Amey: Protecting their turf

Relying on a system that is not working in the taxpayers' interest is appalling

If share-in-savings contracts are here to stay, as David Drabkin, deputy chief acquisition officer at the General Services Administration, wrote in the Jan. 24 issue of Federal Computer Week, he had better figure out a way to quickly improve the current system.

Touted by proponents of contract reform as a risk-free strategy to fund government projects, share-in-savings contracting allows agencies to receive funding for capital projects directly from vendors.

At the urging of large technology and defense contractors, House Government Reform Committee Chairman Rep. Tom Davis (R-Va.) has spent a considerable amount of time and energy promoting legislation to expand the use of such contracts.

A recent Government Accountability Office report indicates that contracts that allow private industry to finance capital energy projects for the federal government waste money. The finding is significant because those energy contracts operate in a manner similar to share-in-savings contracts, which Drabkin and some lawmakers have sought to rely on more heavily.

Specifically, the GAO report found that energy contracts increased the government's costs by 8 percent to 56 percent when using this risky mechanism rather than timely, full and upfront appropriations.

The frightening fact is that performance-based energy savings contracts are considered among the most risk-free contracts of this type because energy costs are easily estimated. Effective? I think not.

The government's reliance on a system that is not working in the taxpayers' interest is appalling, and critics have not been silent. Angela Styles, the Bush administration's former administrator of the Office of Federal Procurement Policy, has expressed strong concerns about the use of share-in-savings contracts, saying they will create bad deals for the government and taxpayers.

Other critics have argued that share-in-savings contracts may violate the Constitution and federal laws. Furthermore, they argue that such contracts will limit congressional oversight, require uncertain projections, increase direct spending by $450 million and create a noncompetitive contracting environment.

Those criticisms, however, are falling on deaf ears. Now that GAO officials have proven that even the best example of performance-based financing increases costs rather than savings, Congress should revisit share-in-savings contracts and rein in overzealous executive branch officials who are not protecting taxpayers' interests.

The government's program to promote share-in-savings contracts should cease and agencies should go about their contracting activities subject to the checks and balances built into our system.

Amey is general counsel for the Project on Government Oversight, a nonprofit watchdog group in Washington, D.C. This column is in response to a series of columns that ran in Federal Computer Week's Jan. 24, 2005 issue.

Featured

  • Cybersecurity

    DHS floats 'collective defense' model for cybersecurity

    Homeland Security Secretary Kirstjen Nielsen wants her department to have a more direct role in defending the private sector and critical infrastructure entities from cyberthreats.

  • Defense
    Defense Secretary James Mattis testifies at an April 12 hearing of the House Armed Services Committee.

    Mattis: Cloud deal not tailored for Amazon

    On Capitol Hill, Defense Secretary Jim Mattis sought to quell "rumors" that the Pentagon's planned single-award cloud acquisition was designed with Amazon Web Services in mind.

  • Census
    shutterstock image

    2020 Census to include citizenship question

    The Department of Commerce is breaking with recent practice and restoring a question about respondent citizenship last used in 1950, despite being urged not to by former Census directors and outside experts.

Stay Connected

FCW Update

Sign up for our newsletter.

I agree to this site's Privacy Policy.