The impending demise of DOD's pay-for-performance system has provoked some strong reactions, and many commenters are not sorry to see it go. They say that pay-for-performance allows managers to play favorites in awarding raises. A few, however, argue that the traditional federal system, basing pay on seniority, provides little incentive for employees to excel.
"MJM" said pay-for-performance is a good concept and could work in government, but would need to be implemented better.
Pay-for-performance would work if we were able to write in all that we do within our job scope, not just our three objectives," MJM wrote. "I was rated below [average] in this system, yet I was the number one performing person [within] my pay pool which is around 200 [personnel]. ... So the system did not work. I still feel the system is a good one yet we need to make changes on how we rate our [personnel] for performance."
Garrett argued that pay-for-performance should stay. "Lets face it, [the] real problem with NSPS and any other pay for performance system is that it marginalizes the unions who can no longer take credit for johnny's raise," Garrett wrote. "Pay for performance is a great idea and has mostly worked. Is there some cronyism? Of course, It also exists under the GS system in who gets promotions...The human element is always going to be present. In the long run the problems caused by a small measure of favoritism cannot compare to those caused by retaining and giving raises to a bunch of dead-weight employees based on longevity."
"Midwestern Taxpayer," using data from the 2009 DOD Green Book, wrote: "In other words, the average DOD civilian is making $89,740 a year. Meanwhile, more than 15,000,000 people are out of work in the United States. What are so many DOD employees complaining about again, please?"
An unsigned commenter complained about bad managers who play favorites. "Half the managers got there as a reward anyway, not because of technical knowledge or people handling abilities and once they are there, it's permanent unless they get promoted upward, which really exacerbates the problem," the commenter wrote. "Although there are probably poor employees everywhere, I think if you look outside of the fat cats inside the Beltway and look at workers in the field activities, you will find a plethora of dedicated, hardworking employees who are the backbone of the federal workforce. It's the overpaid empire builders inside the Beltway that give the federal employee the facade of an overpaid, lazy employee."
Some readers wondered about the practical consequences of rolling back NSPS and moving the employees now in it back into the older system.
"I am in a system where the supervisors were put in NSPS and have received huge salary increases over the last few years but the rest of employees were represented by the unions and stayed in the old system (not by choice)," wrote one anonymous reader. "When NSPS goes away how are they going to reconcile this?"
In other words, the reader adds, some employees advanced significantly while others in the same organization didn't move at all. "If they put them back in the GS system at their current rates of pay it seems unfair to employees who spent the same amount of time but did not even have the same chance for these advancements."
Posted on Oct 30, 2009 at 2:12 PM9 comments
A recurring theme in many of the comments we’ve received this week on our bid-protest coverage is that the government is doing a poor job debriefing companies when they lose.
“Most bidders are very grateful of getting some feedback on their bid in order in improve their bid process. A big part of the problem is very few contracting officers simply do NOT want to be clear nor explain how they picked one particular bidder over another,” said Fred from Tuscon, Ariz.
“The desired scenario is one where there is trust in the effective implementation of the procurement process, with complete and informative debriefings, which more than anything will help eliminate the perceived need to file a protest in order to learn what actually happened,” added an anonymous commenter.
“I have seen debriefs become meaningless over the past few years. ‘You lost because the other company had a higher score. Thank you and please bid again next time.’ When pressed for ‘why did we score 7 out of 10?’ often the answer is ‘because that is how you were evaluated.’ Protesting seems to be the only way to find out if you lost based on the [evaluation] criteria or if there were other factors at play,” wrote another anonymous commenter.
Also getting their share of negative comments were lawyers:
“This increasingly popular process is a playground to support corporate lawyers,” wrote Steve.
One commenter raised the issue that there is a general misunderstanding of the protest process. “It would be inaccurate to deem all protests frivolous, just as it would be inaccurate to assume that all loses must be protested,” the commenter wrote.
Frivolous or not, you have to wonder what is going on if companies feel that they have to file a protest just to find out why they lost.
