Reform

For whatever reasons, the 1102 workforce wants to copy ideas instead of tailoring plans and acquisition documents specific to individual needs.  So how about a database of best practices, lessons learned, and new ideas?  A central point to review, rate, and provide instructive comments like OFPP could ensure consistency and acceptability using pre-established criteria.   Even those people that don’t blindly copy will benefit from seeing practices from others.

Improve - It would seem that the complications of contracting are the result of, for the most part, legislation.  Absent legislation to remove the legislation it would seem that Executive Order could be a fix but it is route full of potholes.

Streamline  - Same thought as above.  It would not be the end all fix but another possibility is throw some money at the problem to fill all the exisiting 1102 vacancies.  One would think more bodies to process the never ending and long list of contracting needs for the Federal government might get a little faster but not sure its a streamline.  

As I write this I am reminded of the old "shovel ready" American Recovery and Reinvestment Act but as it goes it was legislation.

Conclusion - I do not think a fix of improving and streamlining can be accomplished without positive legislation that removes the impediments in place.  Such as - Preference of multi-award IDIQs, legislation that causes agency's to go nuts to accomplish or avoid with things like competitive BPA's.  The massaging of Commerical Products and Services contracting to the point it has frustrated its intent which I thought was to be more like the marketplace where I personally can buy something faster and get satisfactory results.  Especially think construction. 

It is a tall order you have been asked to think about, very tall!

Ensure agencies abide by and enforce —

FAR 1.102-2(b): Minimize administrative operating costs. (1) In order to ensure that maximum efficiency is obtained, rules, regulations, and policies should be promulgated only when their benefits clearly exceed the costs of their development, implementation, administration, and enforcement. This applies to internal administrative processes, including reviews, and to rules and procedures applied to the contractor community.

FAR 1.102-5(b): The authority to make decisions and the accountability for the decisions made will be delegated to the lowest level within the System, consistent with law.

Thanks, Carl.

Thanks, Jamaal.

I am receiving inputs from other sources, as well. When and if I am permitted to do so I will share the suggestions that I receive from others, unattributed.

I think accountability is the answer.  How about this idea.  The DFARS PGI doesn't take rulemaking action to revise.  Neither do DOD Instructions and certainly Defense Pricing and Contracting (DPC) memos don't.  Yet when you read them, the working-level organization that is tasked to do the actual work is not mentioned under a "Responsibilities" section or anywhere else.  The Director, DPC sends the memo to the highest level in the bureaucracy, and this creates a chain of events to delegate the action.  One break in that lengthy chain, and the action loses its potency.  Accountability is obfuscated by this exact mistake.

Why don't these managers simply coordinate ahead of PGI, DODI, or memo issuance to exactly which low-level manager the upper managers will assign the action, and then name that person in the PGI, DODI, or memo?  Can you imagine the excitement and effort that would draw out of that low-level manager?

Thanks, Voyager.

Issue policy requiring discussions be conducted as the general rule, especially when selections are based up technical/price tradeoffs.  Too much is being left on the table with both price and non-price issues by not discussing.  Exceptions should be documented and approved at levels about the contracting officer.

For perspective on what "contracting" means - in HHS (my Dept) you have Type 1 Procurement

• the median contract obligation was $42,190
• 156/24,00 contracts obligated over $10M
• 75% of all contracts used FAR 13 or 16.5 (FAR 14 is a rounding error, at 28/24,000)

And then you also have Type 2 Contracting

• NIH awarded 9 $Billion multiple-award IDIQs for Non-Commercial Research and Development, and admins some gigantic GWACs.
• My OPDIV overhauled how it buys IT software and hardware, and the contracting volume has shrunk by a lot - maybe 30%?  
• An HHS OPDIV, if FPDS is to be believed, received 198 offers in response to a FAR 15 RFP.

I think these need to be treated differently.  Type 1 is about systems, process, and workflow.  Type 2 is about the human beings (COs) doing the work.

@General.Zhukov

General.Zhukov said:

I think these need to be treated differently.

How so?

@formerfed Thanks!

On 11/8/2024 at 5:53 PM, Vern Edwards said:

@General.Zhukov

How so?

For Type 1) Simple - This is high-volume with repetitive relatively standard procedures, a lot of which isn't legislative, so even small process improvements can be made and may have a large impact.  The humans doing the work are less important.   

- An agency-wide exemption to the elements of a written acquisition plan (FAR 7.105) which are useless for your agency, well that will save a tiny bit of time and effort.  But, if, like HHS, you have >5,000 written acquisition plans per year, the cumulative impact is significant.  

- Go find your most important vendors, ask them what 'streamlining' means for them, and maybe act on that?  

- Go find your most important customers/ end-users/stakeholders, do the same.  

