Stan Soloway


DOD pushes contractors into a pricing war

DOD puts a renewed emphasis on pricing and profits

Stan Soloway ( is president and CEO of the Professional Services Council.

The Defense Department has announced a renewed focus on pricing that could have significant effects across the market. Given the budget climate, that focus is both wise and understandable. If ever there were a time that the government needs to make sure it is spending its money wisely, this would be it. The question is how best to do so.

There are a range of tools available to the government to help achieve that goal: well-run, competitive procurements; solid market research and price analysis; enhanced and accelerated workforce training; good contract management; and more. But recent statements from the department’s acquisition leadership indicate that their pricing initiative will be centered on eliminating existing procurement flexibilities and developing new models and data requirements for determining, even dictating, a reasonable price and profit.

In a recent speech at the Defense Acquisition University, DOD Director of Procurement Policy Shay Assad said, “We’re the only company in the world that tries to spend our money as fast as we can and get nothing for it.”

By any measure, that’s a remarkable and demonstrably false statement.

Although Assad was obviously using provocative rhetoric to make a larger point, the clear message is that the department believes it is getting a raw deal. He's asserting that contractors are making excessive profits, even though every independent analysis, including public company filings, clearly show that, though generally healthy, this industry’s profits are far from excessive and are often well below standard commercial margins.

Nonetheless, DOD is developing new cash flow models and weighted profit guidelines for services, in the apparent belief that such models will better enable them to dictate price reasonableness. Moreover, DOD has asked Congress to remove from the decades-old statutory definition of a commercial item the crucial phrase “of a type,” which was included to recognize that much of what the government buys is commercial but that the government might need it to be slightly modified to meet its specific needs.

Without rehashing the historic rationale for this important legislative provision, DOD’s efforts to eliminate it are based on its belief that it is not getting adequate pricing information on some commercial procurements and that its workforce doesn't do the requisite market research and analysis. But neither is a compelling rationale.

The statute does not deprive the government of its right to obtain adequate pricing data. All it prohibits is requiring certified cost and pricing data which, for most commercial firms, is a nonstarter because it requires creating and maintaining parallel accounting systems that can comply with the government’s unique and complex cost accounting standards. Hence, commercial procurements are based on competition, market research and what is known as other than certified cost and pricing data.

If the department is concerned that it is not getting the pricing it deserves, there are far more effective ways to deal with that concern than reversing important procurement flexibilities that will affect the government and thousands of companies. If contracting officers are not exercising their authority to request reasonable levels of pricing information when necessary, the answer is easy — ask for it. If companies refuse to provide it, don’t do business with them. And if the workforce lacks the resources to do the necessary market research and price analyses, accelerate its training and the delivery of support tools.

The department actually gets a lot for its money, but it can always do better. Making regressive policy changes and adding costly, unnecessary processes, rather than focusing on more effective and efficient ways to capitalize on the real benefits of market forces and competition, is simply the wrong answer. And it signals a trend worth worrying about.

Reader Comments

Fri, May 13, 2011

What do you expect from Harvard trained experts? Never hire someone from any Ivy League school they are a menace to the economy.

Tue, May 10, 2011 Robert Yarush Camp Phoenix,Afghanistan

First of all.... the Government never spends money wisely. Mainly because they dont know what they are spending the money on in the first place. Contracts... and the way they are sold to the government are a serious part of the issues that plague the contracting for the government as a whole. A salesman ...can sell anyone, anything. Not nessasarily technicle... not really well versed on the product they are selling... but a knowledge of how our government operates... and this salesman realizes that the people he is selling to are probbaly even less knowledgable. They talk the talk just fine... Its a true tragety the way the contracting system functions.

Tue, May 10, 2011 Olde Sarge DC

Contracts should be awarded on a "best value" basis. Price is only part of the total evaluation of the RFQ/RFP response. If a contractor has a bad habit of low-balling the price to win the contract and then fails to deliver, should it receive another contract? No! Give the contract to the bidder with a good track record and a reasonable price. Do not award contracts to a Johnny-Come-Lately firm with no tract record and a rediculously low price. There are groups of bad actors who reincorporate under a new moniker to win contracts and continuously fail to deliver value.

Mon, May 9, 2011 Concerned

To the responder that asks for ACAT 1 examples of success, is the low success rate because of industry non-delivery or poor management by government staff? A similar government analysis shows that government IT projects are 4 times less efficient than their private sector counterparts. Is this lack of efficiency due to years of low cost/technically acceptable A&AS contracting, the aging/inexperience of the DoD’s acquisition corps or is it industry’s fault? If I can implement a system in the private sector four times faster than I can in the government bureaucracy, is that industry’s fault or the fact that we don’t have experienced acquisition professionals managing and governing these projects? Profit is a powerful motivator and it’s what drives pure commercial projects to success. The government doesn’t have it, and until the metric of lowest price as the single evaluation factor is modified don’t expect the success rate for projects to increase. You truly get what you pay for.

Mon, May 9, 2011 David Vienna, VA

The concern Stan dances around in his article is very true and worrisome. The government is becoming overly intrusive as to the pricing policies of its vendors and they want to dictate profit margins. The last time I look we were supposed to be an open capitalistic econmony. Since when does our government have the power to regulate pricing like in a communistic society? If the government thinks they are over paying for something, they shouldn't buy it. Otherwise, let companies make a decent return and perhaps decent profits will enable these firms to do something positive to lower our unemployment rate.

Show All Comments

Please post your comments here. Comments are moderated, so they may not appear immediately after submitting. We will not post comments that we consider abusive or off-topic.

Please type the letters/numbers you see above.

WT Daily

Sign up for our newsletter.

Terms and Privacy Policy consent

I agree to this site's Privacy Policy.