INPUT held its 6th annual MarketView conference yesterday, where I presented highlights from our new report, "Industry Leaders' Guide to the 2008 Administration Transition" (Click here to access the report). I talked briefly about our determination that, due to the upcoming administration transition and the current government environment, major procurement reform is unlikely until well into the next administration. However, we do foresee lots of incremental changes happening as an effort by Congress to get the momentum going before the new administration comes in. On April 23, we saw this happening with the three contracting reform bills passed by the House.

Although the House passed three contracting reform bills, there is one in particular that should cause contractors alarm. The Contractors and Federal Spending Accountability Act of 2008 requires the government to maintain a database of information regarding:

• Any civil or criminal proceeding, or any administrative proceeding that results in both a finding of fault and payment of restitution

• All federal contracts and grants that were terminated due to default

• All federal suspensions and debarments

• All federal administrative agreements entered into to resolve the suspension or debarment proceeding

• All final findings by a federal official that the contractor is not a responsible source

The provision requires any contractor bidding on a federal contract to disclose all of the information above. Any contractor with more than one judgment within any 3-year period would be automatically ineligible for a government contract.

Representative Tom Davis had problems with this bill from the start, and added his statement to the records. One of his concerns spoke directly to the problem of timing – any information going into the database about proceedings could have a "blacklist" effect on contractors before final decisions have been made. He noted:

"..the publication of information contained in administrative agreements made in connection with a proposed debarment or suspension raises concerns. When these agreements are executed, the debarment proceeding is not concluded--there is no decision to debar."

There are others issues as well. Does it establish fair criteria for the information to ensure that it's used properly? What if the information is not relevant to the immediate proposal? Are contracting officers (COs) adequately prepared to make judgments based on the information, which could be highly complex?

While the concept of a centralized database is beneficial, we may see some unintended consequences. With contracting officers using this information in the source selection process, what are the chances that we'll see in increase in protests in the future?