Help - Search - Members - Calendar
Full Version: The Prime-Vendor System
America's Debate > Archive > Policy Debate Archive > [A] Domestic Policy
Google
Eeyore
The studies on the newer more privatized American military always leave my head spinning because it is so hard to figure out if the government is getting the best prices for goods and services that meet its specialized needs.

Headlines often pick out items like expensive toilet seats and hammers to show the flaws in government procurement systems.

For this story it is ice cube trays:

QUOTE
• $20 ice cube trays that sold for 85 cents elsewhere
• $81 coffee makers listed elsewhere at $29
• $43 coffee filter packs that typically sell for $11


These prices are defended in the same article

QUOTE
Defenders of the prime vendor program highlight its speed. Fast deliveries eliminate the need for stocking and warehousing, shifting those costs to manufacturers and vendors. The Defense Logistics Agency borrowed these cost-saving strategies from the private sector, which successfully experimented with the consolidation of supply chains in the 1980s.


Critics also attack the process as inefficient:

QUOTE
Another manufacturer who formerly sold directly to the government but now sells to a prime vendor said the prime vendor’s price inflation is blatant and unwarranted.

“I resent it as a taxpayer,” said the firm’s chief executive officer, who spoke on condition of anonymity for fear of losing business. “Before, we’d sell it to (the Defense Department) for a hell of a lot less money. I don’t make money on it. (The prime vendor) is making money hand over fist.”


Read through this article and surf the web or your own personal knowledge and chime in on this debate.

The question for debate is:

As best you can tell from the available information, is the prime-vendor system good or bad for the American taxpayer?
Google
quarkhead
As best you can tell from the available information, is the prime-vendor system good or bad for the American taxpayer?


This system of course doesn't extend much outside the DoD. When I was involved in helping a government agency with computer systems, procuring new computers took a long time, and the computers were certainly not up-to-date systems.

The 'speedy' defense seems to me only really applicable to items of real importance. Perhaps body armor, or some other essential materiel. I can't really imagine how this defense works for ice cube trays and coffee-makers.

If I saw some definitive numbers that proved to me that the increased prices of these everyday items was still cheaper than stocking and warehousing, then I guess it makes sense. But it's still bad politics. What they should do is pay the regular amount, but tack on "speedy delivery fees" or something to the bill. That way the numbers seem more realistic.
Google
This is a simplified version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.
Invision Power Board © 2001-2008 Invision Power Services, Inc.