By Steve Kelman

Blog archive

Vendors gripe at contracting conference

While Washington, D.C., swelters under scorching heat, Denver offered cool, pleasant weather and unusual heavy rains for the 1,300 people who journeyed to the city for the big annual meeting of the professional association of contracting professionals in industry and government., the National Contract Management Association World Congress.

The overall atmosphere here reflects a fairly sour mood about the state of government contracting. Partly, the contractors (most contractors in NCMA are from the defense industry, and some are from IT) are realizing that contracting dollars are going to be really tight given the budget situation. But there also seems to be a feeling — among the government people as well as industry — that the system is still in a mode, dating to the George W. Bush years, of laying on more regulations, requirements and burdens that are hard for the government to meet given limited resources.

Industry resents such regulations as attacks on their integrity and their bottom line.

The first morning of the conference was a sort of nonstop "woe is me" recitation from contractors — in the keynote address by Linda Hudson, CEO of the defense contractor BAE Systems, and in an all-industry panel that followed. Some government people I spoke to were somewhat annoyed that the first morning departed from the NCMA tradition of mixed government-industry panels.

At the risk of oversimplifcation, I can say that the big message of the industry panel seemed to be that the government isn't allowing contractors to make enough money. Of course, reasonable people agree that private firms need to make a profit in order to do the work they do — panel chairman Steve Schooner, co-director of the Government Procurement Law Program at George Washington University, noted that if the government doesn't want the defense industry to make a profit, it could nationalize it, but few would predict this would turn out to be a good solution.

But the tone of the panel came across, to me (and some others), as whining and self-serving, acknowledging in passing the government's need to watch out for its own interests in a buyer-seller relationship but quickly going on from there to a litany of complaints. And while the industry people attacked government folks for demonizing defense contractors, they were pretty heavy into the business of demonizing the government. Given the very tight budget environment, the presentations left sort of a bad taste.

There was an interesting discussion of the trend in the government away from best-value trade-offs between price and quality, and towards an older "low price technically acceptable" approach, even for complex services. I agree this is a worrisome trend. If budgets are tight, the reaction should be to scale back on how demanding and expensive the requirements are, not to cut corners by choosing marginally performing contractors for whatever work the government is requesting. Having said that, I think it is perfectly acceptable — indeed desirable — for the government to negotiate aggressively on price, as well as to seek quantity discounts on labor rates from suppliers selling a lot of services.

The conference reflects the generational transition in government contracting. By show of hands, it looked like about a quarter of the delegates had just two to 10 years experience in contracting, and the other three-quarters more than 20 years, with almost nobody in between. I led a session for new government contracting professionals and was, as usual, impressed by their intelligence and commitment. I was surprised that 12 of those with less than three years experience reported having a mentor at work, and only one did not. This, I suspect, may reflect that buying shops that sent young people to the NCMA Congress are probably not typical ones but ones that are showing interest, in many ways, in developing their new hires. It is nice to learn, however, that, even if not typical, there are some places trying to do a good job developing their new hires.

Posted on Jul 12, 2011 at 7:27 PM

Reader Comments

Thu, Jul 14, 2011 Kathleen

I was at this same meeting and heard things very differently then Dr. Kelman. So, speaking out about the current congresstional and federal approach to contracting as makeing more and more [rediculous] rules hardwired in legislation, hiring thousands of auditors and IG investigators, and making contractors out to be crooks taking advantage of the government at taxpayer expense, as belly aching then, by all means, let me beLly ache. The influx of rule based contracting the last several years with the constant threat of suspension and debarment and emphasis on tattletailing on your colleagues and partnersm (is this the USSR circa 1950?), does not create an environment of collaboration (which, by the way, was a major theme of the conference)or building trust. All it does is significantly increase the cost of doing business (which is not a good thing for anyone) with the nature of belt tightening and budget reductions we are talking about and create animosity. This is a toxic environment and it is sad that there are so many synical and unhappy people around that make it worse. I am a taxpayer and a contractor. Believe me, I want my tax dollars used wisely and efficiently. My organization preaches this daily. In my 27 years in federal contracting (on both sides, by the way) I have met only 2 contractors that I thought were dirty. Both were small businesses. We chose not to work with them anymore and both went out of business - one principle was actually convicted of fraud). Most of the problems I run into are based on trying to take on a project too big without the right resources and planning, poorly defined or constantly changing government requirements (with emphasis), taking on too much risk (R&D and schedule), or simple human errors. There is very little criminal intent in this sector. Most of the finest people I know are in the contracting profession - they take their job seriously and are trying to do the right thing every day. The right thing includeds trying to bring the current toxic environment back to one of professionalism and respect on both sides of the table. What a noval thought...

Wed, Jul 13, 2011 Steve Kelman

Thanks DP for your post. I agree! Steve

Wed, Jul 13, 2011 dp dc

I said this in response to an article about Fed employee whining - whining and belly-aching won't help. Need to look at solutions, whether lobbying, doing a better job of servicing the Fed customer, etc. Feds just need to enforce laws/regs they have. Contractors must also police themselves. Neither side will accomplish anything if they don't work together. We are different and similar. Work on the similar first, then see how we can fix trhe difference.

Wed, Jul 13, 2011 Dennis Mobile, AL

Not much different between a federal employee and a federal contractor; in the end, the taxpayer is paying their salary.

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


  • 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.

Terms and Privacy Policy consent

I agree to this site's Privacy Policy.