Tools used to track active contracts

Deltek’s ERP system and Cobblestone’s product are probably the two most frequently used. Both are complex yet robust and take effort to set up, train staff, and operate. But they are fine for large projects.

I personally think they are overkill for the majority of government contracts and those products are often barely used for their full capacity. What seems to work best and provide meaningful results are tools specifically set up for individual contract specific needs. First, define what data is needed to effectively manage and oversee performance. Then build the means to obtain and track using tools like Microsoft Project or Excel. Don’t overthink this - just brainstorm what’s needed and set up the process to provide results.

Thanks @formerfed . Microsoft Project is what we are thinking as well that way we can tailor, as you stated, to meet our needs vs. paying for an expensive license for a product that may be to much for our needs.

Civilian GVT - Not Classified

BLUF - We use Microsoft 365 products (Excel, Power BI), not because they are the best, but because people know how to use them.

Basic individual data needs or ad-hoc reporting is typically Excel files.

Tracking - and other types of sophisticated information that is used by many people - is centrally administrated and communicated out via dashboards and metrics. We primarily use PowerBI, since it is (relatively) easy to use. Some science/tech groups within agency use Tableau, which they are more familiar with. Agency has some extremely power Oracle reporting tools that I detest and never use.

Our data is simple - hosted in private .gov cloud, isn't classified, doesn't need custom permissions, isn't confidential (like, no source selection info, no detailed invoice/cost info). Despite our relative simplicity, data management still manages to be the hardest part. Centrally controlled data is an effort, but better than the alternative of distributing out the raw data and having everyone use Excel to make up their own undocumented, customized, and conflicting metrics.

@ All:

What data should be tracked?

Vern Edwards said:

@ All:

What data should be tracked?

I’ve thought about this and I can’t don’t come up with a simple answer. There are so many variables - contract type, nature of what’s being brought, criticality of successful performance to mission, COR/PM respective roles to the CO, availability of existing data in other systems like financial payments and invoice acceptance, and even management desire to monitor certain items.

Take the example of “burn rate.” Does a contracting officer want details to track? Or do they want the COR to be totally responsible for that? Or are the contractors periodic status reports sufficient?

At the highest level, there should be data letting the contracting officer know the likelihood that performance will be on time and within price/cost limits.

formerfed said:

There are so many variables

Government perspecitve or contractor perspective. It might just be that the OP asked the question from the contractor perspective and the thread has turned to the government perspective.

formerfed said:

Or do they want the COR to be totally responsible for that?

And to nit pick a little more "COR/PM" seems to be more appropriate.

Good morning,

I am a contractor, per se, but this is more for the government sponsor. We have fancy dashboards for other areas, just not for acquisition. The end state would be to build something in Jira that can pull the required data from our servers to present into a visual (tableau) for the director and Deputy Director in charge of the program. A placemat for each active contract tailored to the complexity and dollar amount.

Vern Edwards said:

What data elements should you track?

Contract data is useful, but what we are doing is people.

CORs. We lost hundreds of CORs, most of our best CORs, and had perhaps a thousand active contracts change CORs (compared to ~100 for prior years). Many brand-new CORs. CORs abruptly assigned to complex ongoing contracts, or to contracts that had no COR for months, etc. Critical COR shorts in many domains - IT, research, facilities, cost contracts, etc. One COR Level 2 has >90 contracts. We've got a COR Level 1 with 40 assigned to them. Few of them understand the nuances of the FAC cert process.

So, we now are building a lot of COR tracking. Something that is new. Whose got the certificates, much more detail about certification and training status, who can do what, who has capacity, etc. As little of this is or can be automated, it's a far high effort for a pretty basic output compared to anything you can do with financial or acquisition data.

On 12/9/2025 at 10:51 AM, dave2025 said:

Good morning,

I am a contractor, per se, but this is more for the government sponsor. We have fancy dashboards for other areas, just not for acquisition. The end state would be to build something in Jira that can pull the required data from our servers to present into a visual (tableau) for the director and Deputy Director in charge of the program. A placemat for each active contract tailored to the complexity and dollar amount.

