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.

Reverse Auctions: A Tool to Realize Real Cost Savings

As Government continues to leverage its buying power through continued fiscal pressures, one process that is not getting enough attention is the use of reverse auctions. Reverse auctions are an effective and efficient means of realizing large savings on purchases of not only commodities, but highly defined services as well. Although current initiatives exist such as the General Service Administration’s (GSA) Federal Strategic Sourcing Initiative (FSSI), which encourages adoption of industry best practices, federal buyers are simply not going far enough in leveraging their buying power to maximize price savings. To achieve maximum efficiency, the Government should begin to create holistic strategic souring initiatives that include reverse auctions as a mechanism for cost savings, since programs such as FSSI are simply catalog buys to bidders that have been pre-qualified, and mimic the GSA Schedules program. Further, many Program Managers and other acquisition officials I have spoken to state that they do not always get the best prices by using these types of pre-negotiated arrangements, and thus buy either directly from vendors or execute procurements outside these initiatives. The result is ineffective buying and the continuation of not maximizing efficiencies to the detriment of the taxpayer.

Reverse auctions are by definition a structured competitive bidding event where competition can be maximized to help drive the price lower over the course of the event. One common reason I have heard for the poor adoption rate is technology barriers, which is a frankly a disingenuous reason. The benefits of potentially significant cost savings, enhanced transparency, increased collaboration, increased competition all outweigh any barriers that seem to be artificially created by Federal organizations. If the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) and the Obama Administration are serious about Open Government and accountability, then enhanced adoption of reverse auction should be further explored.

Another stumbling block to adoption is the issue of transparency, as the risk adverse nature of Government creates issues that should not exist through fear of protest that seems to be paralyzing acquisition decision-making. The reverse auction process is Acquisition 2.0 in motion, as reverse auctions create a structured and automated negotiation process with transparency at its core, since the process depends on vendors creating a clear and documented process for creating the pricing structure and the subsequent contracted price. It is the openness of the process that should be embraced, since the reverse auction allows for real time pricing feedback, and also allows acquisition officials to have real time visibility into the negotiation. This type of structure and the transparent process creates and enhances competition, reduces complexity, enhances collaboration, and ensures compliance with the acquisition policies and regulations.

It is these types of procurement methods that should be embraced, and will need to be further explored to help create holistic strategic sourcing initiatives for realizing true cost-savings by adjusting processes, ensuring leadership drives change, and breaking the endemic status-quo culture of Government. Successful examples of reverse auctions already exist through both Defense and civilian agency use, so lessons learned are available for use and need to be expanded upon to help with widespread adoption. As OMB continues to issue guidance on improving federal acquisitions and government management in general, reverse auctions need to be part of this process of continuous improvement and increasing accountability to the taxpayer.

Acquisition Reforms Will Focus on Oversight

As the lame duck session of the 111^th Congress comes to a close, some in the acquisition community are left to wonder what lays ahead for the acquisition reform initiatives of the Obama Administration. According to many experts, the shift in political power may not make much difference for the IT and procurement communities.

I am not sure that is the case, according to plans that Rep. Darrell Issa (R-Calif.) has stated as incoming chairman of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee. Issa has said that the Telework Enhancement Act (H.R. 1722) lacks many of the safeguards necessary to prevent fraud, waste, and abuse. Specifically, Issa claimed employees can take advantage of the lack of direct manager oversight, does not require agencies to prove how much money they’re saving, and does not create jobs.

Although Rep. Issa continues to draft his agenda for the new Congress, I am not going to hold my breath that this process will not be politicized, when Rep. Issa makes statements such as “I want seven hearings a week, times 40 weeks.” Rep. Issa also stated he looks forward to working with the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) and industry on ways to address wasteful spending from failed government IT programs. I think OMB is really making some important strides on this front, so we’ll either see either a real oversight agenda moving forward or more political witch-hunts as in the past.

On the Senate side, Sen. Claire McCaskill (D-Mo.) remains chairwoman of the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee’s Contracting Oversight Subcommittee. Sen. McCaskill will continue her focus on interagency contracts and reforms to the 8(a) set aside programs for Alaska Native Corporations. I hope these initiatives continue, as Sen. McCaskill has much unfinished work to do regarding abuses in these programs, so I hope that Rep. Issa seizes the opportunity to really craft bipartisan and meaningful relationships with other members on ferreting out waste, fraud, and abuse.

Another important issue is the effect of the midterm elections on open government, transparency, accountability, and the overall Gov 2.0 movement. I believe that significant movement will come on this issue, as politicians move from political use of Web 2.0 for campaigns, to executing Gov 2.0 initiatives to execute transparency initiatives and hold government accountable. Again, I hope that this renewed focus on using Gov 2.0 tools to advance Open Government and allow for more citizen engagement. However, it is hard to fathom considering this hyper partisan political environment where Congress scores so low in providing these services themselves.

I would like to see the latter happen. But I have reason to lack hope. Tim Evans, a program analyst who works on Web analytics and customer service measurement at the Social Security Administration, posted a story by Larry Freed of The Digital Citizen about a recent survey in which ForeSee Results found “a clear and proven relationship between transparency, satisfaction and trust,” and “higher transparency leads to higher citizen satisfaction with government, which in turn leads to higher trust.”

Unfortunately, “when it comes to transparency, citizen satisfaction, trust, accountability, perceived goodwill, competence and integrity, American citizens give Congress the worst scores across the board,” Freed wrote.

Not the most encouraging situation, but let’s give Rep. Issa the benefit of the doubt that he will wield his gavel responsibility to protect the taxpayers and not a political party and its agenda. Change we can believe in? We have heard that before.

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.