Fixing the Contracting System
One of the nice things about having a blog is I get to provide readers more information than I can get into the newspaper column. Today’s Federal Diary, for example, deals with low-wage government contractors, but one thing I didn’t get to in the column was a list of recommendations the Center for American Progress Action Fund has for the incoming Obama administration and the new Congress.
The Center published a study that says “too many companies that receive federal contracts treat their workers poorly and fail to pay adequate wages or benefits.” Our new set of leaders, says the report, can use their “reform instincts to fix the contracting system so that it improves conditions for workers and ensures that taxpayers get their money’s worth.”
The Center’s four recommendations are:
Greater transparency: Improved transparency, especially about working conditions, is necessary to ensure that contractors are complying with the law. In order to protect workers and taxpayers, the government needs to systematically collect more information about contractors — such as the number of workers and their wages and benefits — and create a centralized database with those and other records about federal contractors.
Better oversight and enforcement of the law: Making sure that workers and taxpayers are protected requires better oversight. This should start with rigorous scrutiny during the bid process by subjecting all contracts to an open and competitive process that seeks to prevent contracts from being awarded to unscrupulous businesses in the first place. Increasing the number of contract officers and boosting their training are key to this effort.
Judicious use of contracting: To protect taxpayers and workers, we should contract out only those services that private companies are able to provide more capably and affordably. Inappropriate contracting can have profoundly harmful impacts on the functioning of government.
Promotion of improved job standards: To encourage a race to the top and ensure that government contracting leads to high-quality work for taxpayers and good jobs for workers, contracting agencies should promote improved job standards by adopting a system that gives special consideration to contractors who meet or exceed certain wage and benefit levels. Doing so would provide a strong incentive for companies that do business with the government — especially in sectors where low-wages and benefits prevail — to treat their employees fairly and help ensure that taxpayers receive quality work in return.
The report can be found here.
--Joe Davidson
By
Steven E. Levingston
|
December 10, 2008; 1:05 PM ET
| Category:
Contracting
Previous: Awards for Pentagon Inspector General's Office |
Next: Education Department Rebuttal
Posted by: darmar40 | December 11, 2008 6:55 AM | Report abuse
With the one recommendation, "Better oversight and enforcement of the law," sounds like a good idea.
Is the issue what is best for taxpayers, the government or contract workers?
Being a Federal contractor, my experience is that it is not fair. The government has a contractor in mind they want to do the work. They rig the RFP so their favorite will win. The ‘stooges’ (the other contractors that will lose) waste their time and effort (which can be considerable) to bid on the work. There is a cost to these companies and no business won. What is an unscrupulous business? Is it a company that is doing things illegally? Are these companies trying to make a profit?
Who says that their favorite is the best? Perhaps they are the best and should be awarded the work. They can give no bid contracts if they have a good reason. This would be a higher price. Contract workers could receive more benefits (but in reality will not).
If you do have a shot at the contract, you will have to lower your price considerably to make it compelling to the agency to not ‘wire it’ to their favorite. Where does the contractor cut costs?
Let’s not go through these charades. See NSF - http://www.governmentuncovered.com/forums/showthread.php?t=29
The contracting officers (CO’s) know this already. They work with their agency to get their customers what they want. I am not sure how better training will make them more effective.
www.governmentuncovered.com
Posted by: GovernmentUncoveredcom | December 12, 2008 12:58 PM | Report abuse
The comments to this entry are closed.
Well Joe, the whole problem is OPM rules and the mgmt of the federal govt. It reeks of abuse and good-ole-boy hiring. Just page thru the jobs.gov my friend. Besides the open continuous jobs... 99% of them are advertised as a routine. But in reality, the positions are pre-selected. They so-call disqualify accountants for contract agency jobs. That is stupid! If you don't have 10 years of experience doing the job, forget it. But how canyou get 10 yrs of exp in the job if they won't hire someone from the outside or a different dept.
Another corrupt thing is they created this 501 series. Do an investigation into this. I spent 4 hard years in college to get a degree in accounting. It took me many years to get a 510 series position. But throughout the govt, the 510 means nothing. I now work for idiots in mgmt that are 501's. They don't need a degree. Now this NSPS makes things more corrupt. A position advertised as a YA-02 could once have been a GS-7 or a GS-11... but I am converted from a GS-13 to a YA-2. Something is very wrong!