Protest Accountability: Time For Enforcement

Protests are back in the news, although they never really left. I have been writing about this issue for some time (here and here), but the problem has only exploded in the last five years with the economic implosion, and now sequestration and budgeting Armageddon possible on the horizon.

A recent report from IBM’s Center for the Business of Government also highlight similar issues, but some of the recommendations made in the report are either not realistic or have no chance at implementation.

The current state of the acquisition workforce, and I am including the program office who will (or should) be evaluating a proposal, simply will not allow many of these recommendations to see the light of day.

The report should have focused on the only issues that need leadership support, which is to create confidence in the contract award decision, and to ensure industry understands the requirements, evaluation criteria, and why they did not win a contract.

Nonetheless, the current state of affairs when it comes to protests is only going to worsen unless accountability is brought into the fray.

Looking at the recent Government Accountability Office (GAO) report on protests, it is hard to not think that protests are out of control. Here is where I strongly agree with IBM’s report, as I have been an advocate of protest accountability for some time. How can one argue that some protests are not simply frivolous? I know of a company, an incumbent on a contract that lost a recompete, who admitted filing a frivolous protest to bilk the government for another three months of revenue while GAO made the decision. The basis for the protest bordered on absurd, but how often does that happen? More often than you think. It is a business decision no doubt, but only at the expense of the taxpayers and the mission.

Protests are disruptive, and firms need to be held accountable for reimbursing the government for losing protest after protest. Further, this is a demonstration of a bad actor, and should also be included in a firm’s past performance rating.

Conversely, firms should automatically be compensated for protests fees should they be upheld. It is a two-way street, and needs to be treated as such.

Protests are a fundamental right by a firm to correct a deficiency by the government. However, the data indicate that this right is being abused. Let’s bring this situation under control, and move forward.

Your Taxpayer Dollar$ at Work: Volume III – Muffin Edition (Update)

So the $16 muffin is back in the news as the Department of Justice (DOJ) Inspector General made updates to its previous report by correcting the record, and bowing to the sensationalist media coverage that yes, the muffin itself did not cost $16. 

Correcting the record is a good thing. However, what the sensationalist media forgets, and what seems to be ignored, is the fact that the DOJ, in addition to the federal government itself, is not doing enough due diligence to ensure that the these expenditures are in the best interest of the organization or that they are being good stewards of taxpayer funds. The report correction goes on further to say that all-inclusive lunches cost $76. Will this be the subject of the next series of reports?

Putting aside the full court press of public relations activity by the hospitality industry, how does government know they are getting the best value? Having done this myself over the years, I have always tried to negotiate better pricing for conference space, refreshments, meals, etc. by playing venues off one another to get the best deal for my needs. I do not doubt that the venues are being flexible to get my business, but how can the government buyers say with a straight face they too are getting the best prices? Further, what options are being explored to find more cost effective means of holding these conferences and training (i.e. videoconferencing, other federal spaces, etc.)?

It is this willful ignorance that explains why we can continue to expect the inability to create budgets, more focus on nonsense, and putting aside effective governance and accountability for the foreseeable future.

How Do You Stop A Contracting Disaster?

In light of the new inherently governmental rules that have been published by the Office of Federal Procurement Policy, decision making by the government in regard to acquisition strategy comes to mind. When it comes to hiring contractors to assist in performing acquisition functions, it is very much a caveat emptor situation.

Contracting is a difficult subject, that requires expertise. There are many IT and Program Management firms that continue to receive contracts to provide acquisition support, although they do not have the competency or the skill set to provide it. They just happen to be there providing other support services, are an 8(a) so you can sole-source a contract, or see these opportunities because of the desperate need by government. So why not assist with procurements? It is just paper-pushing anyway, with little value-added service, right? Hardly.

What is happening is that IT Program Managers with a few DAU classes under their belts are making incompetent recommendations related to contract type, acquisition strategy, and requirements. Because the federal IT clients do not understand contracting, and the acquisition shops are overloaded and not providing sound business advice, the government relies on poor advice in its decision making.

Contracts worth millions, sometimes hundreds of millions, are being made in this dysfunctional environment. The government continues to bleed, and incompetent contractors continue to be paid. The inherently governmental rules allow contractors to provide guidance and advice, but little vetting of competency and skill set seems to be happening due to pressures of desperately needing support, and the need to increase contract throughput. These services, when done right, can be very critical to supporting this crucial government management mission. I am not advocating they go away, but in looking at inherently governmental functions, the government really needs to be careful what it is getting and why.

How can we honestly discuss acquisition reform when this environment exists?

Policy Reviews Will Not Improve Government Procurement

As part of the continuing push by the Administration to reduce the amount of redundancy and to cut red tape through a review of existing federal regulations, agencies recently announced their final plans that describe what they will begin to consider as possible reforms to current regulations to execute on the President’s Executive Order.

The plans look at variety of issues, including increasing competition, payments to small businesses, and vendor communications with government. In addition, the final plan for regulatory reviews also includes conflicts of interest, how to properly review a company’s past performances, and working with the Small Business Administration to update rules for using set-aside contracts and small business subcontracting plans.

Although the regulatory review plans are long overdue, and definitely needed, I am not sure the fundamental issues at the heart of the problems are regulatory in nature.

In July, the Department of Defense (DOD) proposed changes to the Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement’s rules on how DOD gets a fair or reasonable price from a company when only one-bid is received. Under the proposed new rules, Contracting Officers would have to re-compete the solicitation for at least another 30 days, and would have to determine prices to be reasonable through price or cost analysis or they can enter negotiations with the company that made the bid. However, the proposed regulatory change does not even discuss a comprehensive review of requirements or acquisition strategy, which more than likely led to the one-bid in the first place.

Regulatory reviews also plan to look at FAR 15, and regulatory obstacles to vendor communications. In fact, the regulations are clear on best practices and what is permissible prior to RFP release, even though it is not getting done. Dan Gordon, administrator of the Office of Federal Procurement Policy (OFPP), plans to discuss the rules about communications, and provide more guidance via a proposed memo by the end of 2011.

This memo would be a continuation of the OFPP's Myth Busters Campaign that discusses the misconceptions about government and industry communications. The Better Government IT initiative was created to help in this effort, but it is through this crowdsourcing that best practices can be reviewed, not through a review of regulations.

Mandating the use of current policy and regulations does not seem to be a viable option for ensuring government executes on these issues. It is through concerted leadership to execute existing policy and actively solicit best practices that we can expect to see effective change.

