As a small business federal contractor, I have watched the government change from simply asking for bids via IFB (Invitation for Bid) where you fill in the lines with your price and then the bids are opened and whoever is the lowest price wins. Past Performance in of less importance. Then the low bidder can't do the job and the government has to go to the expense of putting the work back on the street for bid and the process repeats itself. The last few years have seen a major change in that the work is now open to contractors by RFP (Request for Proposal). The contractor must provide details on how he/she will operate the program, staffing, materials, supplies, management, etc., as well as detailed pricing to substantiate the details. And, past performance has played a major role in the evaluation. In the last couple of years, however, many of the experienced contracting officers are retiring or going into other arenas leaving inexperienced and untrained contracting officials who are given more than they can handle. In addition, the individuals who have been members of the evaluation team have also left leaving no one to perform the evaluations. So....we see a return to the IFBs. This is going to cost the government more in the long run. What is seen as a quick fix will not be and we will see a return to inexperienced contractors who low ball the work in order to get the job and then cannot perform. I can understand a tendency to find ways to get around this extensive problem. I fail to see discussion on these real issues of no $ for training and no incentive to retain expertise. I would guess the $ is going to the middle east.

I was a contract specialist for a short time because of this very reason. I saw that there was the attitude of "just get someone in here to start working on it." I was not comfortable sending out solicitations as IFB's that I felt should have been RFP's and thus, I left that organization because I did not want to be around with the Inspector General finally decides to audit that branch of the agency. I hope that this is not the attitude of all procurement agents across the board. I would attribute it to lack of training and the lack of desire to understand the FAR and contract regulations set by Congress to promote fair competition among government contractors.

it is generally accepted that Competition in Government Contracting is a Myth although as a nation we keep trying, as we should. The article above by Mr. O'Harrow certainly shouldn't surprise anyone inside or outside of government. It's a documented fact that the largest 35 Federal Contractors control more than half the contracting dollars spent by the Federal Government and that's a very conservative statement. Congressional oversight committees are constantly addressing and investigatinig whether taxpayers get a good deal from acquiring agencies such as GSA, DOD and others. Read most IG reports and the answer is always a resounding no, however statements like the one from Mr. Denett at OMB are common. The devil is in the detail. The U.S. Senate in 2006 ratified and the President signed SB2590 to create a portal to give the common citizen a view into how the Government was spending their hard earned tax dollar, the cornerstone of SB2590 was the fact that while the Senate spoke about competition, fair play and passed laws to that effect, there was never really any way for lawmakers or the average American to access information that document competition and fair play, consequently even as lawmkers certified competition, true competitive acquisition across the board never happened and some,like Mr. O'Harrow doubt it happens even now.

Some say that true competition would occur if the government scraps Omnibus Contracts similar to those referred to by Mr.Denett, however, that assumption may be a bit naive. Omnibus contracts have their place in the Government's acquisition tool box and can in fact deliver on the promise of fair and reasonable rapid acquisition, yet, when most omnibus contracts that are effective are controlled by the same 35 largest contractors there obviously is a problem. When contracts are awarded solely on the basis of acquaintance and familiarity, one can understand the elements that are at the root of the confusion that has dogged competition in Government Contracting since well before World War II and which stil persists with no signinficant sign of ever changing, but change the system we must, and forums like these are a great start.

I have been in the industrial supply business for 30 years. Over the last 15 years, tax supported manufacturers have followed Jack Welch's principle of lean manufacturing. Laying off the people in procurement departments and awarding (often without bid)
sole source exclusive contracts to large,
national supply houses, excluding small supply house which have competed successfully for decades at these manufacturers.
By eliminating competition, manufacturers have allowed monopolies to flurish with little or no oversight, ignoring the one basic human instinct.....greed!!
As the sole source supplier gets imbedded in the manufacturer's system, unhealthy relationships develop between employees in the manufacturer and employees at the supply houses, resulting in kickbacks that are funded by inflated prices.(guess who pays?..............the tax payer!)
In the mean time,the excluded supply houses
with decades of experience selling into these manufacturers, are forced to close
eliminating further competition.
Only competiton can expose inflated pricing and hold greed in check.
Like an iceburg, only a small percentage of corruption is ever exposed to the public.

I NEED ADDITIONAL INFORMATION ON HOW THE EMOPLOMENT WORK FOR NON-EXPERMENT WORKERS.