If I knew then: Rob Burton

This is part of a recurring series, where former federal leaders reflect upon the lessons learned since leaving government.

Robert Burton, now a partner at law firm Venable, previously served as deputy administrator of the Office of Federal Procurement Policy (OFPP) from 2001 to 2008. He also served as acting administrator for two of those years. That capped a federal acquisition career that lasted nearly 30 years.

If you knew then what you know now….

How would you have partnered with industry differently?

While serving as the acting and deputy administrator of the Office of Federal Procurement Policy at OMB, I instituted quarterly meetings with industry associations and other industry partners that resulted in useful recommendations for changes to the Federal Acquisition Regulation and new acquisition policy initiatives. At the time, I personally recognized the value of frequent communication and interaction with industry. Now, having worked in a law firm the last seven years, I recognize that not everyone in government shares this view.

If I was back at OFPP, I would focus on requiring agency acquisition and program management personnel to make communication with industry a top priority. This is frequently not viewed as a priority and, in many cases, some government managers think it is inappropriate to meet with industry. In most cases, especially in potential dispute situations, communication is the key to solving the problem. Improving government-industry communications should be a top priority for ensuring the health of the federal acquisition system.

How would you have worked more effectively within the confines of the Federal Acquisition Regulation?

After working in the private sector, I recognize that a growing number of government contracting officials are reluctant to do anything that is not specifically authorized in the FAR. Of course, the FAR encourages just the opposite behavior. The FAR specifically states that contracting personnel are empowered with broad discretion in the performance of their job responsibilities. But, in an era of increased oversight, contracting personnel do not have the incentive to be innovative or to exercise discretion in creative ways. If I was still at OFPP, I would make it a priority to identify and address the factors that are contributing to the misconception that the FAR somehow restricts innovative solutions to contracting problems. This growing misconception is having a very negative impact on the federal procurement process.

How would you have sought out innovative ideas and solutions to help your organization function better?

From a governmentwide acquisition policy perspective, there is no question that improving the description of individual contract requirements will add the most value and improve federal procurements more than any other single initiative. During my federal and private sector careers, I have observed that almost all legal problems and disputes are rooted in poorly defined contract requirements. Government program managers and contracting personnel can contribute to the improvement of the contract requirements. Seeking innovative ideas and methods to develop well-defined and clear contract requirements should be a priority of OFPP and OMB.

In this regard, while serving at OFPP, I would have encouraged agencies to adopt what the private sector calls "value analysis" or "value methodology." The federal government uses the term "value engineering." Simply put, it is a program management tool that, in the context of a procurement, allows agency stakeholders to engage in brainstorming and a productive dialogue that will lead to the development of clearly defined contract requirements. The brainstorming sessions usually result in innovative solutions and ideas that will ensure that the government procures what it really needs. Value engineering is a simple and cost-effective concept, but the government has not widely used it. By embracing the concept, the government will not only improve the quality of its procurements, but it will facilitate increased communication between agency program managers and contracting personnel. This communication and teaming is critical to the improvement of the contract requirements process.