It is often said that the future can be predicted by reviewing the past. This age-old trope is applicable to a variety of areas and disciplines. Perhaps its cynicism or simply the truth, but in acquisition and contracting, the past appears to repeat itself with almost comical regularity.
When the U.S. federal government acquires products or services, outcomes are generally good, but most believe it they could be better, especially in the areas of quality or timeliness. Success in these two areas is a must for the general success of all government activity. Solutions to real or perceived "problems" within the acquisition process in achieving these goals can be quickly developed and promulgated. Some are good, but many are not so good. Often, they are theoretical — based either on little or no analysis or with no comparison with best practice outcomes. Congress is made aware of a perceived "problem," legislation is drafted, debate may or may not occur, and the rules become promulgated. The process results in with the end result being that the overall system becominges even more complex, more divergent from private-sector practice, more expensive, and less likely to produce outcomes that achieve "quality" or "timeliness" to an efficient degree. From there, the cycle thus repeats itself.
The most common solution often appears as a narrow legislative focus on specific topics or self-interests that may not properly consider the overall environment or context within which the specific interest was embodied. Frequent solutions appear in the form of a new statute or regulation that requires some new authority (whether a higher, second level, alternative, or newly created office or some combination thereof) to review, approve, oversee, or train those actually performing the work, and thus learn and enforce the new "philosophy" surrounding whatever the issue is. Not surprisingly, the basic principles of program or contract management haven’t changed in a very long time. However, changes to federal regulation and statute seemingly need to be implemented continuously.
Much of the current acquisition "reform" theory and legislation in various stages of adoption and implementation today very much resemble that of the past. The easiest is reorganization: Moving responsibilities around to someone else, with the anticipation that someone else can fix it. Data is mixed on whether such strategies have worked in the past, but wouldn’t some analysis of similar attempts from the past be helpful before implementing more in the future? If it didn’t work before, why would it suddenly work now? Perhaps it would be best to consider what did work before? The unfortunate result of not doing so is the creation of cynicism, whereby many lose faith in ever achieving true reform or improvement.
That is the case today. Many are convinced that true improvement can only be achieved by following this (seemingly cyclical) process:
In a market economy, the market itself generally determines winners and losers, good ideas and bad ones, effective business practices and failed ones, etc. In the government contracting sector, there is far higher reliance on keeping up with new and changing rules and knowing how to navigate within them. What is needed is consensus on what, exactly, the problems are that need to be solved.,rResearch should be conducted and data collected to determine the root causes of these problems, then further consensus reached as to how to achieve solutions, and action taken to implement these solutions (without causing additional complications in the process).
A recent meeting with a past president of our association from the 1970s brought this home. There have been too may commissions, reports, legislation, reviews, initiatives, programs, lobbying, and opportunistic leaders to possibly keep track of over the past four decades; all of which have led to today’s current environment. The same problems that occurred back then still occur today, yet given the sheer quantity of past attempts, no consensus has yet been reached on how to "fix" them. New, untested, undocumented, theoretical ideas — without proper research or the proper collection of relevant data as to whether they could be viable solutions — have been and will soon be implemented.
A different but radical approach might start with eliminating the immediate 20 years’ worth of prior acquisition "reforms." Most of those whose careers were made on those efforts are probably retired, and would agree that the overall goals weren’t achieved, yet much worked out well for the country before then. This could be followed by a promise to follow guidance similar to the current budget spending guidelines, whereby everyone agrees to not add a new acquisition requirement (policy, rule, mandate, etc.) unless one is removed. For every new Federal Acquisition Regulation clause implemented, one should have to be deleted.
Finally, another new concept in this area would be to permit all professional best practices and guidance to be delegated and led by the professionals performing the acquisition work. This could impact many constituencies that are influential today. Perhaps it’s a bit drastic, and there may be some constitutional considerations involved, but surely there is a way off the current acquisition reform merry-go-round.
Michael P. Fischetti is the Executive Director of the National Contract Management Association. His earlier federal career includes time at the Defense and Energy departments, and the General Services Administration.
