|
Steve: govt and K Street lawyers will tell you it is impossible for a government contract to read like a partnership agreement. That could change, but it is hard to see that in the current frothing environment re contractors in the agencies and Congress. While partnership is a worthy ideal, many parties would settle for playing nicely and fairly, transparency, and a more equitable risk-reward balance than the current lopsided 800 lb. gorilla posture favoring govt. Little in policy and regs encourages partnership. Indeed, policies, regs, and culture foster wariness and suspicion of conractors; likewise, companies have good reason to fear the government. Poor soil for growing partnerships. When “partnership” is mouthed by both parties today, it can often lead to collaboration of the unacceptable kind to obscure deep program problems. (Real partnerships, BTW, often encourage that.) Examples include: NMCI (in some phases), Army FCS, FBI VCF until it blew, and SBInet. DHS Secy Chertoff’s repeated tortured defenses of Boeing’s Project 28 is a sterling example. All fodder for your Fear Industry. Michael Lent, Editor and Publisher, Government Services Insider
Posted by Michael Lent on March 25, 2008 - 07:47 AM
Steve: govt and K Street lawyers will tell you it is impossible for a government contract to read like a partnership agreement. That could change, but it is hard to see that in the current frothing environment re contractors in the agencies and Congress. While partnership is a worthy ideal, many parties would settle for playing nicely and fairly, transparency, and a more equitable risk-reward balance than the current lopsided 800 lb. gorilla posture favoring govt. Little in policy and regs encourages partnership. Indeed, policies, regs, and culture foster wariness and suspicion of conractors; likewise, companies have good reason to fear the government. Poor soil for growing partnerships. When “partnership” is mouthed by both parties today, it can often lead to collaboration of the unacceptable kind to obscure deep program problems. (Real partnerships, BTW, often encourage that.) Examples include: NMCI (in some phases), Army FCS, FBI VCF until it blew, and SBInet. DHS Secy Chertoff’s repeated tortured defenses of Boeing’s Project 28 is a sterling example. All fodder for your Fear Industry. Michael Lent, Editor and Publisher, Government Services Insider
Posted by Michael Lent on March 25, 2008 - 07:48 AM
Govt Perspective- Government/Contractor partnerships are possible if there's an adequate past performance rating system available that can be tied to the success or failure of the project. Think about it. If a contractor is just as concerned with the success of a project as the government (the viability of their business depends on it), then they are strongly motivated to succeed. They are also less likely to slow down a project with a petty dispute. Even without an adequate performance rating system in Govt, I've found that several contractors ARE concerned w/ the success of projects, and partnerships COULD work. My personal experience with this hasn't been good however. I have a hard time getting most people to believe that the contractor PM cares as much about the project success as the govt PM.
Posted by jswhetsell on March 26, 2008 - 08:48 PM
I think if the government could manage to clear and taxpayer aligned performance objectives, maintain transparency, and sustain fair competition - the sky is the limit for partnership. In fact, I don't believe the government should buy solutions any other way.
Posted by Federal Enterprise Architect on March 27, 2008 - 07:56 AM
I like to say contractors and government are “kin.” What I mean, of course, is…the government and its contractors are closely aligned around a common set of objectives. They have different motives (i.e., mission or profit), but at a level, they come together. They share accountabilities to deliver against the contract. They share objectives to achieve the outcomes of the contract. And, at contract end, they share the successes (and/or failures) of a contract. Well-designed, written, and executed contracts should yield win/win results that are tied to outcomes delivered to an end customer. The government wins because it achieves the outcomes of the contract; the contractor wins because the government achieves the outcomes of the contract. Achieving this kind of collaboration between the government and a contractor is not always easy and not just the result of good contract writing. It occurs when leadership shares a joint vision to be successful.
Posted by Emory Miller on March 28, 2008 - 03:49 PM
Emory Miller has it right. Commitment from both sides of the partnership to mission success and the integrity of all involved are crucial to success in government-industry partnerships. They can overcome weaknesses in project governance -- e.g., metrics -- because these traits are fundamental and inform every transaction. They are essential in overcoming the inevitable obstacles that arise from imperfect planning. Without them project failure is virtually certain. With them, even less than optimally planned projects can produce worthwhile results.
Posted by civis on April 3, 2008 - 08:13 AM
|
