HerschelC
commented
9 years ago I think this is an outstanding idea! @dataconsultant While some detail like career training may be too personal, the CO that signed off with government authority should be included for sure. The history of the CO's experience can be built from the data over time (e.g., which agencies, types of contracts, preferred contract vehicles, socioeconomic set asides, etc.).
The government sponsor element is also interesting. Though I can see this being a challenge as likely the sponsorship process is different across agencies. But in almost all case there is a program/functional person (like the CIO shop for IT) that put their name on the item when sending it over to procurement to acquire. It would be interesting to see how many IT commodities are acquired outside of the CIO organization. This could also be a method for augmenting the lack of a 'program' element since awards could be aggregated by 'government sponsor' which could create clusters of 'program' activity.
This also would require metadata / reference data - the hierarchy of the government - to enable drill up/down/across.
The current elements list goes a long way towards establishing organizational accountability and transparency, but individuals involved in the process may avoid scrutiny.
1) contracting officer (and attributes such as tenure, career history, training received, etc) 2) cotr and associated attributes 3) government executive sponsor and attributes
Even if the identities were preserved, the attribute information could provide details into training deficiencies and/or evidence of bias towards favored contractors.