Here are two more to add to the four solicitations posted July 30th. Now I hope that whomever wins these contracts will actually provide a good service and have the decency to treat and pay their contractors right. Unfortunately, all of this stuff is being contracted under that LPTA crap, and I predict services and pay will be an issue because of this ‘race to the bottom’ that comes with this type of contract mechanism. Just take all the headaches that came from that LPTA child called TWISS in Iraq, and throw them on these FOB’s in Afghanistan.
I wonder if the contracting officer Maj. James Mote thinks LPTA works? I am sure this is mandated up at the top through the budget or congress, but still? –Matt
——————————————————————
PRIVATE SECURITY CONTRACTOR (PSC) SERVICES AT FOB HOWZ-E-MADAD, AFGHANISTAN
Solicitation Number: W91B4L-10-T-0080
Agency: Department of the Army
Office: Joint Contracting Command, Iraq/Afghanistan
Location: KANDAHAR RCC
——————————————————————
PRIVATE SECURITY CONTRACTOR (PSC) SERVICES AT FOB LINDSEY DEUCE, AFGHANISTAN
Solicitation Number: W91B4L-10-T-0081
Agency: Department of the Army
Office: Joint Contracting Command, Iraq/Afghanistan
Location: KANDAHAR RCC
Matt,
What is it about LPTA that you don't like? After all LPTA is the very basis of outsourcing. What is your proposed alternative?
Jake
Comment by Jake — Monday, August 9, 2010 @ 3:52 PM
Jake,
LPTA is a terrible concept and it's end result is what you see with today's TWISS program, as just one example. It is just another buzz word for lowest bidder in my view. Maybe it is not being used like it was intended, but either way, companies are racing to the bottom to beat the other guy, to fill these contracts with the lowest paid, pathetically trained, marginal forces they can get away with. Or what is 'technically acceptable'.
The alternative is Best Value contracting. It is what Doug Brooks of the IPOA endorses, and it is what I endorse. It is a mechanism of contracting that takes into account all factors, when choosing a company, and not just what is cheapest or what is the bare minimum for technically acceptable.
Now I like LPTA for really basic tasks where lives are not on the line. I see this all the time on the bases, where TCN's from all over the world are subcontracted out to serve food or manage the gym. But when it comes to applying LPTA to security, do we really want the lowest paid, technically acceptable dude watching our backs? Or do we want the best value for the money security contractor, where reputation, capability, cost, etc., are all taken into account.
I did a thing on this awhile back which explains it much better, along with what the IPOA had to say. Take care. -matt
https://feraljundi.com/2010/04/29/industry-talk-be…
Comment by headjundi — Monday, August 9, 2010 @ 6:22 PM
Matt,
The term "Best Value" is a ruse and I am surprised that if you think "technically acceptable" is hard to define that would think "best value" is any easier to quantify. Of course both methods are left wide open to interpretation and the burden in both cases falls to the procuring party to intimately define either "value" or "acceptable" and then measure all potential vendors against that criteria. It's not the vendors responsibility to do anything more than the buyer requires.
But this whole side of the conversation is academic and itself is smokescreen and a false choice because what is really at question is who can do the best job given a specific task. 5, 10 or even 15% cost excesses or cost savings should have no bearing on a discussion as important as our national security. We can afford to do this right or we can't afford to do it at all.
Do you really believe that any PSC in the market today can do a better job guarding something/someone in Afghanistan than a Marine or Army unit? Of course not. The whole concept of outsourcing something is based on two precepts. 1) Can someone do this better than we can? 2) Can someone do it at the same level of quality as us but cheaper and thus save us money. These are the only 2 questions which are ever asked when considering outsourcing. It makes no difference if you are a car manufacturer or a call center for an insurance company. So, this work has it's heart in the desire to save money. Period. There is no other over arching driving force than cost savings. (Of course using privateers has the added strategic benefit of not killing as many servicemen so that helps keep the war going with those back home but this is another issue for another day.)