For Type 2 - there is only one way to do this, which we have known forever, and essentially applies to any profession.  It's all about the humans.  You need intelligent and experienced professionals who have the authority to make important decisions, and the wisdom to make the right decisions.   If you have an high-impact acquisition that you want to streamline, go recruit/poach/borrow the best CO you can find, and give them that job (and the ability to do that job).

@General.ZhukovThanks, Georgi.

General.Zhukov said:

- Go find your most important customers/ end-users/stakeholders, do the same.

Voice of the Customer (VOC) is a technique that can help identify and eliminate waste. FAR part 1 emphasizes customer satisfaction and lays out that the Federal Acquisition System will satisfy the consumer in enumerated ways.

What regulations and policies (not laws) would the customer get rid of or not pay for? The answer will probably be unrealistic so let’s categorize the waste into two categories, one of which we can easily fix.

1. Type I Waste: Non-value-added activity, necessary for customer (necessary for operations)

2. Type II Waste: Non-value-added activity, unnecessary for the customer

Now, what Type II waste is in the system? These are those things in our process that do not add value to the customer. Or as it was explained to me at the Fisher College of Business: anything the customer is not directly willing to pay for. 

What could we stop doing—today—that would go unnoticed by the customer?

A key challenge is identifying the often competing interests of the governments various customers if we broaden the term customer (e.g., Congress, PM, end-user, taxpayers).

@Jamaal Valentine Thanks, Jamal.

On 11/8/2024 at 9:52 AM, Jamaal Valentine said:

Ensure agencies abide by and enforce —

FAR 1.102-2(b): Minimize administrative operating costs. (1) In order to ensure that maximum efficiency is obtained, rules, regulations, and policies should be promulgated only when their benefits clearly exceed the costs of their development, implementation, administration, and enforcement. This applies to internal administrative processes, including reviews, and to rules and procedures applied to the contractor community.

FAR 1.102-5(b): The authority to make decisions and the accountability for the decisions made will be delegated to the lowest level within the System, consistent with law.

General.Zhukov said:

For Type 2 - there is only one way to do this, which we have known forever, and essentially applies to any profession.  It's all about the humans.  You need intelligent and experienced professionals who have the authority to make important decisions, and the wisdom to make the right decisions.   If you have an high-impact acquisition that you want to streamline, go recruit/poach/borrow the best CO you can find, and give them that job (and the ability to do that job).

We have the FAR.  We have supplementing agency regulations.  Then we have more detailed policies and procedures at a sub level which often adds delay from bureaucratic review and oversight processes.  Much of these exist as knee jerk remedies or band-aid fixes to past contracting blunders.  Senior management then implements new reviews, approvals, and controls to avoid repeating the same mistakes in the future. 

Eliminate needless policies and procedures at the agency/local.  Empower contracting officers to make decisions without non value-added reviews and approvals.  Hold contracting officers accountable. Reward those with demonstrated exceptional performance.  Remove warrants from those with performance issues.

Jamaal, you have identified a key difference between a business's and a government's "Type II Waste".  One entity is accountable to shareholders during its mission to please paying/potential customers, while the other is accountable to taxpayers during its mission to safe-harbor citizens.  The business may exclude costs that would not benefit the majority of its customers, whereas the government shall not exclude reasonable costs for any of its citizens (e.g., think of the cost to feed prisoners).  In its cost of operations, the business may rack and stack people within its pool of customers, e.g., putting high-paying customers first, infrequent customers second, and noncustomers last, as its shareholders demand.  The government shall not do this to its citizens, according to the Preamble to the Declaration of Independence and to common decency dating back to Mosaic Law.

I think under this logic the taxpayers can and should demand their government eliminate the cost of noncitizens, but as this is not within the realm of my job responsibility, I will leave it here only as the best example of my logic.  Another example is any cost that is being justified currently to exert control over the actions of a separate sovereign state, based upon a prediction of what that state's leaders may do in the future.  Notice I am giving no example of a cost affecting any of the government's citizenry.  That, my friends, is where we can and must craft our trade.

What is the similarly unfounded cost in your realm of job responsibility?  Everyone should think small of this and allow the logic to scale itself up.  Start with your own CO workload and practice applying this logic daily, so that, when you rise in the ranks to a workload that potentially costs the taxpayers a great deal, you can also save them a great deal.  Wise, caring prioritization is the single most important skill a government employee can offer taxpayers.  At the municipal level, would you justify the cost to heat an outdoor swimming pool in Fairbanks, Alaska?  Where in your workload is that swimming pool?  Most likely it is in a thoughtless decision not to use strategic sourcing due to "immateriality" of the cost in a proposal.  I say stop that!  Spend your time on the reduction of small costs now, so that your crafted practice 20 years from now may reduce large costs.

And to current upper managers - hire your SESs and other fellow managers based on proven track records in this crafted practice.

@Voyager 

Voyager said:

I think under this logic the taxpayers can and should demand their government eliminate the cost of noncitizens, but as this is not within the realm of my job responsibility, I will leave it here only as the best example of my logic.

