How to structure for a phase-in period for KTR clearances at PoP start, but still pay the contractor?

jesshere said:

paying out as soon as the contract is awarded (FFP)

How so if current contracts that lead to your concern have FAR payment clause 52.232-1 in them?  The clause provides for payment of services delivered and accepted.

With this said it is my way of saying you have not provided enough detail as to what the real issue is as it could be a contract administration problem or maybe the current contracts are not really FFP.

Is your contract structured to pay for staffing, or to pay for performance?

What are you paying for during the phase-in period?  Staffing or performance?

Please do not muddle the answer -- pick one: staffing or performance?

If staffing, is the contractor providing the contract-stipulated staffing?  YES: pay the FFP.  NO: pay nothing.

If performance, well, is the contractor meeting its performance obligations?  YES: pay the FFP.  NO: pay nothing.

Your next contract could establish a phase-in period of four months, for example, during which the old contractor still has performance responsibility and the new contractor performs some meaningful performance (and receives some small payment) and also fills out its staffing, with full performance (and regular full payment) starting after the fourth month.  

Or, if you can't handle two contractors in the space for a transition, you can award the new contract with a phase-in period of four months, for example, during which the new contractor fills out its staffing (and receives no payment), will full performance (and regular payment) starting after the fourth month.  You can even declare that the base year starts after the fourth month, so the base year includes four months unpaid for contractor readiness and then 12 months of paid performance.

Ji20874 gives solid advice.

This issue comes up often across the government.  One approach some use is allow contractors to start partial, if not full performance immediately using “interim” clearances.  That involves fingerprinting and a quick background check which generally takes just a few days.  Having a security clearance or an active check from another agency helps too.

I’m adding to share my experience as a contractor.  Companies, and particularly small ones, need revenue to cover their labor costs.  Having workers that aren’t being billed hurts financially.  Sure, there are tasks in-house those employees might work on.  They can also perhaps be assigned to other projects but that often upsets customers to have contractor staff rotate out shortly after they become used to the job.  All that being said, don’t expect contractors to provide their very best labor rates when they have idle employees for part of the effort.

If the contract required the contractor's personnel to be cleared--and the contractor's employees weren't cleared--how did the contracting officer determine that the contractor was responsible?

jesshere said:

Hi - the agency I work for has a long onboarding process for contractors. As a COR Team, we're pretty frustrated with paying out as soon as the contract is awarded (FFP) given that it takes 2-4 months for the contractor personnel to be cleared and start. Given such the time it takes, it lends its hands to high turnover as the contractors often take other positions.

This is an old problem. Ancient. Easily managed by thoughtful and competent pros who can plan ahead. For example:

Quote

For the transition plan, offerors were to provide a detailed description of the transition process for assuming responsibility from the incumbent, if applicable, within 60 days of award. The plan was to address areas such as facility clearances, hiring personnel after award, and how personnel will be properly trained and skilled with adequate security clearances. Id. at 84. The RFP required that staffing actions be completed by no later than 60 days after award and that the transition plan be consistent with the technical approach and cost proposal. Id. Additionally, offerors were required to address the following seven elements: transition team responsibilities; work turnover; incumbent capture; security requirements; quality assurance; training; and archived material. Id. at 84–85.

B- 419371.3 (Comp.Gen.), 2021 CPD P 147, 2021 WL 1265134

As for Don's question:.

