Jump to content

Here are two provisions of law to get rid of as soon as possible, for the sake of the country


Recommended Posts

18 hours ago, Vern Edwards said:

Because our Congress thinks that the only way to get fair and reasonable prices is through head-to-head price competition. There is a long and voluminous record of congressional hearings in which Congress has expressed its distrust of one-on-one price negotiations.

I don’t believe Congress would ever grant governmentwide approval of a brand new process such as permitting noncompetitive extensions to contracts based on exceptional contractor performance.  But I do believe Congress would grant limited approval to one or more agencies to try it out if fully justified.

Congress has done it with several agencies like USPTO, FAA, FSA, and others.  The issue is why those experiences weren’t more widely adopted is those agencies never fully utilized the flexibilities given to them to demonstrate benefits.  FAA devised a system that is worse than before in many respects.  FSA and USPTO don’t use what is given to them because their people aren’t comfortable doing anything other than the status quo.

Edit:  when USPTO first started with all their flexibilities, the ability to acquire professional services using an approach similar to A&E - select highest technically rated offeror to negotiate with, was part of their regulations.  But it was dropped because all the COs were afraid of sole source negotiations without competitive price proposals and possible post award criticism. 

@Joel Hoffman, you keep bringing up the current process works fine but you are relating it to construction.  I’m not a construction expert but have done enough to know sealed bids and best value trade off with discussions works with construction.  That’s the way the industry is set up and taking a long time is the norm and what’s expected.  Our nation isn’t injured because it takes years for a new building.  But for the majority of acquisitions the government does, something radically different is needed.  Everything we do in our lives is quicker and more responsive than in the past.  Our country can’t afford to allow our procurement system to drop us behind other nations.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 56
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

5 hours ago, formerfed said:

I don’t believe Congress would ever grant governmentwide approval of a brand new process such as permitting noncompetitive extensions to contracts based on exceptional contractor performance.  But I do believe Congress would grant limited approval to one or more agencies to try it out if fully justified.

Congress has done it with several agencies like USPTO, FAA, FSA, and others.  The issue is why those experiences weren’t more widely adopted is those agencies never fully utilized the flexibilities given to them to demonstrate benefits.  FAA devised a system that is worse than before in many respects.  FSA and USPTO don’t use what is given to them because their people aren’t comfortable doing anything other than the status quo.

Edit:  when USPTO first started with all their flexibilities, the ability to acquire professional services using an approach similar to A&E - select highest technically rated offeror to negotiate with, was part of their regulations.  But it was dropped because all the COs were afraid of sole source negotiations without competitive price proposals and possible post award criticism. 

@Joel Hoffman, you keep bringing up the current process works fine but you are relating it to construction.  I’m not a construction expert but have done enough to know sealed bids and best value trade off with discussions works with construction.  That’s the way the industry is set up and taking a long time is the norm and what’s expected.  Our nation isn’t injured because it takes years for a new building.  But for the majority of acquisitions the government does, something radically different is needed.  Everything we do in our lives is quicker and more responsive than in the past.  Our country can’t afford to allow our procurement system to drop us behind other nations.  

Fair enough. But I explained the problems we encountered with IFB, which echo Vern’s two citations. That’s what I was responding to.

At any rate, I personally don’t see the political climate for the alternatives to competitive acquisition  presented so far being authorized on a broad scale in the near future for fed. Gov. Acquisition. Just my opinion.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here’s a timely article for this discussion and a pertinent extract

Quote

The primary point of the defense acquisition process and its reform is not to have fair and open competition first and foremost. Rather, it is about getting the strongest national security possible. It is about how to best protect the nation responsibly and effectively. 

https://www.defensenews.com/opinion/commentary/2021/05/06/we-are-lost-in-the-woods-on-acquisition-reform/

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Read this:

Quote

Contractor selection: Industrial firms with little or no prior experience are often given contracts a few months before experienced companies find themselves running out of similar work, with a trained staff beginning to leave because of the situation created by these contracting practices. An enormous amount of unnecessary time and effort is utterly wasted in the bidding process which has grown to involve routinely, the invitation of large groups to bidders briefings and the invitation,,, of formal bids in ridiculous numbers. The criteria for selection have tended to encourage 'brochuremanship' since radical promises have usually seemed to pay off better than solid performance on current work. Thus is much of our finest talent needlessly and harmfully diverted from sharp focus on tasks at hand.

What government official wrote that? SecDef Robert S. McNamara. Quoted in Aviation Week & Space Technology, Feb. 5, 1962, p. 26, in an article entitled, "Defense to Speed Development, Cut Cost."

When would you guess that was written? Late 1961.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Quote

When would you guess that was written? Late 1961.

60 years later and similar complaints.  Wow

As long as DoD makes every acquisition strategy and methodology look the same, the results will be similar - a long standing defense contractor will win.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As a corollary to my last post, does DoD know how to obtain or even care about competition with non-traditional companies?  
 

Even the intent of OTAs aren’t even being met.  This is from a POGO article

Quote

The Congressional Research Service outlined a few reasons OTAs did not lure in nontraditional vendors, including ambiguity about the definition of nontraditional contractors and the use of OTAs for weapons systems, which are generally awarded to large defense contractors.33 No matter the reason, OTAs were going to large contractors. Recent data shows that traditional contractors are still major players in the OTA game. Three of the top five DoD contractors—Lockheed Martin, Northrop Grumman, and Boeing—are also in the top 5 of those “nabbing” the most OTA dollars.34

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think DOD has no choice but to rely on nontraditional firms, because they need IT, and the best sources of that are nontraditional firms. But I know that many nontraditional firms are put off by the regulations, the source selection processes, and the intrusiveness and untrustworthiness of the government as a customer. The don't like things like DOD's contractor business system rules. They are successful, and they don't need or want a bunch of bureaucrats coming in and telling how to pay their employees, manage their property, purchase goods and services, keep their books, etc.

We need a president who realizes that they need contracts and contractors to implement their programs, that the contracting system is busily dysfunctional, and that they need to do something about it. They can't just leave it to Congress.

Actually, we need two presidents---one who talks to foreign leaders and tries to solve problems that can't be solved in a four-year term, while pontificating to journalists and the public, and one who does the nitty-gritty work of making sure that the government operates effectively. One who handles problems like Iraq, Israel and Gaza, Taiwan, the South China Sea, and our relationship with Turkey, and one who makes sure we can get things like PPE and ventilators, military equipment, and disaster relief when and where we need them. One who postures and pontificates and one who manages and gets stuff done.

The job is too much for one person. I'm serious.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...