🤔 You're getting more than just a little off track. Would you mind very much continuing your musings in a new thread? 🫤

Sure, Vern, I can drop off here, for you and your people.  Before I go, I want to hearten those that may be afraid in these times.  The text you quoted of me is indeed not a government’s duty to carry out; it is, however, the duty of the citizenry when their consciences so incline them.  For more than a millennium, the Western way has been for the state to administer justice, and the church to administer mercy.  Recent decades of taxed mercy have not been motivated out of any desire on the taxpayer’s part to relieve suffering, though, and have instead served to blend these two distinct roles of church and state.  Do not fear the loss of this!  The American conscience is not leaving us as the state relearns its role - no, I believe rather it is reviving true after decades of derelict sleep.

On and off I continue to think about the original post.  Please advise when posts are no longer wanted.

Thinking about the FAR how about a focused 6 month goal to rewrite the FAR with intent to remove anything that is not required by statute, EO, and/or case law.

C Culham said:

Please advise when posts are no longer wanted.

The relative scarcity of contributions from Wifcon members has been disappointing. Maybe this website is no longer influential. Maybe the members lack imagination.

But I thank all who have contributed.

Here are some of the many suggestions received from elsewhere in government and industry:

1. Stiffen CO appointment criteria for COS with authority above the SAT and COs handling major system acquisitions, and elevate CO appointment authority to at least the SES or general and flag officer level. Emphasize demonstrated knowledge, experience, and competence instead of credentials. Eliminate CO appointment boards.
2. Require a CO selection and appointment D&F.
3. Improve the quality of contract opportunity notices at sam.gov. Standardize abbreviations.
4. Standardize solicitation and contract formats across all agencies and all types of procurements, including procurements of commercial products and services and construction.
5. Drop the concept of performance-based contracting and the requirement for performance work statements.
6. Adopt a single, governmentwide standard format for all work statements.
7. Adopt a single style manual (e.g., Chicago Manual of Style) for all acquisition documents.
8. In service procurements, prohibit requests for "narrative" technical and management proposals that describe "proposed approaches" to providing the service.
9. Eliminate the requirement for small business subcontracting plans.
10. Eliminate the requirement for evaluation of professional employee compensation.
11. Allow the use of simplified acquisition procedures for all commercial acquisitions, regardless of dollar value.
12. Eliminate the requirement for evaluation of proposed small business subcontracting.
13. Eliminate the SBA certificate of competency program.
14. Eliminate incorporation of entire CFR sections and parts into FAR solicitation provisions and contract clauses.
15. Provide more training on changes and equitable adjustments.
16. Prohibit the incorporation of agency handbooks and manuals into solicitations and contracts.
17. Clarify the rules for proposal submission and the handling of late proposals.
18. Reform the protest system to prohibit two bites of the apple (from GAO to COFC) and prohibit appeals to the Federal Circuit.
19. Limit the use of multiple award task order contracts and restrict the number of awardees by statute.
20. Eliminate the requirement for "full and open competition."
21. Eliminate the restrictions on the use of LPTA.
22. Limit the requirement for submission of certified cost or pricing data and the application of cost accounting standards to major system acquisitions.
23. Simplify the rules about clarifications, competitive range, discussions, and final proposal revisions so as to encourage better communication during contract formation.
24. Adopt the architect-engineer method of contractor selection for all service procurements in excess of the SAT and all major system acquisitions.
25. Assume commerciality. Instead of requiring a determination that a product or service IS commercial, presume that it is commercial unless the CO determines that it is NOT.
26. Eliminate the combined synopsis-solicitation.
27. Allow price-only competitive negotiation and eliminate sealed bidding.
28. Clarify and simplify the rules about foreign acquisitions.
29. Raise the dollar thresholds of the Service Contract Act, the Davis-Bacon Act, Equal Employment Opportunity (and others) to above the simplified acquisition threshold.
30. Establish more realistic deadlines for proposal submission in source selections.

And several more.

There were several recommendations to improve and revise definitions.

As far as I'm concerned, this thread is closed. I will not monitor it any longer.

On 11/7/2024 at 6:46 AM, Vern Edwards said:

what can be done to improve and streamline contracting without the need for new legislation.

Hmm, much of your list needs new legislation.

joel hoffman said:

Hmm, much of your list needs new legislation.

Yes, a very large share

Some do, some don't. It's what people sent.

Thanks. Signing off.

C Culham said:

rewrite the FAR

This!

On 11/12/2024 at 7:08 PM, Vern Edwards said:

You're getting more than just a little off track.

Is he though? My direct supervisor was just deployed to Texas to deal with the "influx of Ukranian refugees" (which no one on the team was aware of), and we're only a component agency of DHS (but not ICE/CBP/USCIS). He's an 1102. We're still waiting for an explanation for what that is all about.

