Procurement Debate Goes Feline
For months they have been slinging invective, intellectual mud and all sorts of rhetorical detritus at one another. Can a procurement debate get any better?
At odds are Steve Kelman, a Harvard professor and the architect of procurement reform a decade ago, and Danielle Brian, the executive director of the Project On Government Oversight and a sharp critic of Kelman's reforms.
Their dispute began in April after Kelman wrote an op-ed piece in the Washington Post disparaging the hawk-eyed culture of inspectors general, who are constantly watching federal agencies for evidence of contracting fraud, waste and abuse.
Kelman said IGs are too negative and do not promote creativity in finding ways to make government work better. He said "the IG culture has undermined public management. That is bad for good government."
That was too much for Brian. Her group is deeply suspicious of contractors and the government's growing reliance on them. In the POGO blog, she blamed Kelman's procurement ideas for making the government vulnerable to abuses.
"The changes to procurement law so undermined taxpayer protections that, as many IG inspections are revealing, the contracting system is now rife with waste and abuse."
The pair have been lobbing increasingly personal blogs and columns at one another ever since.
Last month, in Federal Computer Week, Kelman wrote a column that warned against efforts to undermine procurement reforms of the 1990's. He was particularly concerned about proposals to require contractors to provide more information about the cost of their technology products. He took a moment to blast POGO for supporting such a proposal.
"Dinosaur Age Exhibit 1 is self-styled watchdog the Project on Government Oversight, which has advocated repealing the Federal Acquisition Streamlining Act and the revival of the cost-data-for-everything world of the 1980s. Such an approach, straight from the hoary days of the earliest PCs, would cut the government off from many of the benefits of the Information Age."
The response? A point-by-point rebuttal, complete with vitriolic asides. "What a straw man! POGO has never suggested the need for cost data for products or services where prices are determined by a commercial market. But by now, readers can see for themselves how few facts informed Kelman's column."
On July 5, Kelman's column bore the headline: "POGO: The silence of the hams." POGO fired back with a blog with the headline: "Steve Kelman: Obsessed with POGO."
On Tuesday, one of the technology trades showed its glee with the digital fracas. In a piece called "POGO vs. Kelman," Tom Shoop of Government Executive.com's Fedblog captured the tenor of the debate perfectly.
"Oooh, it's a full-blown federal procurement catfight!" Shoop wrote. "I'll just admit to being entertained by the fact that it's getting personal, which is not something you see every day in the world of federal contracting policy."
Kelman has recently suggested that they agree to find common ground. He was met first with silence, then with sarcasm. "It's kind of weird -- doesn't he realize we're busy," Brian wrote.
The miffed Kelman didn't like that tone. "I have NEVER known them in the past to be "too busy" to respond to me. Sorry, POGO. Wash your mouth out with soap. And by the way I'm also sorry that you're not willing to look for common ground," he wrote in his FCW.com blog.
In between the hard words and hurt feelings, both sides touch on some very important procurement issues. At root are questions about how the government ought to balance the pressing need for contractors against the obligation to keep a close watch on the treasury.
This stuff matters. So ignore the flying fur and pay attention.
By Robert O'Harrow |
July 13, 2007; 5:02 AM ET
Procurement Debate
Previous: Economy, Efficiency and Effectiveness |
Next: Readers Write
Posted by: Raul Espinosa | July 13, 2007 6:55 AM
How many times have we seen programs that go down the drain not because of the contracting strategy but because of requirements creep, poor schedules, rushed acquisitions, and unsound strategies? Making it easier and quicker for poor program managers to execute flawed and unrealistic programs is a huge risk for the government in terms of funding and execution. Sure, contracting/the FAR can use some updating and reform, but the other parts of acquisition, the program management side, needs some serious attention. Kelman should focus that instead of inventing more methods of speeding up the system.
Posted by: Really? | July 13, 2007 9:35 AM
Bob -
I think you're trying to do a public service with this blog, but you are missing the mark by not reporting the "POGO v. Kelman" issue with a little more depth. It's not so much a debate as you are making it sound, as it is POGO pointing out Kelman's twisting of the law and facts relating to government contracting in order to achieve major contracting policy changes from Congress..
This piece, for example, focuses on who called whom what, instead of the substance of the "debate". Kelman made some substantive claims that are factually and legally untrue. Congress used Kelman's claims to pass "procurement reform" legislation. Now the chickens are coming home to roost. Instead of focusing on whether the debate is "feline", why don't they focus on the substance of POGO's statements?
What Kelman did was make significantly erroneous factual and legal representations about the then (1990s) state of the procurement system to Congressional staff. Not knowing any better, and not having the time to follow up (and backed by industry lobbyists), Kelman's claims were accepted, and Congress acted on those claims. This proves that when you take action based on bad facts or misrepresentations, you're highly likely to screw up.
The proof of Kelman's lack of facts and knowledge of contracting law is best illustrated by his last blog concerning POGO, where all he discusses is "who struck John". He never once refutes or addresses POGO's substantive statements.
Bob, why doesn't the Post report on that, instead of the feral part of the debate? Also, why don't you report on Kelman's lobbying and consulting for contractors, and his membership on contractor boards of directors?
Posted by: Ambrose Bierce | July 13, 2007 12:46 PM
Ambrose - I think you raise an interesting point. I was rather excited at the idea of this blog, but unfortunately after the first few posts it appears to be little more than a rehashing of other stories or sensationalism. If this blog is going to be of any use, which I doubt it will, we should be discussing facts, issues, and solutions. We don't need anymore gotcha articles, we need context, depth, and discovery.
Posted by: Philip Henry | July 13, 2007 2:43 PM
The comments to this entry are closed.
Keep up the good work. May I suggest for your column to address attempts to level the playing field in government contracting? Small and minority firms have been abused in this arena like never before and... the government hasn't done anything about it! The 'set-aside exemptions,' for example, are preventing their access to $64 Billion in contracts . . . and it's all due to 'government regulators' trying to perpetuate a procurement system riddle with abusive practices. The link below will take you to a story on the efforts to bring fairness in the space.
http://www.prweb.com/releases/2007/07/prweb538297.htm