WT Business Beat

By Nick Wakeman

Blog archive

Reader feedback

My last blog entry asking readers for story ideas drew several responses, including some great ideas which you can read and comment on in the entry below.

Several fit into the broad category of lessons learned. Topics include service-oriented architecture, managed services and digital certificate management. Another commenter wants us to go into more depth, a legitimate criticism and request. It is something we strive for.

One commenter, who declined to publicly post her thoughts, but did e-mail them directly to me had several suggestions. I wanted to throw one out for readers to chew on and comment.

This reader is predicting the death of governmentwide contracts. Her comment:

"GWAC/flex vehicle deaths ? This can't happen too soon. This buying method is one of the primary causes of such significant disjointed government IT efforts and lessened contractor (and agency) performance assessments because so many tasks are running through so many vehicles and little, if any, coordination & communication is happening between/within both agencies and vendors. It [is] actually impossible to watch out for possible OCIs and redundant efforts because tasks are issued & awarded with the speed of wind and typically hard-wired to the in-place contractor(s)."

Is she right? Would this be a good thing to happen? Submit comments here, or e-mail me at nwakeman@1105govinfo.com.

Posted by Nick Wakeman on Jun 04, 2008 at 9:55 AM

Reader Comments

Mon, Jun 9, 2008 Nick Wakeman VA

thanks, Scott.I wonder if the way products should be sold is different than the way services should be sold. Maybe products are better served in a GWAC type vehicle and services are better on another vehicle.I don't know; I'm just thinking outloud.

Fri, Jun 6, 2008 Scott Heckman VA

"Tasks are issued & awarded with the speed of wind"Really? Does anyone in government or industry really believe that the government does anything "at the speed of wind"? The rise of GWAC's only occurred because of inefficiencies with the GSA schedule program. This statement is reminiscent of Laurita Doan, with GSA's house is disarray, stumping to take over the SEWP program. If GSA could operate with any efficiency, there would be no reason for GWACs. Granted the scope is much smaller and only has 39 vendors, but with a small and efficient staff, the SEWP Bowl is able to keep technology catalogues up to date, making the products available that the government needs to operate. I would also submit that the SEWP bowl better provides better oversight and compliance than GSA. If anyone thinks that the time and effort required to add products to GSA or make a purchase occurs "at the speed of wind," then there is a serious disconnect in acceptable performance criteria and government inefficiencies.

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.