Quote

The ability to obtain a security clearance generally is a matter of responsibility, absent an express requirement in the solicitation to demonstrate the ability prior to award. Rohmann Servs., Inc., B-405171, B-405171.2, Sept. 8, 2011, 2011 CPD ¶ 177 at 8. Because the determination that an offeror is capable of performing a contract is largely committed to the contracting officer's discretion, GAO will generally not consider a protest challenging such a determination. 4 C.F.R. § 21.5(c). An exception to this rule exists where a protester alleges that definitive responsibility criteria in the solicitation were not met. Id. Definitive responsibility criteria are specific and objective standards designed to measure a prospective contractor's ability to perform the contract. Reyna-Capital Joint Venture, B-408541, Nov. 1, 2013, 2013 CPD ¶ 253 at 2. Such criteria, which must be met as a precondition to award, limit the class of contractors to those meeting specified qualitative and quantitative qualifications necessary for adequate performance. Id. Our Office will not consider a requirement to obtain a security clearance to be a definitive responsibility criterion where the solicitation does not require the clearance to be obtained prior to award. See e.g., Rohmann Servs., Inc., supra; Ktech Corp.; Physical Research, Inc., B-241808, B-241808.2, Mar. 1, 1991, 91-1 CPD ¶ 237 at 3.

B- 419049.3 (Comp.Gen.), B- 419049.4, 2021 CPD P 117, 2021 WL 1101449.

In addition to what’s been said already, I’ve seen some other practices that might work.  One is have offerors submit employee background applications with their proposal response which should save time. Another is requiring offerors to identify transition milestones with proposed prices.  This should be negotiated and allows the contractor some revenue.  For example include a deliverable for project management and reporting.  Or a quality assurance plan. Or operational procedures.  A transition period as jessshire stated with the PM and limited staff start ahead of everyone else is feasible providing they don’t need full clearances to begin.  Using labor hour pricing makes sense too.

A very solid approach is requiring offerors to propose their transition.  Provide parameters and constraints in the solicition, especially the 2-4 month clearance expectation.  Evaluate individual plans with the rest of proposals.

formerfed said:

Using labor hour pricing makes sense too.

What do you mean by "labor hour pricing"? How does that work? Please elaborate.

As you may suspect, I am setting you up, since you liked my article on services, especially my comment on effort.

😈

Vern Edwards said:

What do you mean by "labor hour pricing"? How does that work? Please elaborate.

As you may suspect, I am setting you up.

I just added a missing thought to my post above.  The reason I mentioned labor-hour especially for the PMs effort is a lot depends when other employees get cleared and evolving transition needs.   But I’ll add if the agency provides sufficient background information, a fixed price transition works.  The transition plan should be negotiated so the offeror understands expectations and the government agrees.

Edit:  so I understand - “Value lies in the change the contractor produces in the service object, not in the effort made to produce the change.”  The transition evaluation needs to reflect this.

@formerfed

Would "transition" be a separate contract line item (CLIN)?

"0001 Transition..."?

A service, I presume. If so, what would be the unit?

What belonging to the government would be the service object? How would "transition" change it? Transition from what to what?

@formerfed

formerfed said:

I’ve seen some other practices that might work.  One is have offerors submit employee background applications with their proposal response which should save time.

What's an employee background "application"?

How would submitting such applications save time?

Save time during what process? Proposal evaluation? Transition?

formerfed said:

Another is requiring offerors to identify transition milestones with proposed prices.

"Achieving a transition milestone" would be a deliverable CLIN? A service? What would be the unit?

What would be the service object? What belonging to the government would transition change?

What would be the bases for acceptance or rejection of a transition milestone?

formerfed said:

For example include a deliverable for project management and reporting.

"Project management' would be a deliverable CLIN? What would be the unit?

"Reporting" would be a deliverable CLIN? What would be the unit?

formerfed said:

Or a quality assurance plan. Or operational procedures.

So, a plan or procedure𑁋which, I presume, would be documents𑁋would be deliverable CLINs? If so, they would be subject to inspection and acceptance.

If so, would the deliverable plan and procedures documents be supplies or services? (They would be property, right?) Which inspection clause would you apply to them? 52.246-2 or -4?

If you don't think they would be property, what do you think they would be?

I don't really expect you to answer my questions. My point is to show the kinds of questions an intelligent boss would ask if someone came to them and proposed the things you have proposed.

Vern Edwards said:

I don't really expect you to answer my questions. My point is to show the kinds of questions an intelligent boss would ask if someone came to them and proposed the things you have proposed.