Eliminating burdesome policies and regualtions that create barriers to entry and create costs to government and industry would be welcome, but I am not sure this policy review will be as productive as might expected by its proponents.

Your Taxpayer Dollar$ at Work: Volume II

Last year I started a series to highlight outrageous cases of waste, fraud, and abuse by the federal government. In the current environment of complete political theatre and legislative dysfunction leading to budget crises, debt ceilings, and continuous resolutions, I can probably write a book with so much material. However, I wanted to focus on a truly outrageous case of fraud and waste that is shocking, even when we succumb to the worst stereotypical fears of our government.

According to a recent inspector general report at the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA), $540 million dollars annually worth of business is being awarded to companies that fail to meet eligibility requirements for veteran owned small businesses or service-disabled veteran owned small businesses. The report stated these results were extrapolated from audit results, which assumes $540 million, and could add up to $2.5 billion over the next 5 years. The report further estimates that factoring out ineligible businesses, the VA only awarded 12 percent of its procurement dollars to actual veteran owned small businesses (VOSBs) and 10 percent to service disabled veteran owned businesses (SDVOSBs), as opposed to the 23 and 20 percent it said it did during fiscal 2010. Half a billion in estimated fraud? Give me a break.

The main culprit, not surprisingly, is the lack of accountability, according to testimony before the House Veterans Affairs' subcommittee on oversight and investigations by Belinda Finn, assistant inspector general for audits and evaluations at the VA OIG.

…Ineligible businesses received awards because VA's office of small and disadvantaged business utilization was not thoroughly reviewing business documentation and performing site visits to verify the veteran-owned status, said Finn. The OIG also found that contracting officers did not always check VA's enterprise veterans database, business size classification codes, or properly assess subcontracting and partnering agreements…

Once again the lack of resources and strain on the acquisition workforce was blamed, although this is a false argument. There is absolutely no excuse for not verifying eligibility of a firm for these types of set-aside programs, not to mention the subcontracting and partnering agreements. Where is the protection of the public’s trust?

Also of note is that only 30% of service disabled veteran contracts are with the VA, so this is a widespread issue. Obviously unethical firms and individuals are taking advantage of the lack of oversight, but there is no reason why VOSBs and SDVOSBs should be self-certifications. These programs should have formal certification processes similar to 8(a).

Although the VA has verification programs in place through its Center for Veteran Enterprise, it is woefully inadequate and cumbersome. You need your DD-214, adjudication letter from the VA (for SDVOSB), and corporate documentation showing 51% ownership and control. That is it. The current document requests are intrusive, and privacy is a risk. Explain to me how requiring 14 voided checks proves I am eligible?

Taxpayers are at risk in this program, and I hope the government, especially at the VA, understand the depths of this massive fraud being per perpetrated on taxpayers and veterans.

Industry and Government Relations Continue To Be A Challenge

Recently at the National Contract Management Association’s World Congress in Denver, the clouds and storms that rolled into the mile-high city were harbingers of things to come for the week as the relationship between government and industry seems to continue a downward trend at a time when it needs to improve. However, it is the current adversarial atmosphere that was on full display at the conference and illustrated the difficulties that lay ahead in improving and creating an environment of productive communications.

The conference kicked off with an address by Linda Hudson, CEO for BAE Systems, who explained the difficulties that businesses currently face, and the troubles that are on the horizon. A panel session proceeded immediately following the speech, aptly entitled “Show Me the Money—Corporate Survival in Tough Economic Times.”

It is simply a matter a fact that budgets will shrink or remain flat for the foreseeable future, and businesses must adjust to this reality. However, another reality is the ever increasing pile of regulations, oversight, and scrutiny that contractors must continue to deal with. From new ethics regulations, numerous reporting requirements, and ever increasing mandates on security, contractors must comply with this new environment and the subsequent increases in costs of doing business. There simply is no choice, either comply or fold. It is this compliance with current, and what can only be more and more future regulations and increasing oversight, that creates the choices for industry in how they can try to remain competitive. These choices will result in increasing layoffs, scaling back of benefits, decreasing small business subcontracting opportunities, and a restructuring of the industrial base to remain viable and profitable.

Further exacerbating the issue is the continued focus on risk-transference to industry through more and more focus on fixed price contracts, regardless of requirements. Because requirements continue to be poorly or inadequately defined, the result is increased costs to both industry and government in time and money to adhere to a construct that should have never been developed in the first place. This leads to industry having to continue readjusting their pricing strategies to remain competitive through lower and lower priced bids, to the point where margins are razor thin and profitability suffers even more.

I was disappointed at remarks made by Dr. Steve Kelman on his FCW blog, as he seemed to ignore the fact that industry is facing the most difficult period in some time, and will continue to suffer. Barely mentioned is the vulnerability of small businesses, who will face fewer opportunities and even more risk through insourcing. This issue was barely addressed by both the panel and Dr. Kelman, a significant deficiency that I addressed to the panel via a question, but it did not get answered. It is comments like Dr. Kelman’s and the environment he describes that illustrates the work ahead.

The real factor to working in this environment productively is through increased and transparent communications between government and industry, and an understanding that both sides actually do have the same objective. That is, completing a mission on time, and within budget. However, that reality and the current environment for industry seem to be lost on government, and the tone at the NCMA conference exacerbated the “us versus them” attitude. Both sides need to understand the mission from each side’s perspective, and understand the impacts actions have on completing that mission. This is of vital interest to effective government management, and deteriorating relationships will make getting the job done that much more difficult for all parties in the challenging times that lay ahead.

Improving the IT Acquisition Process

Federal Computer Week ran an interesting article recently on the many ideas and suggestions for improving the IT acquisition process. Their report was the result of the “Smarter Federal IT Initiatives: High Quality, Cost-Effective and On-Time” event sponsored by the Association of Management Consulting Firms in March. This event, featuring a panel of subject-matter experts, offered ideas for improving each aspect of the acquisition life cycle. Their ideas were certainly intriguing, from both a perspective of what was said, and what was not said.

Steve Cooper, director of IT and CIO at the Federal Aviation Administration’s Air Traffic Organization, discussed business value and how it is measured, or not measured, in federal technology programs.

