Saturday, July 4, 2009
Government Services Insider, entering its fifth year, provides insight and commentary on the companies that provide professional services, including IT, to the federal government. We're interested in the supplier-side—best practices, strategies that work, lessons learned, and how to thrive in the government space. Last but not least, we're independent
The Insider Promise:
Every subscriber will find in each issue at least one strategy or
action-ready idea with a value many times the cost of a
subscription.
Government Services Insider, an independent source of insight on the professional and IT services firms that serve the federal government, is in its sixth year of publication. The Insider focuses on successful business strategies, lessons learned, best practices, and critical inputs to thinking through improvements in business management and development.
The Insider is independent—no advertising, no sponsorships of industry events, no reason for clouded conclusions and recommendations. We don't try to report the news, but rather give insight into what it means for the industry.
The Insider is published monthly in Washington. Contact: www.gsinsider.com or editor@gsinsider.com or 202.237.0765 for information.
Note on distribution: In the typical month, subscribers can access the pdf of the complete new issue on this site in the first week of the month by using their user IDs and passwords to enter the Subscribers Only section of this Web site. We also "push" our all-electronic distribution to paid subscribers via email.
Aided by rare bipartisan votes, the White House delivered quickly on reforms dear to the president's heart. Some aims are hardy perennials—discussed endlessly and snuffed out over decades. This time, things could be different. We identify major business implications of the legislation.
Legislation passed last year and last month, as well as a recent GAO report, put the spotlight on the non-use of past-performance information by the government. Alan Chvotkin explains what's happening, the pitfalls, and what to do about it. If you haven't requested your clients to file those reports, you really should. They only prepare 1/3 of the number that is required.
Two of the top integrators should be shaken by the administration's move to gut the troubled Army program. Who's left to do this kind of work? The two Lead Systems Integrators can't help but be associated with a program that did not deliver the technology on time, did not produce designs that the Department of Defense thought were worthy of the expense, and was miserably behind schedule. The salient point about LSIs is that they do more of the government-side management roles and functions than conventional prime contractors and integrators. It would be interesting to see what a past-performance evaluation on them prepared by the Army would look like.
Often subject to attack for its behavior, KBR found a new source of hostility in May when a Detroit pension fund accused its board of mismanagement and damaging shareholder value. While not implausible, the suit has gained almost no publicity—and seems like somewhat of a trial balloon to us. (No pun intended.) If nothing else, it might make boards more alert.
Yes, the government can't do without Wall Street financial expertise to execute some of the bailout programs. We believe it's a risk worth taking. Again, typical government contractors need not apply.
Focused on efficiencies, not effectiveness, the current Homeland Security review of contracts and extensions over $1 million will have just spotty impacts on contractors for a few years. The Department is looking specifically at "professional services" contracts—a rare focus outside DoD. Firms in the "staff augmentation" business should be the most vulnerable to trimming or termination—but only if the government can hire or run a competition conveniently and timely.