DHS, to advise and make policy recommendations to the CPO.

These steps may be important to DHS. In testimony before the the House Oversight and Government Reform hearing last week, the Comptroller General, David Walker, stated that the acquisition workforce of DHS has not changed much since the merger of all the agencies that created DHS following the attack on America, Sept 11, 2001.

Part of the challenge, he says is that

Of the 22 components that initially joined DHS from other agencies, only 7 came with their own procurement support. An eighth office, the Office of Procurement Operations, was created anew to provide support to a variety of DHS entities—but not until January 2004, almost a year after the department was created.

Add to this the fact that these 7 agencies have essentially the same people now as before the merger, he feels there needs to be a change.

Now, with this bill, getting a better-educated procurement workforce may make it easier to get world class procurement solutions and lessons-learned throughout the organization.

DHS procurement woes and opportunity for improvements- Part 1

Two separate news articles came through this past week that underscores the challenges at the Department of Homeland Security. The first describes the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee conducting a series of hearings last week on the general topic of fraud, waste and abuse. During those hearings, they focused on administrative oversight and, in particular, looked at DHS contracts for the Coast Guard's Deep Water Program and their Secure Border Initiative.

Both programs use "system integrators" and have had problems with costs being higher that expected.

The comment of interest (to me) from this hearing is from the Comptroller General (the head of GAO), David Walker, who said

We ought to be able to pull the plug (for poor performance) and taxpayers shouldn't have to pay a dime

Certainly, DHS uses termination for default clauses. Perhaps they just need better contract administration.