The Government Accountability Office (GAO) has concluded that the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) must strengthen its ability to provide effective training support for those charged with developing and implementing personnel systems reform.

With all the controversy surrounding pay-for-performance reward systems, the balking National Security Personnel System (NSPS), and Homeland Security’s new emerging approach, agencies need all the help and support they can get to deal with this key challenge that affects the functioning and well-being of the Executive Branch.

Brittany Ballenstedt (govexec.com) provides more insight in this report and its likely impact.

Another episode of just what we don’t want to see — more bad news about our collective inability to manage government contract work effectively.

This time our Coast Guard, according to the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Inspector General, apparently has contracted for billions of dollars of cutters that are not seaworthy.

When will someone step forth and save us from ourselves?  How can we get a handle on this problem?  Yet, the matter deals with more than contract administration.  There are technical issues which are not being conquered.  It is not merely about the government v. non-government staff.  It’s not like someone who chooses to work for Uncle Sam loses 20 IQ points and can’t function as well as her or his counterpart on the outside.  Contractors employed on this project can’t seem to solve apparent design deficiencies, although there may even be some debate over the extent or existence of any flaws.

The Washington Post article tells this important tale.

Fred Apelquist, contributing editor

As the new Congress begins to catch in stride, Senator Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.) is proposing legislation to deal with unreasonable profiteering from Iraq reconstruction efforts.

Stiff criminal penalties for contractor abuse will be included in Mr. Leahy’s bill, which the Senator says will curb gouging, fraud, and other nasty habits.

This could be a good first start to strengthen Procurement Officers’ power and encourage those doing business with the government to follow the rules – or else.

What do you think?  Will strong consequences, i.e., jail time, assist in getting a real handle on the Procurement Problem?

Fred Apelquist, contributing editor

As a federal retiree, I’m directly affected by Washington’s so-called “revolving door” environment.

In short, this refers to those who once worked for the federal government and are now employed in the private sector working on and supporting government programs, sometimes even projects which these people were intimately involved in when they worked for Uncle Sam.

Ethics rules exist to prevent abuses or the appearance of same, as discussed in Jenny Mandel’s article in Government Executive.

However, as Ms. Mandel reports, it’s not always that simple to determine who is violating what law or principle upon reengagement with the bureaucracy.

Are you clear about these rules?  Would you report an abuse, even if the person involved was a recent co-worker?

Just as you can’t have too much chocolate around the house, there can’t be too much procurement oversight.

The Forum applauds the Project on Government Oversight (POGO) for calling for closer and more effective management of the procurement process.

I suspect more organizations will make such a plea.  I also suspect that Congress and others may balk at the option to squarely wrestle with this beast, as it’s bigger than a breadbox and as dense as a Black Hole to penetrate.

Nevertheless, we should start to chip away at some point, shouldn’t we?

Fred Apelquist, contributing editor

The drumbeat continues.  Personnel.  Procurement.  If it’s not one, it’s the other.   Yesterday, we shared an article about personnel management.  Today, we read more about procurement weaknesses and shortcomings which impair our government’s effectiveness and lose oodles of money.

One of our loyal readers, Joe, weighed in yesterday about one of his favorite topics – personnel practices affecting the federal workforce – and provided his usual insightful take on the situation.  But as for the survey results saying that the government procurement practices are not up to private industry’s standards, what do you think?

If it is true, how are we going to move beyond our current sub-optimal state into one of excellence?

Give us your thoughts.

Fred Apelquist, contributing editor

Two recent articles highlight problems with government contractors and personnel issues:

The article about some contractor employees at Guantanamo Bay Naval Base not only conducting interrogations of detainees but also (possibly) giving orders to military staff regarding their raises huge questions about what work can and should be contracted to non-government employees as well as how contracts requesting private support are bid, awarded, and monitored. 

The other, by Stephen Barr in his Federal Diary column, again reminds us about how the importance of sound personnel management of government employees.

A tale is told of a once great supplier of federal goods and services, which may no longer be as great as it was.

Is this the story behind the story told by Daniel Pulliam of govexec.com?

It seems as though GSA may be losing its touch in attracting federal agencies to employ its services to provide them with same.

I recall many years ago that GSA was the only game in town.  Federal agencies had to obtain goods and services (office space, equipment, computers, etc.) through GSA.  Now, other means for procuring these commodities are available.  GSA no longer possesses monopoly like stature.

Why is GSA seeing this decline?  Any ideas?

From the Department of Redundancy Department, we bring you a story about inadequate federal, state and local coordination to achieve effective integrated homeland security activities.

Not all news is bad, however, as 37 states have already decided to proceed without waiting for the federal government to have everything in place.

With an initiative of this magnitude and an objective to identify and apprehend security risks, many critics cite privacy concerns reminiscent of those during the 1960’s protest era.  Mary Beth Sheridan and Spencer S. Hsu provide more details in their Washington Post December 31^st article.

What do you think?  Are the states correct to press forward?  How well will the national and state executive branches work together?  What advice can you offer?