I think if you are using something like Jira and applying it to contracts, you are a pioneer. If you can do it so it’s useful to a contracting office and just the contracting function, that would be amazing.

This could be so useful to contract management and let them know early on of potential problems.

@formerfed I just need to teach myself Jira. challenge accepted. i mean how hard can it be? if i remember -- i will report back with how it is coming along.

dave2025 said:

I just need to teach myself

I would suggest adding in a little research too. In the world of government sometimes someone has already created the tool. Quick research on my part dug up this up (link below). No promotion on my part by offering it up and it might not be what you are looking for. Just a tickler to suggest there might be something out there already.

Atlassian

Atlassian Government Teams | Atlassian

Jira, Confluence, and Trello help agencies plan and collaborate at scale. Explore secure and scaleable cloud and data center products, backed by certificat

Do we devote too much time to complicated IT/software tracking and management "tools"?

How did we ever track and manage complicated undertakings before we had them? Like the SR-71?

Have government program outcomes improved significantly since the arrival of management information systems?

I sometimes wonder if the IT management software industry has sold us a bill of goods.

On 12/11/2025 at 8:51 AM, Vern Edwards said:

Do we devote too much time to complicated IT/software tracking and management "tools"?

How did we ever track and manage complicated undertakings before we had them? Like the SR-71?

Have government program outcomes improved significantly since the arrival of management information systems?

I sometimes wonder if the IT management software industry has sold us a bill of goods.

To answer the question: Yes. We have all these fancy tools and filling them in daily/weekly/monthly becomes a significant part of the job. Then no one ever looks at the tools themselves, so you get one-off data calls that are already answered by looking in the tool. Then a persistent comment at your weekly or monthly staff meeting is to update the information in the tool. All of this to give management a feeling that they are managing something.

Back in my SES days, I really tried hard to find the information myself before asking a staff member for it. The amount of work (and sometimes panic) that comes with a data call is massive. There is so much information already at your finger tips that you rarely need to ask if you try to know where to look. Even something basic like usaspending.gov will give you basic information on the project, vendor, obligation, POP, and outlays.

(As an aside, I read a long article about Skunk Works yesterday. They were able to field an SR-71 prototype in fewer than 200 days. Amazing.)

I'm curious to know whether anyone has experience using PRISM for workload tracking. My office is in the process of converting from our trusty Excel-based trackers to PRISM, and it's not going well -- big gaps in the data we need, wonky presentation, and extreme latency.

Anyone have a similar or different experience with PRISM?

DHS and GSA apparently have success with PRISM. DoD is starting to use it as well. You might have your technical experts contact DHS for advice.

On 12/5/2025 at 9:28 AM, dave2025 said:

Hello,

Curious what tools (Microsoft Project, Paperless Contract File (PCF), Excel, etc.) are used out there for folks to internally track their active contracts. PoP, burn rate, contract performance, current value, total contract value, etc. And if used on classified networks. Thank you.

On 12/9/2025 at 7:51 AM, dave2025 said:

I am a contractor, per se, but this is more for the government sponsor. We have fancy dashboards for other areas, just not for acquisition. The end state would be to build something in Jira that can pull the required data from our servers to present into a visual (tableau) for the director and Deputy Director in charge of the program. A placemat for each active contract tailored to the complexity and dollar amount.

Jargon is fascinating. (This is not a complaint or criticism. Jargon often serves a useful purpose.) New contract specialists should study the jargon(s) used by their colleagues in various fields. Keep a little notebook.

Jargon is often written off as a bad thing. But technical jargon is both necessary and useful for members of a profession or other group to communicate with each other.

