A Necessary Distance
There I was in a local mall, having just taken the kids to see
the Big Man — Santa himself. I was sitting on a bench when
a familiar face appeared, a man I knew when he worked at the General
Services Administration. We nodded to each other, exchanged some
pleasantries, and off he went. I mused about the fact that he
and I had sparred on more than one occasion over some GSA Schedule
matter, but had always respected each other. But since he worked
for the government, and I represent private contractors, we never
sat down over so much as a cup of coffee, let alone a beer. There
was always, and still was, a necessary distance between us.
That necessary distance was a good thing to have in place. Yes,
that necessary distance keeps me from becoming friends or even
socializing with government procurement workers, yet it is worth
it. It allows both them and me to act at all times in the best
interests of our respective principals. There is no question that
friendship will possibly cloud our judgment. That helps keep the
system fair and square, based on the merit of a product or bid,
not on personal relationships.
The federal procurement system, even as now relaxed in so many
ways, still has laws on the books that are designed to prevent
tilting procurements based on favors. Contractors are not allowed
to give, nor contracting personnel allowed to accept, anything
but coffee, donuts, and trinkets. Most contracting personnel I
know, to their credit, wouldn’t even accept that. They know,
as I do, that the separation between us is the foundation of fair
dealing.
Some large contractors have put into place the same type of policies
that the government has to prevent even the appearance, let alone
the reality, of favoritism, bribery, or kickbacks. But the commercial
contracts culture is different, more fluid, and it seems harder,
if not just plain contrary, to try to stop commercial representatives
from trying to ingratiate themselves with customers, competitors,
and prospects.
The government is a somewhat regulated marketplace that strives
to achieve fairness as well as value in its procurements. After
all, this is taxpayer money, yours and mine, and it must be spent
fairly, and not spent on favorites.
I know that the word “regulated” carries a heavy load
these days, a bad connotation, but regulation is not a black and
white issue. Few would oppose the regulation — also called
zoning — that keeps adult bookstores away from schools and
churches. And no one in their right mind would complain that its
wrong to regulate the safety of air travel. It’s a question
of the importance of what is being regulated, and the heavy-handedness
of the regulations.
Recent changes in procurement law have relaxed the acquisition
process. The idea is to make the government’s procurement
practices more like that of large corporations, more commercial.
The result has been quicker and easier contracts, but also a system
that favors increased marketing to agencies. This means fewer
awards for small businesses unable to market personally to agency
buyers.
So what’s the cost if the necessary distance between vendors
and the government is shortened? I was recently at a state protest
hearing where the protester’s story involved about-faces
by the agency and lobbying by the winning bidder. Read between
the lines, the case showed a certain closeness between the agency
and the winner bidder, a closeness that the competitors certainly
did not share. Was it illegal? Could the protester prove that
either the agency or the winning bidder had crossed the line?
Whatever the official outcome, the cost may be cynicism among
losing contractors that bidding doesn’t matter, it’s
who you know. If cynicism grows, then there will be fewer and
fewer bidders willing to take the risk and incur the costs necessary
to market and respond to government agencies. In the end, both
the agencies and the taxpaying public will be the real losers.
