decision-making | The Contracting Education Academy

April 18, 2019 By AMK

Thoughts on the President’s management agenda: Kudos … with a caution

Amidst whatever the current political climate might have been, for the last half dozen administrations, the president’s management agenda (PMA) has consistently set forth a vision for government that not only serves as an important foundation for agency operations and priorities, but has consistently also built on the work of previous administrations.

Indeed, while every PMA has reflected some of the priorities of the relevant administration, for the most part the agendas have been apolitical and reflected a logical, if slow, progression in the modernization of government.

The Trump administration’s PMA is no different. To the administration’s credit, it avoided a “not invented here” mindset and grounded its plan in rationale, goals, themes, and, in some areas, specific priorities that reflect challenges and problems similar in nature to those identified for many years by previous administrations. Striving for better mission outcomes? Check. Improving customer service? Check. Improving fiscal stewardship? Check.

Similarly, the PMA’s “root cause” analysis also strikes some very familiar chords: regulatory burdens, siloed governance and management, sometimes torturous decision-making processes, concerns about workforce capabilities and competencies, leadership and culture. Further, the core management initiatives are, in the main, consistent and logical, as are the cross-agency priorities. Their implementation is now underway.

Keep reading this article at: https://www.govexec.com/excellence/management-matters/2019/03/thoughts-presidents-management-agenda-kudos-caution/155859/

July 16, 2014 By AMK

Quality cost data is key to making better management decisions

Cost estimating may not be as exciting as the new baseball season or the competition on American Idol, but for anyone in management, it is absolutely vital, if somewhat less entertaining. Especially if you’re involved in program management, procurement or finance you rely on high quality cost estimates every day. Why? Because they provide the foundation for informed decision-making.

As such, it’s essential for managers to be able to distinguish between two important, but very different (and often confused) types of cost estimates: life cycle cost estimates (LCCEs) and independent government cost estimates (IGCEs).

This table compares and contrasts the two types of estimates, to help decision-makers determine which one they need to utilize.

Life cycle cost estimates take a comprehensive view of a program. They include all costs, whether incurred by the government or the contractor, including labor, materials, facilities, hardware, software and integration costs, and sometimes even imputed costs. Life cycle cost estimates can be for 30 years or more. For high dollar programs, LCCEs are required by many government agencies at various acquisition milestones. For example, on very large programs the Defense Department requires LCCEs at three milestones before projects can proceed. Given the scope and duration of LCCEs, they are treated as living documents that should be updated annually.

Keep reading this article at: http://www.govexec.com/contracting/2014/07/quality-cost-data-key-making-better-management-decisions/87946/

March 26, 2012 By AMK

Survey says auditors have too much sway

The relationship between government contractors and federal acquisition officials has been on the decline for several years now, according to a new Grant Thornton survey, but companies say their relationships with contracting officers have deteriorated more in the last year than in the past.

Grant Thornton surveyed more than 100 government contractors in 2011 for its 17th annual Grant Thornton Government Contractor Industry Survey, which was released Feb. 20. Of those contractors, 78 percent of them said the government is inefficient. But half of that 78 percent put the primary blame on the contracting officers, while 28 percent blame the auditors.

In an analysis of the responses, Grant Thornton said it’s a shift in blame from prior surveys in which most respondents blamed the Defense Contract Audit Agency for inefficiencies in resolving contract issues.

“It appears that respondents have come to expect delays from the DCAA, and are becoming more and more frustrated by the unwillingness of contracting officers to assert the decision-making authority granted to them in the procurement regulations,” according to the survey.

Grant Thornton said in practice, the auditors have been granted greater influence on contracting officers in recent years. They now exert more pressure on the officers regarding the resolution of a contracting issue involving contract costs or a contractor’s business systems. However, auditors are only advisors to the contracting officers.

“Predictably, the impact of this structural infighting has been to slow down the resolution of routine issues, with the government often paying a far higher cost than would have been paid had the auditor been limited to an advisory role as defined in the regulations,” Grant Thornton said.

Despite the shifts, auditors and contractors have had a not-so-good relationship, although the better relationship with contracting officers is hurting too.

The relationship with auditors was rated as “fair or poor” by 19 percent of the more than 100 surveyed companies, compared with 11 percent in the 16th annual survey.

The relationship with contracting officers was rated as “fair or poor” by 10 percent of the participants in the 17th annual survey, compared with 5 percent in the prior survey.

About the Author: Matthew Weigelt is a senior writer covering acquisition and procurement for Federal Computer Week. This article was published on Feb. 28, 2012 at http://washingtontechnology.com/articles/2012/02/28/relationships-contracting-officer-auditor-contractor.aspx?s=wtdaily_290212.

Search this Website