Plenty of Words to Serve!

by Elllio M Imbasciati  

Lyrically spiritual,
An apparition magician
There's the word one minute,
Then the next,
Something new, but the previous unit of language is never forgotten,
Plenty of words to serve!
Oral or verbal,
An underrated chatterboxer,
Swinging his dictionaries & thesauruses in glee,
Firmly confirming the triumph of the unconquerable mind

FROM TECHNICAL JARGON TO PLAIN ENGLISH.pdf THE PENETRATION OF SPECIALIZED JARGON.pdf

FrankJon said:

I'm curious to know whether anyone has experience using PRISM for workload tracking. My office is in the process of converting from our trusty Excel-based trackers to PRISM, and it's not going well -- big gaps in the data we need, wonky presentation, and extreme latency.

Yes. A topic near to my heart. Your PRISM version may be very different from mine, and PRISM is rapidly changing, so not all of this rant may apply.

PRISM (my version and at least some others I know of) uses requisitions (called requisitions in PRISM, but goes by different names, it is the funding document) to track requirements This is PRISM's fatal flaw. Funding Requirement.

I suppose If your office typically has a single requirement with a single requisition that arrives at the beginning of the process, and "workload" means "Preaward-Only" then PRISM is technically acceptable for workload. If not, PRISM is bad, don't use it.

PRISM - at least my version - has minimal to no workload tracking functionality beyond requisitions. Most likely you will need to continue to track workload outside of PRISM and then reconcile the two sources.

Even this most elemental of tracking mechanisms fails if funding (requisitions) is moderately complicated.

Disclosure: I work within HHS, where PRISM is called HCAS. I've said all of this (and more, this is the short list) on the record to HCAS PMs, who will probably read this and disagree with me.

Just now, Vern Edwards said:

Jargon is fascinating. (This is not a complaint or criticism. Jargon often serves a useful purpose.) New contract specialists should study the jargon(s) used by their colleagues in various fields. Keep a little notebook.

It is especially important for newbies to understand the difference between jargon and terms of art. See Garner's Modern English Usage, 4th ed. (2016):

JARGON refers to the special, usually technical idiom of any social, occupational, or professional group. It arises from the need to streamline communication, to save time and space—and occasionally to conceal meaning from the uninitiated. The subject has magnified importance today because "we live in an age when vague rhetoric and incomprehensible jargon predominate."

See Garner's Dictionary of Legal Usage, 3d ed. (2011):

TERMS OF ART are words having a specific, precise meaning in a given specialty... One secret of good legal writing is to distinguish rigorously between terms of art and mere jargon."

See: ALLIANT TECHSYSTEMS INC., ATK Aerospace Group, Plaintiff, v. The UNITED STATES, Defendant, 74 Fed. C. Fed.Cl. 566, 579, United States Court of Federal Claims:

This case presents a difficult question of contract interpretation, complicated by the subsurface presence of confusing jargon, complex benefits concepts, and esoteric accounting issues—as the background section, above, can attest. The difficulty is compounded by the parties' squabbling over the use of terms, best exemplified by the plaintiff's insistence in describing the proportion of benefits costs that corresponded to the Army's percentage of its business base as the “Fair Share PRB Costs,” and the government's refusal to adopt this somewhat-loaded label... But merely because interpretation is attended with some difficulty does not mean that a contract is ambiguous, as a careful review of the language relevant to these proceedings confirms.

And see United Launch Services, LLC, 14-1 BCA P 35511 (Armed Services Board of Contract Appeals):

Although the term “equitable adjustment” has been considered a term of art, that conclusion arises from its use in non-commercial items contracts where the government has a right to direct a unilateral change. In that context, the term is generally limited to requiring those “corrective measures utilized to keep a contractor whole when the Government modifies a contract.” Pacific Architects & Engineers, Inc. v. United States, 491 F.2d 734, 739 (Ct. Cl. 1974). However, this customary understanding of the term need not be followed in the event of a significant change in context. General Builders Supply Co. v. United States, 409 F.2d 246, 249-50 (Ct. Cl. 1969). The Changes clause in this commercial items contract dictates that it can only be changed with the agreement of the parties. It requires the parties to negotiate an equitable adjustment in the event they agree upon a change causing an increase or decrease in contract costs, performance time, or that otherwise affects any other contract provision, but it does not define the limitations of the equitable adjustment. The government cites no authority defining the term in this context.

