Brooks further noted that IPOA believes it is unwise to require cost to be considered the ultimate driver in federal procurement, for doing so simply creates a “race to the bottom” where other qualifications are not given due consideration. “We believe that the proposed amendment will result in more contract defaults, poor performance and an overall decrease in the quality of goods and services provided to the services.”
*****
Interesting debate. Doug took the side of the Commission on Wartime Contracting, and POGO is doing their own thing. My thoughts on it all is who wants the lowest bidder protecting them in a war zone? I mean if you were to look at what happened with AGNA in Kabul, or what I call the Kabul Fiasco, that is a prime example of how lowest bidder contracting does not work. In that ‘race to the bottom’, AGNA sure did win that contract, but they also created an impossible environment for their guard force to operate in.( I will spare you the party photos)
I also put in this post, what POGO thought about best value, and why they support the LPTAO(Lowest-Price Technically Acceptable Offer). They think that if the government would have specified what they thought was technically acceptable in the contract, that the Kabul Fiasco could have been avoided in the first place. I think they make an excellent point as well, but yet again, I refer to the common saying ‘you get what you pay for’. I would ask Danielle over at POGO if she would like to be protected by the lowest bidder in a war zone? Would you want the best protecting you, or would you want what was technically acceptable? Do you want the best doctor for the money, or do you want a doctor who is cheap and barely got through medical school-but can still practice medicine?
Plus, when you put the responsibility of deciding what is technically acceptable in the hands of individuals who are being pressured by their management or politics, to reduce cost, what is the limit to what is technically acceptable in their view? Of course you don’t want to overspend for a task, but when there is an environment/culture in government to only seek the cheapest price for a task and not consider other factors, I think that could lead to some serious problems.
Another example of how LPTAO sucks, is the TWISS contracts. Someone in the chain of contracting command, determined what is technically acceptable in regards to the guard force protecting troops under TWISS. What that process has produced is Ugandans or Kenyans standing guard at the gates of FOBs, who are getting paid peanuts and receive minimum training or vetting. All because the government has deemed that the companies supplying these troops are authorized to do so. If you talk to contractors who have worked this contract, they will tell you how incredibly screwed up it is.(the management will tell you it is a glowing success, go figure. lol) But it is all technically acceptable to the powers that be to allow the companies to run the TWISS stuff that way, and the companies keep ‘racing to the bottom’ to win that contract. (I get more emails from guys and gals who are just pissed off about how poor of a contract TWISS is–more than the Kabul embassy contract)
Overall, we should contract these services with a number of factors in mind. Past performance should count, as does cost. Experience in protecting people, and having the technical ability to do so is another. We should pick the best value companies for dangerous war zone duty, much like a patient would pick a doctor for their life saving diagnosis and care. I do think lowest bidder works for some contracts, like leaf raking or sweeping up a garage–stuff where lives are not on the line. But for protecting people in highly complex and dangerous war zones, where lives and government reputation is on the line, you probably want a system of contracting in place in which the government gets the best forces they can get for the money. That’s if they care about the protection of their reputation and people out there?
The government should also focus on getting plenty of competent contracting officers who can managing these contracts, to ensure that the government continues to get a good deal. Unfortunately, the government has been applying lowest bidder mindset to their contracting officer corps, in the form of not paying enough for that job, and not doing the things necessary to build up and strengthen that essential tool of government contracting. –Matt
—————————————————————–
IPOA Opposes IMPROVE Act Amendment to End Best Value Competitions
Stability Operations Trade Association Advocates For Use of “Best Value” in Defense Procurement
WASHINGTON-On April 27, 2010, IPOA, the Association of the Stability Operations Industry, sent a letter to the Chairman and Ranking Members of the House Armed Services Committee urging them to oppose a proposed amendment to H.R. 5013 – Implementing Management for Performance and Related Reforms to Obtain Value in Every Acquisition Act of 2010 (IMPROVE Act of 2010). The association asked the congressional leaders to reject an amendment entitled “Requirement that Cost or Price to the Federal Government Be Given at Least Equal Importance as Technical or Other Criteria in Evaluating Competitive Proposals for Defense Contracts.” IPOA fully supports the IMPROVE Act’s goal of more efficiently procuring services to support the Department of Defense. However, the amendment would effectively hamstring the ability of contracting officers to use discretion in awarding contracts and sets the stage for compulsory acceptance of the cheapest offer, minimizing other factors such as experience, quality or past performance.
“Lowest-price security not good enough for war-zone embassies”
IPOA cited an October 1, 2009 report from the Commission on Wartime Contracting entitled “Lowest-price security not good enough for war-zone embassies,” in which the Commission noted the dangers of focusing on price as the determinative factor when selecting contractors for the Department of State. The Commission noted that statutory requirements to select the lowest price can do more harm than good. In fact, the Commission recommended that the provision be eliminated and that the Department of State be given the flexibility to use a best value award process. The House amendment currently under consideration would move the Department of Defense closer to a statutory “low price” award scheme and would go against the clear recommendation of the Commission.
“Forcing the government to contract essential services on the cheap is not a recipe for success,” said Doug Brooks, IPOA President, “if we’ve learned anything over the past nine years it is that cutting corners on oversight or quality in contracting can have dire consequences.” Brooks noted that IPOA supports the concept of “best value” in federal procurements and believes the amendment’s “one size fits all” approach is ill advised.
Brooks further noted that IPOA believes it is unwise to require cost to be considered the ultimate driver in federal procurement, for doing so simply creates a “race to the bottom” where other qualifications are not given due consideration. “We believe that the proposed amendment will result in more contract defaults, poor performance and an overall decrease in the quality of goods and services provided to the services.”
IPOA was founded in 2001 to reflect a clear recognition that the private sector can play a larger, more cost-effective role in fundamentally improving peace and stability operations worldwide. With more than 60 members, IPOA is the leading voice of the stability operations industry.
Story here.
——————————————————————
CWC Findings on Embassy Guards Fiasco Amount to “Blame Shifting”
Oct 06, 2009
On October 1st, the Commission on War Time Contracting in Iraq and Afghanistan (CWC) issued a Special Report. Entitled “Lowest-priced security not good enough for war-zone embassies,” the report places most of the blame for the recent fiasco involving the work of ArmorGroup North America at the U.S. embassy in Kabul, Afghanistan, on the use of a negotiated procurement source selection technique known as “lowest-price technically acceptable offer” (LPTAO).