Clearly the 'Best Value' (because cost should not matter when our national security is on the line) is to have our military execute our foreign policy ambitions not some lose band of privateers who may/may not have our long term interests in the forefront of their actions. I mean it's pretty obvious isn't it? If I were the CEO of one of a big PSCs, do you think you and your shareholders would like war or abhor it? Which circumstance grows your profit margins: peace or conflict? Don't you stand to gain more from a prolonged conflict?
It seems that you are arguing against yourself in this case. Either you believe that private security companies can do it cheaper (albeit less effectively) than the military or you think that the military can do it better (even though it costs a bit more.) Which is it?
Jake
Comment by Jake — Monday, August 9, 2010 @ 7:13 PM
Jake,
These terms are defined in the FAR, so I am not sure where you are getting this idea that they are somehow a ruse or ill defined? Here is a link to the FAR, and this is what the government uses as guidance.
https://www.acquisition.gov/far/html/Subpart%2015…
Another way to look at this is a simple hypothetical. If you have a sick mother, and you are limited in cash but not poor, what contracting mechanism would you choose for contracting the services of a doctor? Would you go with the cheapest and minimally qualified doctor (LPTA), or would you go with the best doctor you could get based on all things considered –cost, reputation, qualifications, location, etc. (Best Value). And with this last option, you might even find that with all things considered, the best value doctor might not necessarily be the most expensive.
I know what mechanism I would choose for contracting a doctor for my mother.
Now with your next point. The way you are using Best Value, conflicts with the way Best Value is defined in the FAR. So where as you choose to be vague with the terms, I choose to go with the very real definition that these contracts are built upon. Here is the definition:
——–
15.101 Best value continuum.
An agency can obtain best value in negotiated acquisitions by using any one or a combination of source selection approaches. In different types of acquisitions, the relative importance of cost or price may vary. For example, in acquisitions where the requirement is clearly definable and the risk of unsuccessful contract performance is minimal, cost or price may play a dominant role in source selection. The less definitive the requirement, the more development work required, or the greater the performance risk, the more technical or past performance considerations may play a dominant role in source selection.
———–
Notice the main theme of the definition is that all things are considered when making the choice? So if the contract is a matter of national security, like winning a war or a battle within a war, then of course the buyer will choose the best service provider that money can buy.
But in the case of this war, what if the buyer has all the money they want, but is unable to raise an army fast enough to meet the demands of a war. What if using a draft to force citizens to fight is an unacceptable option due to the politics of the matter? Meaning it would be political suicide to implement a draft? Or what if that country is trying to pull out of a war because of a lack of support, and yet that country still wants a diplomatic presence in that country to insure said country does not implode? Something that would equally be politically toxic to a leader, and especially if they promised that troops would be out of that country because of our successes (like what is happening in Iraq).
In all of these cases, there is either one reason or another why contractors would be a better choice than military forces. Using military might be the best option money could buy, but it might not be the most practical or possible force to buy. Either we don't have enough of them, or it is politically impossible to increase their numbers. In this case, the best value forces, would be contractors. Which is exactly what is happening in this war.
So with that said, your statement that 'there is no other over arching driving force than cost savings', is wrong. There are certainly other factors at play when a government contracts for work that requires guarding people or things.
Which brings up another point that you alluded to, but one in which I would like to expand on. What if private industry was contracted to actually fight a war? Or fight a battle, or take a city? Would this private force do any better or worse than a government force? If both groups are tasked with the same job, how would both approach the job, if both had the same access to equipment and resources?
Well one of the big differences is that if private industry failed, they would more than likely be fired, and a new company would take it's place. If a government force failed to win that war, what would happen to them? More specifically, if a private force failed to win that war on time and under budget their contract would be terminated and their reputation be ruined. But if a government force failed to win that war on time and under budget, why do governments not fire them?
Now on to examples. Eeben's company is a prime example of a private company, winning a war on time and within budget. Imagine if today's government militaries had to sign a contract that stated that they promised to win a war on time and within budget? Or if they did not win the war, the entire unit or branch would be disbanded or fired.