We work in a complex legal environment. Contracting professionals must communicate clearly.

DAU (Defense Acquisition University) defines burn rate as "The monthly rate at which a contractor's funds are expended during the period of the contract."

https://www.dau.edu/glossary/burn-rate

Now, what does that mean, exactly? Is it the rate at which the contractor incurs costs or pays money or the rate at which the government allocates funds to the contract? Are they the same thing? Is it something else entirely? Is it the actual cost of the work performed?

The term "burn rate" is not anywhere defined anywhere in the FAR System (Title 48, Code of Federal Regulations). It is not defined in a financial context anywhere within the Code of Federal Regulations. It is not defined in the United States Code. It is not defined in Black's Law Dictionary. Is it a term of art? Is it jargon? Does it's meaning depend on context? If so, how? A review of government contract court and board decisions shows that the term has been used in a number of way inconsistent with DAU's definition.

I believe that this is the kind of thinking that a contracting officer should do when writing and reviewing prospective contract documents, in order to avoid needless disputes. That's part of why contracting officers exist. That's the kind of thing we do. That's part of our value added.

My shop has a custom dashboard that pulls information from our contract writing system (not PRISM). This dashboard tracks unassigned PRs, POP expirations, burn rates, and other related information. I think it also tracks offices, CORs, NAICS, and PSCs as well. We also track outstanding FPDS and CPARS, but I think that is done on a different dashboard. The challenge here is that sometimes, the quality of the info output is only as good as the input.

General.Zhukov said:

PRISM (my version and at least some others I know of) uses requisitions (called requisitions in PRISM, but goes by different names, it is the funding document) to track requirements This is PRISM's fatal flaw. Funding Requirement.

Equal experience some years ago when PRISM was activated for the agency I worked for. I always felt the fatal flaw was not Funding Requirement, it was the fact that PRISM was adopted for agency use by the financial side of the house with minimal input for acquisition. At that time by my research and experience PRISM was (is?) limited only by what parts the agency wanted to implement. The experience was during training on it use where we were told something like "Oh we are not using that element of PRISM." Reasoning - more costly to do so.

On 12/12/2025 at 3:35 PM, formerfed said:

DHS and GSA apparently have success with PRISM. DoD is starting to use it as well. You might have your technical experts contact DHS for advice.

General.Zhukov said:

Yes. A topic near to my heart. Your PRISM version may be very different from mine, and PRISM is rapidly changing, so not all of this rant may apply.

PRISM (my version and at least some others I know of) uses requisitions (called requisitions in PRISM, but goes by different names, it is the funding document) to track requirements This is PRISM's fatal flaw. Funding Requirement.

I suppose If your office typically has a single requirement with a single requisition that arrives at the beginning of the process, and "workload" means "Preaward-Only" then PRISM is technically acceptable for workload. If not, PRISM is bad, don't use it.

PRISM - at least my version - has minimal to no workload tracking functionality beyond requisitions. Most likely you will need to continue to track workload outside of PRISM and then reconcile the two sources.

Even this most elemental of tracking mechanisms fails if funding (requisitions) is moderately complicated.

Disclosure: I work within HHS, where PRISM is called HCAS. I've said all of this (and more, this is the short list) on the record to HCAS PMs, who will probably read this and disagree with me.

C Culham said:

Equal experience some years ago when PRISM was activated for the agency I worked for. I always felt the fatal flaw was not Funding Requirement, it was the fact that PRISM was adopted for agency use by the financial side of the house with minimal input for acquisition. At that time by my research and experience PRISM was (is?) limited only by what parts the agency wanted to implement. The experience was during training on it use where we were told something like "Oh we are not using that element of PRISM." Reasoning - more costly to do so.

