Ahh, this brings us to the ratification process, the oft-unused method by which the Government attempts to make an unauthorized commitment all-OK in the eyes of fiscal and contract law.
In the case I mentioned, it was merely one of several hundred that were rolled into a task order negotiation for LOGCAP. I had the opportunity to see this through the eyes of one of the Administrative Contracting Officers assigned to work that period's current task order for the big support (or LOGCAP) contract.
It went a little something like this:
The Government and Contractor (KBR) meet in a conference room. The Govvies bring with them a binder or two containing everything they legitimately ordered done under the scope, terms and conditions of the contract. The Government reps in this case were warranted contracting officers assigned to the contract, and had issued orders in full compliance with relevant laws, rules and regulations. KBR reps were the company's contracting representatives, in most cases former Government people of the same ilk, with the company's authority to negotiate and obligate.
KBR reps ask for a small delay, as their documentation was being brought by another rep, and that rep had not yet arrived. About half an hour later, the Government is starting to get impatient (and confident), and interpret the delay as KBR being on their ass, and began to think this negotiation was going to go very well for the Government.
The documentation finally arrives in the form of at least one (I forget if it was more) of those library cart things full of binders, documenting order after order. Obviously, this doesn't match up with what the Government KOs think is true. The lead Govvie immediately asks what KBR's bottom line is. KBR responds to something like, "6.8". The Government is pleased, but asks why a mere $6.8million requires so much documentation. KBR says, "Million? We never said 'million'".
As it turns out, the binders that KBR brought were chock-full of "drive-by" orders from unit leaders all over the country. Sidewalks, gazebos, decorations, maintenance work done outside scope, extended hours, you name it. Some of the things were perfectly reasonable, but still were ordered by "Sergeant Major X", or "Captain Y" (guys who held apparent, but not actual authority) at countless FOBs and places all over that country. In every case, the DCUs in question never actually consulted anyone in the contracting chain of custody; they just pointed and shouted a lot. The local rep either complied out of patriotism, fear or just ignorance that the DCUs in front of him couldn't actually tell him to do squat. In every case, though, the contractor diligently added up the cost and sent it to higher.
If I remember right, the Government basically took it right in the shorts, and then turned to and went after the offenders, with varying degrees of success. In usually every case, the KOs working each and every ratification got the "Few Good Men speech" from some senior soldier who told him that the sidewalk or gazebo was ABSOLUTELY ESSENTIAL to the war effort, and that they wouldn't tolerate some paper-pusher coming down to their location and telling them what they could or couldn't do in their battle space. Support from very senior leadership? Not so much.
I guess I posted this just to point out that the whole "contractors = bad" narrative isn't all it's briefed to be. Where you sit often determines what you see.
Originally Posted by Ken White
Bookmarks