Search FCW


Subscribe Now!
Table of Contents
Sprint
Business
BPM
CXOs
Columns
Columnists
Defense
E-Government
Elections 2008
Enterprise Architecture
Funding
Homeland Security
Health IT
IPv6
LOB
Management
Procurement
Privacy
Policy
Program Management
State and Local
Security
Technology
Telework
Training and Certification
Workforce

More Topics
resourcecenter
Home
Letters to the Editor
Current Issue/Download
Print/Online Archives
Editorial Calendar
researchstore
resourcecenter
Communications for Continuity Operations

Oracle Resource Center
NEW - Data Center Virtualization
NEW - Air Force ELSG Contract Guide
NEW - Security Management
NEW - DOD and Security Guide
Networx Contract Guide
SEWP IV Contract Guide
Priority Report: Virtualization
NEW - CHESS formerly ASCP
New - SATCOM II

More >>


FCW.com BLOG

Latest News
ADVERTISEMENT





 
The Lectern:

The Lectern: Commercial vendors, government work

By Steve Kelman
Published on April 9, 2008 - 09:45 AM

Comment

Click here to comment on this blog


Newsletters

You might also be interested in these FCW newsletters:

Daily

To learn more, click here.


I had lunch today with a former student who graduated from the Master in Public Policy program almost 20 years ago, served for many years in government working in the Defense Department (he had served in the Army before coming to the Kennedy School). He now is a manager for the aerospace practice of a consulting firm that works mostly for commercial clients, but has done a little government work.

I say "has done" because the company has now decided basically to stop competing for federal government work.

The reason?

During the last year, the company has competed for two federal contracts, one defense and one civilian, both fixed-price and both competitive ( this was not sole-source business). In both cases, although the contracts were fixed-price competitive contracts, the company was required not only to provide a price but also to provide a cost "build up" explaining the underlying cost structure that had produced its price.

The former student noted that his company's labor rates for government business were already l5 percent under its rates for the same labor categories for commercial customers. Add on the hassle, oversight and second-guessing for a cost buildup for a competitive fixed-price contract, and his firm has concluded it's just not worth it.

This is a theme I raised in my post on the IBM suspension last week. This example suggests a reversion to practices that were abandoned when the government was trying to encourage predominantly commercial firms to compete for government business.

Why is this happening? Government contracting officials are afraid that, if they don't get this cost data, they risk attack from their inspector general, the media, or Capitol Hill for some purported contractor rip off, even though profit is not supposed to be an issue for competitively awarded fixed-priced contracts (do we as consumers get cost data on toothpaste or cosmetics?).

This kind of development is a threat to quality, customer service and competition in federal contracting. If the goal of the fear industry is to have only the Lockheeds and Northrups of the world bidding for government business, the current approach makes a lot of sense. If, on the other hand, we would like the mainstream of U.S. industry to compete for government business, current trends are a move in the wrong direction.

What do you think? Post a comment on this blog (registration required) or send an e-mail to letters@fcw.com and we will post it for you.

View Comments

Steve –

Your post raises some interesting issues, but without the contract in hand, it is very difficult to ascertain whether the fixed-price contract you reference should have been subject to the submission of information other than cost or pricing data, as non-certified cost data is currently known. (Note: FAR case 2005-036, if finalized, would make further changes to distinguish "certified" from "uncertified" cost or pricing data.)

While it is true that the purchase of a tube of toothpaste will not be subject to any cost data submissions, this is because there is an end product for which direct price comparisons can be made. In the example you cite of a competitively awarded fixed-price service contract, it is not at all unusual for contracting officers to request information other than cost or pricing data in order to ascertain whether the contractor's proposed cost "build up" is realistic for the work to be performed. Such data is not cost or pricing data, and does not subject the contract to the price reduction clause for defective pricing, nor subject the contractor to post-award audits. The Federal Acquisition Streamlining Act (FASA) developed this concept of "uncertified cost data" precisely so that contracting officers could get cost information without subjecting contractors to the Truth in Negotiations Act (TINA).

[Continued below…]

Posted by jsmeditor on April 10, 2008 - 03:50 PM

[…Continued from above]

One reason for obtaining this uncertified data is to perform cost realism analysis, a concept embodied in FASA. I cannot criticize a contracting officer who determines that he/she needs to obtain information other than cost or pricing data in order to establish cost realism for a proposed contract price.

Had the contract described been of the time-and-materials/labor hour variety, the contracting officer might have been able to compare labor billing rates. But in the case of a fixed-price service contract, in many instances the only way to determine cost realism is to request the data – which is differentiated from cost or pricing data, as the latter must be certified in accordance with TINA, and permits post-award audits.

