As the article above states, That which I am sworn to do is to “…ensure the government buys what it needs, builds it well and gets what it pays for.” And I’ve never objected to ANY amount of scrutiny or oversight of my SETA activities 24/7 in this respect. Bring on whatever GAO or IG Team you want…my performance as a SETA is ALWAYS open for review.

At the end of the day however, I understand too that OCI does distill down to a matter of perception. If we SETAs are hip deep in advising our customer concerning or even evaluating an NG Mission Systems product, there are some who would look at that and cry foul…rightly or wrongly. Perception is reality in the mind of the individual. It’s a shame we TASC SETAs can be trusted with the nation’s highest secrets, but we cannot seem to earn the trust of the nation concerning this issue of OCI.

– Thankfully, MIG, Sukhoi, Tupelov, etc have never built systems that can compare with any of ours.

– Competition is good and the taxpayer benefits. Awarding conracts to companies with no technical experience in the field (such as Boeing and FIA) was ludicrous. Past performance matters, and every acquisition study repeatedly shows this. Unfortunately, govt RFP processes are so watering down the past performance evaluation in RFPs that all competitors are scoring the same, essentially removing this as a discriminator. Companies that are outside the program cite their management skills, but they have no technical skills, and if they win, these programs are in trouble from the outset.

Let’s say there is only one team that can do the job. If there is an advisor advising Congress that this particular weapon system is the only way to go, then it still smells fishy when the advisor is being paid by the manufacturer.

You probably know a lot more about this than I do. But I wonder why the Russians have MIG, Sukhoi, Tupelov, Ilyushin, Beriev, Antonov, etcetera to bid one one project and we have Boeing and Lockheed/Grumman. Why if our global rivals have actual competition that all have expertise in fantastically complicated projects, why can’t we do this too? Because the defense department consultants (lobbyists) and the manufacturers have been far too close to each other for decades.

The problem is systemic. We do not really have competitors. We have a system that seems to be gamed by the companies who build the equipment and the companies that promote them. This leads to waste and questionable procurement patterns.

It has to stop somewhere. We have to have more than one team that can do the job. And if the pressure doesn’t come from Congress, who will fix this?

Respectfully

Daniel Russ
Civilianmilitaryintelligencegroup.com

No one is going to document their own bias. If you want documentation that it actually happened, then you can go to the CBO and they keep records of these matters, or Google the topic and find literally hundreds of articles written on the subject by what is left of our o called media. It should be available and free since it’s paid out of your tax dollars.

The bias has been uncovered by Congress, that’s why the rule changes are being put forward and they are put forward to do one simple thing: make sure that weapons manufacturers are not paying the salaries of the consultants who tout their products.

If the firewalls worked, the rule changes wouldn’t have been offered. These changes were not written or offered in a vacuum. They were born because enough people in the process see it as a conflict of interest.

@DensityDuck

If negotiating government contracts were as difficult as running a two minute mile, then there would only be a handful of people negotiating government contracts. In fact, there are tens of thousands of them. So finding the right expert on a weapon system, or finding the right price to charge the tax payer shouldn’t be as hard as finding a super fast runner.

It wasn’t too long ago that high level government officials were recommending the Boeing tanker refit as the new air to air refueler. Then people caught wind of the fact that the high level officials had interests in the contract for Boeing.

That said, this is an attempt to keep waste out of procurement, and make sure that Congressional officials, who control the purse-strings on these contracts, hear the advice of people who are truly independent, not on the dole.

Daniel Russ
Civilianmilitaryintelligencegroup.com

In my 27+ years of work in the Government and Industry, I am unaware. People who work in SETA companies have much closer allegiance to their customer and their missions than they do to any corporate identity.

Effective firewalls do work by preventing the illegal transfer of recommendations, etc. However, the issue is one of appearance (one that you fell into) and that is always in the eye of the beholder.

The effects of this new law will be widespread as there are few if any Tier 1 or Tier 2 Aerospace and IT companies exempt from this language. The prospects for fire sales and destructive impacts to Government customers missions are Huge.

It’s like asking your car dealer which brand of car is the best for you to buy. If he’s a Toyota dealer, he’s going to tell you to buy a Toyota. But if you ask Consumer Reports, they’re going to objectively tell you what you should be driving.

Congress noticed that none of these companies ever recommend any contractor than the ones who are paying the “advisors”. This is a much needed correction and will do a lot to reduce the waste in US military procurement.

Daniel Russ
Civilianmilitaryintelligencegroup.com

The problem isn’t advisement given to the government.

As far as the contractor base is concerned for SETAs, it is still robust and there are companies who core capability is being a SETA and not a developmental contractor. Companies such as Scitor, IAI, SRS Mantech as well as FFRDCs such as SEI, Aerospace & MITRE.

This is a good thing and not a bad thing. The sky is not falling as a result and the other companies mentioned above will absorb contracts and employees as a result. There will be no perception of conflict and I don’t have to kick my subject matter experts out of the room during a crucial time in a review.