In keeping with one of our enduring themes at “The Forum,” I’d like to discuss potentially critical developments in the world of contracting government services.
We may be reaching a threshold regarding our tolerance for shoddy contract management and fraudulent procurement practices.
This week, two articles appeared in The Washington Post, which addressed this matter from differing perspectives about Iraq reconstruction. One reports on persistent shortcomings in overseeing contracts, with an eye pointed towards possible future fraud charges, while the other describes successful prosecution of one defendant found guilty of “bribery, money laundering and conspiracy.”
When reading these articles, consider that challenges exist in many other agencies, not just the Defense and State departments named here. Over the past few years, we have been exposed to many contracting snafus. An embarrassing case was chronicled during last year’s tax filing season, where it was learned that IRS and a contracting firm commissioned with the task of detecting possible refund schemes in electronically-filed tax returns failed, and approximately $400 million of refunds were issued to those not entitled to them.
Back to Iraq. In fairness, the circumstances surrounding reconstruction are very difficult due to inadequate security throughout the country, i.e., too many bad guys are running around killing and causing mayhem that skilled workers, auditors, and inspectors are simply not able to perform their jobs.
Other instances of poor contract management and oversight seem mostly to be a function of insufficient staff and inadequate training and monitoring of that staff. We know of the government’s philosophical decision to engage more private companies into a partnership to support government operations. As the number of these efforts increases, the demand for detailed, timely, and accurate oversight grows accordingly.
Another dynamic is getting the job done and achieving the mission. Once a Contracting Officer or Contracting Officer’s Representative (or Contracting Officer’s Technical Representative) identifies problems and shares them with managers of the offices requesting the services, it’s very difficult to merely stop work, find another contractor, and meet program deadlines and goals.
Again, this is not an excuse, however, in fairness to the thousands of executive branch employees and contractors who are diligently trying to produce quality goods and services, it is demanding at best to determine accurately and quickly what processes aren’t up to snuff and how to remediate them within the omnipresent pressure of due dates and milestones.
In other words, if I’m managing an Information Technology project which is falling behind on several tasks, my priority would normally be to work closer with the contractors and staff to identify and correct the problem rather than giving up and starting over with a new Statement of Work, bidding process, etc. I would endeavor at all costs to salvage success from the current arrangement.
Fatal problems arise when month after month no significant progress is achieved, major deficiencies persist, and milestones are missed. Once this point is reached, the damage is done. Often it’s more a matter of art than science before that stage is reached to judge what action is needed and when to ensure that services are satisfactorily provided.
We are vulnerable even when our CORs, COTRs, and business owners are on top of their games, performing due diligence, and continually monitoring work progress. For whatever reason, some tasks may not be performed even under the closest review procedures. Contracting staff may not be adequately skilled to perform the task, the contractor may encounter trouble finding skilled workers timely, some workers may get new jobs and leave, many could be unavailable due to illnesses, etc. There are a myriad of reasons, just as there are in offices staffed solely with government employees, why certain projects are not completed properly. Again, this is not offered as an excuse or acceptance of failure. It merely states what often is reality and the inherent intricacies of getting the job done.
It makes you wonder how those folks ever built the pyramids.
Those committing fraud, of course, fall into a totally different category. Greed likely is the controlling factor, and offenders have clearly lost any moral compass they may have earlier possessed as they seek a lifestyle of acceptable (to them) opulence. Whatever criminal calamity befalls them is well-earned and they will receive their just desserts.
In sum, the magnitude and breadth of the “contracting services” issue is so enormous as to be nearly incomprehensible. Thus, we will be hearing and reading more about this in the months and years ahead. As I’ve stated in these pages earlier, it is high time to fund specific contracting demonstration projects so we can learn how to effectively manage contracts and spend taxpayer dollars wisely.
+++
Fred W. Apelquist, III, M.Ed.
Approximately 775 words.
© January, 2007