Five Things I've Learned

enning some 60 Federal Marketplace columns for Government Executive since the summer of 1997 has taught me innumerable lessons. These top five have been vital to writing about government procurement trends: Cultivate good sources, get the word out, celebrate success, know that people make a difference and simplify.

Good sources are No. 1. Finding out what's new and then passing the information along helps every professional improve. In my explorations for this column, I've traced the beginnings of FedBizOpps, the government's procurement Web site; learned about the hazards of automating procurement systems; and heard about award term contracting for the first time. Over the last year, the ups and downs of performance-based contracting and competitive sourcing have been the hottest topics, not only in government but also in the private sector.

One of my best inside sources was the former senior procurement executive for the General Services Administration, Ida Ustad. Ida, who died in November 1999, was the ideal civil servant: smart, conscientious, knowledgeable and always willing to help. She was attuned to the market, kept up to date on developments and had a good sense of what was important. GSA has established an award in her name, which gives $5,000 to a federal contract specialist who has distinguished himself as a business leader or adviser.

I knew Ida for many years in my role as administrator of the Office of Federal Procurement Policy and as a consultant in the private sector. I could give her a call any time and say, "Ida, any interesting things for the community?" She always had two or three issues at the top of her list and would point me in the right direction.

My goals in these pages have been to inform and celebrate success. Ida recognized what every government manager should learn: Getting the word out is easily half the battle. Contrary to popular belief, the federal work environment does not discourage independent thought. If it did, who of substance would want to work in it? Managers need to understand their agency's vision and goals as well as their role in making things happen.

Attempts to get the message across tend to be dismissed as political spinning and irrelevant to federal managers. But so much of the nuts and bolts of government management require an understanding of what's needed. Managers need to know not only the why, but also the how. Many of the diciest management issues focus on the government's ability to employ outside help, either contractors or grantees, to accomplish its mission. Understanding how to use new contracting tools is critical.

Take performance-based contracting as an example. It's been around for more than a decade, and now it's a centerpiece of the president's management agenda. But to do it well, there's a whole new contracting language that must be understood. Words such as "outcomes," "performance metrics," "surveillance plans" and "acceptable quality levels" have a special meaning in the context of performance-based contracting. If you don't have the right people working together at the outset of the project, you're never going to get the accountability and the solution the methodology promises.

Helping federal employees internalize these concepts and work in partnership is essential. Celebrating success and rewarding those involved, as the Census Bureau did in its innovative shared-mission contracting efforts for the 2000 census, encourages others to jump on the bandwagon.

Training also is vital. In one of my columns, Comptroller General David Walker decried cuts in training and professional development as the first casualties when budgets tighten. He's dead on. If you are going to try to do new things, then you need to give people the opportunity to develop the necessary skills. What's more important to the government's success than the competency of its people? Moreover, training should be provided just when it's needed and not so far in advance of a project that it's useless.

There is a greater recognition in the defense world than in civilian agencies of the breadth of the acquisition workforce and the importance of training. Too often contracting specialists are blamed when a project goes awry, when in fact someone from the program office failed to think through a strategy, look at alternatives or have a plan to mitigate risks. These critical pieces of the acquisition picture are primarily the responsibility of program and technical staff, not of contracting officers. Getting an integrated project team together at the start and developing an acquisition strategy that all can agree on goes a long way toward success.

As I write this final column, I realize that getting the word out hasn't always been easy. Having Government Executive's Sue Fourney look at my fractured syntax and ask, "Is this what you mean?" can be humbling, but has gone a long way toward making these pieces readable and understandable. Thinking back on all the government regulations, forms and documents I've plowed through over the years, I have one more recommendation for managers: Simplify. One way is to get a good editor.