POGO's Scott Amey flags this update on the government's suspension of IBM from obtaining federal contracts: WASHINGTON (AP) — The government has lifted a week-old ban that prevented IBM from getting new federal contracts in an exchange for an agreement from the company to drop its protest of an $84 million Environmental Protection Agency contract it lost last year. ... The two sides on Thursday signed an agreement in which IBM agreed to withdraw its protest from the Government Accountability Office and drop any interest in competing for the contract. The company will also refund the EPA any attorneys fees and costs the agency paid to IBM in regard to the filing of the protest. Amey notes the general implications for government oversight of contractors: So after seven days, what have we learned? The EPA is now convinced that IBM is a responsible contractor. The government believes that public-private agreements (and the promises within them) go a long way in establishing contractor responsibility. The government's reliance on large contractors is a big factor in government decisions. And, the decision to lift IBM's suspension may have been different if this were a small business (see Ray Bjorklund's quote in today's AP story). As many of you know, federal contracting is complex and imperfect. We are talking about big money, politics, profits, power, influence, "best value" and so many other factors--as recently witnessed in the Air Force tanker contract award, bid protest, and subsequent fallout. I hope that EPA's decisions were aimed at protecting taxpayers. Finally, I appreciate EPA's effort to hold a contractor and its employees accountable, however short-lived, as well as IBM's willingness to promise to do the right thing.