Not the point, said Thibault. “There are two parties that sign the contract: the government, and they have an obligation to keep track of what they’re doing; and the company, and they have an obligation to perform the contract in the most efficient and effective manner. And that’s why I say there’s ample remedial work for both.”
*****
The government is being somewhat unfair and kind of stupid about this. I put all of the blame on the feds for any issues that arise with this drawdown. We have had plenty of time to plan and modify contracts, and there are plenty of reports that spell out exactly what the government should do in order to manage this stuff–but they continue to not do it.
If folks would get off their butts and see for themselves what the companies are doing, then the government–who are the ones ‘writing the check’, should exercise the right to call BS on anything that is in direct conflict with the contract. But if there is nothing in the contract about the drawdown, nor has there been any renegotiations with the companies about that drawdown, well then of course companies are going to continue doing what they are doing. So with that quote up top, I think it is backwards. It is the government who should have an obligation to perform contract oversight in the most efficient and effective manner. The companies are just working off that current contract, and it is on the government to enforce it or modify it if there are issues. Or is this where companies are supposed to be doing their own thing now? Pfffft.
My other point with this, is that the government should be very careful in how they go about doing this. Contractors have families back home, and they also vote. If you screw over a contractor who signed an agreement/contract with their company, because of your poor planning and managment, well then you have just lost one more constituent. Especially during a time of extreme unemployment back home.
Everyone working in Iraq knows that things are winding down. But there is a right way to cut away people, and a wrong way. The right way, is for the government to effectively and quickly communicate to the companies exactly what it wants as the situation develops–and modify the contract to deal with that reality. Communicate, communicate, and communicate!!! The government should have lots of folks out there, looking at the operations of all the companies and work, and continually assessing how things are going. There should not be any surprises, and it just takes leadership and getting off your ass and doing it, to make sure it is properly managed.
And in turn, the companies should be honest with their contractors when they get any kind of contract news, and give them sufficient warning when they are to be let go. We just need a heads up, so we know when to start looking for another job. That is the descent thing to do, but somehow I just don’t see it happening that way. –Matt
—————————————————————–
Wartime contractors need more federal guidance
March 30, 2010
By Suzanne Kubota
While the military is “aggressively accomplishing its drawdown” in Iraq, industry “is lagging in their efforts” to do so, according to the Commission on Wartime Contracting.
“In fact,” Commission co-chair Michael Thibault told Federal News Radio, “there are come very noticeable examples that were brought out (in a hearing yesterday) where there are a lot of people sitting around waiting to work.”
The problem, said Thibault, involves a lot of finger pointing.
This is one of those deals that’s kind of like “Where’s Waldo?” The military would tell you that they’re communicating reasonably effectively and that the contractor has a responsibility, when they see very substantial numbers of staff idle, to notify them and that it’s not occuring. And the companies will… play the other side out, which is they just weren’t getting the guidance (from Defense) and the only way they can work… I mean if they’re over-staffed, that’s unfortunate, but if the only way they can react is to get guidance from their contracting officer and absent that they’re obligated to keep that staff there.
The solution, said Thibault, will require “exceptional communication on both parties.”
As an example, Thibault related a discussion that came up in the hearing about vehicle maintenance. As one of the functions under the LOGCAP program, the Defense Contract Audit Agency identified $21 million dollars “that was basically idle work.” All parties agreed the “contractor utilization, people actually working” was 11 percent and 16 percent when measured at two different times. That’s “a lot of people sitting around waiting for vehicles to come in to repair,” said Thibault.
At the hearing, said Thibault, there was an acceptance by Lt. Gen. James Pillsbury, the Deputy Commanding General of the Army Materiel Command, that “the Army had to tighten up the communication process.”
But, said Thibault, to be fair, “the concern (at the hearing) was, does the company have an obligation when they see all these people sitting around, because they see them before anyone else, because they’re accomplishing the work, do they have an obligation to formally have a.. an efficiency and economy program to notify the government?”
After much back and forth about whether the contractor notified the Army, it wasn’t clear what kind of notification was made, if ever.
Not the point, said Thibault. “There are two parties that sign the contract: the government, and they have an obligation to keep track of what they’re doing; and the company, and they have an obligation to perform the contract in the most efficient and effective manner. And that’s why I say there’s ample remedial work for both.”
Story here.