A new term for the contracting professional: Acquisition malpractice

Thanks to Mr. John Thos. Brown for pointing this out of an otherwise overlooked news article in his blog, Blogged Down in Procurement. We want to be considered as professionals and as such we need to practice our craft accordingly. Sometimes that means calling attention to our errors and Mr Frank Kendall, the new DoD Chief of Procurement (actually his title is Acting Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology and Logistics) is doing so.

Regardless of how busy we become, it is important to take time to make the good decisions. It is also important to remember that this is a profession and our ongoing professional development includes learning from the mistakes of others.

And add "acquisition malpractice" into your vocabulary.

Performance based contracting versus counting contractor employees

According to a recent summary, the early markup of the FY 2010 National Defense Authorization Act (H.R. 2647 for those scoring at home) includes provisions to convert 11,000 contractor positions to DOD civilian personnel positions and will require, if passed,

“DOD to include contractor employee data for service contracts in annual budget documents...” and to “...report on how it plans to achieve its insourcing (using civilian employees for new work or work that is currently being performed by contractors) goals.”

This seems to go against the goals of performance based service procurements where the desired results were all that was important. Who cared how many people the contractor used (except installation commanders that needed to know how many people needed access to the post and its related services)? If the end result of their work was the correct and desirable one, that was the entire issue and the contractor got paid.

So now we need to count contractor employees for all our service contracts. That leaves us with two other questions. First, is the Contractor Manpower Report acceptable? Second, do they mean bodies (including part time employees) or do they want to count full time equivalents (FTEs)? For those services that do not need a full time employee year ‘round, do we need to hire one?

We will have to stay tuned.

Reforming Government Contracting- deadlines loom

In March 2009, President Obama sent a memorandum to the Heads of the Executive Department and Agencies outlining his plan to reform government contracting. Here is a link to a presidential press/media fact sheet on this memo. The intent of his memo is to call attention to the use of sole source and limited source contracting vehicles (that would include multiple award task/delivery order contracts), the need for greater contract management and oversight and the need to define "inherently governmental activities" that should not be outsourced.

Within the memo is a call to action for the Office of Management and Budget to issue guidance on how to award better contracts by July 1, 2009. That dealine is fast approaching. It would be great to be able to solve the government contracting problem with a piece of guidance written in less than 4 months.

September 30, 2009 is the date we will get the answers to these age-old contracting dilemmas (the answers are both basic and complicated, to say the least):

• How to use and manage sole-source and other types of noncompetitive contracts and to maximize the use of full and open competition and other competitive procurement processes;
• How to use and oversee all contract types, in full consideration of the agency’s needs, and to minimize risk and maximize the value of government contracts generally;
• Is there sufficient capacity and ability of the Federal acquisition workforce to develop, manage, and oversee acquisitions appropriately; and
• When is (or is not) governmental outsourcing for services appropriate.

Can't wait for the answers. Stay tuned.

Now it is Cronyism and Corruption

The assault on the federal procurement process continues.

The Center for American Progress, a progressive think tank, uses the words, "cronyism" and "corruption" as the headline of their press release about an "event" featuring Rep. Henry Waxman, the chairman of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee as its keynote speaker.

Both Federal Computer Week (FCW.com) and Government Executive (GovExec.com) reported on this event and neither one used those words. In fact, the text of the organization's release talked of Rep. Waxman's vision of increasing the size of the government acquisition workforce. The release says that,

He cited the need for more contract managers and government overseers and proposed that 1 percent of federal procurement spending be set aside for
procurement management and oversight.

That doesn't sound like everyone in the federal contracting profession are on the take. However, his remark that,

While government contractors are getting richer, taxpayers are getting soaked

sounds a little more inflammatory.

We must redouble our efforts, as federal contracting professionals to keep our eyes on the goal of being good stewards of the taxpayer's money and earning their continuing confidence on a daily basis.

More acquisition reforms coming in defense spending bill

The operative word is more! This article says that there will be more attention to contracting and subcontracting contained in the 2008 Defense Appropriations bill, just now being staffed on Capitol Hill.

