Today, the federal contracting councils published an advanced notice asking for public comments on how best to protect proprietary information if/when contracts are posted online. Yes, can you believe that with all the advances in technology that taxpayers and the media can’t easily review copies of contracts. The notice stated that “the Councils anticipate that, in the future, a requirement to post on-line the text of contracts and task and delivery orders will be instituted.”
Sounding like a broken record, POGO has urged Congress and executive branch officials to place contracts online. In recent testimony before the House Veterans’ Affairs Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations Hearing on “Acquisition Deficiencies at the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs,” POGO recommended:
USAspending.gov should become the one-stop shop for government officials and the public for all spending information. This includes actual copies of each contract, delivery or task order, modification, amendment, other transaction agreement, grant, and lease. Additionally, proposals, solicitations, award decisions and justifications (including all documents related to contracts awarded with less than full and open competition and single-bid contract awards), audits, performance and responsibility data, and other related government reports should be incorporated into USAspending.gov.
POGO envisions an electronic system that allows certain fields or protected data to be redacted from public disclosure. The result will be a system that reduces paper shuffling and finally allows the public to see details—not scant coded summaries—about goods and services the government buys each year. This effort is a win-win for the government and taxpayers.
POGO will weigh in with comments to the notice, which are due on or before July 12, 2010, and should be submitted by any of the following methods:
- Regulations.gov: Submit comments via the Federal eRulemaking portal by inputting “FAR Case 2009–004” under the heading “Comment or Submission.” Select the link “Send a Comment or Submission” that corresponds with FAR Case 2009–004. Follow the instructions provided to complete the “Public Comment and Submission Form.” Please include your name, company name (if any), and “FAR Case 2009–004” on your attached document.
- Fax: 202–501–4067
- Mail: General Services Administration
FAR Secretariat (MVCB)
1800 F Street, NW., Room 4041
Attn: Hada Flowers
Washington, DC 20405
Instructions: Please submit comments only and cite FAR Case 2009–004 in all correspondence related to this case. All comments received will be posted without change to http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal and/or business confidential information provided.
-- Scott Amey
This is progress, but the real fight will still revolve around redaction. Many congresspeople, good-government good guys and gals, and others think nothing should be confidential. This is because they do not understand the business or what contributes to competition. The protection of what is usually redacted actually does contribute to competition.
The companies, judging by FOIA redactions of proposals over decades, will want to protect all build-up elements of total costs and prices (and some, crazily, even the bottom-line bid); all resumes and names of proposed staff; technical approaches and methods which companies will often claim are unique and proprietary (although this is really rare for them to be so); and all past performance summaries.
Some redacted proposals and contracts one can get are more black than white, except for boilerplate.
The companies are dead right on the elements of cost (but not the total and not the fee in dollars or percentage) and on resumes. But the public has a right to know who is in what roles in contract performance. If you black that out, it is one step away from keeping the company name secret.
Past performance is a judgment call. I lean to disclosing it, including the dates, dollars, etc. These past contracts were public and done with public money. There is legitimate art and skill on how they are chosen and written up. But that isn't proprietary.
I do have serious reservations about disclosing contractor performance ratings, but that is another policy battles. (I think it will be fine to disclose these ratings when government agencies and programs are also similarly rated, with ratings disclosed, and we can terminate or seriously penalize the employees who are responsible for crappy program or agency performances. One can dream....)
Posted by: Observer III | May 13, 2010 at 01:12 PM