|
The reality is that the multitude of contracts does not result in competition. This is because government managers are pressured into using their agency's vehicle. It's not competition; it's Soviet-style command performance. GSA has 11 Regions and FEDSIM that have all competed with each other in the past - even if it was not their explicit mission. The solution: Get DoD and DHS out of the routine acquisition business. Put their Acquisition talent into GSA. GSA could use the talent these days. DoD could use the savings incurred by shutting down their own duplicative Acquisition shops. And let the GSA Regions compete. This happened in the past. Let it go again with the specific charter to compete in terms of price and service. Just to keep GSA honest, let GovWorks compete too. The current arrangement is not competition. It's it pure rice bowling by bureaucratic control freaks. And ultimately it's more of the all-too-familiar government waste via unecessary duplication of effort. Advantages abound from concetrating the Acquisition line of business. For example if everyone uses a few vehicles it would be easier to track what the government's buying habits really are: how much they really spend, on what, and how much they really pay for a given type of manhour or product. This is worth the investment. You want to know why these agencies all have their own contracts? Because GSA was beating the daylights out of them a few years back. There was competition, and these DoD Acquisition offices couldn't hang! Now they are settling back into their comfortable and smug monopolistic grooves, complete with low levels of service, long lines, and client missions at risk. Disgraceful. The middle of the road solution: let federal managers chose their own contract support, but make them use GSA vehicles. We don't need a single new Agency IDIQ where an already in place vehicle can do the job, has a higher ceiling, and puts everyone on the same basic Ts and Cs.
Posted by Federal Enterprise Architect on February 26, 2008 - 08:39 AM
Just a reminder that when GSA was "beating the pants off" of their competition, it had more to do with the ability to park money in the IT Fund. When Congress addressed this issue and agencies could no longer change the color of their money, most moved away from GSA. This pretty much confirms that customers chose GSA because of their convenient banking practices rather than the quality of their services.
With that said, I think you make an excellent point. There are far too many competing contracting shops which dilutes the effectiveness of the acquisition workforce. The only way to reduce duplication is for OMB/OFPP to make some tough decisions on agency-wide vehicles. And frankly, I don't see that happening anytime soon.
Posted by Beleaguered Fed on February 28, 2008 - 08:15 AM
Beleaugered, Agencies are told to use certain contracts and offices, even when those contracts and offices are too busy or too comfortable to support all on a timely basis. After all, they are paid for (budgeted). The banking practice was good for all. It did cause people to leave angry when it was ended - especially since the policy change was implemented suddenly and with no grandfathering. That was inept. But GSA is seeing a resurgence of interest for all the reasons I mentioned. I monitor RFPs and I see it every week. The reasons - betre service levels.
Posted by Federal Enterprise Architect on February 28, 2008 - 11:06 AM
Amazine site Thanks, webmaster.
Posted by buyliquoronlinenix on August 24, 2008 - 06:58 PM
Amazine site Thanks, webmaster.
Posted by Ipod Nana Online on August 25, 2008 - 08:35 PM
Amazine site Thanks, webmaster.
Posted by best savings accounts us on August 26, 2008 - 01:48 PM
|
