While the amount of money the federal government spends on private contracts has risen from $207 billion in 2000 to more than $400 billion last year, the number of competitive contracts fell from nearly 80 percent of the total to less than half. Boosting competition and keeping an eye on all contracts are two clear responses found in the Accountability in Government Contracting Act, by Sen. Susan Collins, and a companion bill in the House by Rep. Henry Waxman.

Early last month, The New York Times did an outstanding job analyzing the changed nature of work being paid for by the federal government, tracking the rise of private contractors in part because of Iraq, Hurricane Katrina and the domestic security but also due to a changed governing philosophy beginning in the Clinton administration. What it found was not only that government was outsourcing more work but that the contractors were able to control more of the process and the overworked contracting officers were so overwhelmed that they often continued existing contracts rather than put them out for competitive bid.

The lack of control on contract spending has led to some well-publicized cost overruns and shoddy work in Iraq and in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina. Oversight almost always falls when government work is contracted out; the Times’ article pointed out that the Department of Homeland Security invited contractors to tell the department what needed to be done within a $2 billion project. Major contractor Lockheed Martin, which spent $53 million on lobbying since 2000, gets more federal money than the Departments of Justice or Energy.

The Accountability in Government Contracting Act would tighten the language in government contracts to more clearly set price and schedules, require notices posted for all sole source contracts, require the Office of Federal Procurement Policy to make more data available on certain contracts and prohibit inspectors general from accepting cash awards or bonuses from any agency they are auditing. It also provides incentives for agencies to recruit and retain staff expert in contracts – if many more agencies are contracting out work and need managers who can oversee these contracts, there may well be a mismatch of skills within departments now. Incentives for retraining may be as important.

It’s not surprising that the federal government allowed the idea of boosting efficiency by private contracting get ahead of its ability to keep watch over those contractors. But this bipartisan problem to the evolving way the nation carries out government services requires a strong and certain solution found in the accountability act. Both dollars and faith in government are at stake.