…What often occurs with many projects delivering IT-enabled solutions is a lack of agreement at the beginning of the project on what business value will result from the project and how best to measure it. A worst case might be no discussion of business value occurs at all. With every project, we need to respond to the question, "Was this the best use of taxpayer dollars?" and then be able to prove it…

…The toughest challenge is agreeing on how to measure and prove the realization of that expected value. Discussion upfront can prevent the use of a metric that will require inordinate amounts of effort to collect…

How on Earth are projects getting approved with no business cases, or poorly defined business cases without a discussion of return on investment? I agree that a project does not always have financial returns, but those benefits need to be addressed, along with a plan on measuring during the execution phase. This in itself is one of the main concerns; the poor quality of data across government. Office of Federal Procurement Policy Administrator Dan Gordon recently issued a memo concerning this issue, along with guidelines on how to improve data quality, and more importantly, accountability for ensuring its viability. The government is drowning in data, and most of it is of such poor quality that good decision-making is stunted, or impossible.

David Swatloski, a major defense acquisition program manager at the Department of Defense (DoD), seemed to be speaking from recent experience in the poor state of requirements development process at DoD:

…Market research allows the government to determine what potential solutions are available that might meet the government’s needs. This is not an insignificant problem to address properly. If the government need is communicated in terms of a problem statement with a desired outcome, business can respond with more potential solutions. In a great number of cases when this approach is used, more solutions and capabilities are disclosed…

Leveraging industry’s knowledge of technology is critical to the pre-acquisition phase, but it first starts with an acknowledgment from the DoD that they no longer have the institutional knowledge they once had. Only through an outcome-based approach to developing requirements can DoD have the opportunity for the innovation and the variance in solutions and competition it desires.

…The federal acquisition regulations do not preclude hands-on, face-to-face discussion and open communication to understand capabilities during market research. Face-to-face discussions, demonstrations and visits to see capability are the best ways to conduct market research. These methods improve communication and understanding…

The risk-averse nature of government, coupled with the lack of leadership and support for risk taking have created a calcified environment where treating industry fairly means not to deal with industry at all. This is a significant cultural issue that needs to be rectified to have the two-way knowledge transfer take place to improve requirements, and thus the likelihood of successful programs. Failed programs always fail at the beginning of their life-cycle; the pre- and acquisition phases. It has ultimately developed into a seemingly caveat emptor environment.

A.R. “Trey” Hodgkins III, senior vice president of national security and procurement policy at TechAmerica, discussed the importance of trust and how communications can go a long way to improving the entire arena of government contracting

…Building trust is about building relationships, and success can be found in good relationships. When government and industry enter into the kinds of large IT contracts that are the intended beneficiaries of the Office of Management and Budget’s 25-point plan for IT management and acquisition reform, they become partners that are mutually joined in the success or failure of the undertaking…

…The impact of better trust — and the communication and engagement that builds that trust — is a better outcome for the government acquirer, industry and the taxpayer. A perfect example would be a lessening of the use of bid protests. Industry frequently feels that the lack of communications in the lead-up to an RFP, in the competition phase or after an award leaves them little choice but to file a bid protest in order to get information about the government’s decision…

This is one focal point of the Better Government IT project that I co-chair with ACT-IAC. Communication is the cornerstone of any successful relationship, and government contracting is no different. Building a strategic partnership with the contractor is ultimately what should be established to ensure mutual success by the government. However, the government wrongly assumes ethics and integrity issues where they do not exist. How exactly can a program be successful if communication and information is not exchanged properly? Making the contractor submit yet another report is not the answer. Creating an environment where government and industry can discuss issues openly and honestly is part of the solution.

James Bryan, vice president of technology solutions at the Center for Organizational Excellence, discussed the use of pilot projects and the need for prototypes in large-scale technology efforts.

…Most agencies realize that the day of major technology implementations that produce a “big bang” outcome after a prolonged development cycle are coming to a close. But that doesn’t mean the need for agency-transforming technology disappears. In order to meet the need for change and increase the likelihood of successful IT implementations, agencies should consider pilot implementations, combined with agile development methodologies, whenever possible.

With pilot projects, agencies have an opportunity to test or prototype a solution on a small scale in order to validate the requirements and expected outcomes prior to making a large investment. Pilots are designed to be small but focused efforts to test the potential effectiveness of a solution. They also afford the agency an opportunity to gather lessons learned and later apply them to the large-scale implementation. In most pilot projects, the project owners and the project teams come to the realization that some of the requirements established at the outset need to be modified in order to produce an IT solution that will actually meet their needs…

A pilot is a great way to test capabilities on a smaller scale to ensure a properly defined scope, and to have better grasp on outcomes and metrics to achieve success. These capabilities can then be expanded for further expand requirements and continue success through lessons learned and continuous learning. However, it is imperative that pilots be treated as projects, which means they have clear objectives and end-points. Too many pilots or prototypes simply continue in perpetuity, which not only defeats the purpose but creates the “big-bang” and does not allow for any learning. Further, not all projects should be made into pilots. Just like requirements should not be forced into a certain contract type, not all projects are pilot candidates. Value must be carefully weighed against the chances of success, the ability to develop through agile means and lessons learned, and total value and risk.

Kathleen Turco, associate administrator of government-wide policy at the General Services Administration, discusses one of the most difficult issues facing government management; change management.

…We must begin with the end in mind: What do you want to change? The change management effort should focus on the employee requirements and not just the technology if we are to successfully transition our work processes, procedures and behaviors to adapt to new technology...

...The most significant obstacle is that our nature is to avoid change rather than embrace change. Senior managers must be aligned across the organization to ensure that all are in lockstep on change management and employee training. Otherwise, the transition is doomed from the beginning…

As Ms. Turco mentioned, training is a key component to change and requires that the organization fully understand and make resources available. Regretfully, training is one of the first things that get cut during fiscal belt-tightening, which is unfortunate as having empowered, knowledgeable, and trained employees can have major impacts on success through new technology or process implementation.

These issues are of even greater importance now that one of the chief architects of IT acquisition reform, Vivek Kundra, has resigned. Only through continuing the momentum that Kudra helped spearhead, along with a continued focus on government/industry collaboration, can improvements be achieved. The adversarial nature of the relationship needs to be rethought, as only through working together can taxpayers get better results.

Call For Volunteers for Better Government IT Working Group - Due April 22

On December 9, 2010 the U.S. Chief Information Officer Vivek Kundra released a "25 Point Implementation Plan to Reform Federal Information Technology Management." Many of the points in this plan are consistent with recommendations previously made by ACT-IAC. One of these recommendations, and a major priority in the Administration’s plan, is to improve communications between government and industry throughout the IT acquisition process.

Item 24 of the OMB plan directs the OMB Office of Federal Procurement Policy to launch a "myth-busters" education campaign to identify common misconceptions or myths about vendor engagement and improve overall communication between government and industry. Item 25 of the OMB plan directs GSA to launch an interactive platform for pre-RFP agency and industry collaboration.