Thank you all for the feedback! From what I hear, my agency paid for "all the bells and whistles" for our version of PRISM. So my assumption is the powers that be will be eager to throw good money after bad for quite a while...

by PRISM do you mean the contract writing system?

Good question, dave2025. As a point of clarification for the entire discussion for everyone, PRISM is a very robust system and contract writing is just one component. Some other pieces including requisitions, workflow processing, contract management/administration support, vendor management, FPDS input, and financial integration. The financial portion is very important to some agencies because it allows seamless interface with accounting and financial systems.

All this means is someone with all these components can initiate and track requisitions, apply funds certification (only authorized users while others can view), create solicitation and award documents, track invoices and payments including line-by-line account reconciliation, and initiate closeout. The interface also allows easier creation of dashboards if that’s of importance to offices.

formerfed said:

As a point of clarification for the entire discussion for everyone, PRISM is a very robust system and contract writing is just one component. Some other pieces including requisitions, workflow processing, contract management/administration support, vendor management, FPDS input, and financial integration. The financial portion is very important to some agencies because it allows seamless interface with accounting and financial systems.

Wow!

The first of the PRISMs was introduced in 2007. How did we manage the contracts for the B-52, the SR-71, ICBMs and launch vehicles, MIRVs, the F-16, and to go to the moon and back without it? Are we doing better today?

The advertising:

Designed for federal contracting professionals, our industry-leading PRISM solution ensures strict adherence to the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR). This AI-enabled, user-friendly solution simplifies the acquisition lifecycle, automates complex processes, and ensures regulatory compliance.

So that's what 1102s are spending their time learning today. Automated bookkeeping.

Well, okay. That and the RFOn are all we need. Problems solved.

formerfed said:

All this means is someone with all these

Sorry I wasn't clear. The agency I worked for had it all but would not support it's use beyond the requisition and contract writing aspect. By support investing in training, etc. for vibrant use.

Vern Edwards said:

Wow

Easier to buy administrative systems for what many view as the routine effort to do acquisition. I think viewed as less expensive than hiring and retaining a broad spectrum acquisition staff (1105, 1106, 1101, 1102) as well. But that is an old tune!

I wonder if it's more fun to learn PRISM than it was to learn contract negotiation. Oh, well. AI will take over what's left of 1102 work.

What's bothering me about this thread is that you're not talking about contracting. You're talking bout bookkeeping.

I'm coming to the realization that contracting is a dead field and a dead topic.

Vern Edwards said:

So that's what 1102s are spending their time learning today. Automated bookkeeping.

Some of this stuff is really beneficial and saves time and frustration. For example a contract specialist needs a funding requisition. They can quickly check to see status and where it’s at in the approval process. If it’s urgent they can speed it up. Or a contractor wants to know status of an invoice. The contract specialist can quickly track the invoice down and spot reasons for possible delay. Another example one can see how much money remains on a contract in real time.

A manager can look at how many expiring contracts come up for renewals. What actions are exceeding PALT.

I know 1102s spend too much time with automation and blindly follow what contract writing systems produce without detailed verification. This also leads them to not knowing over time what clauses say and mean. They just go with what the system produces. Unfortunately it will get worse, especially with AI capabilities getting better and better.

Edit: Vern, I was writing this response and didn’t see your latest post. I agree.

C Culham said:

I wonder if it's more fun to learn PRISM than it was to learn contract negotiation. Oh, well. AI will take over what's left of 1102 work.

@Moderator I actually donot disagree with this quote. However I don't think I penned it. I could be mistaken. If there is a way to give due credit to the author or correct my memory I would appreciate it.

Thanks!

C Culham said:

@Moderator I actually donot disagree with this quote. However I don't think I penned it. I could be mistaken. If there is a way to give due credit to the author or correct my memory I would appreciate it.

Thanks!

@C Culham Carl, I wrote that. I think. I don't know how the mix-up happened. ?????

