Elizabeth Newell wrote an good summary last week in Government Executive magazine of the state of a handful of reforms to the federal contracting process that have been stalled in the Senate Homeland Security and Government Affairs Committee. With time running out in this congressional session, a number of sweeping contracting reform bills are languishing on the back burner. Several significant pieces of acquisition legislation are stuck in the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee, and their authors are attaching provisions to other bills in a last-ditch effort to address federal acquisition issues. We've seen this strategy pay off already this year, as the article goes on to note. At the end of June, two contracting reforms were enacted as part of the latest war supplemental spending bill, and back in May, another reform passed as part of the HEART Act, a bill to give tax cuts to veterans. I'm hoping it pays off again in September (although Neil Gordon writing over on POGO's blog isn't very optimistic). One small gripe about the article though. Newell quotes Colleen Preston, the executive vice president for public policy with the Professional Services Council (PSC). The PSC is a trade association that represents the interests of government contractors - counting some of the largest government contractors like Lockheed Martin and Boeing as members. Preston's quotes are, well, predictable. Preston said to some extent the pileup of contracting legislation is an election-year inevitability. The problems the bills seek to address may be real, she said, the solutions may not be what the government really needs. "The real problem is the acquisition workforce," she said. "Until the government can address that issue, it's not clear anything will make a difference." I want to move past the strange assertion that the government doesn't need solutions to real problems in federal contracting and cut straight to the bashing that Preston gives government contracting officers. It's so nice for her to come along and explain to us all that the problem is simply the bureaucrats. Oh, now I get it. Problem solved! I suppose Preston feels the problem isn't related to contractors? Not at all? Really? Contractors never deliver products that don't work, never go over budget, never intentionally charge the government more than they should, never "/article/blogs/entry/5273/2" target="_blank">waste resources, and never fall behind schedule? Contractors never break laws or cheat or try to get every advantage and perk to turn a profit? Please. I take issue with Newell's failure to mention that PSC is an interest group whose purpose is to promote the use and reliability of federal contractors. Knowing that, it becomes obvious that PSC has no interest in exposing its members to public scrutiny or burdensome reforms; better to blame the government for the failures of private contractors.