That is in addition to the other "reforms" that the "new" Congress has in mind.

For instance, the Accountability in Contracting Act is already in play (the Supplemental Appropriations bill- with it attached- is in the hands of the Senate). Now Rep. Jim Moran (D-VA) on the House Appropriations Committee’s Defense Subcommittee wants more oversight. According to the article, his aim is

(m)ore government employees should be scrutinizing contracts

That should be good new for us, but I can't believe that means more people to do the scrutinizing. Maybe even more contractors to help with the scrutinizing.

Regardless, we need to watch for new developments.

Yahoo (the exclamation not website)!! Law maker says give us money, give us bonuses.

At last, someone on Capitol Hill is talking sense. Rep. Tom Davis, speaking before the Association of Government Accountants, told the group that trained, effective contracting professionals are very important to the whole procurement process.

In the article, he said,

You've got a lot of good [acquisition] people in government, but if you're not training them on an ongoing basis, you're losing out," Davis told the
auditors. "I would pay them, I would bonus them." [I added the italics]

He also blasted last congressional session's Clean Contracting Act (see my post here regarding Rep. Henry Waxman's current iteration of that legislation ) as creating too much oversight for the effort involved and potential savings.

On the subject of Government Purchase Cards (GPC), he said that efforts to restrict them are detrimental to the procurement process. He points to a:

misguided focus on the relatively small downside of abuse, rather than the large
administrative savings the cards generate

Read the whole article for more interesting details. Considering it is a group of accountants, that turned out to be a good meeting to have attended.

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.

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.

DoD Moves toward Procurement Competency

This GovExec article expresses interest in the Director of Defense Procurement's model to

help gauge the capabilities of its acquisition workforce and determine what areas need strengthening or realignment

The competency models are explained at the DPAP website. There should be a final compentency report early this year with the models to roll out Department-wide by June 2007. They will be used to assess the workforce, identify skill gaps and work to close those gaps.

Everyday, someone comes out with accusations about the poor job contracting has done, whether in Iraq or for some weapon system or another. The Defense contracting community has worked the hardest to put trained and effective professionals into the field. Its training scheme is now being used to train the rest of the contracting community as the Federal Acquisition Institute is now co-located with the Defense Acquisition University at Fort Belvoir, VA.

This competency model concept seems to me to be another tool to ensure we are as effective as we can be. Let's keep an open mind and be objective about it when it is announced.

OFPP to adopt GAO framework for acquisition

The OFPP chief is looking at ways to improve the way the federal government purchases goods and services. He plans to implement a year-old framework presented by GAO in September 2005.

During remarks delivered at an NCMA conference in the Beltway last week, he said, "“It is too easy to say that the number of procurement people has gone down and the money has gone up, ergo we need more people,” said Denett. “We have to find out if we have the right people."

But then, he continues and I hope he did not mean to start name calling when he says, "Do we have round people in square jobs? It is not one size fits all.”

There are a lot of round people in the procurement offices I have worked- including me.

Mr. Denett, are you talking to me???? I hope you aren't talking to me.

The new acquisition professional

The current Government Executive Magazine has a long article about the acquisition career field, showing how attractive what we do really is. When they put it online, I will link to it.

In the meantime, a couple of juicy quotes:

(From page 51) Federal contracting isn't the most tantalizing of career choices. It involves details, paperwork and lots of rules. Contracting officers...are among the most scrutinized of government professionals. Contracting's deadly reputation for being boring yet stressful undoubtedly is part of the reason that procurement people are so hard to recruit.

Really makes you want to sign up, doesn't it? Here's a great recruiting slogan (page 56),

There are a lot of people retiring, why don't you give it a shot?

On the plus side, there is a of discussion of appealing to 20- and 30-somethings and their need for "meaningful" work and on how government employers might make more attractive work environments, including,"giv(ing) workers what they want, whether its working from home or bringing their dogs to work...(page 56).

This is an interesting article. Look for it around the office or wait until it comes online (they usually put it online a week or so after it comes in the mail).