Privateers in early America were also successful, because they did exactly what they were asked to do–steal from the enemy. Commerce raiding was also authorized by the small Continental Navy at that time, but guess who did a better job of the task? Privateers did, and this was a case where the drive to profit from the act of commerce raiding directly impacted the size of the industry itself. It expanded quickly, it evolved quickly, and the innovations that came out of that process is what made it so effective. And because the various colonies benefited from that practice, it had popular support.
The only other modern example I can think of, is MPRI's contract in the Balkans. These guys basically helped a country with the planning and strategy required to fight a war. The only thing they did not do is hop in the tanks or pull the trigger. But you can certainly say that mentally they fought that war through strategy development and guiding the generals and officers of that country.
Now going back to this war. Today's private industry has not been presented with any solicitations to fight today's enemies. But if they were, and a company accepted the contract, then that country could hold that company accountable. They could actually fire them for poor performance, unlike what is happening now with government forces. That is a big difference.
If let say Xe was contracted to take the city of Marjah in Afghanistan, and be responsible for the clear, hold, and build of the city, then what would that look like? My guess is that they would only accept a contract that would give them the same access to equipment and weapons that a government force would have access too. They would also demand the same legal protections, both in that country and back home, for said services. The planning, strategy, logistics, everything would be their game. They would also want the same access to intelligence that government forces would want access to for such a fight. Or they would do it themselves. In other words, if a private company were to accept a contract, it would have terms that would give that private company all the freedom it needed to be successful. It would look a lot like today's government forces. That is if they were tasked to fight a war or battle.
Now where a company would veer off the path, is that if they had the operational freedom to do what they wanted to be successful, and they were properly organized, they could easily change and flex to the ongoing situation on the ground and innovate to achieve success. If wearing body armor is not appropriate, they would not wear it. If using low profile vehicles was better than using MRAPs, they would do it. Flexibility in operations is what would give them an edge, because as the enemy changes tactics, a company could easily change tactics with it. That company would not have several layers of command to go through in order to make decisions. Nor would it be impacted by the politics that government forces come against.
With this kind of contract, and to answer your question about a company wanting to prolong a war or end it, in this case, a company would want to end it. In fact, a contract would probably have a reward mechanism for finishing the war sooner rather than later. Or it would have a mechanism where it would lose money as the war dragged on and it went over budget. Like I mentioned before, Executive Outcomes is a prime example of a PMC's dedication to finishing a war on time and within budget.
Which brings up a great point. If I did not have the manpower or time to raise a government force hypothetically, and I was looking to contract the services of a company, how would I go about doing that? For winning wars or battles, I would contract the Best Value company. I would not choose the cheapest company, or the company that is just 'technically acceptable'. The survival of my country is in their hands, and it is a matter of national security to win. But I would not necessarily contract with the most expensive company. I would take all things into consideration, and would choose the type of force that was most appropriate for the job. Cost could vary, but capability and experience would be paramount.
For protecting people and things in a war zone, I would choose the Best Value method of contracting as well. Obviously if this was being contracted out, there must be a manpower issue or a political issue that would require a civilian contractor. I would take all things into consideration before choosing a PSC for this service, and I would not base my decision on who was cheapest or minimally qualified.
And finally, for choosing a company for mowing my lawn, I would use the lowest priced, technically acceptable method of contracting. Because at least with this method, if the lowest bidder screws up my lawn, no one gets killed.
Comment by headjundi — Tuesday, August 10, 2010 @ 4:21 PM
Matt,
It will be hard to respond in detail to the long response you have provided here. I don't think hypotheticals like Xe being contracted to take and hold Marjah are really worth discussing. There may come a day when what is left of our nation makes decisions like that but I hope I am not alive to witness it. That's not a knock on Xe but an acknowledgment that if we as a nation begin to fully outsource the very heart of our warfighting to private companies who have bonuses riding on their success then we as a nation will truly be in our 11th hour. Also comparisons to MPRI in the Balkans and EO in West Africa are frankly not on par with the scope of the conflicts we have seen in Iraq and Afghanistan. Eeben would be the first to tell you that you cannot compare conflicts/wars. So if we could get back to the original discussion of LPTA vs. Best Value that would be good.