ACT-IAC is working closely with OMB and GSA on both of these items to provide advice regarding a strategy for improving government-industry communication and collaboration. To date, we have hosted a national dialogue on Item 24 and sponsored industry focus groups on implementation of Item 25.

Overview of the Project

The Better Government IT project is expected to be an ongoing activity to improve government-industry communication and collaboration in the IT acquisition process. The working group will initially focus on working with the Administration to implement items 24 and 25 of the OMB plan. Other issues will be addressed where appropriate. The initial product to be produced by the working group will be a center of excellence on the ACT-IAC web site regarding government-industry communication. It is expected that this center will include:

• The myths identified by OMB (and truths) plus additional myths as added.
• Guidance for agencies and industry on what is allowed and not allowed regarding communication during different phases of the acquisition process.
• Best practices and examples of good communication techniques.
• Relevant policy documents and guidance from OMB and the agencies
• An FAQ section that provides answers to the most often asked questions.
• (Optional) A collaborative capability so that members of the government IT community can exchange ideas and information on this important topic.

Working Group

The working group will have an industry chair and a government chair. Jaime Gracia, President and CEO of Seville Government Consulting, will be the industry chair. A government chair is also being sought. The working group will have both government and industry members. The initial term of the working group shall be six months. At that time an assessment will be made regarding next steps.

Nominations are now being accepted for the Working Group. Individuals interested in participating in the working group should submit their name, email address, a bio of no more than 75 words as well as a brief explanation of why they are interested in joining the working group. This information should be sent to bettergovernmentIT@actgov.org no later than COB April 22, 2011. For the complete nomination information, please click here.

Let Sellers Talk to Buyers Early in Procurement

This piece was originally published for Bloomberg Government on 03/11/2011.

The Obama White House announced plans in December to transform the way federal information technology projects are managed and executed. Its 25-point implementation instructions to federal agencies include many good ideas, from the adoption of light technologies and shared services to aligning the budget and acquisition process with the technology cycle.

The 24th and 25th points go to something deeper -- and actually transformative -- in the way government IT projects operate: increased engagement with private industry. They suggest new opportunities to develop relationships among industry experts and key procurement personnel that are currently closed or difficult to create.

This is the gaping hole in the government procurement process. For understandable but increasingly obsolescent reasons, government acquisition officials create artificial barriers and prevent themselves from working as closely as they could with industry experts in the earliest stages of the acquisition process.

While the Federal Acquisition Regulation encourages such exchanges, the perception of improper influence and unethical behavior, coupled with the risk-adverse nature of government in general, often prevents meaningful communications from occurring.

The results are poor requirements development and the unintended consequences of waste, fraud and abuse that are rampant in many programs across the government.

Identify Needs

The requirements phase identifies the needs and scope of a project and thus becomes its blueprint. By having more meaningful discussion with stakeholders, specifically industry stakeholders, proper requirements and can be developed, increasing the opportunities for governance and oversight.

When both government and contractors can focus on execution of common goals and objectives, based on designed metrics developed early in the program, they lessen the chances of costly change orders and foster better outcomes.

Regretfully, in the current system, stakeholders in industry are an afterthought, and industry experts have little bearing on helping program managers and acquisition officers develop sound requirements to ensure goals are realistic and achievable.

Best practices on how industry develops requirements are what the government desperately needs. By focusing on the earlier phases of an acquisition, which is to focus as far left as possible in the needs-identification phase of an agency’s acquisition lifecycle, user requirements are matched with customer needs and available resources, and products can be designed within cost, schedule and performance goals.

Social Media Tools

So how can legitimate ethics concerns be accommodated while still making room for the obvious benefits of government-industry communications?

Here's where social media technology now provides new tools to facilitate communication and maintain proper arms-length relationships.

Recently, the government launched several online wiki tools to explore collaboration between government and industry in an open-dialogue platform. Thousands of visitors participated from all 50 states. They included Fortune 500 company experts interacting in an environment where they suggested best practices and cutting-edge solutions to identified needs.

The results were an encouraging start of the future of these exchanges. The feedback was "both more comprehensive and more actionable than what could have been obtained through traditional methods," wrote Vivek Kundra, the government's chief information officer and author of the 25-point plan.

In fact, crowd sourcing and stakeholder analysis are commonly used by commercial entities in these knowledge-based environments. Many companies use a structured product-development process to ensure that a high level of knowledge exists about a product at key junctures during its development, similar to milestones or phased entry-points used by the Defense Department.

It's this knowledge-based process that helps enable decision makers to be reasonably confident about product quality, reliability and timeliness.

Through these interactive platforms, key decision makers, such as program managers, can develop the information they need, particularly in the period before issuing a request for proposal, or RFP, when they need more effective ways to perform market research.

The current acquisition process for market research uses a request for information, or RFI. Just like the stages following an RFP, and RFI requires a significant investment in business development dollars for a prospective bidder to build the relationships necessary to be on the government buyer’s radar.

As both industry and government realize the value of early interaction, both business development expenditures and procurement lead times can be drastically reduced. The new interactive platform will allow government to get more focused and value-added input from industry, improve awareness of cutting-edge technologies and allow for increased opportunities for innovation, competition and flexibility in contract development.

The platform, being built by the General Services Administration, is scheduled for beta-testing and initial operating capability by Memorial Day. I hope that industry contractors continue to keep track of this development, if only to increase their own performance along with that of government’s.

Past Performance Accountability Should Not be Punishment

The Commission on Wartime Contracting in Iraq and Afghanistan met recently to raise concerns that large defense contractors are getting a pass on fraud and poor performance. However, some on the Commission seem to think that solutions should not be bilateral, or even going so far as to seemingly having a "Save me from myself" mentality.

The focus of the testimony was the effectiveness of the government’s current methods for assessing oversight and surveillance of the current $200 billion that has been spent on contracts and grants since 2002 to support military, reconstruction, and other U.S. operations in Iraq and Afghanistan. According to the Commission, the United States has wasted tens of billions of dollars of contract dollars in Iraq and Afghanistan, but of course the blame game is always the first line of defense for failing to get at the root cause of not only the failures of oversight in Iraq and Afghanistan, but in how the government evaluates performance overall.

Laying the blame squarely on industry, Commissioner Charles Tiefer called five large companies that do business with the Defense, among them KBR, the "Flagrant Five" for continuing to receive work despite claims of fraud, misconduct and poor performance.