More on-point, if we were able to use the policy and procedures of sub-part 36.6 for work outside the A-E world, that would be the bee's knees. "Expertise-based selection at a fair and reasonable price". 

Edit: just saw Vern's item#24. Great minds yada yada 🤣

Final thought -

Find and learn from other comparable governments that have better - more 'streamlined' - acquisition systems.  

Comparable - larger US states (CA, TX, FL, NY) other comparably large nations with roughly similar legal/procurement system (EU, Canada, Australia, NZ, UK, maybe Japan).

Quote

On 11/7/2024 at 5:46 AM, Vern Edwards said:

I have been asked for ideas about what can be done to improve and streamline contracting without the need for new legislation.

Any suggestions?

“We are very grateful to the thousands of Americans who have expressed interest in helping us at DOGE. We don’t need more part-time idea generators. We need super high-IQ small-government revolutionaries willing to work 80+ hours per week on unglamorous cost-cutting,”

To clarify, I am not injecting politics.  It just seems for some of the folks that are experienced and invested to the degree that they understand the foundation and building blocks of the issues it would seem a great potential to influence change.  I feels like acquisitions is highly overlooked by the political arena as far as the inefficiencies caused to our spending and time resources.  I would also suggest that any change to agency regulation supplement go through the 1.102-2(b)(1) "common sense rule" before it can be enacted, particularly when it comes to SAP or commercial buys, especially by third tier agencies such as the Army.

REA'n Maker said:

More on-point, if we were able to use the policy and procedures of sub-part 36.6 for work outside the A-E world, that would be the bee's knees. "Expertise-based selection at a fair and reasonable price". 

Edit: just saw Vern's item#24. Great minds yada yada 🤣

I was at the Patent and Trademarks Office years ago.  We received waivers for much of the FAR.  One of our proposed changes was use of FAR 36.6 type procedures to acquire professional services.  Senior management backed off due to heavy opposition from small business advocates and organizations wanting to reduce waste and spending throughout the government.  We never got a chance to talk to those people because once it turned political with Congress involved, it died.  I’m not optimistic things would be any different now.

@formerfed I will communicate with you privately tomorrow via Wifcon messages on this page.

Vern Edwards said:

@formerfed I will communicate with you privately tomorrow via Wifcon messages on this page.

I’m here

Subpart 36.6 procedures for professional and other services, included in a total rewrite of the FAR that is fast tracked to occur in 6 months.  Strike while the iron is hot.

And what the heck I would volunteer to help do it if  just my expenses were covered.  An opportunity to leave a helpful and hopefully long lasting legacy in my old age.

C Culham said:

Subpart 36.6 procedures for professional and other services, included in a total rewrite of the FAR that is fast tracked to occur in 6 months.  Strike while the iron is hot.

The concept of expanding the use of qualification based selection with a negotiated reasonable price** will be in direct opposition to Vivek Ramaswamy‘s and Elon Musk’s mission to drastically reduce government spending. IMO, it won’t survive DOGE.

IMO, any new initiatives that don’t decrease the cost of government operations will have little chance of implementation in the near term.

I also predict that eliminating IFB’s will be a non-starter. IFB’s are common practice in state and local construction contracting as well as other types of contracting, such as equipment materials and supplies.

** Two of the primary justifications for Qualifications Based Selection of Architect-Engineers without Price competition is to assure that the selected firm is highly qualified to design a project and will not tend to cut corners to save design costs. Life safety issues are of paramount importance in A-E contracting.

joel hoffman said:

The concept of expanding the use of qualification based selection with a negotiated reasonable price** will be in direct opposition to Vivek Ramaswamy‘s and Elon Musk’s mission to drastically reduce government spending. IMO, it won’t survive DOGE.

@joel hoffmanReally? How could qualifications-based selection a la FAR 36.6 possibly be more costly than requiring competitors in service procurements to write "technical" or "management" proposals, or both, describing their "proposed approach" to providing a service described in a 25 or 100 page "performance work statement"𑁋written by someone who has no clue𑁋in order to demonstrate their "understanding" of the requirement and the "soundness" of their "approach" without merely repeating the words of the PWS, then assembling an evaluation team to read those dissertations, perhaps partially written by AI, and write "strength", "weakness", and "deficiency" reports, and then make tradeoffs among fantasies. And price is almost always the least important evaluation factor.

And all that is often done without conducting discussions!!!!! Without talking!!!!!  Business conducted between strangers, without face-to-face communication until after the contract is signed!!! Based on obscure statements of requirements and obscure "approaches" to fulfilling them.

The FAR Part 15 source selection process, developed in the late 1940s and early 1950s for weapon acquisitions, is, as too often conducted, so STUPID, so time-consuming and costly, that it sometimes seems like a subversive Russian, Chinese, North Korean, or Iranian plot. Let's see what costly, time-consuming stupid thing we can get U.S. government contracting officers to do next.