I was throwing some ideas outs as they came to mind.  I don’t bother to provide details as if was a concept that would immediately be evaluated for acceptance.   It’s not professional quality but there’s no indication that the original poster is even reading responses.  I’m glad to provide a comprehensive answer if he requested and is considering it.

Maybe there are other readers who would like you to elaborate.

I would want to elaborate. But it's your call.

One additional thought.  Some agencies like to consider offerors ability to recruit incumbent employees if they are successful when evaluating responses.   Claims are verified through past performance checks.  That may not help in this instant situation, but it’s something to think about.

formerfed said:

One additional thought.  Some agencies like to consider offerors ability to recruit incumbent employees if they are successful when evaluating responses.   Claims are verified through past performance checks.  That may not help in this instant situation, but it’s something to think about.

Just because I was reminded of this in following the thread ...................

FAR 52.222-41 - 

(n) Seniority list. Not less than 10 days prior to completion of any contract being performed at a Federal facility where service employees may be retained in the performance of the succeeding contract and subject to a wage determination which contains vacation or other benefit provisions based upon length of service with a Contractor (predecessor) or successor (29 CFR 4.173), the incumbent Prime Contractor shall furnish the Contracting Officer a certified list of the names of all service employees on the Contractor’s or subcontractor’s payroll during the last month of contract performance. Such list shall also contain anniversary dates of employment on the contract either with the current or predecessor Contractors of each such service employee. The Contracting Officer shall turn over such list to the successor Contractor at the commencement of the succeeding contract.

But then again I am really wondering why Rule 17 has not been applied to this thread a long time ago?!?!?!?!

Wow - this is good information with so many thoughts and additional questions that I now have and will be taking back to the team to discuss today. I am truly sorry that I didn't have notifications on and I left work at my desk once the long weekend hit.

On 5/24/2024 at 7:10 AM, C Culham said:

How so if current contracts that lead to your concern have FAR payment clause 52.232-1 in them?  The clause provides for payment of services delivered and accepted.

With this said it is my way of saying you have not provided enough detail as to what the real issue is as it could be a contract administration problem or maybe the current contracts are not really FFP.

I am very new to the agency and still learning how they do things. This will be my first new requirement as a COR, but I have a little contracting knowledge. Contracting doesn't help us with the packages and receiving the packages from the PMs is tough because we have to refine them and think of solutions to their problems with very little input from contracting. I am not sure how contract administration has been done (yet). I am still in fact-finding mode.

@jesshere Welcome back.  Hope all comments help in solving your dilemma.

Sad to hear the interaction is not as it should be with contracting.

Good luck.

What if jesshere's CO were to design her RFP Section L to require a decrement - say a 25% reduction - to all labor rates in all proposals building up Section B's total price of a firm-fixed-unit-priced "Transition (Uncleared Personnel)" CLIN?  An alternate firm-fixed-unit-priced CLIN, for cleared personnel performance, would also be available at the normal build-up of rates.  The movement of heads from uncleared to cleared would, in theory, be naturally incented thusly by CLIN structure.  Proposals could be examined for compliance with the decrement as an element of responsiveness pre-award.  Base year would go on this way then all option CLINs would just be FFP, for cleared performance.

Anybody foresee a major issue with this in practice?  The variation in estimated quantity clause would of course need to be drafted and cleared through policy review.

Voyager said:

What if jesshere's CO were to design her RFP Section L to require a decrement - say a 25% reduction - to all labor rates in all proposals building up Section B's total price of a firm-fixed-unit-priced "Transition (Uncleared Personnel)" CLIN?  An alternate firm-fixed-unit-priced CLIN, for cleared personnel performance, would also be available at the normal build-up of rates.  The movement of heads from uncleared to cleared would, in theory, be naturally incented thusly by CLIN structure.  Proposals could be examined for compliance with the decrement as an element of responsiveness pre-award.  Base year would go on this way then all option CLINs would just be FFP, for cleared performance.

