What Is The Future of 18F?

After another scathing inspector general (IG) report about the 18F program at the General Services Administration, it seems like perhaps this program needs some retooling.

This report was was covered extensively by FCW and many other federal IT media outlets, in addition to the Washington Post. 18F has been a bit of a punching bag, as they also got negative press for spending a weekend redesigning their logo, and of course the first IG report discussing their finances and their management failures.

What has always bothered me about 18F is how they seemingly have been able to operate outside the constraints that all other IT service providers are forced into. Further, why does following established enterprise architecture, cyber, QA, and IA standards seem like "needless bureaucracy", which seems to be the pervasive attitude of many at 18F, according to internal sources? I understand that many of these developers and engineers have little to no government experience, but doesn't management?

It just seems like you have to either have innovation or be trapped by rules and regulations. Can they not co-exist? It is akin to saying you cannot have both procurement innovation and the FAR? Steve Kelman's piece on his FCW blog countered that argument, discussing share in savings.

Government management can be frustrating, messy, and sometimes redundant. However, it takes effective leadership to produce results. I have no doubt in the talents of 18F, but the IG reports are highlighting important shortcomings in the program that need to be addressed.

Is the IG report seemingly biased and possibly agenda driven? Maybe. Nonetheless, it does not make what they found not true either.

Contract Management Starts at the Beginning

http://www.billgenie.com/

As part of a continuing discussion on contract management, former Administrator of the Office of Federal Procurement Policy, Steve Kelman, blogged about the need to focus on this issue on Federal Computer Week. 

Responding to this call, ASI Government is allowing access to some of their tools, which are normally only provided as part of a subscription to their Virtual Acquisition Office. These tools are a good primer on contract management, and should provide some useful reference for those seeking to learn more about how to effectively manage contracts.

Nonetheless, effective contract management can only be successful if a real, outcomes-based focus is done upfront, and before the contract is even awarded. The acquisition reform initiatives currently underway across government continue to be focused primarily on pre-award contracting functions, without a clear path on how to effectively manage these contracts once they are awarded.

Why has this been problematic? First and foremost, failed leadership continues to plague effective contract management. Either through a lack of attention to agencies' contracting activities, or the inability to properly analyze data through antiquated or ineffective contract management solutions, it seems like senior officials remain blissfully ignorant of waste and abuse. As reported by the Government Accountability Office (GAO) in testimony from 1992: 

…In other cases, senior officials have not made managers accountable for effective contract administration, nor have they made a sufficient commitment to correct contracting problems that have surfaced…

It seems little has changed in the almost 25 years since this testimony was given. Even recent testimony by GAO describes ongoing issues with contract management, as they relate to services contracts: 

…As we testified before you in May, Mr. Chairman, agency procurements of services often are not being conducted as efficiently as they could be. We have found that too frequently agencies are not clearly defining their requirements, fully considering alternative solutions, performing vigorous price analyses, or adequately overseeing contractor performance. Such problems clearly point to a need for more focused management attention… 

This report describes several areas of needed improvement. Namely, strong Chief Acquisition Officers across government with clearly defined roles and responsibilities, improved training of the acquisition workforce, and better adoption of performance-based contracts.

However, if we want to start fixing contract management issues across government, we need to start at the beginning, and have leaders across government who recognize the problem. These leaders need to be engaged, and have the ability to address the problems from the ground up if we expect any real change.

Project Management: The Missing Link of Acquisition Reform

codecondo.com

An article published this week on Federal Computer Week highlights the woeful state of the project management capability that currently exists in the federal government, and how attention needs to be paid to this critical government management function.

In the article, Healthcare.gov is once again the punching bag for the model program of what a federal boondoggle is all about. However, lessons learned from this program, along with the Government Accountability Office making Information Technology (IT) acquisition the newest member of their High Risk list , has seemingly given traction to the fact that acquisition reform is a holistic model, and must also include those activities that happen after a contract is awarded.

Former Department of Homeland Security CIO Richard Spires made an excellent point about the focus area:

This is not really a technology problem as much as a skill and cultural one,” he said. “Culture is the biggest issue.

This is an interesting article worth a look, as creating the culture of performance and constant improvement can have a major impact in improving federal programs, especially when it relates to IT.

It is the implementation of the U.S. Digital Services Playbook, along with theTechFAR Handbook, that holds the most promise for turning around federal IT programs through proper use of performance based contracting, and best practices of agile.

The inaugural podcast by Anne Rung, Administrator of the Office of Federal Procurement Policy, highlights successes in IT acquisitions using these prominent procurement tools. The first podcast featured Mark Naggar, project manager of the Department of Health and Human Services' (HHS) Buyers Club. He detailed his use of the TechFAR Handbook and the Digital Services Playbook, specifically noting that he tapped play No. 4, "build the service using agile and iterative practices," to help his team quickly contract with numerous firms for development of IT system prototypes.

The HHS initiative is a great foundation for the art of the possible in government, were engaged and committed leadership demands improved performance from their teams, provide the resources and means to achieve it, and have accountability at the forefront of results.

Combined with effective and agile contracting technique, effective project management can be the critical success factor for programs to succeed. It should be an concerted, integrated effort to address the failures of government management, and not an either/or proposition.