Washington Technology received a number of trenchant comments about the July 1 Web story, “DHS requires more personal information from employees, contractors,” by staff writer Alice Lipowicz.
The majority of those commenting took Homeland Security Department officials to task for launching an initiative to expand the personal information it retains on employees, contractors and volunteers who regularly need access to DHS facilities.
Paul John Russo called the effort “onerous” and wrote: “The data should only have to be collected during the course of background investigations by either DHS or supporting organizations to support hiring or security clearance investigations by DHS or supporting organizations but should not be required simply to get an ID card that has a fixed expiration date.”
Arthur Downs took a grim view of events, asking “Does this reflect an agenda promoted by Janet Napolitano or some unnamed ‘commissar’ serving in subordinate capacity.”
Russo and others were deeply concerned about the privacy aspect in light of a number of data breaches by government agencies. An anonymous commenter, citing the growing number of data breaches from government mismanagement as opposed to cyberattacks, asked: “How many employees and contractors have confidence that all this personal information will be handled correctly and used correctly?”
In the minority, Frank Landry felt that it was appropriate for the department to ask employees and contractor personnel for additional information. “It’s about time some one stood up and said, 'If you want to work in this business, then you have to give up more information about yourself.'”
Posted on Jul 02, 2009 at 1:26 PM0 comments
Reader sentiment on whether the expiration of contracts such as Millennia and Answer is the end of an era has been divided, judging by the comments on my last blog post.
Some readers think the news generated by Assistant Commissioner Ed O’Hare at the Top 100 conference is actually old news.
Mike D. wrote: “The end of the era started 4 years ago when Alliant was but a hoped for award - there may have been a delay but the end game was never in doubt.”
Others thought we made too big a deal of O’Hare’s comments. “[Governmentwide acquisition contracts] era ending? Yeah, in ten years when GSA lets Alliant expire,” wrote one.
“M” made a very funny dig at our story's headline: “I heard GSA is also going to let the year 2009 expire. Is this the end of years? Sure, there will be a new year - 2010. But I think the headline should be GSA to Phase Out Years! or The End of Years!”
Other more serious comments though supported the idea that there are too many GWACs, whether or not you want to call it the end of an era.
“Consolidation of GSA contracts, including GWACs, is appropriate portfolio management,” wrote Rodney Longfellow.
Others also complained about the number of contracts and the cost to contractors of bidding and supporting all of those vehicles.
Check out the comments and add to the debate and remember to click on "See all comments."
Posted on Jun 29, 2009 at 10:50 AM1 comments
Just the other day, after the Top 100 Conference on Wednesday, I wrote a
short story that reported on remarks made by Ed O’Hare, the General Services Administration’s assistant commissioner of the Office of Integrated Technology Services at the Federal Acquisition Service. He said that GSA was not going to issue any more governmentwide acquisition contracts.
Instead, GSA would use Alliant and Alliant Small Business as their primary GWACs. (That’s in the second paragraph of my story.)
The headline was:
“GSA to phase out GWAC programs.” My lead paragraph: “The era of governmentwide acquisition contracts might be coming to a close at the General Services Administration.”
Reaction to the story has been mostly negative, particularly from GSA. Although the administration has not contacted me directly,
Casey Kelley, Alliant program manager, issued an internal e-mail “to reassure staff that there are no plans to ‘end the GSA GWAC Era.’”
The folks at GSA can spin this anyway they choose, but I would still argue otherwise. An era in government contracting is coming to a close.
Let’s think about this. GSA is letting a stable of contracts expire: Millennia, Millennia Lite and Answer. In recent years, GSA also convinced the Commerce and Transportation departments to give up their GWAC contracts, pulling Commits and Information Technology Omnibus Procurement II under its wing.
GSA tried and failed to bring in NASA’s Solutions for Enterprise-Wide Procurement contract.
GSA wanted to control all governmentwide contracts, and now it is saying it only needs two, except for specific socioeconomic categories.
