IBM, Citizenship and Efficiency
Citizenship is going paperless.
That's the aim anyway of a new contract announced last week by IBM.
"If successful, the five-year, $500 million effort to convert U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services' case-management system from paper-based to electronic could reduce backlogs and processing delays by at least 20 percent, and possibly more than 50 percent, people close to the project said. Those problems have long frustrated new Americans and other immigrants," says the story by Post reporter Spencer Hsu.
Anybody notice the "if successful" at the start of that paragraph? Naturally, Government Inc. wishes the endeavor all the best.
But we are a wee bit concerned about the type of contract awarded. It's a lead systems integrator contract, which means that IBM will be coordinating as many as 20 other contractors on behalf of the government. And IBM won't be simply providing technology. The company will be guiding the agency and its civil servants in the development of new "business processes."
That's all according to a company official.
The fact IBM will operate as lead systems integrator wasn't mentioned in the company's press release
"That gives the impression that we're technology plumbers. We're not," said spokeswoman Lia P. Davis. "The term is outdated, and does not fully represent the work that we will help the agency do -- make the job of determining immigration benefits faster, and more efficient and secure, using technology."
She said such arrangements are "very common" across the government.
Now, in theory that kind of role could be very effective and cost efficient. In practice, some other companies leading teams as lead systems integrators have run into big delays and cost overruns. Think of the Coast Guard's Deepwater modernization project. Lawmakers recently called for sharp restriction in the use of lead systems integrators.
More from Hsu's story:
"The contract, awarded this week and the largest federal homeland security bid on the market, includes a $14.5 million, 90-day assessment period with options over five years worth $491.1 million.
"The agency in a statement called the initial task order "just one of the building blocks of USCIS' overall transformation plan." That plan is being funded with the help of a summer 2007 fee increase on immigrant applicants, which freed up roughly $650 million over five years, said Scharfen's acting deputy, Mike Aytes.
"Government investigators have reported that the agency's pre-computer-age paper filing system incurs $100 million a year in archiving, storage, retrieval and shipping costs; has led to the loss or misplacement of more than 100,000 files; and has contributed to backlogs and delays for millions of cases.
"Modernization efforts, proposed in 1999, have been delayed by funding problems, inertia, post-Sept. 11 security demands and reorganization triggered by the creation of the Homeland Security Department. The department's inspector general in 2007 faulted the agency for being 'entrenched in a cycle of continual planning, with little progress.' "
By the way, you would be forgiven if you didn't understand what form of competition took place for this half-billion deal.
IBM was one of several companies pre-qualified to accept contracts through the Department of Homeland Security's Enterprise Acquisition Gateway for Leading Edge Solutions, or EAGLE, the "department-wide platform for acquiring IT service solutions."
So IBM actually got the job through an expedited "task order."
Government Inc. hopes -- on behalf of taxpayers everywhere -- the new contract will break that cycle. By the way, in this kind of arrangement, where is the line between contractors and civil servants?
By Robert O'Harrow |
November 10, 2008; 2:07 PM ET
Previous: More Defensive Contracting |
Next: A Sea Change in Government Contracting?
Posted by: cbevans1 | November 11, 2008 2:51 PM
.
Excellent point on the lack of competition, Mr. O'Harrow.
Multiple award schedule contracts like EAGLE, or like the GSA Federal Supply Schedule contracts, exist in order to make it easier to award contracts.
They restrict competition, ignore socio-economic requirements, contort the concept of fair and reasonable pricing, and wipe out transparency and openness.
How is this a good thing ?
It's not.
These schedule contracts make it easier for people who work in contracting to get contracts awarded. But if they find that it is too hard to follow the Federal Acquisition Regulation, maybe they are in the wrong line of work.
[Oh, people who want to defend this area of abuse, don't quote me FAR 8.4. That section was written by GSA to benefit GSA, contrary to provisions of law.]
They make it easier for requiring activities (end users, the ones with the money to spend) to specify that their preferred vendor gets the contract.
But that's not supposed to happen. A program manager should not be able to steer contracts to his nephew. Awards are supposed to be based on merit and value.
As a result, most "business development" effort today is spent cozying up to government officials who can use (abuse ?) these schedule contracts to direct work their way non-competitively.
It avoids the cleansing and purifying effect of sunshine and openness.
It avoids the messiness of letting any Tom, Dick or Harry bid on something where they haven't paid their "dues," instead trying to win contracts based on merit or value offered.
I've worked with IBM. They do some good work. But they hardly need the benefit of winning contracts based on being golf or poker buddies with program managers. IBM is perfectly capable of winning contracts based on open competition and merit. Let them sink or swim.
Schedule contracts should not be used for any acquisition of services valued at over $2 million. If over that threshold, there ought to be a competition, requesting proposals tailored to the specific requirement, restricted to small businesses. These contracts can probably be used safely for acquisition of goods valued up to about $5 million.
.........
Make no mistake: the schedule contracts are not intended to get good value for the Government, nor can they do so. They simply streamline the acquisition process, cutting out the "red tape" that ensures laws are followed and good judgment is exercised.
If we get a GSA Administrator under the next administration that puts national interests first, maybe she or he could rein in this area of massive abuse.
.
Posted by: BrianX9 | November 13, 2008 1:38 PM
The comments to this entry are closed.
Many of this type of contract result in schedule and cost overrun problems because of ill defined requirements. Hearing about the problems experienced by this agency with lost documents, etc it appears that their present "work flow process" is not defined. To automate a non-functioning work process is a total waste of money! So I am interested in the identity of organization that has the responsibility for defining the requirements for IBM! Will this responsiblity be assigned to the present civil service managers?