A Chance To Improve Federal Contracting

XChange Government Integrator took place this week, and once again I am blown away by the knowledge and tenacity that exists in the public-sector channel community. I leave every conversation with solution providers scribbling in a notebook about some new issue that I have to investigate. <P> One such conversation was with Robert Deitz, president and CEO of Government Technology Solutions. His pain point might sound familiar for anyone who serves the federal market: A solution provider bids a contract with a federal agency and wins, only to find out from the contract officer that the agency won't pay for the software and hardware maintenance in advance. <P> The idea is ludicrous -- requiring the contractor to pony up the dollars required, despite the fact that the service in question directly serves the government customer. But agencies have the right, by law, to do exactly that, thanks to a clause in the USC code that governs payments by the U.S. government. <P> I will say, having known Deitz since I started with GovernmentVAR, that the right person is on the charge for changes. He met with Sen. Diane Feinstein's office to discuss the issue, and from what he tells me, she showed sincere interest in finding a solution that would reduce the burden placed on the federal contractor. Deitz actually said she wants to hear from more companies that support a change -- or have at least faced similar challenges -- and provided him with a contact that would collect comments and get them in her hands. <P> So, to any readers who have: E-mail me the details of your experience with this federal contracting "quirk," and maybe we can drive some change for the better. <P>