.…"I'm beginning to get the picture that bad performance could be good business," Tiefer said at a commission hearing Monday…

Also joining in on bashing industry was The Project on Government Oversight's general counsel Scott Amey.

…Companies involved in misconduct are a "necessary evil" required to get work done. "This might be the contracting version of ‘too big to fail,'" he said…

Amey also went on to state that the Air Force issued multiple waivers in order to continue business with firms accused of wrongdoing, in addition to the Interagency Suspension and Debarment Committee not issuing the annual reports required to document federal agencies' suspension and debarment activities.

These activities bring up an interesting issue about why the government is not doing its job in providing the proper level of oversight, surveillance, and past performance reporting. Lack of time? Not wanting to correct a problem and "slow down" the process? Really?

Most of the testimony focused around the report issued a week before about the vital need for contingency contracting reform, with a particular focus on debarments and suspensions as seemingly a punitive weapon and silver bullet against contractors. Although the report discusses the failures of government, clearly malfeasance also seemed to be the root cause of waste.

...."For many years the government has abdicated its contracting responsibilities -- too often using contractors as the default mechanism, driven by considerations other than whether they provide the best solution, and without consideration for the resources needed to manage them," the commission concluded. "That is how contractors have come to account for fully half the United States presence in contingency operations."...

Not all the voices on the panels were one-sided. Dan Gordon, Administrator for the Office of Federal Procurement Policy, discussed in his testimony the facts about debarments and suspension.

...The regular evaluation of contractor performance and the use of those evaluations in decisions for future awards motivate contractors to perform well, and help ensure that we avoid doing repeat business with firms that don’t perform well. Suspending or debarring entities can help to protect taxpayers from the abuse of contractors who have been convicted of fraud or other criminal or civil offenses indicating a lack of business honesty or integrity, or who otherwise behave unethically, or engage in poor performance of government-funded work. The system works, however, only if we are willing and able to suspend or debar entities when we shouldn’t be doing business with them, and if all agencies check to be sure they are not awarding a contract to an entity that has been suspended or debarred...

Past performance data collection is the actual root cause of many of these issues. Past performance completion rates are not only low, but the reports are not being entered into the Past Performance Information Retrieval System (PPIRS) database. So accountability needs to be the first step in this reform analysis, by ensuring the information about wrong doing is available to government. However, the understanding of what and how suspensions and debarments are supposed to be used is currently a major issue that seemingly is lost on the Commission.

... Among 32 recommendations made in a report released last week, commissioners want agencies to:

• Give a written rationale for not pursuing a proposed suspension or debarment.

• Increase use of suspensions and debarments.

• Revise regulations to lower procedural barriers to contingency suspensions and debarments...

These activities are not supposed to be punitive, but that is exactly what the commission seems to be implying. The report itself lists almost double the number of activities targeted to punishment, vice creating solutions to prevent the fraud, waste, and abuse from happening in the first place.

I am not implying that some companies have not acted in the best interest of the taxpayer. Fraud, waste, and abuse has definitely occurred, and regretfully has been a part of war profiteering that goes back to the founding of the nation. However, advocating the use of debarments and suspensions as a punitive weapon will not solve the problem. I hope the Commission realizes that treating the symptoms and not the disease is simply a recipe for failure, and will be further adding to the waste it has been formed to help prevent.

Myth Busters Campaign in Full Swing to Improve Public/Private Sector Communications

As part of an effort to reform the federal acquisition process for technology, US Federal CIO, Vivek Kundra, unveiled an ambitious 25-point plan for addressing many of the issues that plague the way the government purchases technology in hopes of delivering more value to the taxpayer. Part of the implementation plan was to counter the misunderstandings about how industry and government can engage with one another during the acquisition process, specifically by government. Because of the artificial barriers between government agencies and their industry partners, rampant waste and program delays have become the norm that erode the value of these IT investments.

To combat the status quo, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has launched a “myth-busters” campaign to educate government, and eliminate public sector barriers to communication and enhance awareness of the most efficient and effective technologies available in the private sector. Office of Federal Procurement Policy (OFFP) Administrator, Dan Gordon, outlined in his Feb. 2^nd memo the planned outcome of this campaign, which is to remove communication barriers and improve the overall acquisition process that includes specific initiatives on needs identification, requirements definition, acquisition strategy formulation, market research, the proposal process, and contract execution.

I have been writing about the need for improved communication as a central theme of acquisition reform for some time (here, here, and here), so I am glad this formalized implementation plan has taken shape. What I am also glad to see is that the communication plan is not only a public sector initiative, but is also being done with industry.

Leading this effort is the industry group the American Council for Technology (ACT) - Industry Advisory Council (IAC), which has launched an online forum called BetterGovernmentIT.org, to collect feedback that will later be reviewed by OMB, the Chief Information Officers Council and the Chief Acquisition Officers Council, according to ACT-IAC. This site, which is styled after the General Services Administration's BetterBuyProject, uses crowd-sourcing techniques for contracting professionals to identify common myths about vendor engagement and information that will help improve public/private communication. One important option included is to engage anonymously, which will hopefully encourage dialogue without the fear of retribution by government officials or providing other firms competitive information.

These encouraging efforts can only help improve what is a truly becoming a broken system where communication barriers are getting more and more entrenched. What can truly improve the overall process is having open communications with industry as early in the process as possible. These early communications, in the need identification stage, can greatly improve the requirements development process, which I believe to be a truly broken process. These early exchanges can vastly improve the chances of good acquisition outcomes, which includes reduced costs, improved performance, innovative solutions, increased competition, and with proper oversight, improved overall government management.

These public/private efforts have the ability to produce desired effect, but only if these efforts are coordinated. OMB, OFPP, and ACT-IAC need to ensure data and feedback from their respective efforts are all shared amongst each other, which includes sharing lessons learned, and transfer knowledge. It would be a shame if effort to improve communication were conducted in the same, stove-piped echo chamber they are being conducted now. As these initiatives move forward, the increased communications can only help shape the future of acquisitions to the benefit of the taxpayer.

Communications Are Vital to Improving Acquisitions

Two opposing views have emerged this week regarding communications with industry. According to Sen McCaskill (D-MO), chairwoman of the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee's Contracting Oversight Subcommittee, the current relationship has apparently clouded the judgment of contracting officials to the point where objectivity has been compromised in contract award decisions.

During a recent hearing on how federal agencies use contract audits to detect and prevent waste, fraud, and abuse in government contracts, McCaskill conceded the relationship is too close, and expressed a bias toward auditors.

“Contracting officers have an ongoing relationship with the contractors that sometimes impact their ability to see everything clearly as it relates to some of the behavior of the contractors,” said McCaskill.

