Buying Blind

Just because Federal Computer Week (a government contractor rag) listed POGO as the only non-profit in “10 organizations worth watching” doesn’t mean they have the right to print an attack on us, and then stiff-arm us when we ask for permission to reprint their column on our website so we can fully and thoroughly respond to it. Unfortunately, we are forced to excerpt from Steve Kelman’s latest drivel, “Buying commercial: The debates about commercial contracting and government risk involve high stakes,” which was published on June 11, 2007.

Kelman: “It is easy to forget the situation back then [the 1980s], when the government routinely demanded that contractors provide cost data for commercial items, not just those developed for the government.”

POGO: The government did not and could not routinely request cost or pricing data for commercial items.  The statute (TINA) and implementing regulations specifically exempted contractors from submission of cost or pricing data on a contract if the good or service was sold at established catalog or market prices; or if there were two or more proposals for the contract award. In other words, the only time that cost or pricing data was allowed to be requested under the "bad" old rules was when the item being acquired was being purchased on a sole source basis, AND no market price could otherwise be established. The incredible part of the "commercial item" scam is that truly commercial vendors were never providing cost data to the government -- they didn't need the rule change. So who did? The only contractors who benefited from the 1990's rules changes are those companies getting sole source contracts from their only customer -- the government.  NOW you can see why we at POGO are so upset with the current situation!

Kelman: “To a much greater degree than traditional weapons functions, such [rapidly deployable small-scale technology] capabilities are based on applying, modifying and integrating commercial technology.  Any procurement regime that makes acquisition of such technology more difficult hampers our ability to develop quick responses to today's threats.”

POGO: We agree that any system that makes acquisition of needed technology tougher is a bad thing.  But, Kelman’s presumption here is that companies won't sell to the government if they have to provide cost data.  That's funny because in the commercial marketplace, cost or pricing data requests from large buyers, for example Walmart, to their suppliers, for example Vlasic pickles, are quite common.

Kelman: “But changes in the procurement climate since then have nudged DOD back to a more traditional approach, which features delays and increased costs. That backsliding has raised concerns among program customers. Ryder criticized the ‘lack of acceptance of commercial solutions and best commercial practices.’”

POGO: The rules haven't changed (yet). If there are delays and increased costs -- blame the "improved system." You can't blame the good old days for what's happening in the acquisition system now.

Kelman: “Like any big change, DOD's push for greater use of commercial technology was not perfect. The Air Force should never have classified the C-130J fighter as a commercial item.”

POGO: We're glad to see Kelman finally acknowledge that the C-130J shouldn't have been acquired as a commercial item.  But, note that he characterizes the aircraft as a fighter.  In fact, it is a transport aircraft, a point repeatedly made to justify its being considered a commercial item. Even the Air Force agrees that once Senator McCain forced them to restructure the contract so that it was no longer a commercial item, the government gained $168 million in savings.

Kelman: “An intelligent approach is to learn from failures. An example of sensible change is DOD's proposal to allow contracting officers to receive certified cost data for sole-source buys if there is no other way to establish that prices are reasonable.”

POGO: Excuse me, how does this differ from the pre – "acquisition reform" cost or pricing data rule POGO yearns for? Does Kelman even realize he's just endorsed POGO's position?

Kelman: “Unfortunately, not everyone embraces the idea of building on successes and learning from mistakes. Dinosaur Age Exhibit 1 is self-styled watchdog the Project on Government Oversight, which has advocated repealing the Federal Acquisition Streamlining Act and the revival of the cost-data-for-everything world of the 1980s. Such an approach, straight from the hoary days of the earliest PCs, would cut the government off from many of the benefits of the Information Age. That is what's at stake in the current debates.”

POGO: What a straw man! POGO has never suggested the need for cost data for products or services where prices are determined by a commercial market. But by now, readers can see for themselves how few facts informed Kelman's column.  In the end, if he now agrees that the government should get access to certified data on sole source contracts where there is no established market price for the item, we should declare victory and call it a day. But we won’t be buying any subscriptions to FCW anytime soon.

-- Danielle Brian

Comments

[Posted on: Jun 25, 2007 at 09:52 PM]

As one of those "agency employees" who had regularly read FCW, after FCW and Milton "Bureaucratus" Zall parted ways, FCW became just a shill rag for the computer industry.

Anyway after NMCI, vendors became irrelevant.

Gary P Norton

[Posted on: Jun 18, 2007 at 07:20 PM]

Stiff-arm?

http://www.fcw.com/blogs/archives/editor/2007/06/popular_with_po.asp

As always, I am happy to consider running columns from POGO, as FCW has run in the past.

And, just for the record, FCW readers are predominantly agency employees who buy, manage and operate government programs.

[Posted on: Jun 16, 2007 at 09:43 PM]

No, Connie, it doesn't count. They're just trying to defray postage cost involved. The pub is otherwise free, free, free. Brings new meaning to the term free press,. Am not sure the people who work there can be considered journalists, in the usual sense of the word ,because their main goal is to sell ads, and when it comes to content, there are only a few ways you can do that....

[Posted on: Jun 16, 2007 at 11:07 AM]

KSBR -

The FCW print version charges for overseas subscriptions, as well as for subscriptions sent to Canadian and Mexican addresses. Does that count?

Connie

[Posted on: Jun 15, 2007 at 04:47 PM]

Danielle,

Sorry to see you so inflamed. Relax. And no need to buy an FCW subscription because it's free.

FCW makes its $ from ads and conferences sponsored by the companies whose products and services it "covers." But it's still a useful mag and not mean spirited. No investigative reporters there--and that's fine. That's not it's role in the government-IT industrial complex. That role is yours, among others, and you gotta thicken your skin, for your own sake.

I looked at the top ten orgs to watch list that honored POGO w a position. Interesting, GSA/Lurita Doan was listed #1.

KSBR

[Posted on: Jun 15, 2007 at 04:38 PM]

Danielle -

Great post. For once, someone has responded to Kelman with some facts and law. You know, I think he makes this stuff up as he writes. Of course, didn't he make up the whole "equal allocation of overhead" scam to explain overpriced spare parts?

Connie the Contractor