Are you pricing hours or a service?

@jesshereI am going to step back, way back.  I wonder is the service commercial?  If so then what does the market research suggest is done with regard to on-boarding?  

While the payment paragraph of 52.212-4 cannot be tailored maybe the contract line items can be fashioned to replicate commercial practice.

On 5/24/2024 at 4:06 AM, jesshere said:

prior to them charging us,

On another note if the work is subject to the Fair Labor Standards Act the contractor is most likely required to pay for hours during on boarding.  So regardless of whether you are paying for hours or performance the contractor may have immediate costs to perform.  Something to keep in mind.

C Culham said:

If so then what does the market research suggest is done with regard to on-boarding?

Great point, equally applicable whether the service is commercial or non-commercial. This sounds like a situation where sitting down, or at least getting on the phone, with a few different potential participants (separately) and explaining your thoughts to them and hearing their perspectives would be valuable. Maybe they'll point out that the majority of the delays in getting people cleared and onboarded are caused by the Government. Ask them for examples of successful, and unsuccessful, transition-in approaches other government customers have used.

jesshere said:

I am very new to the agency and still learning how they do things. This will be my first new requirement as a COR, but I have a little contracting knowledge. Contracting doesn't help us with the packages and receiving the packages from the PMs is tough because we have to refine them and think of solutions to their problems with very little input from contracting. I am not sure how contract administration has been done (yet). I am still in fact-finding mode.

@jesshere What service will the contract be for? What will the contractor do for your agency?

Vern Edwards said:

Are you pricing hours or a service?

For a quick, typical example in order to further our learning I am going to hypothetically call them IT help desk services (jesshere's CO may apply the example later).  These are professional services with a PWS that specifies a monthly deliverable report of "Number of Tickets Opened" and "Number of Tickets Resolved", plus details and statistics.  I am thinking unit rate is "month".  So, the number of months that these pros are uncleared may vary in the base year.  Once the last one is cleared the alternate CLIN may begin being invoiced.

As a CO who did much non-classified IT professional service contracts, I confirm that on-boarding & sec. clearance is a long process of uncertain duration, blocks full contract performance, and is (at the minimum) very common.   By very common, I mean, it's something you always have to think about.  Note things can be very different if FLSA applies, or contractor needs a TS, etc. 

One practical warning: Appropriated Funds + Severable Services + "Transition Period" for Onboarding = Danger.

Voyager said:

For a quick, typical example in order to further our learning I am going to hypothetically call them IT help desk services (jesshere's CO may apply the example later).  These are professional services with a PWS that specifies a monthly deliverable report of "Number of Tickets Opened" and "Number of Tickets Resolved", plus details and statistics.

I’m hesitant to bring this up but we need more information to discuss “transition.”   We don’t know if “one size fits all” works for all offerors like paying a set reduction.  In addition one offeror may be able to bring a large share of cleared workers on board quickly while another may not.  Transition may involve more than just clearing workers.  Depending on the nature of the work, offeror may perform a study of work and identify and propose different ways to perform that can be more beneficial.

C Culham said:

I wonder is the service commercial?  If so then what does the market research suggest is done with regard to on-boarding?

Wouldn't the market research on this specific topic just be the government chasing its tail, since security clearances are not required in a typical B2B market?

Voyager said:

Wouldn't the market research on this specific topic just be the government chasing its tail, since security clearances are not required in a typical B2B market?

This could be just background investigations rather than security clearances.  Lots of commercial business conduct investigations of contractor staff which are very similar to the government.  Plus market research shouldn’t just limit itself to the commercial sector - it should include how other agencies do the same or similar efforts.

Voyager said:

For a quick, typical example in order to further our learning I am going to hypothetically call them IT help desk services (jesshere's CO may apply the example later).  These are professional services with a PWS that specifies a monthly deliverable report of "Number of Tickets Opened" and "Number of Tickets Resolved", plus details and statistics.  I am thinking unit rate is "month".  So, the number of months that these pros are uncleared may vary in the base year.  Once the last one is cleared the alternate CLIN may begin being invoiced.

