Agencies play by different rules on contractor award fees, says GAO

Five agencies gave out the majority of the rewards in 2008. GAO also finds

Five agencies and departments that paid billions in contractor award fees are not being consistent in how they apply those rewards, a Government Accountability Office executive has testified.

The Defense, Energy, Health and Human Services, Homeland Security departments and NASA awarded 95 percent of the contractor award fees in 2008, John Hutton, GAO' director of acquisition and sourcing management, told a Senate subcommittee August 3.

From fiscal 2004 to fiscal 2008, agencies spent $300 billion on contracts that included award fees, GAO has found. The auditing agency  said it examined 645 evaluation periods for 100 contracts in which contractors were paid a total of $6 billion in award fees.

The Office of Management and Budget (OMB), in guidance issued in 2007, said the award fees are to be linked to favorable acquisition outcomes that involve costs, schedules and performance. OMB also said agencies should eliminate “rollovers” in which contractors are given second or third chances to earn an award, motivate excellent performance and prohibit payments for unsatisfactory performance.

However, some of the five agencies examined by the GAO have implemented those guidelines more effectively than others, Hutton said.

“By implementing the revised guidance, some DOD components reduced costs and improved management of award fee contracts. Potential changes at NASA  — such as documented cost-benefit analyses — are too recent for their full effects to be judged. At [Energy], DHS and HHS, individual contracting offices have developed their own approaches to executing award fee contracts which are not always consistent with the principles in the OMB guidance or between offices within these departments,” Hutton told the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs’ Committee's Federal Financial Management, Government Information, Federal Services and International Security Subcommittee.

However, all those agencies and departments have difficulties evaluating whether the awards inspire better contractor performance, Hutton said.

“None of the five agencies has developed methods for evaluating the effectiveness of an award fee as a tool for improving contractor performance,” Hutton said. “Instead, program officials noted that the effectiveness of a contract is evident in the contractor’s ability to meet the overall goals of the program and respond to the priorities established for a particular award fee period. However, officials were not able to identify the extent to which successful outcomes were attributable to incentives provided by award fees versus external factors such as a contractor’s interest in maintaining a good reputation.”

Officials also said it would be difficult to develop performance measures that could be used for multiple programs, Hutton added.

Jeffrey Zients, deputy director for management at OMB, testified that the Federal Acquisition Regulation Council is preparing to release a new FAR rule on contractor award fees to be published in the next 30 days to 60 days.

Meanwhile, officials from DOD, DHS and NASA said they are following guidelines and making improvements in use of award fees. Edward Simpson, director of the office of procurement and assistance management at Energy, said the agency will make changes to improve the use of award fees for motivating excellence and ban award fees for unsatisfactory performance. “DOE will address GAO’s concern immediately,” Simpson testified. HHS officials were not represented at the hearing.
  

About the Author

Alice Lipowicz is a staff writer covering government 2.0, homeland security and other IT policies for Federal Computer Week.

Who's Fed 100-worthy?

Nominations are now open for the 2015 Federal 100 awards. Get the details and submit your picks!

Featured

Reader comments

Wed, Aug 5, 2009 B Johnson Virginia

This is a non-story, but quite in keeping with the current administra-tion's and Liberal goals of demonizing contractors in their quest to re-federalize all government work. First, speak the $$ scare word -"billions" - to give the reader scale of money that he cannot really fathom. Forget that the award fee calculates - using the figures provided - of 2%. This is certainly lower than award fees given in non-government contracts. So the government is getting a fine deal to begin with. Second, award fees are negotiated BY CONTRACT depending on the complexity of the work. There can be no standard other than guidelines - but guidelines are exactly that - guides to help. Also, how does anyone develop tools to measure how much better a contractor might be? And trying to standardize such procedures removes any value of innovation to get better results - standardization stifles innovation. Last, trying to tie better performance with the contractor wanting a good reputation is specious. Reputation follows performance. It costs money to ovverreach, to stretch into new boundaries, and this extra performance is the reason for the award fees. Overall, I see nothing in the article that should be taken negatively, yet the tone is "Something is wrong with award fee contracting and contractorsd are getting away with taxpayer money."

Wed, Aug 5, 2009

THere is zero new with the above discovery. Same finddings 20+ years ago. I am certain it is cyclic like many new Govt. discoveries. I have been close to the pulse and continue to work in teh arena.

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