First let me say that I am not anti-Best Value. It clearly has its merits. I think it even could serve in a very complimentary capacity to LPTA when procuring security services. But it places a huge burden on the procuring party to clearly define value and it is my belief that that is often like nailing jello to the wall. LPTA, used correctly, is more than adequate to procure any service be it armed security or your mother's doctor. In many regards the method is superior to the Best Value method because best value is implied in the proper application of LPTA. It just creates more effort on the part of the procuring party to clearly define what is 'technically acceptable.'
To further your analogy one could easily set a number of minimal criteria for your mother's doctor and then go about finding the lowest cost doctor who meets all the requirements. The analysis and understanding of the requirement and thus the 'value' portion spec is done up front prior to the issuance of the RFQ or TO. What do you value most in your mother's doctor? Ivy League education or are state college diplomas acceptable? What about experience? Is 2 years enough or do you require 20? How about a range of between 10 and 15? Do you want board certifications? If so which ones and how many? Should his office be 30 minutes from your mother's home or is 90 minutes acceptable? Set your criteria and then find the doctors who meet those criteria. Then since as you say your resources are limited then choose the lowest priced option. Your comparing apples to apples at this stage. Any of the doctors in the final round are all good enough for old mom.
Defining what a TWISS supplier must be able to minimally do is pretty strait forward. At the end of the day the government sets the standard to meet so what is the problem? The govt could have said that TWISS suppliers must be made up of all 22nd SAS operators. Now give me your lowest price? The fact that they set the bar really low and allow untrained and unqualified TCNs means that is exactly what potential suppliers are going to put forth. You see, the problem is that many of the govt types who are writing these task orders often don't fully understand what they need or perhaps they understand it but are not able to articulate it in the RFQs. It's like walking onto a car lot and telling the salesman, “I need a car. Tell me what you think I should drive.” You open your self up to anything from a full sized pick-up truck to a Chevy Volt. An informed buyer would hit the car lot with a makes and models already picked out, he's done his research and he's looking for the best deal (low price).
My point is merely that the definition you provide from the Best Value Continuum is very open to individual interpretation where conversely lowest price against clearly defined minimal requirements i.e. 'technically acceptable' s much more objective. Vendor A costs X and Vendor B costs Y. Both can do the job because the meet the minimums (which by the way I got to set). I will take Vendor A because he saves our tax payers money and we can apply the savings to other war efforts which also need attention.
Let's look at the definition from the BV Continuum:
“An agency can obtain best value in negotiated acquisitions by using any one or a combination of source selection approaches.
This already sounds inherently very subjective and will fall heavily on the experience and the knowledge of the deciding party. That experience and knowledge is unfortunately widely varied and often sorely lacking in the ranks of the USG's contracting officers.
“In different types of acquisitions, the relative importance of cost or price may vary. For example, in acquisitions where the requirement is clearly definable and the risk of unsuccessful contract performance is minimal, cost or price may play a dominant role in source selection.”
OK? What are these 'different types of acquisitions'? And, by the way, I submit to you that in most security services are 'clearly definable'. I don't even know how one would go about defining 'unsuccessful contract performance'. Would that mean the loss of a single static guard in defense of a TWISS facility? Is that unsuccessful performance? Or would the entire compound need to be attacked, overrun and looted? Is the loss of a single TWISS facility even catastrophic to our strategic goals? You see what I mean? This all depends upon who is doing the assessing and what their perspective is.
In summary, my point is that this definition is open to a wide range of latitude on the part of the procuring party and that is not what we need. I am surprised that someone like yourself who promotes the Kaizen and Lean Sigma methods would want to introduce so much variation into the procurement process. The procurement of security services could be easily be a highly repeatable process with very consistent results if done correctly using the LPTA method. I understand the intent of BV is to look at the totality of a vendors offering and make a determination on all those apples, oranges, grapes and bananas. I think you are putting far too much faith in the governments ability to parse those differences and act as a truly informed consumer.