@VoyagerMay I assume that you want the help desk people on site during working hours?

Do you know how many help desk people you will want on site during those hours?

Voyager said:

Wouldn't the market research on this specific topic just be the government chasing its tail, since security clearances are not required in a typical B2B market?

Maybe.  I will agree the OP is probably speaking of security clearances as one part of on boarding but it is not stated.  Yet, what does the company do in on-boarding do with regards to pay. What do Nike, Boeing, Institute, Amazon, etc do?

C Culham said:

Maybe.  I will agree the OP is probably speaking of security clearances as one part of on boarding but it is not stated.  Yet, what does the company do in on-boarding do with regards to pay. What do Nike, Boeing, Institute, Amazon, etc do?

After thought...how about Loomis?

Voyager said:

Wouldn't the market research on this specific topic just be the government chasing its tail, since security clearances are not required in a typical B2B market?

I still feel like we're selling the potential benefits of market research short if we're only addressing the commercial B2B market (although I get that FAR part 10 is heavy on the commerciality aspect of market research). The Federal Government writes a lot of contracts with security clearance requirements, and lots of contractors live the process of onboarding personnel and getting them cleared every day. I suspect that some of those companies know a lot about the process (honestly probably more than any single agency does, since they see how multiple agencies do it, not just your agency); have a lot of experience with the different approaches the government has tried, both good and bad; and would love an opportunity to provide as much input as you'll let them in developing an approach to transition. You'll know that they want to shape the transition process to benefit them (maybe by tailoring it to their company's strengths, by prejudicing it against the incumbent, and/or by balancing the risk/profit decision in industry's favor) but that doesn't mean the information won't be useful.

Maybe I do not understand, but the problem seems pretty straightforward. I don't think its a hard problem.

One question to ask industry during acquisition planning is: How long does it take to clear someone from scratch?

• According to my research a DOD confidential or secret clearance currently takes 1 to 2 months.
• A top secret takes 4 - 8 months.

Suppose that you want performance to begin on October 1. Supposes further than you want a workforce of 50 persons, all of which must be cleared.

Do you want them all on Day 1 of performance or are you able to phase them in? Can you provide a schedule to prospective offerors? If so, you can structure your line item prices accordingly.

If you can phase them in, then another question is: If we award the contract on September 1 conditioned upon availability of funds, what percentage of the full complement of 50 persons could you have on October 1? October 15? October 30?

Same question, but we award the contract on August 1. And so forth.

Vern Edwards said:

@VoyagerMay I assume that you want the help desk people on site during working hours?

Do you know how many help desk people you will want on site during those hours?

Say the requirement specifies help desk operating hours of 6AM - 8PM.  It is neither a job nor a project, to quote your latest briefing paper.  It is for operations.

Say the historical number of FTEs will be provided to all offerors but not included in the resulting contract.

Again, I am describing typical acquisitions of professional services here.

RJ_Walther said:

I still feel like we're selling the potential benefits of market research short if we're only addressing the commercial B2B market (although I get that FAR part 10 is heavy on the commerciality aspect of market research). The Federal Government writes a lot of contracts with security clearance requirements, and lots of contractors live the process of onboarding personnel and getting them cleared every day. I suspect that some of those companies know a lot about the process (honestly probably more than any single agency does, since they see how multiple agencies do it, not just your agency); have a lot of experience with the different approaches the government has tried, both good and bad; and would love an opportunity to provide as much input as you'll let them in developing an approach to transition. You'll know that they want to shape the transition process to benefit them (maybe by tailoring it to their company's strengths, by prejudicing it against the incumbent, and/or by balancing the risk/profit decision in industry's favor) but that doesn't mean the information won't be useful.