As much as I respect and admire Sen. McCaskill's efforts to ferret out waste, fraud, and abuse in federal contracting, I could not disagree more with her premise. Firstly, Contracting Officers and industry should have a strategic partnership, as both parties are trying to execute the same goals and objectives. Of course government and industry have different means to achieve these goals, but it is through understanding each other and open communication that both parties will be successful. Communication between industry and government continues to be challenging, and advancing the agenda of building barriers and confrontation that Sen. McCaskill seems to be advocating will further exacerbate this issue.

Further, it is Contracting Officers that are given the authority to negotiate and enter into contracts on behalf of the government, not auditors. Financial analysts and Contracting Officers need to work together, in conjunction with industry, to get the best deal for the taxpayer and ensure all parties are setup for success. Adversarial relationships are neither objective nor productive, they just create friction and missed opportunities for successful outcomes.

Opposing this view has been Dan Gordon, administrator of the Office of Federal Procurement Policy (OFPP). Gordon launched a "myth-busting" campaign to help government officials understand that the fear of talking to industry is overblown, and that talking to industry is vital to increasing competition and to ensuring best value for the taxpayer.

“We need to be independent, but more communication can increase our independence,” he said. “In fact, more communication can overcome the tie between the contracting staff and a particular vendor.”

By opening discussions, agency officials can learn what other companies can offer them, Gordon said. However, agency officials feel like they don’t know enough about other companies due to limited interaction with industry. Too often, agencies have one contractor they have dealt with, and they will continue to work with that company, even preferring it over others.

“More communication, especially with competing vendors, may be the best oxygen to remedy that situation,” Gordon said.

Market research is prescribed in Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) Part 10. Yet, the environment is such that the Administrator of OFPP is on a myth-busting campaign that following the FAR is a good thing and needed?

There is no question that improved communications are essential to ensure requirements are sound, that contract types are appropriate, and that metrics are effective. I have written about this topic, and I hope Gordon’s myth-busting campaign will help melt the ice of the current environment. However, much more is needed. Mainly, acquisition officials need to have guidance and oversight to ensure that the acquisition workforce is not beaten over the head while trying to communicate with industry. Officials must give the acquisition workforce the confidence and ability to perform these crucial pre-acquisition tasks without fear of retribution. It is this risk-averse environment that is one of the main issues with communication barriers, so focusing on this impediment should help see improvements in the quality and quantity of communications with industry.

The National Contract Management Association recently issued an open letter on this subject entitled An Open Letter Addressing the Need for Cooperation between Government and Industry. It is call to action to understand that government and industry both share a common goal, and that is serving the public.

Once this common goal is understood, then progress can be made in developing new channels to communicate, and see improvements in how the government buys and realize the cost-savings that are desperately needed in federal acquisition. I hope that Sen. McCaskill realizes that she is actually making a difficult situation harder, and that she and others needed to collaborate with Mr. Gordon and industry to achieve this common goal.

Protests Will Continue the Upward Trend in 2011

As 2010 is now officially in the books, one issue that we can expect to continue its trend in 2011 is contract protests. An interesting piece in the November-December 2010 Defense AT&L magazine discussed this issue, and illustrates the realities of the federal contracting environment. Mainly, budgets are tightening, competition for those shrinking dollars is ferocious, and protests have become standard operating practice.

A general impression of respondents was that protests have become more common; with nearly 70 percent saying pro- tests were either somewhat, or much more common. A striking result was that none of the respondents felt protests had become less common. That agrees with a recent Government Accountability Office (GAO) report that in fiscal year 2009, 1,989 protests were filed, a 20 percent increase over the 1,652 protests filed in fiscal year 2008, and up 50 percent over fiscal year 2006.

This article is telling in many ways, but what really is of interest are the responses, and their subsequent rankings. Ranked most important is that the protesting company expects to win, followed by the government making mistakes. This certainly seems to make sense, and is also consistent with what I have experienced. In talking to small business executives, it seems that protests are a valid way to verify if source selection procedures were followed. We have seen that go awry in the Air Force KC-X tanker program, where government officials were publically called out for not following their own procedures.

Also of interest is that the order of why protests are lodged in the first place does not seem to make sense, or is not what is experienced in reality. Respondents overwhelmingly stated they expect to win the protest, but the second reason is the critical to the analysis. Some executives I have spoken to tell me that protests are now becoming more operational policy, especially for large dollar contracts. Under the current environment, why not?

The current environment encompasses the second part of the article, where the real views of protests are on display. Predictably, shrinking opportunities and increased competition are major factors at stake, not to mention governmental factors of poorly trained acquisition workforce and poor government communications. So what to do?

I have discussed the need to rethink the protest process and why they occur here and here. As I received some pretty interesting feedback, mostly negative from industry, let me reiterate that protests are a legal and necessary tool to ensure fair competition and correct procedures for awarding contracts. However, this Defense AT&L article highlights why I think protests need to be rethought in regards to acquisition reform.

What I have an issue with is the seemingly endless cycle of protests with no consequences or accountability, both by government and industry. Industry can delay award of a contract, expect quid pro quo, or simply attempt to dig up dirt where none exists. I have been on both ends of this equation, and these strategies only help waste time and money for everybody, not to mention the user pays the price in continued loss of capability (again, look at the KC-X program). Industry looks at in terms of return on an investment, since the risk adverse nature of government may provide additional revenue sources of further opportunities to compete. Nonetheless, the government does make mistakes and should be held accountable.

The end result is that there needs to be a measure of accountability on both sides. A protest should not be taken lightly, as it is normally a disruptive and costly matter. The survey confirms that a company filing a protest expects to win, but reality states that sometimes that is not the case. Firms sometimes file protests to see what happens. I have seen this too many times to count. What if a firm losses, especially repeatedly? A measure of financially accountability to recoup costs for firms that take this approach is needed. Being accountable for phising expeditions should help the protests process be used for what it is intended: ensuring fair competition.

The government seems to also be in the habit of not wanting to deal with a protesting firm, as some government agencies award work to companies with reputations for protesting contract awards to avoid the cost of resolving disputes with those companies if the government losses and the cost of resulting project delays.

Leadership and accountability is needed to help stem this trend. Protesting is a right that industry must continue to have, but it needs to be measured and weighed against the “real” costs should accountability finally be placed into the equation. Further, government must stem the tide of allowing themselves to be bullied, but more importantly, be held accountable for following procedures, and executing sound acquisition strategies to ensure a protest is not even in the conversation.

