Gonna Put IT in the Want Ads: Keeping Contractors from Crossing the Line

By NEIL GORDON

While browsing Craigslist recently, POGO came across this job advertisement (pdf) posted by an unidentified “large firm” in Arlington, Virginia seeking a “Procurement Acquisition Analyst” with information technology experience to work for an unnamed government agency client. (POGO’s Federal Contractor Misconduct Database contains several Northern Virginia-based IT companies. One of them, CACI International, is headquartered in Arlington – could it be them?)

This job involves procuring IT software, hardware, and services, and it must be pretty sensitive, too, because the top of the ad declares in bold, capital letters that an active top secret clearance is required – no exceptions. (CACI also derives a substantial amount of revenue from intelligence work.) Among the functions to be performed:

- [P]rovide contractual, procurement, acquisition and technical support in the area of license management for our government client in the area of IT software purchases, expanding to hardware purchases.

- Support follows the entire lifecycle of the contract. This includes contract creation, contract maintenance, accountability throughout the life of a contract, and enforcing policy and software licensing compliance.

- [A]ssist the Contracting Officer Representative (COR) in writing and executing contracts; developing out-year budgets for software products and maintenance; assist with maintaining the inventory of licenses purchased and distributed throughout the enterprise; and tracking and monitoring contract performance. (emphasis added)

Why are we blogging about this particular job listing? After all, it’s no different than the thousands of others you see every day in newspapers or on the Web. Yet it perfectly illustrates the extent to which the federal government relies on contractors to provide a wide range of services, even those that arguably should only be performed by government employees.

The Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) recognizes a class of government activities known as inherently governmental functions, which are functions that, for public interest reasons, must be performed by federal government employees, not contractors. These functions include awarding and administering contracts.

However, the FAR also recognizes a category of functions not considered inherently governmental but which “may approach” being inherently governmental, such as “providing assistance in contract management” and “services that involve or relate to the evaluation of another contractor’s performance.” These functions can be contracted out, but agencies must be careful to ensure that contractors do not overstep the boundary, which President Obama has conceded is a blurred line. Section 743(e)(2)(B) of the 2010 Consolidated Appropriations Act requires agencies to give “special management attention” to these functions. As an added safeguard, a new rule requires contractors to identify and prevent personal conflicts of interest specifically with regard to employees performing acquisition functions closely associated with inherently governmental functions.

Note how the job listing above repeatedly uses the words “support” and “assist.” That’s because these are magic words that supposedly make any function suitable for contractor performance. In reality, contractors can go beyond mere support or assistance – with disastrous consequences. For example, the Abu Ghraib prison scandal, in which contractor employees were alleged to have committed horrible acts of detainee mistreatment, grew out of a simple linguistics support services contract.

The point we’re trying to make is not that this particular job listing will result in another contracting scandal. What POGO tries to emphasize every single day is contracting out functions close to being inherently governmental, deficient oversight, and a lack of accountability are a guarantee that contractors will step over the line.

Neil Gordon is a POGO Investigator

Image from Office of the New Mexico Attorney General

Follow @negordon

Comments

[Dfens]

It does not make sense to have contractors watch contractors. If the contractors work for the same company, then they find no fault even when there is fault to find. If they work of competing companies, they find fault where there is none. It is an obvious conflict of interest.

[ipso]

defens--I agree FCS was a total failure, and Boeing (almost always hapless in its govt contracts) should have not been paid and should have been subject to criminal prosecution via material from an FBI investigation--that never took place. SAIC was Boeing's lackey in this incredible bungling. That said, it the the Department of the Army, as well as the generals involved, who should have been pilloried and penalized for abdicating their responsibilities. The contractors don't make the big decisions. The incompetent Army management were the real architects of the FCS debacle. Johnny McCain knows this well, and he should go get these officials and the companies, but, oh, it is too late, eh?

[Dfens]

Having contractors watch contractors worked out so well for FCS (Future Combat Systems). Why do you think it might be a problem here? Hmm, it wouldn't be because FCS turned out to be a total failure, would it? After billions upon billions had been spent, every single FCS program, even those that had been brought back under government control, failed without a single weapon being produced. Why is that a problem? I mean, after all the contractors made their $1.10 off of every $1.00 they spent. They took their billions to the bank and we got stuck with nothing but more debt to China. Yeah, maybe having contractors watch contractors is a stupid idea now that you mention it.

[ipso]

Neil,
Get a grip. The pernicious contractors who frighten you are no worse than the feds you seem to want to protect or avert your eyes from. The feds, not contractors, are mostly responsible for the idiocy and waste of so many IT procurements and, indeed, the awful state of federal IT and its attendant acquisition. Don't worry about the contractors so much; it would be startling if the person who gets the job u cite is not a retired fed--with all the knowledge, and all the bad habits you decry.

[Shannon Trent]

Fssi bpa for office products slays over 500 small businesses from GSA and awards all with
Mandatory use of just 15 companies! Outrageous example of stroke of the pen policies
Many companies who have spent thousands of dollars and hundreds of hours learning the procurement process In their entry and attempt to do business with federal government now shut out completely, yet billions are spent on ptac sba and office of small and disadvanted business departments, claiming there ability to help small businesses enter the government procurement arena??
DLA ssi has garnered a couple of small businesses over 5 billion in the last few years and effectively
halted any other small business any access! I dont know about you, but since when is 5 billion considered a small business? Truly a tragedy for American small
Businesses.