We've tried to get COs to dispense with written "technical" and "management" proposals for services acquisitions and to replace them with oral presentations. We even got that into the FAR. And do you know what some of them do now? They ask for both!!!!

It's nothing but fodder for the bid protest industry and usually produces no verifiable "best value".

Explain to me how A-E selection would be more costly than what's routinely being done "now𑁋being done not because it's required by law or regulation, which say nothing about such "proposals", but because too much of the workforce is clueless and incompetent and just cutting and pasting from what has gone before, a method developed for military aircraft design competitions that has long been known to produce dubious results.

Explain it to me, Joel. Better yet, write to Musk and explain it. 

And safety issues, among others, are just as important in many services procurements as they are in A-E work. Think about aircraft services in support of wildfire fighting or space launch support services. Do you think there are no safety issues in those kinds of procurements?

I'm not worried about the "Department of Government Efficiency". If Trump and Musk are opposed to anything they're opposed to stupid, costly, time-consuming methods of contractor selection and contract formation being used by clueless, unimaginative "teams" of civil servants and military personnel and that sometimes take years to complete from conception to award only to be challenged and delayed or derailed (JEDI) by a protest to the GAO followed by a second bite at the apple at the COFC, and even a third to the Federal Circuit. And think of the MATOC competitions in which dozens of firms, even hundreds, get to evaluate themselves and then file protests.

The government calls it the "source selection process", and conducts it like a lawyer enrichment process.

I can't say what's going to happen. Maybe nothing. There are a lot of fish to fry and only a short time in which to fry them, and acquisition is not at the top of the priority list. But they're heating the oil, and if even part of what is being considered happens some of the clueless fish in our business had better start swimming toward other work. The next two years might be interesting. Shockingly so to some.

But it's been interesting before, and stupidity always puts up a fierce fight.

Vern Edwards said:

There are a lot of fish

As I keep reading I think back to examples found in WIFCON.   Example - pointing back to this quote from another thread -  "but this was best value trade off and with nothing in CPARS/FAPIIS, past performance eval was based on PPQs received in response to the RFQ."  Mind you this comment was with regard to a procurement under the SAT for landscape maintenance.    My gut tells me if a process like FAR 36.6 was demanded for these types of services at this value time would be saved.  Think!  A version of FAR 36.602-5.

I am referring to Quality Based Selection with no price competition, then negotiate the price. The contract prices will very likely be higher without competition. I have little faith that the government contracting force will be effective at evaluating , negotiating and bargaining prices on large scale application of QBS.

Edit: It’s evident to me from participating in this forum that many if not most contracting personnel primarily rely on price analysis, comparing prices through competition…

joel hoffman said:

I am referring to Quality Based Selection with no price competition, then negotiate the price. The contract prices will very likely be higher without competition. I have little faith that the government contracting force will be effective at bargaining prices on large scale application of QBS. .

Well, maybe something will happen about CO appointments, which have been far too liberal, and which can be addressed in an executive order.

And head-to-head price competition may not be a good idea in the acquisition of custom services when work statements are vague, as they almost always are for such services. With the current system, no competitor really knows at the time of contract formation what service will be required and what it will cost, unless there is an incumbent, and even they may not be sure about the future in a recompete. That's one reason why hourly labor rate pricing has become so popular.

In any case, price is almost always the least important evaluation factor.

joel hoffman said:

I am referring to Quality Based Selection with no price competition, then negotiate the price. The contract prices will very likely be higher without competition. I have little faith that the government contracting force will be effective at evaluating , negotiating and bargaining prices on large scale application of QBS.

I have a little different view that was formed admittedly years ago when I was the CO for the SBA's 8(a) Program for the Portland District.  I am am depending on my recollection as I do not have all the analysis I did but here is the quick view that is in my view factual memory.

For one year I did analysis because of the comments that sole source awards in the 8(a) Program was always more expensive.   I believe it was a tainted view that did not consider all the facts, and those facts by my analysis (and now repeated by recollection) was this....

At award the contracts were approximately 15% more than the IGCE provided by the agency regarding fair market price.

Yet, at contract end the final price was no more than 1% percent higher than the award price.

The analysis included something like 50 contracts.

Armed with the numbers I contacted all the agencies that had the contracts and asked them what the contract price growth was from award to final for all the contracts they awarded, 8(a) or otherwise, or in other words was it more or less than what I found for just 8(a).   I received no response.

My experience in both 8(a) and with the 4 other agencies I worked for during my career suggests strongly that contracts that are awarded without "real" negotiation, and by real I mean sitting across the table and hashing out numbers like I did in the 8(a) Program and otherwise such as the 100's of A-E contracts I negotiated, that price growth is much more. 

