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's 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, and 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, doughnuts, 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 its 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 didn't 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.
