Problems in DOD acquisitions.

• Author: Mccarthy, Chris
• Position: Readers' Forum

IN In reference to your article, "Pentagon's Strained Relationship With Vendors Getting Worse," (National Defense Blog, July 16), I was thinking that many of what the government considers "overcharging" is the direct result of inept purchasing personnel in dealing with manufacturers.

I have seen many times where a manufacturer must restart a line of production (tooling, software and manufacturing tapes, personnel) in order to manufacture an item for the government. There is not enough demand for a_ specific product to keep the lines open all the time. They therefore have a minimum run requirement in order to make restarting the line equitable to both the customer and the manufacturer.

Generally, the start-up costs include minimum material orders from another company, as well as costs associated with making the changes internally to "run" the product. The company may state that the minimum order is $10,000 and a minimum run of 10 or more products. This equates to approximately $1,000 per item if the 10 are purchased.

The government procurement officer will often say they only need one, what is the cost? They are told the same thing, one or ten, the cost is $10,000. They will always come back and order one. This leaves the manufacturer most times with excess materials that they do not want to store due to limited space or other conditions, and must dispose of

The sad part of. the story is, most times the government will come back to the manufacturers six or eight months later and request a quote for another single item, which is ludicrous.

Having been both active duty and a government-employed civilian for over 31 years, and still working with government purchasing personnel, I have always questioned this practice. It's almost as if these people consider manufacturers as being crooks who are trying to sell them more of what they want instead of just their immediate needs, when the manufacturer is only trying to pass on cost effective practices and do right by the customer.

So, 1 guess the end story is, don't always accept the $600 toilet seat, $400 hammer and $800 coffee pot at face value and assume all businesses and manufacturers are crooks out to get the government's money. They aren't.

Dave Smith

Marinette, WI

I recently read your article, "Hope and Despair in Government Procurement," (July 2014) and offer the following comments and questions.

While the Pentagon certainly has plenty of room for improvement in this area, I find it...