Michael Fischetti is executive director of the National Contract Management Association.
The inability to quickly acquire products and services for agencies is often exemplified by the fast-changing nature of information technology. Government's need to exploit emerging technology to enhance mission effectiveness in terms of cost, speed, and quality is equivalent to what appears to be occurring in business or the consumer market. This results in the familiar refrains of a contracting system mired in irrelevant rules or culture of process versus results—not up to modern expectations.
However, the underlying issues are more complex. Calls for simpler contracting rules are never specific. Which contracting rule in particular slows everything down or stops progress? Which piece of guidance is standing in the way of progress? How exactly are government IT enablers stymied in their quest for government technology future. The statutes, regulations, and guides themselves call for innovation and not only permit but encourage the complete variety of strategies and mechanisms to deliver whatever the requirement is defined to be for any given situation.
Therein is the problem—defining the requirement. Determining what the government is looking for; who it is intended to serve; who is responsible for implementation; and who throughout the agency, organization, or beyond can slow or even stop progress? From the executive suite to various field and headquarters stakeholders, there are typically many layers of officials and communities to placate. New technology must please everyone with authority, but not necessarily responsibility, for successful execution. If field activities, or the agency itself, are funded and/or managed semi-autonomously, with only high-level headquarters oversight (as many are), any "enterprise-wide" solution will be hard to implement.
Organizations to be brought together include end users, finance, legal, program, technical, engineering, HR, logistics or operations, and many others, not to mention the chief information office. Whether the chief information officer has ultimate design or program management control, the matrix structure of government agencies makes forward movement tricky. In the private sector or the consumer market, new technology can change behavior and creates efficiencies. In government, those implications must be well understood, but again all must agree.
To the extent this is a contracting problem, it can result from government confusion or over/under specification transmitted to the contractor. If the contractor can't or won't offer a solution due to incompetence or a willful "constructive change" strategy to increase cost or profit, IT progress becomes further pushed out. New IT guidance such as FITARA may better clarify government authorities, but that still requires human capital with the vision, knowledge, experience, and communication competence, combined with clear authority, to be effective.
Present and future government acquisition and implementation of IT offers fantastic possibilities, from efficient air traffic control to Medicare fraud control. Convergence and cloud computing represent IT strategies for vastly reduced costs and infrastructure. Government must prudently manage these activities and as necessary move to innovative contracted sources for advice, implementation, and support.
IT contracting reflects the effectiveness of planning, documenting, designing, funding, coordinating, and approving today's government design, process, and hardware. Future contract success will reflect, as it does today, the ability of government managers to work through the politics and rice bowls and a proper relationship with the contractor once chosen. This isn't a problem in contracting, but instead involves organizational behavior and professional competencies.