One of the reasons for the FASA distinction between "certified" and "uncertified" cost data was at least in part to allow contracting officers to obtain the basic data without necessarily requiring a contract to be subject to TINA, with the attendant post-award audit clauses which were perceived by some as an impediment to bringing non-traditional government contractors into the supplier base.

Rich Loeb

Posted by jsmeditor on April 10, 2008 - 03:50 PM

Dear Mr. Kelman, Let me begin by saying that I concur with you that current trends are a move in the wrong direction. There has as of late been a lot of discussion regarding the number of contractors involved in government business. Ironically since we are all at least theoretically part of the government this could just be interpreted as someone other than the primary organization paying the individuals benefits. Regardless, what contractors can do - although may not always do - is bring fresh insight to problems. Having worked as a direct employee of the Lockheeds and Northrops as well as a manufacturing consultant to both, the advantage I brought as the latter was a much different perspective of the business issues and thus a different approach to the recommended solution. It is often difficult for the direct employee to see the issue from the company perspective rather than from the individual department or organization perspective. It may also be difficult for the employee to make the recommendation they truly believe is the proper solution due to fear for their job or management retaliation. The contractor need not worry about these things. However, no solution is executed without the buy in of the direct employees so the contractor in fact acts only as the team lead - not as the decision maker. Thus, if the recommended solution is not accepted the contractor can assume responsibility. But if the recommended solution is accepted, the direct employee team can take credit and move forward….

[Continued below…]

Posted by jsmeditor on April 10, 2008 - 04:15 PM

[…Continued from above] I understand and agree with your friend. There comes a time when it is just not cost effective to pursue a contract. I understand the fear of auditing and recrimination on the part of the contracting officer - but this tells me that energy is being wasted on the wrong tasks. It is common for a bidder to quote daily or hourly rates and provide a project plan executing those rates - based on the requirements as defined in the FRS. This, along with the written understanding that any change to those requirements resulting in a change to that plan, should be sufficient. To ask for more is pointless. To limit bids to current contractors is to limit the quality of the deliverable and success of the project. Even contractors need to be challenged for new ideas and approaches to avoid becoming too set in their thinking and approach. We spend far too much time complaining about projects coming in past schedule and over budget. That time should be spent defining requirements and selecting the correct contractor that enables project success. We do not learn. Thank you for listening. scharles@glovia.com

Posted by jsmeditor on April 10, 2008 - 04:16 PM

Steve:

You becry the government's request for cost buildup data when buying commercial items. I have spoken to many commercial companies large and small about how they buy for themselves and they have told me that on occasion when they can't determine pricing based upon the market for any number of reasons, require their suppliers to give them access to their cost data. In fact, with trusted suppliers, these companies often have arrangements that not only disclose costs but provide for the buyer and supplier to work together to reduce costs and thus the price to the buyer. They don't require a certified cost accounting system, that's true but they cost data.

The real problem is the fact that we don't have enough competent contracting professionals to do the work and the folks we do have are afraid, not just of oversight by the IG, GAO and Congress, but of their own management chains. This fear manifests itself in their failure to stand up and do the right thing.

Take a look at Alliant. Read the judge's opinion and look at the facts. GSA lost that protest because Jim Williams let his folks force an answer which brought a couple of large companies to the award based on their history of bringing business to GSA instead of follwoing their own source selection rules. Look at the protests of ITES II and others, all of which resulted from a management team that didn't rely on its contracting team to do the right hting and instead forced a desired solution. I know that you're a champion of the 1102, now you need to stand up for them and take to task the management teams that are driving solutions.

You want to make a difference, convince Shay Assad and Frank Anderson to train price analysts instead of changing the definiton of commercial items. Get Jim Williams to focus on best value for customers instead of revenue for FAS and get Paul Denett to reign in the number of inter and intra agency IDIQs.

Posted by Shep on April 13, 2008 - 09:52 AM

Don't you wish you could attract all the most gorgeous women around you each day? Its easier then you think. A few dabs of Ultra Allure Pheromones will have women fighting over you. Scientifically proven to work- pheromones have been used for years now to attract women. Don't be at a disadvantage anymore- pheromones will help any male attract women of all types and ages. Don't be left behind! Millions of men are already benefiting from using pheromons to attract women- without them you are at a disadvantage! Don't let the other guy get the girl, arm yourself with Ultra Allure pheromones tonight! If YOU would like to ... - Become a lot more sexually attractive. - Meet more beautiful women, MUCH more easily. - Grab the attention and get approached by women far more often. - Make a fantastic, memorable, compelling impression , every time. - Increase your self-confidence and masculinity BIG-time… then this may be the most important news you will read all year.

http://www.nemogs.com/r/ - Then click here to learn more about the most potent and effective pheromone available!