Conversely, the LPTA method forces the buyer to know what he wants to buy and all potential vendors to put forth their most cost effective apples so that they can be compared and contrasted using the only thing private security really brings to the table and that is lower cost.
Jake
Comment by Jake — Wednesday, August 11, 2010 @ 8:23 AM
It will be hard to respond in detail to the long response you have provided here. I don’t think hypotheticals like Xe being contracted to take and hold Marjah are really worth discussing. There may come a day when what is left of our nation makes decisions like that but I hope I am not alive to witness it. That’s not a knock on Xe but an acknowledgment that if we as a nation begin to fully outsource the very heart of our warfighting to private companies who have bonuses riding on their success then we as a nation will truly be in our 11th hour. Also comparisons to MPRI in the Balkans and EO in West Africa are frankly not on par with the scope of the conflicts we have seen in Iraq and Afghanistan. Eeben would be the first to tell you that you cannot compare conflicts/wars. So if we could get back to the original discussion of LPTA vs. Best Value that would be good.
———-
I personally think that this hypothetical is worth discussing, because the reality on the ground merits such a discussion. This war has been a stunning example of public and private partnership, with thousands of contractors serving and supporting the coalition forces in this war. Contractors have also engaged in combat with the enemy. So discussing contractors used for offensive purposes, as a hypothetical, is in the realm of modern strategic thought for this blog and for this war.
Might I add that we are fighting an enemy who is not armed with tanks or jets or aircraft carriers, but with the same tools of terror and warfare that are afforded most non-state actors throughout the world–to include Africa and Afghanistan. We have also been using government forces to fight such groups armed with these very basic weapons for nine plus years, and have yet to declare a definite victory in Iraq or even Afghanistan. Not to mention throughout the world. One must wonder if maybe today's government forces could benefit from a partnership with private industry that entails more than just guard duty?
———-
First let me say that I am not anti-Best Value. It clearly has its merits. I think it even could serve in a very complimentary capacity to LPTA when procuring security services. But it places a huge burden on the procuring party to clearly define value and it is my belief that that is often like nailing jello to the wall. LPTA, used correctly, is more than adequate to procure any service be it armed security or your mother’s doctor. In many regards the method is superior to the Best Value method because best value is implied in the proper application of LPTA. It just creates more effort on the part of the procuring party to clearly define what is ‘technically acceptable.’
———-
You are wrong here. Best Value is the most flexible contracting mechanism, and LPTA is the one that restricts a contracting officer. It is also the buyer that defines technically acceptable. But with the government, who is the buyer? It is usually some dude in DC who decides what is 'technically acceptable', and it is the poor schmuck that has to abide by that TA for contracting.
For cutting grass, LPTA would be great, and this DC goon who decided what was TA, will not hurt anyone with this decision about how that grass is to be cut.
But when that DC goon decides what is TA for a guard position in a war zone, and especially when that guy cares more about saving money and less about the safety at that base, then that TA tends turn into a race to the bottom.
And yet again, I bring up TWISS as a prime example of how LPTA does not work. From the workers strikes, to the massive attrition do to poor pay or equipment or company treatment, to the poor quality of guards that continue to cycle into Iraq because of what is defined as 'technically acceptable', all indicates to me how poor of a contracting mechanism LPTA is. It is clear to me at least.
———-
To further your analogy one could easily set a number of minimal criteria for your mother’s doctor and then go about finding the lowest cost doctor who meets all the requirements. The analysis and understanding of the requirement and thus the ‘value’ portion spec is done up front prior to the issuance of the RFQ or TO. What do you value most in your mother’s doctor? Ivy League education or are state college diplomas acceptable? What about experience? Is 2 years enough or do you require 20? How about a range of between 10 and 15? Do you want board certifications? If so which ones and how many? Should his office be 30 minutes from your mother’s home or is 90 minutes acceptable? Set your criteria and then find the doctors who meet those criteria. Then since as you say your resources are limited then choose the lowest priced option. Your comparing apples to apples at this stage. Any of the doctors in the final round are all good enough for old mom.