Changing the paradigm of doing supposed negotiated trade-off (per FAR part 15) that really just results in a price decision no matter what a solicitation says needs to change.

joel hoffman said:

The contract prices will very likely be higher without competition. I have little faith that the government contracting force will be effective at evaluating , negotiating and bargaining prices on large scale application of QBS.

The more they do it, the better they will get. Or at least they should.

joel hoffman said:

The contract prices will very likely be higher without competition.

FAR 36.606, Negotiations, paragraph (f):

Quote

(f) If a mutually satisfactory contract cannot be negotiated, the contracting officer shall obtain a written final proposal revision from the firm, and notify the firm that negotiations have been terminated. The contracting officer shall then initiate negotiations with the next firm on the final selection list. This procedure shall be continued until a mutually satisfactory contract has been negotiated. If negotiations fail with all selected firms, the contracting officer shall refer the matter to the selection authority who, after consulting with the contracting officer as to why a contract cannot be negotiated, may direct the evaluation board to recommend additional firms in accordance with 36.602.

@joel hoffman Do you know of any studies or reports that say the government is paying unreasonable prices for A-E work because of the lack of price competition in the selection process?

Vern Edwards said:

FAR 36.606, Negotiations, paragraph (f):

@joel hoffman Do you know of any studies or reports that say the government is paying unreasonable prices for A-E work because of the lack of price competition in the selection process?

I never said that the government is paying unreasonable prices for A-E work. There are also statutory price constraints applicable to aspects of pricing A/E contracts. 

The suggestion has been made to “[a]dopt the architect-engineer method of contractor selection for all service procurements in excess of the SAT and all major system acquisitions.” This would be a quality based selection process without price competition, then essentially what amounts to a sole source price negotiation.

joel hoffman said:

This would be a quality based selection process without price competition, then essentially what amounts to a sole source price negotiation.

I don't think it is essentially a "sole source" price negotiation. It is negotiation with a chosen party, with others in the wings if the chosen party won't be reasonable and tries to drive too hard a bargain. A good contracting officer would have leverage, which they wouldn't have with a true sole source. And I don't know of any rule prohibiting the CO from asking one or more of the other parties for quotes while negotiating with the chosen party.

Unless these suggestion reduce costs and lower the Federal Budget Deficit, IMO the next Administration will not agree to adopt those that don’t. As of September, 2024, the  FY 2024 government  was running a cumulative budget deficit of $1.9 trillion.

For example, see: https://bipartisanpolicy.org/report/deficit-tracker/#:~:text=%24242 billion deficit%2C increasing year,(YOY) by %2421 billion.&text=The government is running a cumulative deficit of %241.5 trillion,adjusted for timing shifts*).

I don’t think that using QBS without direct price competition “for all service procurements in excess of the SAT and all major system acquisitions” will reduce the federal budget.

The discussoin of QBS took the discussion off track of sorts with regard to "what can be done to improve and streamline contracting without the need for new legislation." 

In the simplist of terms "time is money" raising the question is QBS faster than traditional FAR part 15 procedures even when married with FAR part 12?  Who knows but it was a question I raised to myself and then I thought about PALT.

The basic question raised in the opening post may or may not require extensive research before any one of the tens of ideas is pursued.  In my own research (that took 10 minutes on the internet) I found the following.  I have not read or studied each in detail but in a quick read I thought I would just pass them along.

Regarding PALT I found this -  https://www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/uploads/2021/01/OFPPPALTMemorandum-01-14-2021.pdf - that lead to this "Procurement Integrated Enterprise Environment (PIEE) website" which requires intranet access.   Made me wonder what data it has regarding PALT for QBS (aka A-E) procurements versus FAR part 15 procurements?

And then there was this https://apps.dtic.mil/sti/pdfs/AD1185073.pdf - AN ANALYSIS OF PROCUREMENT ACQUISITION LEAD TIME (PALT) AND ACQUISITION LEAD TIME (ALT) IN THE DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE (DOD).  What caught my eye in quick read was a short discussion of "where the rubber meets the road" that being contract administration in service contracts.  So a suggestion that does not take legislation - Ramp up the world of COR, make COR's  a full time position based on an individuals technical knowledge, continue the certification program for administrative knowledge and as a result do away with co-lateral duty COR's because co-lateral duty COR's is not doing contracting any favors!

Other Info - And I found this -https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/R/R42826 - The Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR): Answers to Frequently Asked Questions   Might be a good first read for those taking on the heavy lifting of improving and streamling without new legislation.  

This has been a very thought provoking discussion thread.

Quote

So a suggestion that does not take legislation- Ramp up the world of COR, make COR's  a full time position based on an individuals technical knowledge, continue the certification program for administrative knowledge and as a result do away with co-lateral duty COR's because co-lateral duty COR's is not doing contracting any favors!

Requiring Program/Project Management training as part of COR certification is very beneficial for many large scale contracts.  It’s also helpful for some acquisitions for 1102s.

