by clicking on the page. A slider will appear, allowing you to adjust your zoom level. Return to the original size by clicking on the page again.
the page around when zoomed in by dragging it.
the zoom using the slider on the top right.
by clicking on the zoomed-in page.
by entering text in the search field and click on "In This Issue" or "All Issues" to search the current issue or the archive of back issues respectively.
by clicking on thumbnails to select pages, and then press the print button.
this publication and page.
displays a table of sections with thumbnails and descriptions.
displays thumbnails of every page in the issue. Click on a page to jump.
allows you to browse through every available issue.
FCW : September 30, 2015
STEVE KELMAN is professor of public management at Harvard University’s Kennedy School of Government and former administrator of the Office of Federal Procurement Policy. Commentary | STEVE KELMAN Here are my hopes for changes that, if implemented, should observ- ably improve the quality of gov- ernment contracting. I list them in order of how likely they are to hap- pen, starting with the most likely. 1. Agile will spread. The idea that it makes more sense to deliver new IT capabilities in quick, partial spurts rather than a big bang that often never happens is so sensible that, eventually, it has to gain trac- tion. The latest sign that it is mak- ing inroads in government is the General Services Administration’s recent award of 16 blanket pur- chase agreements to firms that can perform agile services for agencies. 2. Past performance will become a meaningful part of the acqui- sition process. Considering past performance is central to satisfy- ing customers. Well-performing suppliers are rewarded with repeat business, and poorly performing ones are gradually weeded out. The government has had a past perfor- mance evaluation system in place since the 1990s, but it has been a disappointment in terms of radical change — mainly because the gov- ernment does a poor job of making honest evaluations. Furthermore, completing the reports is rarely viewed as a central, important fea- ture of contract management. I still believe that an important regulatory change would be to revise the ability of a contractor to appeal a bad rating as opposed to simply entering the company’s view in the contract file. The Office of Federal Procurement Policy has been considering making such a change; now is the time to move on it. 3. Government will commit to training IT subject-matter experts. There are not enough high-quality, up-to-date techni- cal and subject-matter experts in federal IT. We are now coming off a period, inaugurated by the GSA conference scandal a few years ago, of ignorant and populistic disre- spect for training feds to develop their knowledge base. Especially in a rapidly changing field like IT, knowledge must be constantly renewed. Given the huge amount of money the government spends on IT, skimping on workforce develop- ment almost defines the concept of penny wise and pound foolish. We need to revamp how agen- cies conduct conferences and training. Government conferences are too often skewed toward self- promotional “listen to what I did” shows by government and industry representatives. Feds need more opportunities to truly learn from outside experts sharing state-of-the- art knowledge. 4. Officials will begin discuss- ing how to balance IT develop- ment responsibilities between contractors and feds. The last thing we want is for government to be in the business of developing IT applications. However, I don’t see how it is practical for agencies to do a good job of managing contrac- tors without a cadre of govern- ment employees who understand both the technologies and project management well enough to be able to evaluate what contractors are saying. And for that to happen, feds need hands-on experience. I don’t have a full-blown solu- tion to this challenge, and I sus- pect this wish has the smallest chance of coming true this year. Contractor opposition is likely to be significant, and there’s no clear model for how to make it happen. Should a few projects be managed in-house? Should agency person- nel be involved in some coding or project management teams rather than simply receiving reports from contractors? We need a discussion in the com- ing year about how to proceed. Both 18F and the U.S. Digital Service have put the issue of government technical expertise on the agenda, but it appears the infusion of exper- tise they bring, however welcome, is likely to be short-term. n 4 hopes for better contracting next year What needs to happen to improve IT acquisition — and how likely we are to see it Skimping on workforce development almost defines the concept of penny wise and pound foolish. 10 September 30, 2015 FCW.COM 0930fcw_010.indd 10 9/8/15 1:35 PM
September 15, 2015