Merry Christmas, Departments of Defense and Interior.  You won the prize.  You appeared on the front page of The Washington Post.  Now, all the world knows of your good intentions but poor execution of Pentagon purchases.

The Inspector Generals (IGs) of the Departments of Defense and Interior found that over 90% of the purchases they reviewed were made without first verifying the cost estimates contained in the contracts as “fair and reasonable.”

My article this Friday, Part II of the Year in Review, will highlight the procurement challenges the Executive Branch has faced this year and the apparent inadequacy of extant systems to effectively manage this process and avoid this sort of reported waste and abuse.

I’m asking Paul Denett and his Office of Federal Procurement Policy to provide “The Forum” with a comment on this story.  Perhaps some key aspects are incorrect or have not been placed in proper perspective.  On the surface, I’d imagine Mr. Denett and Company would be pleased that Defense and Interior are collaborating on procurement matters rather than having each reinventing the wheel and incurring costs already charged to another agency.  One would expect some economies would result from such an approach.

If nothing else, this article by Robert O’Harrow, Jr. and Scot Higham identifies the massive challenge our government faces in properly – and closely – managing billions upon billions of dollars of contracted goods and services.

If there is a bright side to this, it is that our IGs are able to expose such deficiencies so that future fixes may be fashioned.

We have to get this right.  If not, it’s like running your heater in the winter with the front door wide open. 

Does anybody have any ideas for getting a better grip on the situation?

Fred Apelquist, contributing editor

This story about the Head of GSA, Lurita Doan, and her Inspector General (IG) has legs as long as a giraffe’s.

What’s going on over there?

Not to dismiss the importance of objective, incisive program reviews, for which IGs are famous, why is there so much scuttlebutt?  Is this merely bureaucratic inside baseball at its best?

I invite anyone who’s familiar with the details to enlighten our readers.  At one level this has all the trappings of a classical scorned employee or personality clash.  Or, is there a legitimate, serious and enduring level of malfeasance?  And, if it is the latter, what can be done?  The cost of impeding efficient operations and alienating a large workforce is incalculable.

Fred Apelquist, contributing editor

The Federal Government has a problem marketing itself so it can attract workers from Generation Y, those 18 – 29 year olds upon whom the welfare of the country will depend to carry out the future business of the government. 

Scary, huh?  Not really.

Yesterday, The Washington Post hosted a seminar to discuss a study done by The Gallup Organization in conjunction with the Council for Excellence in Government (CEG) that analyzed future worker needs, what these people valued, and whether agency jobs sufficiently appealed to this cohort. 

Some participants joked that perhaps we should lose the drab, uninspiring “Federal Government” moniker and opt for something a bit punchier.

I suggest “Uncle Sam’s Club.”  After all, Wal-Mart did pretty well with “Sam’s Club,” named after founder Sam Walton who started out with rural five-and-dime stores and became one of the biggest retailers in the world.

Seriously, the Gallup and CEG research found that one-third (34%) of the 46 million “Gen Y” folks would consider the government as a possible employer.  Plus, two of the main job motivators for these people (job security and compensation/benefits) matched their perception of life in “Uncle Sam’s Club.”  In short, the apocalyptic news about the effect of the anticipated massive retirements (brain drain) from the federal government in the next five years or so may not be as dire as we earlier thought. 

However, considerable challenges remain.  The study noted that “innovation and creativity,” which was valued by our target workforce population, was perceived by them to be virtually non-existent with Uncle Sam.  Only three percent (3%) thought of the government as a source of innovation and creativity.

Many at the seminar – seasoned government employees – demurred, acknowledging that their current jobs demand both these traits and future ones will require them in increasing measure as citizens’ service demands grow and budget levels dwindle or remain relatively static.

One panel participant hailed from Gen Y, Andi Fisher-Colwill, an analyst in the Office of Performance Budgeting at the Department of Treasury, envisioned a career where she could “change the world.”  I was pleased to hear this.  You may recall that this was a prevalent sentiment among the soon-to-be-retiring Baby Boomers that the federal agencies will soon be replacing.

I liked Andi’s idealism.  It was not only refreshing, but also reminiscent of my generation’s work aspirations in the tuirbulent 1960s and 70s.  Perhaps the work things change, the more they remain the same after all.

Fred Apelquist, contributing editor