Acquisitions/Budgeting
- Thread starter 1FastSUV
- Start date
The problem with all attempts to reform acquisition in the Federal Government is our audit process is not streamlined. Read up on FIAR and the issues that is having.
Yes, most of the acquisition process is broken, but when there are so many hands in the pot that it will be externally difficult to ever fix it. Not saying we shouldn't try, but it will be a very steep hill to climb. I believe that once more of the younger acquisition corps takes on leadership roles within DOD, and the older generation gets the hell out of the way, a lot of the issues will be fixed.
Yes, most of the acquisition process is broken, but when there are so many hands in the pot that it will be externally difficult to ever fix it. Not saying we shouldn't try, but it will be a very steep hill to climb. I believe that once more of the younger acquisition corps takes on leadership roles within DOD, and the older generation gets the hell out of the way, a lot of the issues will be fixed.
I've written a contract for office desks that killed more trees to print out the contract file than the number of trees killed to make the desk itself.
A buddy of mine in the Coast Guard said their CO told them they had to buy all new office equipment and computers every year or they'd lose it outta their budget for the following year.
Use it or lose it. That didn't sound right to me.
Use it or lose it. That didn't sound right to me.
Use it or lose it is real, and since we've been operating under a CRA, commands are capped at their previous year spending. However, I doubt they are buying office furniture to replace previous year office furniture. If they are, the Contracting Officer should have their warrant taken away.
In my opinion, use it or lose it is a problem. Why punish commands for not spending all their budget? Contracting officials should be rewarded for saving the Government money, but they aren't. And to me, that is also a problem. Currently there is no incentive for a contracting office to negotiate with a contractor, other than putting down on your PARS that you saved the Government X amount of money. Not everyone will agree with my assessment that 1102's deserve being incentivised with cash to get the Government a better deal, but like I said, as the rules are currently written, we (the acquisition community, especially Contract Specialists) are driven only for self satisfaction. Save your company $20 million a year and you will see a good bonus. Save the Government $20 million and nobody bats an eye, unless the command wanted you to spend all the money they obligated for whatever it is you were buying.
To add, lowest price isn't always the answer, nor am I saying we should award on an LPTA basis and perhaps this is why bonuses for saving the Government will ever happen because it would make us focus more on lower prices than overall value.
In my opinion, use it or lose it is a problem. Why punish commands for not spending all their budget? Contracting officials should be rewarded for saving the Government money, but they aren't. And to me, that is also a problem. Currently there is no incentive for a contracting office to negotiate with a contractor, other than putting down on your PARS that you saved the Government X amount of money. Not everyone will agree with my assessment that 1102's deserve being incentivised with cash to get the Government a better deal, but like I said, as the rules are currently written, we (the acquisition community, especially Contract Specialists) are driven only for self satisfaction. Save your company $20 million a year and you will see a good bonus. Save the Government $20 million and nobody bats an eye, unless the command wanted you to spend all the money they obligated for whatever it is you were buying.
To add, lowest price isn't always the answer, nor am I saying we should award on an LPTA basis and perhaps this is why bonuses for saving the Government will ever happen because it would make us focus more on lower prices than overall value.
If you are interested in contracting, there are better forums out there full of acquisition professionals who have far greater experience than I do who can explain the problems greater than I as well.
Disagree because Congress wrote the rules, and they won't change the rules.
We need to start over and spend a couple of years re-writting the rules, then impliment the re-write in a short period of time ( 1 FY ).
Congress has not written all the rules. On top of the FAR there's the DFARS, written by DPAP, plus individual agency AR's.
FARSite (Federal Acquisition Regulation Site)
FARSite (Federal Acquisition Regulation Site)
I'm interested in the processes, and gaining knowledge from them. I run a business with over 100 employees and am always looking for information to better myself and the systems I have in place. I'm a firm believer in the chain of command and the military is the best example of how it works. Also, in my line of work I hear from so many employees that "think" they know what they're talking about, when in fact they know very little. I was drawn to this site to get input from the people that actually do know what they're talking about and I'm very appreciative of the input I get from the members on here.
So you are looking to buff up on an RFP process?
We do that on a small scale but some of our other purchasing processes are a pain in the ass. We have six owners and they all have partial or full ownership in different companies we do business with. Two have ownership in the pharmacy we use, so I can't switch pharmacies no matter how expensive they are, or how many mistakes they make. Three others are partners in the medical supply company we use, so for the most part I'm stuck with using them too.
So, my purchasing agent orders products the medical supply company doesn't normally stock. The supply company (hypothetically) gets online and orders the product from a third party, marks it up 10% and sells it to me. Even tho I could order the product direct online and save the 10% markup, I'm stuck with the medical supply co's price because the owners want to make money on both ends. And to top it off, my purchasing agent and I lose out on our bonuses because we're over budget on pharmacy costs and medical supplies.
I read the original article and wondered how much of a nightmare it could be at the government level, if it's this difficult at my low level. If I'm under budget we get quarterly bonuses. From what my CG buddy told me it's counterproductive for him to be under budget.
We do that on a small scale but some of our other purchasing processes are a pain in the ass. We have six owners and they all have partial or full ownership in different companies we do business with. Two have ownership in the pharmacy we use, so I can't switch pharmacies no matter how expensive they are, or how many mistakes they make. Three others are partners in the medical supply company we use, so for the most part I'm stuck with using them too.
So, my purchasing agent orders products the medical supply company doesn't normally stock. The supply company (hypothetically) gets online and orders the product from a third party, marks it up 10% and sells it to me. Even tho I could order the product direct online and save the 10% markup, I'm stuck with the medical supply co's price because the owners want to make money on both ends. And to top it off, my purchasing agent and I lose out on our bonuses because we're over budget on pharmacy costs and medical supplies.
I read the original article and wondered how much of a nightmare it could be at the government level, if it's this difficult at my low level. If I'm under budget we get quarterly bonuses. From what my CG buddy told me it's counterproductive for him to be under budget.
I'm tracking now, thanks. I have a close friend who does procurement for a large entity. If you want to bounce some thoughts off him I am more than happy to get you two in contact. Just PM me.
Will do, thank you!
