Contract Considerations

Across this forum there are many threads suggesting the Program is currently inefficient, operating at excessive costs, and ineffective at delivering its objectives. Several suggest the answers reside within additional/alternative contracting types.

Recall the Program just modified its contracting strategy to initiate Risk MAP. The current strategy has supported the Program through major programmatic changes including new watershed based approaches, new data products, new communications, new delivery mechanisms, new guidance, new metrics, new priorities and new behavior. Only now is the Program maturing to the point where purchasing and implementation are aligning with the goals that Risk MAP strives to attain. The Program should be proud of its achievements over the last 4 years, all within progressive budget decreases.

Perhaps there could be significant gains by simply moving toward a period of programmatic and contractual consistency affording FEMA, its providers and stakeholders the opportunity to further align, optimize and perform. And where change is imminent, such as BW12, the Program should consider how the proposed alternative contract structures would better accommodate the pending needs for quality analysis, credible communication of technical results, and instilling the confidence that the data and risk assessments are correct. Introducing major contracting mods, the extra associated management, and the increased demands to ensure seamless knowledge transfer across them could actually introduce additional inconsistencies with unintended consequences.