Editorial: The culture war

The decision to pull the share-in-savings rule is part of a divisive culture in which agencies cannot try anything new or innovative. That needs to change

We were disappointed — but not shocked — when the share-in-savings contracting program was put on life support.

The agency councils that craft acquisition rules agreed to withdraw a 2004 proposal that outlines the parameters for the innovative and controversial contracting method. In bureaucratic terms, share-in-savings has lost its statutory authority. Translation: It has lost the wind from its sails.

The move is troubling, even beyond the fate of share-in-savings. It is the most recent and perhaps clearest indication of a terrible procurement climate. The outlook starkly contrasts to a decade ago when leaders ushered in reforms that streamlined and revolutionized the government’s procurement system.

That was a period of change, when people tested innovative ideas and concepts in hopes that they could find new and better ways to do the government’s business.

But so much has happened in the past year. The General Services Administration has had notable problems. Contracting issues — real or perceived — with Hurricane Katrina relief efforts attracted national criticism. And of course, David Safavian’s arrest and subsequent indictment shook the procurement world.

In Safavian’s defense, he was serving as the Office of Federal Procurement Policy’s administrator when he was arrested, and the indictment does not relate to his OFPP post or government procurement — at least so far.

But that has not stopped people from slinging cheap shots at the Bush administration as part of a partisan scheme. That is unfair, and it fosters a culture that prevents measures that could lead to improving the way agencies do business.

In this landscape, is anybody surprised that the government has let a concept such as share-in-savings wither? Questions still loom about its effectiveness, but we will not be able to test the theory. That is disappointing, not only for share-in-savings, but for other potentially innovative programs — perhaps ones that we do not even know about yet — that could disappear before being given an opportunity to prove themselves.