I heard a funny response from a senior official about requiring a dedicated COR.  He said he will do that when he gets a dedicated contracting officer for his program.

The Section 809 Panel made 98 recommendations. How many didn’t require legislation? 

https://dair.nps.edu/handle/123456789/14

Are there any that can be implemented now? Here’s a list the Panel gave us to start —

Recommended Actions You Can Take Now

I'm looking in to that, Jamaal. Wanna help?

@Don Mansfield

Yes!

On 11/18/2024 at 5:16 AM, joel hoffman said:

I don’t think that using QBS without direct price competition “for all service procurements in excess of the SAT and all major system acquisitions” will reduce the federal budget.

@joel hoffman Okay. You have made that assertion several times now. You're making it on principle. I get it, but disagree.

I disagree because we spend a fortune every year on lengthy "best value" proposal-based competitions for services that too often take a year or more to conduct because we solicit and assemble teams to evaluate non-promissory proposals that are little more than sales pitches ("Describe your proposed approach..." "Demonstrate your understanding...).

We routinely declare price to be the least important evaluation factor, make fantasy findings of strengths and weaknesses that we say we have found in what is too often just bullshit, award contracts to strangers without ever having met or discussed anything with them, and then spend millions each year fighting and suffering delays due to protests about our evaluations and our fantasy findings of illusory "value." It wouldn't be so bad if we dropped the requirement for written proposals and evaluated oral presentations, instead, but we're too poorly trained, hidebound, and stupid to do that. 

And you think that's less costly and more economical than qualifications-based competition and one-on-one price negotiation with a tentative selectee and with competitors waiting in the wings?

Well, I reject your opinion. If we are ever able to make the change from proposal-based to qualifications-based competition for services a la the A-E method, you can complain to your congressional representatives.

Sorry I am late to the party. 

1. Allow partial payment on 2-in-1 vendor  invoices for services...This will give Contracting Officer's a better tool to handle non-conforming/partial contractor performance. 

2. Enforce DFARS PGI 204.7103 (d) (ii) which requires line item  quantities on service contracts to match frequency with which performance is reviewed and on fixed price line items, payment made. 

3. Require alignment as much as practicable of  Contracting Officer Representative (COR) periodic surveillance  ratings criteria in requirements documents (which are too often only expressed as a single  Satisfactory/Unsatisfactory standard for items observed by the COR, with those rating criteria already used on an annual basis in the Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS) which uses five rating criteria: Exceptional, Very Good, Satisfactory, Marginal, and Unsatisfactory). This provides a non-monetary incentive for greater contractor performance where the Government determines it can benefit.

On 11/16/2024 at 6:30 AM, Vern Edwards said:

The government calls it the "source selection process", and conducts it like a lawyer enrichment process

At one point during a protest against a $90M Part 16 (OASIS) award, I had four attorneys pouring over every word I wrote in the agency response. For several weeks. This was after GAO had dismissed most of their protest or the protestor dropped several points including an OCI allegation which called out an expired contract that had absolutely zero relevance.

The lawyers did hit paydirt however when they legitimately caught my mistake of using the word "it" in the debrief when I should have said "the offeror's [agency] experience". Serves me right for trying to provide useful feedback by condensing the tech eval comments down into cogent bullet points for the PA debrief. I had literally produced hundreds of pages of documents related to this procurement and that was the best they could do. This began in January and the GAO decision was issued in September. Guess who the incumbent was?

Get rid of perverse incentives in the procurement system and eliminate the CICA stay.

(Postscript: what has two thumbs and won a $90M protest? This guy!)

On 11/15/2024 at 3:38 PM, formerfed said:

I was at the Patent and Trademarks Office years ago.

Small world. I was there from 2013-2019 as the PM for a consultant team supporting Office of Procurement and a couple of the programs. One thing our team did was to help OP codify and institute the policies that recognized the flexibilities allowed USPTO per 35 U.S.C. 2(b)(4)(A), as a result of their fee-funded model.

 ptag.pdf

(One caveat is that the entire USPTO FY procurement spend is less than one contract under my current cognizance as CO).

On 11/7/2024 at 4:46 AM, Vern Edwards said:

I have been asked for ideas about what can be done to improve and streamline contracting without the need for new legislation.

Any suggestions?

Field a requirements development/definition tool that standardizes the format and structure regarding the description of agency needs. The tool would produce a digital document that feeds into contract writing systems and e-files; or could be printed. This would eliminate non-standard formats and Word documents. Variation often means waste and noncompliance.

With all of the software and systems out there, there is no reason requiring activities can’t have an automated tool that guides them through requirements development (think Turbo Tax). I’m thinking Contract Lifecycle Management (CLM) software not DAU’s ARRT Roadmap/Tool, which operated in Excel and was too hard for most users.

