More Defensive Contracting

By now, I'm sure all you diligent Government Inc. readers have at least heard about the GAO's transition page. But it has so much about so much facing the Obama administration (and indeed all the government) that it's worth a little more detail.

Today: More from the GAO on how the Defense Department needs to improve its contracting. (Yes, we know, it sometimes seems like an insurmountable challenge, and it feels like an old story. But.)

"The department's current approach to planning and budgeting is based on overly optimistic planning assumptions and lacks a strategic, risk-based framework for determining priorities and making investment decisions. As a result, it continues to experience a mismatch between programs and budgets, and it does not fully consider long-term resource implications and the opportunity cost of selecting one alternative over another."

Why? In July, the auditors all but called it a shell game that Pentagon planners play. Who pays for this caprice? You do, naturally.

And there's this from the transition report: "While the combat effectiveness of U.S. forces is unparalleled, DOD has not been as effective in managing its ongoing business operations, resulting in substantial waste and inefficiency that have adversely affected mission performance and increased the vulnerability of programs to fraud, waste, abuse, and mismanagement."

The why here? From a January assessment: The DoD identifies problems, issues rules to solve the problems and the rules are ignored.

See the italics that we add to the GAO statement below.

"DOD leadership needs to ensure implementation of and compliance with existing guidance to improve the department's oversight and management of contractors supporting deployed forces. While DOD issued a comprehensive guidance on contractor support to deployed forces in 2005, we found little evidence that DOD components were implementing this and other guidance. As a result, several long-standing problems have hindered DOD's management and oversight of contractors at deployed locations, even in cases where DOD and its components have developed guidance related to these problems."

We could go on and on. (Ok, we will go on and on, but in other posts to come.) For now, just one more thing. Consider it a drumbeat.

"The department spent more than $315 billion acquiring goods and services in fiscal year 2007, more than double the amount it spent 6 years earlier. It is increasingly relying on contractors to provide services to help meet critical missions and support acquisition functions. However, the lack of well-defined requirements, the use of ill-suited business arrangements, and the lack of an adequate number of trained acquisition and contract oversight personnel contribute to unmet expectations and schedule delays."

Are these insurmountable problems? Government Inc. doesn't think so. You?

Here's an added bonus from a reader, a link to a rich collection of stories and analysis from IEEE Spectrum contributing editor Robert N. Charette.

He begins like an F-22 going verticle:

"The Pentagon now spends about $21.6 million every hour to procure new military systems. As the cost and complexity of defense acquisitions programs continue to spiral out of control, many defense experts believe runaway military spending is unsustainable."

By Robert O'Harrow |  November 7, 2008; 11:33 AM ET
Previous: Defensive Contracting? | Next: IBM, Citizenship and Efficiency

Posted by: ohiotodc815 | November 7, 2008 1:33 PM

The comments to this entry are closed.