C Culham

More with less and time savings seems to be the end result right now as I read your entire post. So my question is what about quality and success? Or in other words are the acquisitions being measured beyond the PALT as to their success such as less modifications, disputes, timely completion, etc?

I often repeat myself. What the EO overshadows and the continuing discussion points to in my view is that neither the EO, nor the RFO fulfills "Promoting Efficiency, Accountability, and Performance in Federal Contracting". What will is lazer focus on maintaining a quality and adequately staffed acquistion workforce. My conclusion is supported in part by the discussion of GMP contracts. While they can be successful they can and do result in litigation. Vern mentioned this of sorts in noting the history of construction contracts as a whole. A great GMP contract is only as good as the negotiation and resulting administration of it. New statutes, legislation and regulation will do nothing to enhance Federal contracting unless it deals directly with the eroding acquisition workforce.

(On)? If yes then that is my point. It takes more "manpower" to administer other than FFP contracts no matter who provides it. The EO in my view is an attempt to solve an unfolding dilemma of a shrinking workforce that supports and conducts contract admin. Whether a CO, DCMA or those in the world "of other duties as assigned.".

The AI responses are interesting but I think each reflects the historical state absent use of AI. I know I have been away from the desk for quite a while yet I think this was true before the "AI era". Afterall isn't AI a compilation of history? What I think is AI will become the 1105, 1106, 1101 of the future even if disguised as a 1102.

It is happening. For me the "idea" is a question.- Where is the magic line for actual human interaction that makes for success? Or as borrowed from another thread will the "experience" be accepted and a new standard of success be set? I use AI but for me I still embrace the social interaction. AI is a supplement not a replacement. To Don's point at some point sometimes a real loan officer or a real contraring officer has made a difference in a go no go situation at least by my experience. It will remain so I hope but the need for human interaction will be diminished no doudt.

@Mike_wolff Yes I saw that and understand but it would seem it sets up other opportunity especially a try at an "individual" deviation. Just my thought anyway.

As I follow I research. Found this. Seems GSA has done it before on a class basis for other type work. Makes me wonder why "approval" of based on an individual deviation could not be pursued and approved? https://thecgp.org/images/CD-2020-14_0.pdf https://www.gsa.gov/system/files/CD-2020-14%20sups%201-2.pdf

I like it too and one could conclude it is a FFP contract. It would be very interesting in the context of a MATOC where some work has more risk that other work what a contractor would propose and the in the end negotiate with the government as to the fixed profit rate for the entire MATOC. By saying this I am not suggesting varying profit rates just wondering what the final rate settled on would be. I do like it.

FAR or RFO? If FAR it seems your question poses the idea of "multiple award" BPA's as discussed in FAR 8.405-3 and see paragraph (a)(b)(2). If RFO 8.4 leads you to subpart 538.71 where 538.7104-1 allows for 'one or more" FSS contractors on BPA's and allows at paragraph (a)(4) for less than "all" competition with caveates.

I have not been active in the arena for quite a while. Yet, here are a few thoughts/examples that may help in your research I found based on previous experience. You may have already found in your research but offered all the same. https://sam.gov/workspace/contract/opp/2b422539d44a4ec79de516056b8410db/view When it came to some IDIQ's we used a sample project where actual order priciing was based on IDIQ prices say for furnish and install pipe and negotiations via "fair opportunity" for unique aspects of the project. We found borrowing from the Federal Highway Admistration and using the "FP-14" specifications was a sound basis for firm fixed prices in the IDIQ and prices for the unique side as well negotiated for a specific task order. https://highways.dot.gov/federal-lands/specs/fp-14 And then of course there is the evolution to BPA's rather than IDIQ's. Some agencies are finding them to be a useful alternative. Once again they use a sample project for the cost/price evaluation to issue BPA's with the pricing of Calls being much more specific and not based on specific schedule pricinig of the BPA. Example - https://sam.gov/workspace/contract/opp/64fa02a81c3f49878afbffa8f6ad04d2/view Finally this read of IDIQ's for Federal Aid construction might raise additional ideas for you on where to extend your research to. I especially like the hints in the actual Federal Register Final Rule that ellude to variety of names beyond MATOCS such as JOC, push button, on call, stand-by, etc. https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/construction/cqit/idiq.cfm If you have not found these in your research to date I hope they help.

As I follow the discussion I had this additional thought. Maybe it is a good idea in the eyes of the ivory tower folks due to the shrinking Federal workforce and staffing for contract administration for other than FFP contracts. Adequate acquisition workforce staffing for contract administration specifically. Along with adequate staffing of the "other assigned duties" of program folks to perform as contracting officer representatives. I suggest this without any data but would offer the failure in contract administration has a direct relation to additional cost for other than fixed price contracts. I would also suggest that the dire straits of the acquisition workforce will have direct negative cost impact on any type of contract in the contract administration phase..

Alignment with the RFO push to commercial product or service? Seems like the EO also continues the RFO chaos! Why? I have not quite worked out the effect of the EO on the current RFO but it seems that the EO creates one of the first needs to reword the RFO at Part 1 and 16. RFO 1.506 Signatory Authority - It says when a D&F is required, the appropriate official according to agency regulations must sign it. Seems like there is going to be a RFO change per the EO that requires agency head signature? And then at RFO 16.601-3 requires that a time-and-materials contract or order may be used only if- "(a) The contracting officer prepares a determination and findings that no other contract type is suitable. The determination and findings must be- (1) Signed by the contracting officer prior to the execution of the base period or any option periods of the contracts; and (2) Approved by the head of the contracting activity" but now we have "agency head" per the RFO.

Yes. Based on Don's response rearding involvement in CMS. 1.a. To me personally no. 2. Tough one. CPCM is a professional designation that validates professionalization. Yet it does not seem to bring value say like Certified Information Systems Security Professional (CISSP) where one might be evaluated in an RFP for having a specific professional certification. I say this from personal experience where I have seen CISSP referenced in responses to RFP's but not CPCM, at least can not recollect it. Added it seems CPCM right now lends nothing to say how one migyht be valued by the Federal government with regard to position or pay. Ancedotal comments - I once received a four letter certification from NCMA, CACM I think. My intent was to gradually scale up to CPCM but when they did away with CACM I was disenchanted and did not pursue CPCM. If they can essentially take it away is it really valuable. The best value for me with regard to NCMA was in my early years via an active NCMA chapter that included some very bright minds of the acquisiton community. Some that I met became valuable mentors of one sort or another over my years as an acquisition professional.

The 1102 series is by definition a professional series. What I believe is not true is that someone that occupies an 1102 position possess the characteristics of a professional but I would offer that by personal experience many do. I am confused by the discussion in this thread as it is true that not all 1102 contract specialists (1102) are Contracting Officers (CO). Yet the words CO are being used interchangeably when discussing what professional work is. This is where the confusion is as I believe there are salient differences between the two titles beyond the fact of legal authority that is vested in a CO. In the medical field an intern, resident and attending physician are all professionals yet level of responsibility and autonomy are the difference are they not? So why can it not be the same with regard to 1102 to 1102 and then to CO? And if the same does not it change perspective of devotion as well yet this statement still rings true?

Just as aside. I found this in the last couple of days when doing research regarding threads in Forum. I am always intrigued about how long some topics have been discussed but never resolved. 8 years or more for 1105's and even AI! Reflections from NCMA World CongressReflections from Chicago at the end of day one at NCMA World Congress 2017 AI or Bring back GS 1105s? The consensus was that Contracting Officers and 1102s, Contract Specialists, spend too much time c