Stan Soloway


Resistance to talking with contractors runs deep

But today's market needs more communications

"Can we talk?"

Ask a government contractor the most common response they get to that question from their contracting officers, and a disturbing number of them will tell you the answer is “No.”

But the answer doesn’t just apply to government-industry communications. In fact, one of the most significant findings of the recently released 2013 PSC Leadership Commission report was that our government colleagues freely acknowledge that not only is communication and collaboration between government and industry at low ebb, but so too is the essential collaboration among various functional elements of the government, in particular acquisition and technology.

I don’t think a week goes by that we don’t receive a request for assistance from a member company that is struggling to get a customer to engage in routine dialogue; not about an active procurement but, rather, an existing contract or activity.

One company reported to me that it is in the process of renegotiating its GSA Schedule contract and was  informed by the contracting officer that they “no longer talk directly with contractors.” 

How is one supposed to negotiate, discuss, share information and perspective, and arrive at a mutually beneficial agreement with that kind of wall? It’s simple. You can’t.

Some attribute the lack of communication and collaboration to what is perceived as a generally negative attitude toward contractors emanating from the administration.

To be sure, there have been more than a few occasions when such unfortunate commentary has been expressed. But, that said, the Office of Management and Budget, through its “Mythbusters” campaign, and top acquisition officials at the Defense Department, Homeland Security Department and elsewhere, have all stressed the need to enhance, not limit, communications. 

So the leadership’s recent language has been the right language. Unfortunately, as former Office of Federal Procurement Policy Administrator Dan Gordon said just prior to his departure from office, resistance in the field to open communications remains strong.

Meanwhile, during the PSC Commission’s work, a number of government officials—including chief acquisition officers and chief information officers—expressed growing concern about the disconnects between their communities.

“Contracting has taken over the world” said one CIO. “So in the end it’s all about process rather than the outcomes we’re really seeking.” 

And contracting professionals will tell you they increasingly feel left out of the business and requirements planning process, which in turn makes it ever more difficult to develop a truly responsive acquisition strategy.

This lack of communications and collaboration is not a new issue. It has ebbed and flowed over the years. But in this era of deep budget cuts and fiscal uncertainty, it is inconceivable that any degree of efficiency and optimization can be achieved without more engagement across internal functional lines and between the government and its suppliers.

So what can be done?

One recommendation of the PSC Commission holds particular relevance and potential here. That is that each agency’s leaders—at the component or organizational level—require all of their program offices to immediately commence a collaborative process with their contractors and other stakeholders, including the end users, designed to identify sustainable savings in their programs.

Specific targets could also be set as well as an admonition that the cost savings identified reflect the shared nature of the budget challenge. Simply cutting a contractor’s margins or demanding the same deliverable for a lower price is not a healthy path.

But jointly identifying requirements that can be eliminated or non-value added processes, and more, would be healthy, even if it means slightly reduced revenue for a company or a changed requirement for the government.

In addition to helping agencies deal with the continued budget crunch, such a collaborative process could do a lot to build mutual trust and the kind of partnership that is considered a hallmark of excellence throughout the business world.

The best part is that all of this can be done without legislation or a change in regulation. It can all be done well while fully adhering to procurement integrity and overall ethics.

What does it take?

Leadership. And a willingness to talk.

Reader Comments

Mon, Sep 30, 2013 Jaime Gracia Washington, DC

The last point is really what I see as being the central in this critical breakdown, which is leadership (or lack thereof). I spoke to a senior procurement official at DoD last week, who is doing all the right things, ensuring effective collaboration and communications are occurring throughout the procurement life-cycle, and experiencing positive impacts on outcomes. He stated collaboration is more important now more than ever, given the fiscal constraints to complete the mission, and meet affordability targets. Regretfully, he is an exception to the norm. Unless leadership steps in and realizes the consequences of "closed-door" policies, both externally, and internally intra-agency, we can expect more waste and redundancy, more poorly written requirements developed in a vacuum, and again status quo. I guess LPTA has been cemented as THE acquisition strategy, in addition to FFP at all costs. No wonder performance is deteriorating at such an alarming rate.

Thu, Sep 26, 2013 Marvin Yo Nation's Capital

Nicely put, Stan. Govt. behaviors are as you relate them, sure, but you haven't devoted many words to typical contractor behaviors. Many of your members do not have the diplomatic and communications skills that you and Alan have. In private, and even in public settings, managers and executives at some firms exude feelings of entitlement, arrogance towards lowly public servants, and breathless senses of urgency and ethical superiority that are laughable. It takes two to tango, and many companies won't dance.

Tue, Sep 24, 2013 Robert USA babeeeeee

What is really funny is the worst contracting officers I've run into with this kind of "I'm special" mentality were contractors at some point. Why is it the worst of the government reps have to be former contractors? Gotta love it...

Tue, Sep 24, 2013 Kim de Peiza United States

The pendulum swings, for the period before, to me, contractors and govies were too close for comfort, govies were guilty of pre-selecting providers and offering information that skewed outcomes. Today, in a tighter economy forcing more efficiencies and various levels of paranoia, communication has dwindled... This is because communication- modes and messages and limits have not been properly defined. Communication at its optimum would move for speedier and more effective outcomes, since participants would be given fair, relevant and impartial information that contractors can convert into pertinent solutions.

Tue, Sep 24, 2013 K.G. Charlotte, NC

Stan: Thanks for this insight. Unfortunately, with the WT readership, you're preaching to the choir. To your conclusion: "What does it take? Leadership. And a willingness to talk," I'd add, "Embracing our shared mission and partnering to get the job done successfully under the current budget conditions."

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.