Agree, conduct the MR.  And a CO's use of or disregard for the market research respondents' advice directly affects the competition.  I don't know if anyone would bid on a CLIN schema like this, especially if the process for clearances involves government action at any point.  But this forum is a laboratory of ideas, and an experiment like this one I've described can be applied to some other problem, perhaps one where a contractor's process needs a contract's designed incentive to increase speed (and no government delay is at fault).  Just the fact that we've led @jesshere to the MR pool means she may drink freely of it now.

Voyager said:

Say the requirement specifies help desk operating hours of 6AM - 8PM.  It is neither a job nor a project, to quote your latest briefing paper.  It is for operations.

Say the historical number of FTEs will be provided to all offerors but not included in the resulting contract.

Again, I am describing typical acquisitions of professional services here.

I’ve been involved in more help desk competitions than I care to remember.  Most don’t specify required FTEs as you stated.  Rather workload data is provided on the solicitations including extensive background.  Offerors are free to propose their own staffing but the resulting contract is fixed price with incentives/disincentives based upon performance.

Vern Edwards said:

One question to ask industry during acquisition planning is: How long does it take to clear someone from scratch?

• According to my research a DOD confidential or secret clearance currently takes 1 to 2 months.
• A top secret takes 4 - 8 months

I have a feeling jesshere is concerned with a non-DoD security clearance by the original 2-4 months statement.

Voyager said:

Say the requirement specifies help desk operating hours of 6AM - 8PM.  It is neither a job nor a project, to quote your latest briefing paper.  It is for operations.

Say the historical number of FTEs will be provided to all offerors but not included in the resulting contract.

Again, I am describing typical acquisitions of professional services here.

@Voyager How about this CLIN in Section B or the appropriate place in the commercial services schedule:

• Description: Help Desk Services in accordance with Section C, Statement of work.
• Quantity: 1
• Unit: Operation (instead of Months)

No time unit like hours or months.

In Section C you specify the number of people to be provided and the days and hours to be worked, along with the tasks to be performed and the results to be delivered. By putting that number of people here you can change the number of people using the Changes clause. You can explain in the Scope section that the number of people may fluctuate. Increases and decreases are thus within scope,

In Section F you specify the period of performance, from ___ to ___.

You insert a Section H clause entitled "Advance Agreement on Labor Pricing" inserting the wage rates to be used to price change order additions or reductions in labor during the period of performance.

Vern Edwards said:

In Section C you specify the number of people

Someone remind me: what makes this controversial again?

Voyager said:

Someone remind me: what makes this controversial again?

Nothing that I know of. If you want a specific number of persons, then say so. If you can set a standard of performance that allows the contractor to decide how many to use to meet the standard, then it's not necessary.

This thread is running its course.  My final thoughts.

Vern Edwards said:

I don't think its a hard problem.

I tend to agree.  I found it interesting that the discussion addressed pre-award matters from evaluation of proposals to configuration of contract line items but little about contract administration.  I have a nagging feeling that administration of current/past contracts might be part of the problem.  What is really broke and contractors simply live with it?  Nice to see some effort by the COR team to dig in and see if they can find a solution.

Voyager said:

And a CO's use of or disregard for the market research respondents' advice directly affects the competition.

By the OP's own words one place that is broke is the CO's involvement but I wonder if the CO is really the one to use or disregard the market research?  I have long been under the impression that market research should be used by the program people (and in this case the COR team) to craft a requirements package that goes to the CO.  And that market research would support to the CO what recommendations for Section B, C, H, and  L and beyond (or the counterparts in a commericial solicitation/contract) are being made by the program/COR team.  

Vern Edwards said:

If you want a specific number of persons, then say so. If you can set a standard of performance that allows the contractor to decide how many to use to meet the standard, then it's not necessary.

So how about the overlooked element of the process the RFI?  Communicate wants and constraints, ask about how we can do this, get industry feedback and then put great ideas it in solicitation/contract language.