We shall see what reform lay ahead, but we can only expect to see a continued rise in protest actions on the horizon, to the detriment of all involved.

Fixing IT Acquisition is About Execution, not Just Personnel

According to recent reporting by Federal Times on the state of federal information technology (IT) acquisition and program management, the Government is ill prepared to purchase and manage large scale IT programs due to poorly trained staff, and poor collaboration with industry. Certainly contributing factors, but the issues are much more broad and troubling.

Two independent industry trade groups, the TechAmerica Foundation and the American Council for Technology-Industry Advisory Council (ACT-IAC), have released reports on ways to improve the troubling state of federal IT programs. The industry groups' reports were done in advance of the expected Office of Management and Budget (OMB) release this month of the Administration’s plan for reforming IT procurement. Taken together, these two trade group reports provide a valuable roadmap to help improve the abysmal situation, and I hope OMB takes note.

What is important about these reports is that the recommendations have the ability to be implemented relatively quickly, and could have impacts in the short-term. As the reports also note, the laws, policies and procedures already on the books provide plenty of resources and flexibility for implementing the action items. Nonetheless, an important and valuable addition to these reports is the discussion of obstacles and challenges to implementation, along with subsequent action items for overcoming these issues. Many reports, including the recent memo from Dr. Ashton Carter on needed improvements to defense procurement, simply state what is needed without a roadmap on how to get there.

The report focuses on several areas including:

1) Professionalizing Program Management. Due to the constant rotation of program managers (PM), the reports called on a knowledgeable and empowered program manager who sees the project through to completion. The TechAmerica report also called on the establishment of a Program Management Leadership Academy, and enhancing training overall for PMs.

This recommendation focuses on building a bench of qualified PMs that have the tools and resources to be successful. Often, PMs are set up for failure by being assigned programs they simply have no business running. Managing IT programs can be a blood sport, and PMs need to be empowered, fully supported by management, and trained in best practice tools, techniques, and methodologies for managing IT programs along industry standards. Training is vital, but it also needs to focus on requirements, IT, finance, and contracting/acquisition. The cross-functional knowledge is required to ensure holistic program objectives are understood and achieved.

2) Promote Agile/Incremental Development. The TechAmerica report specifically states that agile development is not a cure-all for IT acquisition.

…The iterative, incremental and collaborative processes of agile development will significantly raise the Government’s return on its IT investment. It will do this by engaging with users more effectively, deploying capability more quickly and keeping better pace with rapid advancements in such technologies as cloud computing and software as a service…

The Government simply cannot expect to perform its mission with continued programs that are constantly behind schedule, over budget, and deliver little in terms of results or performance after spending millions in taxpayer funds. It is imperative to deliver smaller increments of capability, focusing scope on what is realistically achievable by closely collaborating between developers and users.

…Chief among the benefits of agile/incremental development are increasing the return on taxpayer investment through faster deployment of capability and reducing rework through faster and more effective interaction with users…

ACT-IAC called for a renewed focus on Governance, which would be used for accountability at the senior leadership level and promote the desperately needed communication that can lead to program success through agile development.

It is these best practices that can have significant impacts in the short-term. Advances in technology develop at a much faster rate than the federal acquisition lifecycle can keep up with, creating a capability gap that prevents Government from leveraging innovation and creates a system where Government purchases technologies that are outdated prematurely.

3) Improve Risk Management. The important recommendation is the call for an Independent Risk Review on major IT acquisitions. The report recommends a third party completely independent of the program, such that role is not filled by the program or the contractor executing the program. In essence, the report is calling for an Independent Validation and Verification (IV&V) role, either internal to Government or an outside contractor. This renewed focus on adherence to performance and Governance would go a long way to help ensure proper review cycles where all interested parties are held accountable for success.

4) Enhance Stakeholder Engagement. According to the TechAmerica report:

…The need for better engagement, collaboration and communication between Government and industry was cited by 78% of the Government-experienced IT leaders we interviewed, more than any other topic…

Also like the reports note, the trend recently is to build barriers to communicate and collaborate, effectively taking the Government in the wrong direction. The Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) encourages the communication, so why is it not happening? Risk aversion namely. Externally, the Government can use Gov 2.0 platforms for crowd sourcing, such as the Better Buy Project, to solicit user input and allow for outside sources to contribute to openness and transparency in the procurement process. Internally, ensuring end-users have a place at the table in requirements and the development of the program is important to ensuring the end system can meet objectives. The reports also tie the use of agile development as one way of doing this.

…Better communication can improve both the quality of an acquisition document and the quality of the proposed responses. The result will be a smoother acquisition at a lower cost. Better communication can also lead to greater awareness of how technology is being used innovatively in other marketplaces that could vastly improve mission delivery…

Improved acquisition outcomes are possible when industry knows what the mission and needs are of the Government, getting the opportunity to contribute and demonstrate technological capability through effective market research, combined with the Government knowing what their own needs are as well. This is only possible through open communications and partnerships with stakeholders, both internal and external.

5) Requirements. The Achilles heel of Government, the requirements process is one of the fundamental issues that create failing programs at program inception.

…As noted in the previous sections, a lack of communication and collaboration can lead to the development of patchwork requirements – or requirements that cannot be achieved by existing technologies and solutions. Similarly, overly rigid and defined requirements can preclude the agency from taking advantage of innovative solutions.

The Government does not always have a full understanding of how evolving solutions and technologies could benefit an agency’s goals and objectives, or how such solutions can be acquired by, and provisioned to, the Government. A key contributing factor to this development is the perception that federal officials increase the risk of protest due to “pre-selection” or wiring the requirements when they communicate with industry to consider possible alternative technological solutions or capabilities for meeting Government requirements…

Both reports called for increased collaboration and agile development to help control requirements. However, the entire requirements process needs a paradigm shift to leverage these proposed solutions.

Focusing on outcomes and allowing industry to propose innovative solutions to solve Government’s problems is the path to success. Government simply is not prepared, or has the technological acumen, to know what is in its best interest. Instead, it must focus on what it needs to perform its mission. Allow industry to present truly best value, and then manage to results. It is this renewed focus on the disease on procurement failures that can have a major impact on outcomes, but only when leadership understands that business as usual is not an option.

These proposed recommendations can go a long way to helping improve IT acquisition and management. It starts with an understanding where knowledge is housed, work to our strengths, and create real partnerships between Government and industry to stop the cycle of fraud, waste, and abuse that starts with poor requirements, poor management practices, and the inability to execute.

