The QDDR: The Gift of the State and USAID Magi

The State Department bestowed an early Christmas present on the international development community last week when it unwrapped the long-awaited Quadrennial Diplomacy and Development Review (QDDR). And like those slipper-socks from Aunt Minnie, the QDDR isn’t exactly what was hoped for, but contained some necessities.

Insourcing Implementation So Far Proves Not Smart Contracting

First, Defense Secretary Gates questioned insourcing at the Defense Department after he found that this initiative had not achieved the intended savings. Now a second administration official is questioning agency insourcing actions.

According to the Dec. 13 edition of Capital Business (the Washington Post’s business weekly), OFPP Administrator Dan Gordon indicated that agencies misunderstood OMB’s guidance and brought work in house to meet quotas, regardless of whether doing so saved money, increased efficiencies or improved internal management capabilities.

“We do not view insourcing as a goal,” Gordon said, according to the Post account of his Dec. 10 speech. “What we’re doing is rebalancing our relationship with contractors.” In this rebalancing effort, the administration wants to convert “targeted, limited numbers of positions” to public sector performance, the Post reported.

The Post quotes Gordon as saying:

“No corporation would agree to have somebody else running their entire operations…There are far too many situations where we have yielded control of our own missions…to contractors. That needs to be fixed, but it doesn’t require massive insourcing.”

Quadrennial Questions

Lost in all the coverage of the State Department cable leaks is the leak of another document that could have a far greater impact on the effectiveness of future U.S. diplomacy: a set of State Department briefing slides for Congress on the Quadrennial Diplomacy and Development Review.

Although this little reported document hints at some answers to critical questions about the long-awaited strategy for how State and the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) will partner to support development assistance missions around the world, it also raises new questions. Perhaps most critical: why the briefing repeats tired rhetoric about the role of for-profit and non-profit development organizations assisting the government in its mission.

Guest Blog: Non-profits’ Faustian Bargain with the Taliban

By Lawrence J. Halloran

Director of PSC's International Development Initiative

Yesterday’s Wall Street Journal story* about non-profit aid groups “distancing themselves from the U.S.-led coalition” and cutting separate safe-passage agreements with the Taliban in Afghanistan exposed a dangerous naiveté among some humanitarian actors there who are complicit in appeasing a lethal enemy. I wonder how fast those same aid workers would cover the distance between themselves and the nearest NATO military unit when some of Mullah Omar’s men who didn’t get the memo open fire.

To pretend the Taliban is just another benevolent community organization looking to “register” foreigners for their mutual peace of mind ignores the Taliban’s bloody past and their brutal plans for all they subjugate, especially women. Too many dedicated professionals from aid development and other firms have already suffered tragic losses of life to conclude that anyone’s safety lies in such dangerous delusions.

And if the Taliban’s safe passage registration is “free” in terms of money or tactical military intelligence, it surely comes at the price of an explicit endorsement of the group’s goals and the tacit acknowledgement of their illegitimate governing authority. Why else would the local Taliban bureaucrat quoted by the WSJ welcome “unaligned” aid groups into areas he controls while he feels free to shoot at others doing essentially the same work on behalf of the U.S.-led coalition and the Afghan government?

When a congressional subcommittee found that transport contractors were paying insurgent militias for convoy protection for supplies for U.S troops, the practice was roundly denounced. The widely publicized October 2010 Senate Armed Services Committee report concluded it was important to address those “who act contrary to our interests and contribute to the corruption that weakens the support of the Afghan people for their government.” Is it so different when a non-profit aid group pays the Taliban with its good name? Even when no money changes hands, letting the Taliban take tacit credit for the provision of medical supplies and other aid paid for by countries with soldiers in the field gives comfort to the enemy. Even the most expansive view of the humanitarian space between active combatants and innocent civilians does not have room for that indefensible double standard.

*Subscription required.

Government Acquisition Professionals See a “Great Divide”

There is a “Great Divide” in government. It runs wide and deep and affects government efficiency and effectiveness.

 

No, I’m not talking about the divide between Democrats and Republicans. I’m talking about the divide in the acquisition community between the operational managers primarily responsible for awarding and managing government contracts and the oversight managers primarily responsible for checking that contract management is effective.

 

Yesterday, PSC and our friends at member-company Grant Thornton released the results of our fifth biennial Acquisition Policy Survey of federal government personnel. We found the following divisions among operational and oversight respondents regarding the effects conflict of interest rules, acquisition workforce development and other procurement reform initiatives on the federal government.

Smart Contractors Congratulate Smart Contractors, and Smart Public-Sector Partners too!

While some say the big winners of 2010 were revealed on Tuesday, smart contractors know that the year’s biggest winners were announced Wednesday night at the much anticipated 2010 Government Contractor Awards!

Nearly 1,000 people turned out to celebrate the industry and learn which companies would claim the title of “Contractor of the Year” and which executives would be crowned “Executive of the Year.”

And the winners are…

How Smart Contractors Measure Up

Throughout the congressional campaign cycle there have been loud calls from both sides for the government to spend taxpayer dollars wisely. That’s why, regardless of the outcome of today’s elections, the Obama White House is unlikely to change its performance measurement agenda for federal agencies and programs.

And for good reason. In these tough economic times the government can’t afford to spend taxpayer dollars on failing or inefficient programs, projects or other activities.

In the September edition of Service Contractor, the Office of Management and Budget’s Shelley Metzenbaum, the associate director for performance and personnel management, explained how and why OMB is measuring program performance across federal agencies. She also explained what actions professional services firms can take to further these goals and improve their own work to help their government customers.