Can we trust evaluations?

Publishing contractor evaluations is possible but probably not helpful

As the administration presses for more transparency, one emerging proposal is causing a stir in the acquisition world: publishing contractor performance evaluations. But although advocates consider it a no-brainer, it can’t pass the feasibility test. The major hurdle is the government version of organizational conflict of interest.

At first glance, because public funds are spent, it seems reasonable to reveal the evaluation reports as public information. But we have to ask: Can these reports be objective, fair and accurate? The government prepares them to keep on file and help selection panels grasp a company’s past performance — not for public review.

It’s common for agencies and contractors to say they are “partnering.” Although contract documents usually don’t call for much in the way of shared risks, the partners do tend to lock arms when pesky auditors, congressional committees or probing media people show up. That helps explain why unfavorable reports of any kind rarely hold a company back from the next contract award.

And it’s important to note that only a minuscule percentage of the millions of contract actions performed yearly are ever found to be problematic. That might comfort taxpayers but also might make them wonder if the reports are comprehensive and accurate, not to mention fair and consistent.

And it does takes two to tango. Contractor performance issues that reach daylight are almost always inextricably bound with government program management problems, such as defective requirements or inept contract oversight.

Take Project 28, the virtual border fence pilot project conducted by Boeing for the Homeland Security Department. The department forgot to get the users, the Border Patrol, involved with Project 28. In the end, DHS tagged Boeing’s technical deliveries as egregious, delayed acceptance of the product for eight months, demanded and got a $2 million refund, and said in so many words that it could not use the Boeing solution. Boeing reportedly spent twice as much as it earned through the $20 million fixed-price contract. Like the government, it changed over its program management before Project 28 was done.

It was an ugly performance all around — though a powerful generator of lessons learned in technology integration and acquisition that both parties should have been expected to know already. Still, then-Secretary Michael Chertoff insisted Project 28 was successful. Would you trust in the accuracy and objectivity of DHS-prepared evaluation of Boeing’s performance in Project 28?

Somebody might have, because DHS said May 7 that it was picking up where it left off with Project 28 and tasking Boeing to proceed with implementation of the virtual border fence. We infer that either DHS gave little weight to an objective evaluation report that documented Boeing’s problems or the report was not reliable enough in the first place. Either kind of problem is common, according to frontline acquisition managers.

And not surprisingly, reviews have shown repeatedly that the government awards an improbably high percentage of maximum or very high award fees almost all the time. Those who determine these fees would be the people who prepare performance evaluations.

And if the use of public funds fuels the drive to reveal contractor performance reports, it might not be long before citizens demand that government employees’ individual performance evaluations be published.

About the Author

Michael Lent is editor and publisher of Government Services Insider, a newsletter covering industry developments and government policies that affect industry.

The Fed 100

Save the date for 28th annual Federal 100 Awards Gala.

Featured

  • computer network

    How Einstein changes the way government does business

    The Department of Commerce is revising its confidentiality agreement for statistical data survey respondents to reflect the fact that the Department of Homeland Security could see some of that data if it is captured by the Einstein system.

  • Defense Secretary Jim Mattis. Army photo by Monica King. Jan. 26, 2017.

    Mattis mulls consolidation in IT, cyber

    In a Feb. 17 memo, Defense Secretary Jim Mattis told senior leadership to establish teams to look for duplication across the armed services in business operations, including in IT and cybersecurity.

  • Image from Shutterstock.com

    DHS vague on rules for election aid, say states

    State election officials had more questions than answers after a Department of Homeland Security presentation on the designation of election systems as critical U.S. infrastructure.

  • Org Chart Stock Art - Shutterstock

    How the hiring freeze targets millennials

    The government desperately needs younger talent to replace an aging workforce, and experts say that a freeze on hiring doesn't help.

  • Shutterstock image: healthcare digital interface.

    VA moves ahead with homegrown scheduling IT

    The Department of Veterans Affairs will test an internally developed scheduling module at primary care sites nationwide to see if it's ready to service the entire agency.

  • Shutterstock images (honglouwawa & 0beron): Bitcoin image overlay replaced with a dollar sign on a hardware circuit.

    MGT Act poised for a comeback

    After missing in the last Congress, drafters of a bill to encourage cloud adoption are looking for a new plan.

Reader 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

More from 1105 Public Sector Media Group