What are some ways to hold government military contractors accountable for their actions? Holding government/military contractors accountable on delivery dates, price, and quality has the potential to save US taxpayers literally thousands and possibly millions of dollars each year. Most people realize that Research and Development represents a significant cost in any technological advance and those expenses have to be recovered in order for a company to maintain its profitability. Each year the federal government lets hundreds of contracts on behalf of the military and other government agencies. Just as companies need to maintain their profitability, the government needs to be able to depend on contractors to deliver the materials on time, meeting specifications, and for the agreed upon cost. Yet under the present system it sometimes seems that contractors are better off missing deadlines in order to obtain additional taxpayer monies. How can this system be changed?
First, insist upon strictly enforced penalties for companies that fail to meet their delivery dates. I think monetary penalties and fines should start once a company has missed the agreed upon delivery date by 60 days. It's not unreasonable for the government to expect a company to deliver a finished product on time. Yes, it's possible that there could be delays in receiving the product due to problems with shipping companies outside the contractor's control. Who can forget the trouble caused numerous companies across the US just a few years ago when UPS workers went on strike? An event of that nature should not be held against a contractor. But, if a contractor misses a delivery date due to problems on the production line or in obtaining the raw material to make the product; that is the contractor's problem. And taxpayers should not be expected to pay for the delays with cost overruns or additional charges. By charging a contractor a penalty for late delivery and having those charges escalate the longer the delay will force companies to better assess their capabilities to deliver on a contract.
Second, penalize companies for delivering shoddy merchandize or goods that don't meet specified standards. How many lives have been lost in our history because a contractor cut corners when making military goods. In every war that American men and women have fought lives have been lost needlessly because equipment didn't arrive as promised from the contractor, or greedy companies and individuals delivered clothing items, including boots and shoes that were made with substandard materials, or weapons that didn't work as advertised when contracts were let. Repeated instances, like those above, should cause a company to eliminated from government contracts for a specified number of years, and possible criminal action brought against corporate executives; in addition to large fines. Contractors should never be allowed to get rich on the backs of shoddy and substandard items being delivered to the military or any other government agency.
Eliminate cost overruns on government contracts. While this measure might seem to drive costs of government contracts up, I think the opposite might be true. By forcing companies to realistically estimate the cost of making and delivering the items covered by the contract; you are reducing the possibility of low balling the cost in order to get the contract. I think this probably happens more often than tax payers realize, because today companies know that once they have the contract they can come back to the government asking for additional monies to complete the product. This practice, because of the governments habit of giving the contract to the lowest bidder, gives companies an incentive to deliberately price a bid at a price they cannot make the specified goods/materials for. Eliminating cost overruns would substantially lower the odds of a company delivering this type of bid. Again, companies that routinely fail to deliver the goods based on the agreed upon price should be penalized by being unable to bid on government/military contracts for a specified number of years.
If measures similar to those mentioned above were applied to military contracts the costs of government, at least in some areas, could be brought down. No one is suggesting that the military be forced to use outdated equipment, or to make do with less of necessary materials. What is being suggested is that the military hold contractors accountable for delivering material on time, meeting specified standards, and within agreed upon costs.