Product here - http://nemogs.com/r/index.php

Posted by Tychiariexeri on April 27, 2008 - 10:19 AM

Great You can buy zestril WBR, Alex http://www.world-viagra.com - best cheap drug-store cheap drug-store buy zestril online buy zestril online buy zestil in uk buy zestil in uk

Posted by mypharmalifexxx on May 1, 2008 - 12:44 PM

http://www.world-pharma.pillsfm.com - my favourite drug-store buy zestril online cheap drug-store http://www.world-pharma.pillsfm.com - my favourite drug-store buy zestril online best cheap drug-store http://www.world-pharma.pillsfm.com - best cheap drug-store buy zestril online cheap drug-store

--- http://www.world-pharma.pillsfm.com - best cheap drug-store buy zestil in uk cheap drug-store http://www.world-pharma.pillsfm.com - cheap drug-store buy zestil in uk my favourite drug-store http://www.world-pharma.pillsfm.com - my favourite drug-store zestil buy my favourite drug-store http://www.world-pharma.pillsfm.com - best cheap drug-store zestil buy my favourite drug-store http://www.world-pharma.pillsfm.com - my favourite drug-store buy zestril cheap drug-store http://www.world-pharma.pillsfm.com - cheap drug-store zestril cheap best cheap drug-store

Posted by alex_samsolutions on May 20, 2008 - 11:03 AM

http://www.world-pharma.pillsfm.com - cheap drug-store buy zestril best cheap drug-store http://www.world-pharma.pillsfm.com - cheap drug-store buy zestril my favourite drug-store http://www.world-pharma.pillsfm.com - cheap drug-store zestil buy best cheap drug-store

--- http://www.world-pharma.pillsfm.com - best cheap drug-store buy zestril my favourite drug-store http://www.world-pharma.pillsfm.com - cheap drug-store zestril cheap my favourite drug-store http://www.world-pharma.pillsfm.com - best cheap drug-store buy zestril online my favourite drug-store http://www.world-pharma.pillsfm.com - best cheap drug-store buy zestil in uk cheap drug-store http://www.world-pharma.pillsfm.com - best cheap drug-store buy zestril cheap drug-store http://www.world-pharma.pillsfm.com - cheap drug-store buy zestril cheap drug-store

Posted by rloviiasx on June 4, 2008 - 09:10 AM

Really great site with alot of good information!! Keep up the good work!!!!

Posted by Jeiahuu on July 29, 2008 - 11:43 AM

buy generic cialis cheap generic cialis Cialis Generic Viagra Cheapest Generic Viagra cheap cialis

Posted by KiraPlast on August 1, 2008 - 02:29 PM

cheap Microsoft Windows XP Professional SP2 cheap Microsoft Office 2003 Professional Edition cheap Adobe Acrobat 7.0 Pro cheap Adobe Photoshop CS2 + Image ready CS2 cheap Microsoft Picture It Photo Premium 9 cheap Adobe Acrobat 6 professional cheap MS Windows XP Media Center Edition 2005 cheap Macromedia Dreamweaver 8 cheap Microsoft Windows 2000 Professional with SP4 cheap Microsoft Windows Server 2003 Enterprise Edition cheap Microsoft Office XP Professional cheap Quark Express 6.0 cheap AutoCAD 2005 cheap Adobe Creative Suite Standard Full cheap MS Project 2003 Pro cheap Autocad 2006 cheap Adobe Photoshop CS + Adobe ImageReady CS

Posted by LittleJim on August 28, 2008 - 08:57 AM

buy generic cialis cheap generic cialis Cialis Generic Viagra Cheapest Generic Viagra cheap cialis

Posted by KiraPlast on August 29, 2008 - 03:21 AM

oem Adobe Illustrator 10 software

Posted by FancyYork on September 2, 2008 - 05:04 AM


Post a Comment

To post a comment, you must be a registered user of FCW.com and be logged in. Use one of the forms below to login or register for FREE to FCW.com. To protect your privacy, you can use an alias as your username.

Login to FCW.com

E-mail Address:
Password:
Forgot your password?
Register and Post Comment

* First Name:
* Last Name:
* E-mail Address:
* Password:
* Retype Password:
* Blog Username:
* Comments:


E-mail me when new comments are posted in this thread?


upcoming event

Enterprise Architecture 2008 - Washington, DC
September 9 - September 10, 2008

Occupational Health & Safety Executive Summit - Arlington, VA
October 6 - October 7, 2008


 

head
fcw
issue
First Name State
Last Name Zip
Title Email