———
Ah yes, we go back to the dork that sets technically acceptable for the contract. Whomever is setting technically acceptable in Iraq for TWISS is clueless. And I know whomever has set it has access to all the reports in the world, and yet the guy continues to allow TWISS to turn into junk. Why? My guess is that it is more important to save money by lowering the standards for what is acceptable, than to bring in competent guards and attract competent leaders to manage those guards.
So with that said Jake, would you allow someone you have never met, that doesn't know your mother or care about her, to set what was 'technically acceptable' as a doctor for her? And out of those TA doctors, of course you have to contract with the cheapest one. With that said, you have to ask why they are the cheapest one? Now imagine that guy, in charge of your mother's life?
———
Defining what a TWISS supplier must be able to minimally do is pretty strait forward. At the end of the day the government sets the standard to meet so what is the problem? The govt could have said that TWISS suppliers must be made up of all 22nd SAS operators. Now give me your lowest price? The fact that they set the bar really low and allow untrained and unqualified TCNs means that is exactly what potential suppliers are going to put forth. You see, the problem is that many of the govt types who are writing these task orders often don’t fully understand what they need or perhaps they understand it but are not able to articulate it in the RFQs. It’s like walking onto a car lot and telling the salesman, “I need a car. Tell me what you think I should drive.” You open your self up to anything from a full sized pick-up truck to a Chevy Volt. An informed buyer would hit the car lot with a makes and models already picked out, he’s done his research and he’s looking for the best deal (low price).
——–
You're still missing the point Jake. Best Value equals flexibility to use the best contracting mechanism for the job. LPTA is not flexible, and basically instructs the contracting officer that they will find the cheapest and minimally qualified.
So using your car analogy. Do you go to a car lot with the idea that you will only buy the 'cheapest running car' on the lot, or do you do your research and pick the the best value car on the lot, with all things considered? I guess if you were not dependent on that car for a job, or you only had enough money to buy the cheapest car, then the LPTA car would be the one for you. Honestly speaking though, I would much rather open a copy of Consumer Reports and identify the best value car on the lot, (and something that is attractive), and get that car. I might spend a little more, or sacrifice good looks or something trivial, but at least I know I am getting something that is of value.
——–
My point is merely that the definition you provide from the Best Value Continuum is very open to individual interpretation where conversely lowest price against clearly defined minimal requirements i.e. ‘technically acceptable’ s much more objective. Vendor A costs X and Vendor B costs Y. Both can do the job because the meet the minimums (which by the way I got to set). I will take Vendor A because he saves our tax payers money and we can apply the savings to other war efforts which also need attention.
————-
LPTA is great for services or products, where the outcome will not hurt anyone. But even for companies like Toyota or Apple, do you think LPTA is the optimum contracting mechanism for their company? Nope. If anything, those companies apply LPTA where they think they can get away with it, and apply best value in other places that are appropriate, or apply the 'money is no option' means, because they absolutely need the best for said service or product. Do you think the Toyota truck or the iPhone is the product of companies with strict dedication to one form of contracting or the other? I don't think so. They do not go with cheapest and minimally qualified managers. They do not go with a LPTA contracting vehicle for marketing, that's unless they don't care about their product or service? I mean there are tons of areas of a company, where best value is the dominate form of contracting.
Best value also takes everything into consideration, and allows a company to truly find the most valuable part or service for the most crucial elements of their company's product or service. You know, stuff they depend upon or want to work so it doesn't embarrass the company or reduce their market share. Although I am pretty sure that most companies could care less about how well their trash is taken out, and would more than likely use LPTA for something like that.
————–
Let’s look at the definition from the BV Continuum:
“An agency can obtain best value in negotiated acquisitions by using any one or a combination of source selection approaches.
This already sounds inherently very subjective and will fall heavily on the experience and the knowledge of the deciding party. That experience and knowledge is unfortunately widely varied and often sorely lacking in the ranks of the USG’s contracting officers.
———–
As opposed to what? The limitations of LPTA? I would much rather give contracting officers the flexibility necessary for doing business with companies that will be providing services that are of life or death nature in war zones.
