Accountability in Contracting Act gathers contractor opposition

This earlier article has been replaced by news that the House "marked up" a version and later passed a similar version of this bill (HR 1362). What is it about?

Its primary purpose is to limit abuse-prone contracts- primarily sole source and cost-reimbursable. How? By:

Restricting the length of any contract over [originally SAP] $1,000,000 and using "other than competitive" procedures to the minimum period necessary [originally 240 days, as passed 1 year].

• to meet the urgent and compelling requirements of the work to be performed and
• to enter into another contract through use of competitive requirements

Also, the originally introduced and passed bills:

• Require plans for reducing the use of sole source and cost-reimbursable contracts, including measurable goals.
• Increase contract oversight, by publicly disclosing J and As and disclosing audits and other reports that describe contractor costs over [Originally $1 million] $10 million that are unsupported, questioned or unreasonable.

[The bill as introduced added funding contract oversight by increasing amounts for hiring, training, contract planning, contract administration,oversight and audits by an amount equal to one percent of the aggregate amount of contracts awarded during that fiscal year. (my emphasis)]

FInally, the bill hopes to close what it perceives as legislative "loopholes" and will deter corruption in contracting by further restricting the time for a federal employee to start working for a contractor.

Check out the articles and bill to see what is coming down the pike. This has to go to the Senate as well, so it is not a done deal, yet.

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.

Procurement integrity put to the test- 144 years ago

President Ulysses S. Grant received a letter written to warn him about a scrupulous group of businessmen about to pay him an office call. The letter details the bid fixing plan and how the other members of the group would buy-out any other bidders.

He details contracts awarded to the highest (or a long way from lowest) bidder and other shenanigans.

Even (way) back in the "good old days..."

Effective contract administration methods

Much has been said about ensuring contractors properly perform on their contracts during the Iraq War. Check out how they improved contractor performance during the Civil War.

Keep a watchful eye- careful contract administration is still important

Every once in a while, it is good to remember that we are responsible for and entrusted to protect our nation's resources. The best way we can is to create business relationships based on sound, ethical practices.

This website is about those business relationships that contractors and sometimes government employees (there is even a contracting officer listed here) made that were not sound nor ethical.

Come back to this site occasionally to keep in mind the ways that others can commit procurement fraud and erode the trust that the rest of us have been trying to build through our actions day-to-day.

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?

Interesting ethical reading

The DoD Office of General Counsel has an entertaining and ethically informative publication, called the Encyclopedia of Ethical Failure. It includes a lot of examples and explanations regarding the rules of proper ethical behavior.

It is amazing what some people will do with Uncle Sam's (and our) taxpayer money.

Government Purchase Card program needs regular oversight

This is a story of GPC misuse. Once again, someone is given the responsibility to do things faster, better, cheaper and only thought of themselves. Just remember, he will always be known as the guy who bought $682.50 in golf balls for $1,409 and may get 15 years in jail.

Note his creative writing skills. There will be quite a future for him as a jailhouse lawyer and author!

Crime still doesn't pay.