In my experience, requirements development makes up a lot of the lead time. First, the requiring activity takes months or years to produce a requirement of varying quality. Next, once the requirement is published to industry, the industrial base copious amounts of time and money interpreting it. Often, this results in a back-and-forth with government or misaligned acquisition outcomes.

A mandatory requirements definition tool would increase compliance, efficiency, automation, business intelligence/data reporting, transparency, etc. Together, this streamlines and improves several areas in government contracting formation and administration.

Jamaal Valentine said:

This idea doesn’t require any rule-making.

Field a requirements development/definition tool that standardizes the format and structure regarding the description of agency needs. The tool would produce a digital document that feeds into contract writing systems and e-files; or could be printed. This would eliminate non-standard formats and Word documents. Variation often means waste and noncompliance.

With all of the software and systems out there, there is no reason requiring activities can’t have an automated tool that guides them through requirements development (think Turbo Tax). I’m thinking Contract Lifecycle Management (CLM) software not DAU’s ARRT Roadmap/Tool, which operated in Excel and was too hard for most users.

In my experience, requirements development makes up a lot of the lead time. First, the requiring activity takes months or years to produce a requirement of varying quality. Next, once the requirement is published to industry, the industrial base copious amounts of time and money interpreting it. Often, this results in a back-and-forth with government or misaligned acquisition outcomes.

A mandatory requirements definition tool would increase compliance, efficiency, automation, business intelligence/data reporting, transparency, etc. Together, this streamlines and improves several areas in government contracting formation and administration.

Jamaal Valentine said:

In my experience, requirements development makes up a lot of the lead time. First, the requiring activity takes months or years to produce a requirement of varying quality. Next, once the requirement is published to industry, the industrial base copious amounts of time and money interpreting it. Often, this results in a back-and-forth with government or misaligned acquisition outcomes.

A mandatory requirements definition tool would increase compliance, efficiency, automation, business intelligence/data reporting, transparency, etc. Together, this streamlines and improves several areas in government contracting formation and administration.

A long time is spent on requirements development.  So much, program offices are often reluctant to allow more time issuing draft RFPs or RFQs.  Once they finish their part, they want to solicitation issues asap.  We all know what happens next - lots of industry questions and associated government answers, multiple amendments with proposal submission due date extensions, and occassionally just scraping the solicitation and starting over.

Your tool suggestion has merit.  I believe it might work even better with getting industry and even other agencies buying similar items involved early.  A preliminary or initial draft could be issued along with high level statements of what the acquisition is intended to accomplish.  Responses would allow refinements of the documents and alert the government on conflicting or confusing language, requirements that restrict competition or even impossibility of performance, and suggestions for overall improvements.  If this is done early on as part of planning, it shouldn’t produce any delay and might even save overall time.

On 11/7/2024 at 4:46 AM, Vern Edwards said:

I have been asked for ideas about what can be done to improve and streamline contracting without the need for new legislation.

Any suggestions?

Put AI to work on it.

Don't need AI. It's not smart enough.

We have received some terrific ideas from other sources, people who really know the business, inside and out𑁋people with both deep knowledge and hands-on practical experience at several organizational levels. A team of experienced writers is working hard on preparing them in presentation form.

I don't know if anything will come of them. Maybe nothing. We'll see over the course of the next year.

On 11/7/2024 at 6:46 AM, Vern Edwards said:

I have been asked for ideas about what can be done to improve and streamline contracting without the need for new legislation.

Any suggestions?

I am wondering what the context of “improve contracting” means here.

Improvements from whose prospective - the taxpayers, Industry, contracting workforce, government users/customers/efficient performance?

Are the suggested “improvements” mutually exclusive or complementary among the various stakeholders?

Just a rhetorical question. I can wait and see a what comes of it.  The last FY budget deficit was running around $1.7 TRILLION dollars… Something drastically needs to be done to reduce the cost of government operations.

…Of course, we could eliminate that deficit by collecting an extra $1.63 million from each of the estimated 1,050 US billionaires without any other cost savings.

joel hoffman said:

I am wondering what the context of “improve contracting” means here.

In an ambush there are two kinds of people: those who duck and wonder who the shooters are and those who fire at the noise.

It is often noted here that past performance is the best indicator of future performance. Unfortunately, the CPARS database is not very good. A smart group of database designers could improve it quickly and that would allow for more appropriate comparisons. It's often hard to tell if the past performance report you are looking at is for work comparable to your requirement. I'd add on some training requirements to try to improve the quality of the reports themselves. 

I do not think this is currently prohibited, but I have spoken to people who are uncomfortable doing it: We should be using the CPARS database for market research (especially an improved one). Knowing who is good at doing the thing you are buying helps you make some choices about procurement design, e.g., which GSA schedules/GWACs to consider. And even if you aren't using a schedule, getting your solicitation in front of a capable vendor is a decent step.