Finally do not forget about negotiation.  The end game is to find a solution that meets the best interests of all involved.  It is not a hard problem it just takes effort beyond handing it to a contractor and implying it must be done this way.

@C Culham Excellent post Carl.  One of the best at Wifcon in recent times.  Too often program offices and COs are used to doing things the same way as in the past.

formerfed said:

@C Culham Excellent post Carl.  One of the best at Wifcon in recent times.  Too often program offices and COs are used to doing things the same way as in the past.

Thank you

Vern Edwards said:

Nothing that I know of. If you want a specific number of persons, then say so. If you can set a standard of performance that allows the contractor to decide how many to use to meet the standard, then it's not necessary.

I found the controversial principle, at FAR 37.602(b)(1), and - full disclosure - I used to advocate it in my early days of Performance-Based Acquisition (PBA) requirements development.  The residual effect of the training curriculum around it still bends my thinking at work, despite my attempts to broaden my horizons.

Quote

(b) Agencies shall, to the maximum extent practicable— (1) Describe the work in terms of the required results rather than either “how” the work is to be accomplished or the number of hours to be provided (see 11.002(a)(2) and 11.101)

I have been made wise to the history of this PBA policy thanks to you elsewhere on WIFCON, Vern, and have found that the conclusion it is inapplicable to professional service (staffing) contracts is unavoidable.  But I want to make one additional point to yours, found in the statute that led to FAR 11.002(a)(2) policy.  Look at the "types of specifications" listed in 41 U.S.C. 3306(a), and, remembering your engineering courses, tell me, do these look like they originate from a systems engineering requirements owner or from a COR-led (no-PM), staffing requirements owner?

Quote

(3) TYPES OF SPECIFICATIONS.—For the purposes of paragraphs (1) and (2), the type of specification included in a solicitation shall depend on the nature of the needs of the executive agency and the market available to satisfy those needs. Subject to those needs, specifications may be stated in terms of—
(A) function, so that a variety of products or services may qualify; 
(B) performance, including specifications of the range of acceptable characteristics or of the minimum acceptable standards; or 
(C) design requirements

Voyager said:

Look at the "types of specifications" listed in 41 U.S.C. 3306(a), and, remembering your engineering courses, tell me, do these look like they originate from a systems engineering requirements owner or from a COR-led (no-PM), staffing requirements owner?

@Voyager I'm not sure what you are asking me.

Are you asking whether one of those types of specification should be developed by a system engineer or a by a COR-led customer team ?

@Vern Edwards No, my apologies - I was unclear.  I am asking if the genesis of PBA policy arose from policymakers recognizing system engineers were overusing design specifications, and then concluding that functional specs would have promoted better competition.  If so, I think this furthers the argument of its inapplicability to help desk and other staff support contracts.  The idea of a lone COR in need of staff designing any kind of specifications for the work they manage is ludicrous, to me.  They are typically management analysts, not engineers.

C Culham said:

I found it interesting that the discussion addressed pre-award matters from evaluation of proposals to configuration of contract line items but little about contract administration.  I have a nagging feeling that administration of current/past contracts might be part of the problem.

Carl, you might be on to something here.  A problem many contractors have is that once they get employees cleared, the government hires them away from the contractor requiring the contractor to start the process over again.

Looking at Vern's research results on how long it takes for contractors to get a clearance for employees, time is only one factor.  Another is the number of contractor employees the government will clear at one time.  If the contractor needs six employees cleared, the government may give the contractor a quota of only 2 which means the contractor has to wait until 2 employees get cleared then submit two more for clearance.

Voyager said:

I am asking if the genesis of PBA policy arose from policymakers recognizing system engineers were overusing design specifications, and then concluding that functional specs would have promoted better competition.

No.

PBA (PBSA) originated from OFPP's attempt to find a rational way to effectuate OMB Circular A-76. OFPP was influenced by an Air Force study and program of the late 1970s.

The preference for functional and performance specifications predated PBA.