Ending revolving doors of contracting officers- again

Lately. there has been a lot of attention on

1. the "problems" with contracting officials' ethics
2. the trouble ahead when all the contracting officers retire (at once, presumably)

Here are two different attempts to correct these problems. The first, Rep. Henry Waxman's (D-Calif) Executive Branch Reform Act extends the amount of time- from one to two years- before you can award a contract to a former employer or work for the same part of a company you had dealings with as a "procurement official."

The second, I posted about the other day. I didn't notice anything in that bill, but Paul Denett, the OFPP administrator, is still looking at it.

Still, if you a big, influential government procurement official (like a military service secretary), you still have options. You could still get a job as a "consultant" with one of the big companies and do work on "big picture" stuff (providing policy analysis-type input to the board, for instance) or work in some division of the firm that is totally unrelated to what your expertise is. You can still ride the "rubber chicken" speaking tour, expounding on the good things or bad things that you saw/did while working in government (depending on what you saw/did would determine the payday for each speech).

Under this proposed legislation, you'll still have income and you will stay busy. The only difference (as I see it) is that you just have to do it for two years instead of one. Your pals will still be your pals. If they "owe you," they will still owe you.

A better strategy might be to run for Congress and change it all again. Better save that discussion for another time.

To the point here, the "famous" contracting ethics problems will not be solved by waiting an extra year. One problem was with a high-level official still in her job. She got caught and did the time. New laws would not have prevented this.

If they are still jealous of Mr. Cheney, it has been way more than two years since he left Halliburton. That is besides the point that he probably has kept a great distance away just to avoid this sort of fallout.

It is not a problem of insufficient legislation. It is in treating everyone with sufficient respect they will 1) want to work for the government and 2) not be tempted to violate the public's trust in them. Is this too much to expect? Maybe, but there are plenty of laws out there now. Especially on this topic.

New bill introduced to fix federal contracting problems

The latest attempt to legislate good contracting practices was recently introduced. Senate bill S-680 has quite a few changes in store for our profession, many of which are outlined in the GovExec article. See the article for such new twists as:

Requiring agencies to publicly announce large sole source contracts shortly after they are awarded

Expand and improve the training of the federal acquisition workforce.

Expand contract award protest rights to allow challenges of large task and delivery awards under multiple award IDIQ contracts.

Have the Office of Management and Budget study the use of interagency contracts

Limit the value of task and delivery orders for services under larger contracts to $100 million.

Include a requirement that prime contractors
subcontract no more than 65 percent of the work on any given contract.

Includes some provisions that resemble recommendations made by the Services Acquisition Reform Act Advisory Committee (see these)

One provision of that bill that would impact our world the most, in my opinion, is the requirement to publish all Justifications and Approvals (J&As) on FEDBIZOPPS and the agency's internal website (such as the Army's Single Face to Industry website).

I am of two minds on this one.

Based on comments from procurement analysts that I know, the quality of J&As may increase exponentially if they were to be published and subject to the same scrutiny of everything else that is published in the contracting world.

Initially, there would be a firestorm of comments and concerns. However, contracting officers would get better at crafting J&As that meet both the federal procurement requirements and the public's requirements. This could be a good thing, long term.

Secondly, though, anything that is published creates an opportunity to be second-guessed by those outside the process and by those trying to influence the process. Soon, there would be a protest procedure for J&As, including some time period for public comments, and there may never be an award made for other than full competition. This would certainly tie the hands (and feet?) of contracting officers simply trying to provide our soldiers, sailors, airmen, marines and other government agencies with what they need to accomplish this monumental task that is running the federal government.

The resulting glacial pace of procurement (if it isn't already)would be due to adding another layer of public hysteria-induced confusion and CYA-induced oversight. I am sure that is not the intent of this proposed legislation.