the lectern banner

By Steve Kelman

Blog archive

Why is GAO's glass so often half empty?

I saw a reference in the contracting trade press to a recent Government Accountability Office report on acquisition planning for service contracting, Acquisition Planning:  Opportunities to Build Strong Foundations for Better Services Contracts. For non-contracting cognoscenti, "acquisition planning" is the first stage of the procurement process, before source selection and contract management, where an agency develops its requirements and performance standards (including learning about what the market has to offer), picks its preferred contract type and sets its buying strategy. The report was based on an analysis of 24 service contracts awarded by the Homeland Security and Health and Human Services departments, NASA, and the U.S. Agency for International Development in fiscal years 2008 and 2009.
 
Contracting experts generally regard acquisition planning as quite important, but also deeply troubled. In the years when the contracts GAO examined were awarded, staff shortages and what is sometime perceived as a rush to award the contracts, made planning even more of an issue than it had been.

The account I read in the trade press discussed shortcomings in agency acquisition planning efforts that the report revealed. One headline found in the actual report was: "Agencies Missed Opportunities to Build Strong Foundations for Services Contracts."
 
Given all this, I was actually quite surprised when I read the report to see that practice on the contracts examined was better than I would have expected, much better than I would have feared. It is often suggested that agency service contracts routinely have terrible or virtually non-existent requirements because little effort was put into defining the agency's needs. However, the report found this to be the case in only five of the 19 contracts for which written acquisition plans were required. In these cases, this seemed to be because, by the report's own admission, "agency requirements were difficult to define" -- as anyone with experience in contracting knows occurs with some frequency in the real world.

Performance on advance cost estimation was not as good, though even here one-third of the contracts had cost estimation that met GAO's standards, and all but two of the others had cost estimation that GAO regarded as incomplete. (As the report itself notes, although advance cost estimation does serve a function -- particularly in signaling to an agency that the level of performance it wishes may be too expensive to buy -- competition for the contract reveals lots of information about costs. If agencies used the request for information process better than many do, they could get more information about overly expensive requirements from potential bidders.)

Finally, for half the follow-on contracts for which written acquisition plans were required, the plans included lessons learned from the previous contract to be incorporated into the re-competition, and the report notes that in a few other cases where this did not appear in the written plan, officials nonetheless were able to give examples of how they had incorporated lessons learned into the new solicitations.
 
I have two reactions to all this. One is that I actually finished the report feeling somewhat better about the state of the contracting process than when I started. These agencies are by no means doing a perfect job, but, especially given resource shortages, they're not doing so badly either. The second reaction was:  why is the glass in GAO reports always half-empty? Why wasn't this report titled, "Agencies Making Progress on Acquisition Planning?" We shouldn't always be dumping on ourselves.
 
So that I don't fall victim to my own "half-empty" criticism, I should add that GAO reports in general do have a less negative and dour tone than Inspector General reports typically have – for IGs, the glass is usually bone dry. But the tone of GAO reports is inferior to reports I have read of the GAO's UK counterpart, the National Audit Office, which typically highlight examples of good practice as well as of problems.

 

Posted on Sep 06, 2011 at 12:09 PM


FCW in Print

In the latest issue: Looking back on three decades of big stories in federal IT.

Featured

  • FCW @ 30 GPS

    FCW @ 30

    Since 1996, FCW has covered it all -- the major contracts, the disruptive technologies, the picayune scandals and the many, many people who make federal IT function. Here's a look back at six of the most significant stories.

  • Shutterstock image.

    A 'minibus' appropriations package could be in the cards

    A short-term funding bill is expected by Sept. 30 to keep the federal government operating through early December, but after that the options get more complicated.

  • Defense Secretary Ash Carter speaks at the TechCrunch Disrupt conference in San Francisco

    DOD launches new tech hub in Austin

    The DOD is opening a new Defense Innovation Unit Experimental office in Austin, Texas, while Congress debates legislation that could defund DIUx.

  • Shutterstock image.

    Merged IT modernization bill punts on funding

    A House panel approved a new IT modernization bill that appears poised to pass, but key funding questions are left for appropriators.

  • General Frost

    Army wants cyber capability everywhere

    The Army's cyber director said cyber, electronic warfare and information operations must be integrated into warfighters' doctrine and training.

  • Rising Star 2013

    Meet the 2016 Rising Stars

    FCW honors 30 early-career leaders in federal IT.

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