Improving Federal Acquisitions: Let's Do It Right

Over on Federal Computer Week, Dr. Steve Kelman has written several blog posts on The Lectern in a series of issues related to improving federal acquisitions and communications, specifically information technology projects. Although I have commented on the specific blog posts, I wanted to have a more in depth discussion here.

Improving Federal IT Acquisitions

I felt the wrong questions were being asked.

…Early in the conversation, Dan Gordon, on the panel as the administrator of the federal Office of Federal Procurement Policy, posed an important question in a very interesting way. He asked: "I am guessing that many in industry know when they read an RFP [request for proposals] that the government is putting out to bid a program that is likely to fail. Yet I am also guessing that industry seldom says this to the government. What can we do to change this?"…

Many issues are raised with this line of questioning. First, what benefit would industry have at this stage in the acquisition to be offering advice on an RFP? None really. In fact, I believe that this type of information would put industry at a disadvantage, since the government would never pull an RFP or even consider reshaping requirements since an enormous amount of effort and time have been dedicated at this point. For large IT acquisitions, it sometimes takes years before and RFP gets issued. Although sometimes requirements are so poorly written that cancelling an RFP and starting over really is the best solution, this seldom happens. Programs fail before they even start, and taxpayers get fleeced. This story is all too common in federal procurement.

The real issue here is to get the requirements properly structured so that the program can be successful from the beginning. Using the current Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR), all the tools already exist in Market Research (FAR Part 10), and Exchanges with Industry Before Receipt of Proposals (FAR 15.201). So why are these techniques seldom used? What can be done to improve this process?

Contracting personnel, in addition to project and program managers, need to understand that the current process is not working. The fear of protest, possibly unethical behavior, or unknowingly giving away proprietary information (i.e. risk aversion) needs to change. If these fears proved to be the case, the FAR would outright prohibit any exchanges with industry in the first place. Government personnel need to understand that programs fail at the beginning, due to poor acquisition planning and poorly defined requirements. Almost any Government Accountability Office report on acquisition failures will undoubtedly have these statements in the Executive Summary. What was the definition of madness again?

One initiative that needs to be expanded and fully embraced is the General Service Administration’s Better Buy Project. This initiative has had successful trial runs using Gov 2.0 techniques (e.g. blogs, Wikis, etc.) to solicit input and feedback on both the federal acquisition process, but also on specific procurements using crowdsourcing methodologies to help improve the communications process between GSA and industry. There is no more equal playing field than using these techniques, since everyone has the opportunity provide input and helping ensure a procurement is successful from the beginning.

The biggest barriers are of course cultural. What is very telling are some of the comments from both sides of the issue on Dr. Kelman’s post, illustrating the great divide and skepticism that exists from increased access and communications:

Government’s Side:

…One major issue is: companies do not necessarily want to hand over their expert critiques to the government for free. Companies often find their top ideas used to fix a bad requirement--that is free consulting. They are giving away their ability to differentiate themselves from other firms that don't see the flaws and/or don't know how to solve them. Secondly, if companies were truly partners with the government, this would not be a problem. However, neither government nor contractors really want to be partners, in fact. If they were, they would accept the consequences together of bad outcomes, and the companies would make no money. No one has ever seen a government contract that reads remotely like a partnership agreement. Partnering is hackneyed, misleading, self-serving, and false in just about all its usages in the government contracting arena…

Given a chance, I believe that industry would gladly help the government resolve issues up front in the requirements development process, again if given the chance. I do not believe it is practical, nor realistic, to think that industry will voluntarily tell the government an RFP is a disaster. Several reasons include the fact that these comments will fall on deaf ears, or worse, adversely affect a company’s image. Further, the notion of best value seems to be elusive, as lowest costs seems to be the primary source of contract awards. Why bother adding value when lowest cost is desired. Perhaps value engineering should be part of every project, and adding the lessons learned to future engagements.

However, it is the partnership that will ultimately lead to program success. The comments left by this reader are unfortunately not uncommon, and somewhat true. Many firms have a vested interest in the status quo, and do not seem eager to change their approach. I also do not see the practically in using industry feedback as some kind of evaluation factor as Dr. Kelman suggests. This approach would undoubtedly lead to self-serving “improvement requests,” which is what best value is supposed to correct for anyway; what is in the best interest of the government (e.g. exceeding requirements and differentiating a proposed solution).

Industry’s Side:

…Both responses to your suggestion are accurate. We, as contractors, don't want to be in the position of suggesting to an agency that their pursuit position is incorrect. We never know who accesses those types of comments nor how they may react to suggestions to improve their position. The second suggestion is more prevalent than many expect. "Cut and paste" RFIs and Sources Sought requests generally include inadequacies, inconsistencies and contradictory pictures of the agency's true environment. These are indications that they technical involvement necessary is absent or lacking and making suggestions as to how to correct these are often not received well. In addition, fear of OCI issues has reached a point where these same contracts people will not even talk with or accept input from industry well in advance of the solicitation release. Until contracting people understand that the government encourages interaction with industry up to the release of a solicitation, these issues will not go away…

I do not believe that technical incompetence is the primary issue. I believe, and have experienced, that technical competence for a program is a function of acquiring that knowledge that normally exists internally. The fragmented way that the government buys is normally the culprit, where programs develop requirements in a vacuum without conducting a thorough stakeholder analysis, soliciting feedback or input for proper requirements development, then kick it over the fence to acquisition and contract shops. At this stage, not knowing the procurement or even the customer in some cases, contracting shops try to getting the procurement of their desk and take shortcuts at the detriment of the program, as the reader suggests. Using boilerplate information, templates, and checklists are a great way to streamline an acquisition. There is certainly nothing wrong with this approach, as I certainly use these tools with federal clients. However, tailoring the information carefully is vital, and sometimes this quality control is lacking in federal procurements.

The Organization Conflict of Interest (OCI) issue is another barrier to increased communications from industry. Many firms fear that being proactive in helping shape requirements will OCI-themselves out of competition for a particular procurement. This is a major issue that needs more thoughtful analysis, as the point of crowdsourcing is to solicit information from all parties equally, and allow for even greater opportunities for competition with requirements that are not overly restrictive and well understood by industry. Firms should not be penalized, nor should they have fear of being penalized. The government is doing itself a disservice by not properly proving these protections.

Overall, the closed-door mentality to communications is doing the opposite of what the latest acquisition reforms are trying to accomplish. I hope the Office of Management and Budget provides further guidance on this issue, and give industry a greater say in helping the government execute its acquisition reforms. All parties would benefit, especially the taxpayer in the end.