As several commenters have noted, there is little downside to filing a protest – it doesn’t cost much and it doesn’t seem to carry the stigma it did in years past.
In short, the protester has little to lose and much to gain.
Posted on Oct 27, 2009 at 2:12 PM1 comments
A review of the comments to
my blog asking about the increase in bid protests shows varying degrees of cynicism and outrage.
Some are blaming corporate greed, while others targeted poor government practices. Many are asking some of the same questions I have – what’s really behind the increase?
As Rich Wilkinson wrote: “More protests are being filed, but percentage-wise, even more are being dismissed without a substantive review. And, even fewer are successful. That tells me that protests as a strategy are not about prevailing, they're about gaining some other kind of advantage. The question is ... What?”
One commenter seemed the answer that question when he wrote that protests are a way of gaining intelligence. BF wrote: “Even an unsuccessful protest gains a company infinitely more insight as to why they lost. Those lessons can be invaluable on the next attempt.”
But greed was a theme of several commenters.
From Anonymous:
“They are just doing this for spite and to milk the government for more money while they can.”
From Interested Party:
“Firms are being advised by their legal staff that they should protest if they are the incumbent because the government has come to rely on the service and that they will get a contract extension while the case is resolved. There is so little cost associated with lodging the initial protest that they have no skin in the game, other than the profits they will get from a year or so extension.”
Several commenters also laid the blame with the government.
An anonymous commenter: “The government could avoid some protests simply by providing an in-person, thorough debriefing. This is not the case on enough occasions, notwithstanding FAR requirements. When the government cannot explain its rationale for an award, one must protest to get to the bottom of the story.”
Another anonymous commenter: “Protests are increasing because, with too few able federal contracting officers, chronic weakness in the government's ability to state its requirements clearly, and frequent departures from the stated evaluation criteria by decision-makers, there is more reason to question and protest procurement decisions.”
We’re continuing to cover this topic, including a
new piece today on the bid protest process. Don’t hesitate to join the discussion.
Posted on Oct 27, 2009 at 2:12 PM0 comments
I don’t want this to be a rant, but can someone explain to me what’s going on with bid protests?
I’m not trying to bash any individual companies. I respect Unisys Corp. and General Dynamics. I think they do good work and have good people working for them.
I’m sure, too, that they used sound business principles when they decided to protest the Transportation Security Administration’s award of its infrastructure contract to Computer Sciences Corp.
But my question is, what has changed in the market that makes protesting a lost bid more attractive? What makes a filing protest a good business decision?
Even in a down economy, spending continues to grow, though at a slower pace. But you would think there are opportunities to win new business to offset any losses. So I don’t think fear of lost business is the main motivator.
The change has happened over the last two years, according to Government Accountability Office data. In fiscal 2008, GAO received 1,652 bid protests, up 17 percent from the 1,411 the year before. Part of that increase was from GAO’s increased jurisdiction, but even if you took those cases out, the increase is still 10.9 percent.
In 2007, protests were up 6 percent. But in 2006 and 2005, protests were down 2 percent and 9 percent, respectively.
So what happened? Did contractors suddenly become sore losers? Or is there something else at work when executives make the decision to protest?
We’ve seen some cases where the protester gets added to the prime’s team as way of resolving the dispute. That’s what Lockheed Martin and IBM did with the huge FBI fingerprint contract last year.
So I guess a protest could be a ploy to grab a share of the prize because the winner is often motivated by the desire to get work and start the revenue stream.
But I don’t get the sense that a lot of protests are resolved that way. If I’m wrong, let me know.
Consultant Bob Guerra wrote a column earlier this year about a company offering a seminar on bid protests as part of a company's strategy. Apparently, according to the seminar, there are different types of losses, and there are some kinds of losses a company should always protest. Huh?
So I go back to my original question. What gives? To misquote Shakespeare, Why doth thou protest so much?
Posted on Oct 26, 2009 at 2:12 PM1 comments