Lectern

By Steve Kelman

Blog archive

Tight budget revives contracting professional debate

As part of the effort to cut government budgets, the demand for cost savings from contracting has raised again one of the oldest issues about the role of contracting professionals in government: To what extent is the role of contracting professionals to serve the mission customers on whose behalf they buy? To what extent is their role to serve taxpayers in general?

Demands that contracting contribute to cost savings in a tight budget environment raise the visibility of the "serve taxpayers in general" approach to the role of contracting.
 
There was an older culture in contracting -- which probably reached its height in the 1980s -- that saw the role of contracting as being to protect taxpayer interests, often conceived of as being in opposition to the desires of program customers. In the most dramatic version of this view, program customers paid no attention to what things cost, were too close to contractors -- and were quick to try to skirt necessary procurement regulations as well. Out of the more extreme versions of this ideology grew a self-conception of contracting officials as a police designed mostly to control program customers, not to serve them.  (I should note that advocates of this view seldom or ever even used the word "customer" to describe program people -- the most common word used was "they.") Contracting people were to behave this way in order to meet their wider responsibility, which was to taxpayers. Pursuant to this approach, contracting people were kept organizationally as independent of program people as possible.
 
The total quality management movement of the early 1990s, followed by the procurement reform efforts of the "reinventing government" era, preached an alternative view: The job of contracting people was to help customers meet the organization's mission. Contracting people, in this view, should be business advisors to program people, helping them buy best-value products or services in support of the program. Pursuant to this approach, contracting people were often moved into matrix or even line organizational arrangements with program people. In more recent years, the pendulum has swung somewhat back away from "serve customers" to "serve taxpayers."
 
My own view is that contracting people ideally should seek to reduce this opposition as much as possible. Taxpayers have an interest in programs working well, which requires contracting efforts that serve the program. (Of course, taxpayers may want to get rid of some programs or cut dramatically back on their aspirations, but that decision is independent of the efforts of contracting folks.) Actually, especially in tight budget times such as these, program people have an interest in saving money on what the program buys, indeed because  dollars are tight. The tighter the budget times, the closer the "serve customers" and "serve taxpayers" perspectives match, because the program people become more interested in cost savings. So right now, program and contracting people should be working together aggressively to look for cost savings. Hopefully, contracting people can bring some of their skills to the table in the service of this common goal.
 
More broadly, in my view contracting people should take a customer perspective, but work to explain to program folks why some of the approaches that typically are on the agenda of contracting folks -- seeking competition, worrying about good requirements before a solicitation goes out, looking for cost-saving opportunities -- are in fact ways to make the program work better, not simply control requirements contracting is imposing on program people. Contracting people should take as a goal never to say to program folks, "You need to do this because the regs say you have to."

Posted on Feb 15, 2011 at 7:26 PM


Reader Comments

Tue, Mar 8, 2011 Don Mansfield

Professor, one of your themes seems to be that the contracting officer is responsible for convincing program officials to follow the regulations because it will help their programs. You must have very little regard for the intelligence of program officials if you think that they would be convinced by such an absurd argument. There are countless requirements in the regulations that must be followed that do not help, and probably hinder, the efficient execution of a program. The contracting officer need not advocate the rules, he/she just needs to ensure that the agency follows them.

Tue, Mar 8, 2011 Robin Hood Michigan

I work with organizations to implement new procurement techniques that help to control costs and increase efficiencies. I find that the most difficult piece of the process is to drive the change throughout the organization. I find it slightly disturbing that it is virtually impossible to drive this through governmental institutions. With the crushing budget constraints they are facing governmental units should be doing all they can do to maintain costs and efficiencies.

Sun, Feb 20, 2011 Jacob

Again, I think there is an unfair expectation from the media of contractors that is interfering with contractor's ability to perform to their best ability.

Sat, Feb 19, 2011 Portsmouth, VA

Contracting professionals should be working with Program Officials early in the planning process so that best practices can be incorporated into the acquisition. Also, the better the contracting professional understands their job, including available acquisition tools and the marketplace, the better they can serve their program customer while getting the "best bang for the buck" for the taxpayer. The key is in hiring employees for the acquisition field that actually have the "aptitude and attitude" for the field of work. In addition to a resume outling one's qualifications for the position, there should be an exam of sorts to demonstrate one's attitudes in working with others. In addition, the Federal government needs to set and enforce better standards for hiring supervisor/managers; civilian leadership is really hurting government-wide.

Thu, Feb 17, 2011 Gorgonzola

Nice schtick, Professor, but the "opposition" betw the two kinds of stakeholders could be simplified. We need to always consider taxpayers as "the customers," or the "ultimate customers." It's about having the kind of government we deserve, as a wise man once said.

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

What is your e-mail address?

My e-mail address is:

Do you have a password?

Forgot your password? Click here
close

Trending

  • Dive into our Contract Award database

    In an exclusive for WT Insider members, we are collecting all of the contract awards we cover into a database that you can sort by contractor, agency, value and other parameters. You can also download it into a spreadsheet. Our databases track awards back to 2013. Read More

  • Navigating the trends and issues of 2016 Nick Wakeman

    In our latest WT Insider Report, we pull together our best advice, insights and reporting on the trends and issues that will shape the market in 2016 and beyond. Read More

contracts DB

Washington Technology Daily

Sign up for our newsletter.

I agree to this site's Privacy Policy.