What O’Hare said — and what we reported — is that GSA isn’t going to issue new GWACs; it is going forward for the next 10 years with Alliant and Alliant Small Business.
So the era that is ending is the era of GSA managing — and contractors having to pursue — multiple GWAC vehicles.
A
follow-up story we posted on Thursday indicated that this is what the market wants and that GSA has been moving in this direction.
I’d take things a step further and argue that the Alliant contracts, with a total of 131 prime contracts, are replacing the expiring GWAC contracts with a schedule, not really another GWAC.
So, I’ll say it again, the GWAC era is ending.
Posted on Jun 26, 2009 at 12:44 PM18 comments
I generally don’t like to brag, but we’ve got some great speakers for our Top 100 conference next week — June 24 at the Ritz Carlton at Tysons Corner, Va.
All the industry speakers are executives from Top 100 companies.
First, there is Booz Allen Hamilton chief executive officer Ralph Shrader, who will open the day. He’ll talk about the evolution of the prime contractor and the new partership that industry and government need to form.
With all the changes Booz Allen has gone through and the changes the market is going through, I can’t think of anyone who could bring better insights into the challenges and trends affecting companies in the government market.
Shrader was one of the first high-level executives I interviewed when I started at Washington Technology in 1996, so on a personal level, it is always fun for me to see him.
We also have a pair of panels. Bill Gormley of the Washington Management Group is leading a panel on the impact of the new administration on the federal market. His panelists include Linda Berdine, president, G&B Solutions, a VSE Corp. company; Ted Buford, senior vice president, CACI International; Mike Fox, senior vice president and director, SRA International; and Ed O’Hare, assistant commissioner, Integrated Technology Service, General Services Administration.
A second panel will be led by Shawn McCarthy of Gartner’s Government Insights on profiting from disruptive technologies. His speakers include Curt Aubley, chief technology officer, Lockheed Martin Information Systems and Global Services; Michael Donovan, enterprise architect and chief technologist, EDS, an HP company; Dave Vennergrund, director and senior principal, SRA; and Troy West, general manager, Dell Federal Systems.
Batting cleanup will be Lesley Field, deputy administrator, Office of Federal Procurement Policy. She will be speaking about procurement reform and the steps ahead.
Rounding out the half-day event is the Top 100 awards luncheon, where we will recognize the leading companies in the government market.
I’ll be the MC for the day, and I’m still trying to come up with some ideas for the luncheon. I was thinking of emulating David Letterman and his top-10 list, but we all know how that turned out.
Anyway, don’t hesitate to register. It’ll be a fun day.
Posted on Jun 18, 2009 at 2:11 PM0 comments
My comments last week about the Deepwater acquisition and
the filing of a False Claims Act lawsuit struck a nerve over at the Coast Guard.
In comments posted to the blog, spokeswoman Laura Williams points out that the Coast Guard has embraced the role of lead systems integrator that it took away from the Lockheed Martin Corp.-Northrop Grumman Corp. joint venture, Integrated Coast Guard Systems.
She quotes the commandant, Adm. Thad Allen, who said in March: "Any discussion of our acquisition organization and its effectiveness needs to begin with where we are today and what has been accomplished in the last two and a half years. We must always learn from the past and make corrections where needed, but today we are in a new place and it needs to be recognized."
Williams goes on to describe how the change applies to more than just the Deepwater program, but nearly every acquisition program, including Rescue 21, the HC-144 and the Bertholf becoming a fully operational vessel.
The changes implemented by Allen have the Coast Guard’s various directorates – capabilities, human resources, engineering and logistics, and command, control, communications and information systems – working together.
“Everyone has a role, and with early input on every project and Coast Guard personnel working together on acquisition in concert, the Coast Guard will be better served for years to come,” Williams wrote.
With the lawsuit going forward and at least
Lockheed Martin vowing to defend itself, the Deepwater story isn't going away anytime soon. But I am wondering if the lessons the Coast Guard has learned through the program have turned the service into a role model instead of a whipping boy.
Posted on Jun 08, 2009 at 11:09 AM1 comments