The Government has $130 Billion a Year in Contracts with No Definite services or Deadlines

The Government Has $130 Billion a Year in Contracts With No Definite Services or Deadlines

The Fiscal Times

Eric Pianin

The Fiscal TimesApril 17, 2017

Over the past five years, the federal government has committed to spending as much as $130 billion a year on supplies and services through unusual contracts that break the mold of traditional contracting practices.

Typically, when federal agencies buy anything from jetfighters to computer services to paper clips, they throw open bidding on major contracts to a number of eager businesses that compete to offer the best price, the most experience and the promise of meeting a deadline. Larger projects — like building a battle ships — are broken into scores of subcontracts that are bid out in similar fashion.

Related: Pentagon’s Sloppy Bookkeeping Means $6.5 Trillion Can’t Pass an Audit

Yet another type of contract, known as “indefinite delivery/indefinite quantity,” has become common at the Departments of Defense, Homeland Security, Health and Human Services and Veterans Affairs over the last decade or so, according to a new report by the General Accounting Office (GAO), with the Pentagon accounting for about 68 percent of all such contracts between 2011 and 2015.

For these so-called IDIQs, the government hand picks one or more contractors to commit to delivering products and services in the future and sets a ceiling on how much money will be spent overall. Awards are for a specified number of years with renewal options, but usually for no longer than five years.

Since 2005, thousands of these multiple-award, indefinite quantity programs have been launched, many with multi-billion-dollar spending ceilings. About two-thirds of government-wide IDIQ obligations were for services, such as architecture and engineering and IT support, while the remainder were for products.

Related: Why the Pentagon Budget Is Out of Control

The contracts are premised on maximizing the government’s flexibility in determining the exact quantity of products and services it requires and when they should be delivered. On the face of it, this practice offers the government some definite advantages, including maximum flexibility in purchasing services and products and controlling costs. Some officials said it was much easier and faster to place an order under an existing IDIQ contract than to award a separate contract when a specific need arose.

“IDIQs, when properly used, benefit the government,” said Brian Friel, founder of Nation Analytics and an expert on federal contracting. “Things can get awarded more quickly, so you can reduce the cost of acquisitions.... It’s flexible, generally fast, and it allows the government to not lock itself into a quantity it doesn’t need.”

On the other hand, impromptu decision-making on government acquisitions can sometime lead to errors or bad deals. Friel said the program has been subject to misuse and even scandal in the past, particularly when just one company is granted a contract with an open-ended scope. In cases like that, it may not always be the case that the government is getting the lowest cost or the best service.

Related: How the Pentagon Cooks the Books to Hide Massive Waste

“Over the years, there have been a lot of concerns with improper use,” Friel added in an interview. “The government pre-selects companies, so some other companies are locked out for an extended period of time.”

The contracts, while lucrative, can also pose risks to the contractors that secure them. Government officials can arbitrarily decide how much to buy and when to demand delivery. And agencies are under no obligation to spend all the money set aside for a project — leaving contractors at the mercy of government decision-making.