Getting to Smart Contingency Contracting

When it comes to overseas contingency contracting there are a few truisms that must be institutionalized into the government mindset.

1. Contractor roles must be considered up front as part of the force planning process or risk failure to fully support the troops on the ground.
2.  Contracting officials must be trained and well versed in the complexities of contracting in a fluid environment.
3. Contracting officials must be afforded the flexibility to respond to that fluid environment.

The Comprehensive Contingency Contracting Reform Act of 2012 (S. 2139), introduced Feb. 29 by Sens. Claire McCaskill, D-Mo., and Jim Webb, D-Va., appears to succeed on the first two points, but falls woefully short on the third. 

Let’s start with the positive aspects of the bill, which are based on the final recommendations of the Commission on Wartime Contracting. 

The Senators are absolutely right to include mandates for the three main overseas responders—the Defense Department, the State Department and the U.S. Agency for International Development—to include contract support considerations from the start of their planning for contingency operations. Time and again during the recent conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan, it was clear that upfront planning for the use of contractors would have improved delivery and outcomes, as well as controlled cost.    

The Senators also included provisions in the bill to strengthen the acquisition workforce and its ability to contract for contingencies. An inexperienced or under-resourced acquisition workforce was a key contributing factor to many of the contracting problems encountered in Iraq and Afghanistan. 

Attention to these issues through legislation could help make the culture changes needed in future contingency operations planning. 

Despite these positive reforms included in the bill, there are unfortunately a handful of provisions that, if adopted, would actually restrict the government’s ability to respond to future contingency situations overseas and would increase contingency contracting challenges for government and contractors.  These proposals simply run contrary to smart government and smart contracting practices, laying waste to due process, fairness and transparency. Here’s how:

1. Denial of due process

• The bill would require the automatic suspension of a company on the basis of undocumented allegations of any wrongdoing by any employee and would deny companies the basic tenets of due process. The Wartime Contracting Commission rescinded a similar preliminary recommendation when it made its final report. Further, the Obama administration and government suspension and debarment officials have strongly opposed this proposal as unfair, unwise and potentially detrimental to the government. 
• The bill unfairly terminates a contractor’s right to respond to past performance evaluations and to have that response entered into the record. This provision goes well beyond what the Wartime Contracting Commission recommended and represents a stunning reversal of the longstanding tenets
  of fairness that underpin the government's past performance reporting process. 

2. Inflexibility

• The bill would limit subcontracts to one tier, which is unrealistic and would make it nearly impossible for the government to rapidly obtain the goods and services they need to support warfighters, aid workers, diplomats and others responding to a crisis overseas.
• The bill establishes arbitrary limits on periods of contract performance that add unnecessary levels of uncertainty, risk and cost in an already dynamic contracting and performance environment.

So what should be done to ensure the right types of contingency contracting reforms are adopted? First, eliminate the provisions that hamper flexibilities and rob parties of due process to ensure all parties are protected. Second, increase the focus on the perennial issues present in every contingency contracting event, such as professionalizing the workforce and improving upfront planning. Such thoughtful and balanced proposals will enhance and improve the ability of both government and industry to support our troops and others supporting our government’s missions in a warzone.

Surviving Sequestration, Part 2: What’s a company to do?

As agencies grapple with the prospect of sequestration, your contract funding could be at risk. What’s a company to do? PSC attempted to answer that question for its members during a panel discussion on Jan. 17.

Here is some of the advice PSC’s own Alan Chvotkin gave to attendees.

Immediate actions:

• Know your existing contracts:
• Contract Type
• Available period of performance
• Revenue options/ceiling amounts
• Option periods remaining/available
• Ensure that your past performance is the best it can be and that your PPIRS and FAPIIS database references are accurate and most favorable.

Short-term actions:

• Engage your customers, but recognize contracting officers and program managers might not have answers until the last minute or the authority to act in all cases.
• Evaluate agency spending on its priority contracts – even if you aren’t on it.

Long-term actions:

• Ensure that your past performance is the best it can be and that the PPIRS and FAPIIS database references are accurate and most favorable.
• Evaluate your existing contracts for flexibility to add new work or new funding opportunities.
• Evaluate future solicitations and potential awards for performance flexibility and for risk.
• Be an aggressive advocate for your performance capabilities and revenue options.

Surviving Sequestration, Part 1: The Defense Dilemma

There is broad agreement that in the event of sequestration-driven reductions beyond those which are already being planned for the Defense Department, the impacts on each of the services industry segments—from technology development to workforce access—could be potentially cataclysmic, particularly with regard to contingency support and surge capacity, and research and development investments for next generation technology capabilities.

While the Obama administration’s Jan. 5 Defense Strategic Guidance makes the case for mission-driven budget decisions to avoid such calamities, PSC, as part of a multi-association industry taskforce, made its own recommendations for how the department can mitigate a sequestration scenario that could leave the department and industry unable to compete for critical talents.

Lessons Learned from Anonymous & LulzSec

Cybersecurity and supply chain protection are becoming increasingly important aspects of government contracting, especially as federal agencies place an increased compliance burden on contractors in this era of heightened attention to attacks by foreign agents and hacker groups like Anonymous and LulzSec.

So, what’s a contractor to do to protect itself and its government customer?

Here at PSC and SmartContracting blog we often espouse the importance of up front planning for all parties to ensure success in government acquisitions and programs. In our most recent issue of PSC’s quarterly Service Contractor magazine, Michael Howard, a principal cybersecurity consultant for Microsoft, explains how the same holds true for cybersecurity.

While firewalls and virus protection are important aspects of defending your networks, so too is having clean codes, especially when it comes to avoiding a successful attack by a hacker group bent on sharing your information with the world.

The new set of Republican Cybersecurity Task Force recommendations have also sharpened the focus on the cybersecurity challenges facing our nation. In the same issue of Service Contractor magazine we spoke with the co-chairs of the bipartisan Congressional Cybersecurity Caucus—Reps. Michael McCaul, R-Texas, and Jim Langevin, D-R.I.—to get their take on where the myriad cyber security legislation is going this Congress.

You can read those story (and others) here.

Image via.