By Steve Kelman

Blog archive

Improving statements of work to improve contract management

In my early-October blog post, "To contract better, does the government need more in-house experts?" I promised I would continue to return to issues of improving contract management in government, with the hope of inspiring a dialogue and identifying improvements in practice. I am hereby starting to make good on my promise by reporting on a conversation I recently had with the founder and CEO (also an old friend) of a 75-person company that consults on strategy, IT and other topics to one large federal agency. She had asked to talk with me about some ideas she had for improving contract management.

I asked her at the beginning of our conversation her overall view of the state of contract management in her agency. "Terrible," she said. (More nuances surfaced later -- there were instances of good contract management, though they were not typical or numerous.)

My friend's ideas for improvement centered around writing and managing to statements of work (SOWs), which she felt put a contract on a good path for performance or a bad one. Statements of work themselves were often poor in her experience, written by program staff who were often talented, but overcommitted time-wise and neither trained nor invested in writing good requirements.

In most cases, what happened afterwards made the problem worse. The SOW writer ceased being associated with the contract and quickly moved on to something else (which hardly created an incentive to write a good SOW in the first place).

The SOW was passed on to a Contracting Officer's Representative, seldom a subject-matter expert and typically unenthusiastic about the idea of being a COR in the first place. Often, she noted -- and this was a shocker to me -- the agency would start the kickoff meeting for a new contract by asking the contractor, "So what are you guys supposed to be doing?"

The contracting people, she found, were generally spread too thin to be able to spend any time on contract management unless there was a crisis.

This is not popular to say, and it may go so far as to be a non-starter, but at some point I believe the government must deal with the fact that it is extremely difficult to have good contract management -- save for exceptional instances that rely civil servant heroes -- without putting more bodies into it.

It's hard to know where to start doing something about this dysfunction. Zeroing in on SOWs, my CEO friend had one interesting suggestion: Why not use the Federal Acquisition Regulation's advisory downselect procedure for important contracts to have a small number of finalists identified at the beginning?

Then get the government program person and contractor representatives involved in a collaborative effort to develop the SOW together. Immediately, there would be a major infusion of subject matter expertise, coming from the contractors, into the process. And having several contractors work on the joint SOW would guard against rigging the specs in favor of any one contractor's solution.

Would contractors be willing to invest time in this, I asked? Not for all contracts, certainly, but yes for contracts being bid through an agency strategic sourcing vehicle (or a governmentwide vehicle the agency was using as a preferred source). Those are vehicles in which contractors are deeply invested and care a great deal about their performance.

The CEO's comment about lack of COR commitment was depressing. She did advocate a cradle-to-grave system where the same people involved early in the cycle stayed involved post-award. But she felt getting good people to step up as CORs was a challenge.

I asked whether it would be a good idea to break up the COR function so that one person did the more administrative elements (such as voucher processing or handling of government-furnished equipment), while a subject-matter expert did the strategic elements of contract management. She did say that for about half the contracts, there was a quarterly "strategic review" of how the contract was progressing -- one of the few positive pieces of news she reported during our whole conversation.

I close this post with two suggestions to blog readers. One is that people join the dialogue by posting reactions to these suggestions on the blog comment space below. The second is that anyone -- be you government employees (contracting or program), industry, academia, and even non-American blog readers (I know this blog has non-U.S. readers, and many of whose countries face similar contracting challenges) -- with ideas for how to improve government contract management should contact me about setting up an interview to talk over the phone. I can be reach via email at [email protected]

Posted by Steve Kelman on Nov 20, 2015 at 5:46 AM


  • Comment
    customer experience (garagestock/

    Leveraging the TMF to improve customer experience

    Focusing on customer experience as part of the Technology Modernization Fund investment strategy will enable agencies to improve service and build trust in government.

  • FCW Perspectives
    zero trust network

    Why zero trust is having a moment

    Improved technologies and growing threats have agencies actively pursuing dynamic and context-driven security.

Stay Connected