Worse yet, LPTA only gives more work to CORs. They might have wanted the cheapest company who was minimally acceptable, in order to save money. But what they get in liability and headache afterwards, is just one example of the price they pay. You get what you pay for, and in this case, you will pay in more ways than one when you go cheap and with the bare minimum qualified folks.
———–
“In different types of acquisitions, the relative importance of cost or price may vary. For example, in acquisitions where the requirement is clearly definable and the risk of unsuccessful contract performance is minimal, cost or price may play a dominant role in source selection.”
OK? What are these ‘different types of acquisitions’? And, by the way, I submit to you that in most security services are ‘clearly definable’. I don’t even know how one would go about defining ‘unsuccessful contract performance’. Would that mean the loss of a single static guard in defense of a TWISS facility? Is that unsuccessful performance? Or would the entire compound need to be attacked, overrun and looted? Is the loss of a single TWISS facility even catastrophic to our strategic goals? You see what I mean? This all depends upon who is doing the assessing and what their perspective is.
————-
I tend to think that when an entire guard force strikes, and that military forces are diverted from their current mission to stand guard at those TWISS facilities, then that would constitute a massive failure. Someone's 'technically acceptable' view points, obviously did not account for such an incident.
Someone's technically acceptable write up also did not account for how important good leadership is to holding together such a cheap and minimally qualified guard force. So if it is technically acceptable for the company to hire team leaders or other management at rates that cause folks to leave for better paying jobs, then how is that make TWISS a success? The companies love TWISS, because it is 'technically acceptable' to do whatever they want to their people in order to get the job done. And the government could care less, because they only want to save money. Meanwhile, the reality on the ground, is that this race to the bottom has negatively impacted the most important aspect of a security contract…. and that is security. You get what you pay for, and LPTA is what causes this race to the bottom by the companies and government.
————–
In summary, my point is that this definition is open to a wide range of latitude on the part of the procuring party and that is not what we need. I am surprised that someone like yourself who promotes the Kaizen and Lean Sigma methods would want to introduce so much variation into the procurement process. The procurement of security services could be easily be a highly repeatable process with very consistent results if done correctly using the LPTA method. I understand the intent of BV is to look at the totality of a vendors offering and make a determination on all those apples, oranges, grapes and bananas. I think you are putting far too much faith in the governments ability to parse those differences and act as a truly informed consumer.
————–
So basically, you want government to not be an informed consumer? That you want it to rigidly follow the guidelines of LPTA? Boy, in my book, a lack of flexibility or choice is what kills companies. Remember the whole learning organizations thing? Without flexibility, then how can an organization even achieve continuous improvement?
In my opinion, the government should have the utmost in flexibility to choose the contracting tool that is most appropriate for said service or product. Best Value totally fits that bill. LPTA only limits the government, continues the lowest bidder cliche' that is only too common throughout government and the military.
Luckily for us, government and military in modern times and in this war, are using LPTA for certain services and products that make sense, and they are using Best Value for areas that make sense. Hence why the FAR guidelines are essential to government acquisition. My only problem here is when they don't follow those guidelines in the right places. War zones are the wrong place to mistake what the proper contracting mechanism should be used. It is my belief that LPTA is not being used properly in the cases I have presented, and that Best Value is the optimum tool for the job.
————–
Conversely, the LPTA method forces the buyer to know what he wants to buy and all potential vendors to put forth their most cost effective apples so that they can be compared and contrasted using the only thing private security really brings to the table and that is lower cost.
————–
I think the key word you mentioned here is 'forces' the buyer. That might be good for some types of services or products, but to apply it to everything is certainly not smart. Luckily, our government is smart enough to use use LPTA or Best Value, for most of what is appropriate. But they do make mistakes, and in this case, I think they are wrong.
I want a buyer that has the 'flexibility' to choose the best value service or product for situations where performance or product is critical to success of the organization. I want them to be able to choose the Consumer Report's Best Buy or CR Recommends product, and not 'force' them to buy the cheapest product on the list.
This is just my opinion, and it makes sense to me. Good conversation by the way!
————–
Comment by headjundi — Thursday, August 12, 2010 @ 6:11 PM