« More Evidence of SEC Officials Ignoring IG and Misleading Congress | Main | Exclusive: First Look at the CLEAR Act Amendments »

Jul 14, 2010

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d8341c68bf53ef0134856ecd58970c

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Fed Contracting: So Hot!:

Comments

Scott Amey

Contractors are buying-in to the green concept:

http://www.federaltimes.com/article/20101130/ACQUISITION03/11300303/1009/ACQUISITION

Scott Amey

GSA's new sustainability plan will require contractors to think green:

GSA has embedded Guiding Principles into contract specifications. GSA’s standard contract specifications for custodial services and building operations and maintenance contract require contractors to address environmentally preferable purchasing, green cleaning, recycling, integrated pest management, hazardous material management, and electronic stewardship. These specifications help GSA adhere to the Guiding Principles.

Scott Amey

RFPs will include emphasis on going green as government looks for reduced greenhouse gas emissions.

http://www.federaltimes.com/article/20100804/ACQUISITION01/8040302/1001

Account Deleted

I think the key word should be "responsible government". Each signed contract should be carefully considered and this will avoid misuse of public money. Any investment should be analyzed in terms of opportunity and jobs created. Every job is vital in the current economic crisis. People need to feel safe and so slowly when we will overcome.piese autovanzari auto

Gov Con Maven

SOCAL Contractor, you’re drinking the Kool Aid. I’m simply talking about the underlying costs going into price build-ups, not whether the requirements are meritorious, which is a program management issue.

The “Coopers & Lybrand” study was an utter joke. BTW, it wasn’t a “Coopers & Lybrand” study, it was a “Coopers& Lybrand/TASC” study. It was custom ordered by Jacque Gansler to make a political point. The study was discredited by GAO and lots of others. Even the study authors acknowledged two important things: 1) it was anecdotal; and 2) it only looked at “costs” without comparing benefits.

One last thing, no public accounting firm would be allowed to lend its name to such a such a “report” today. It would be considered a compromise of independence. And what became of TASC after the study was issued? It became a part of Northrop Grumman before it was recently spun off due to organizational conflict of interest issues.

SoCal Contractor

GAO doesn't agree that the "explosion of costs in government contracting" comes from excessive contractor overhead. GAO thinks it comes from lack of rigorous definition of requirements, reliance on unproven/immature technologies, and uncertain funding.

Moreover, too much contractor overhead is driven by governmental administrative requirements. Talked to anybody interacting with DCAA lately? Remember the Coopers & Lybrand study from the mid-1990s -- government-unique requirements (and DOD-unique requirements in particular) -- add 20 - 30% to the price being paid.

I understand that contractor overhead is certainly an easy target; it's just the wrong target.

Govt Con Maven

Observer Jr. has made an important observation. It's a combination of both creeping profitability on government sales, as well as excessively high direct and indirect costs (much of which is comprised of salary and benefits) that has led to an explosion of costs in government contracting. I've got nothing against profitable govt contractors, but government "negotiators" generally do a very poor job of negotiating contractor costs. All of this is made much worse by the evisceration of Truth in Negotiations Act compliance in the last 15 years.

Observer Jr.

Before reveling in feelthee contractors "padding corporate bank accounts," you should probably recognize that this is not where the ill gotten gains sit. They get paid out in salaries and all the slivers of overhead (just like the government, but the govvies don't have the accounting to see this, or, that government overhead dwarfs contractors') as well as profits in the form of dividends. Bank accounts pay zilch as you know.

I was hoping you would lock onto the new TechAmerica "commission" on federal acquisition. It is chaired by the woman who heads LockMart's govt business (where contracts smolder not infrequently), and, POGO's old friend, 'lil Stevie Kelman, whose consulting work for Accenture and collaborations with Booze were not mentioned in the press release. Have little hope the august "commission" will turn up anything new. But it might omit a few contractor foibles, as well as overlook things the government does that deserve awards for exceptional lack of attention, smarts, and concern on behalf of the customers and the taxpayers. I am looking forward to your expose of the "commission."

The comments to this entry are closed.