Vern Edwards said:

What's bothering me about this thread is that you're not talking about contracting. You're talking bout bookkeeping.

I'm coming to the realization that contracting is a dead field and a dead topic.

I started as an 1102 a little under a decade ago and ever since I started, I would contend it has always been more about bookkeeping than doing actual contract specialist work. Why is it contracting's responsibility to track you down for a complete package when it's you that needs it and not me? Why do I need to send the customer a notification that their contract option exercise date is 120 days away? Why isn't the COR tracking contract ceiling? My command loves the phrase "customer service" and so we do it all for the "customer." Maybe a program office works different but coming from a non-program office, I view my role as nothing more than a paper pusher who will soon be phased out by AI before too long. Even with an unlimited warrant I still have to pass through five levels of review/approval before I can award something. What's the purpose of my warrant if I need five higher level reviews? If you don't trust my judgement at that level don't give me the warrant beyond whatever threshold you do trust me at.

As stated before I am a consultant supporting the sponsor in the IC community and they use PRISM. I had an account to pull reports and review contracts and from what I can see is that it is a terrible system on par with PD2. This agency is in the works of acquiring a new contract writing system...they want their own versus using what other 3 letter agencies are using. because why? because who really cares about being a good steward of tax payer dollars? i digress.

OverThinking said:

I started as an 1102 a little under a decade ago and ever since I started, I would contend it has always been more about bookkeeping than doing actual contract specialist work. Why is it contracting's responsibility to track you down for a complete package when it's you that needs it and not me? Why do I need to send the customer a notification that their contract option exercise date is 120 days away? Why isn't the COR tracking contract ceiling? My command loves the phrase "customer service" and so we do it all for the "customer." Maybe a program office works different but coming from a non-program office, I view my role as nothing more than a paper pusher who will soon be phased out by AI before too long. Even with an unlimited warrant I still have to pass through five levels of review/approval before I can award something. What's the purpose of my warrant if I need five higher level reviews? If you don't trust my judgement at that level don't give me the warrant beyond whatever threshold you do trust me at.

I have said this before to folks, "Nobody knows who contracting is, but when they do, it is always our fault."

dave2025 said:

This agency is in the works of acquiring a new contract writing system...they want their own versus using what other 3 letter agencies are using. because why?

I have to laugh about "contract writing systems" (CWS). No one writes a government contract. They assemble it.

Of course, someone has to write some of the parts, like the product specification, the service statement of work, the deliverable data descriptions, and special clauses. Does the contract writing system decide what those should say and them write them?

I'm really asking. Does the CWS think up what must be produced or done and then write the documents that describe them? Or is "contract writing" just the selection of FAR and agency supplement standard contract clauses? What about non-standard clauses? Does the CWS think up what they should say and then write the clauses?

OverThinking said:

I started as an 1102 a little under a decade ago...

By that time contracting was already a ruined career field. It became ruined because the contracting profession was not solving problems. I and others have been documenting and writing about the process of deterioration for more than 30 years. I have written about 300 articles about it in various publications, mainly in The Nash & Cibinic Report, buy also here.

The contracting profession can blame itself for many (not all) of their problems. Mainly, for lack of leadership.

Today, contracting has a chance to recover. The smart thinkers and hard chargers have the chance of a lifetime to seize the day. The rest will continue to be clerks.

You know how I can tell the difference? The clerks ask what's the difference between the old FAR and the overhauled FAR. The smart thinkers don't care about the difference; they don't plan to think about the old FAR; they are already thinking about what they can come up with to do better work and do it faster under the new FAR.

The clerks will wait for the "buying guides" from on high... and new software.

dave2025 said:

I have said this before to folks, "Nobody knows who contracting is, but when they do, it is always our fault."

Great expectations are the paving stones to power over the process.

I love great expectations. I love the looks on their faces when you produce. And the phone calls you get from happy higher ups.

If the people I supported didn't have great expectations, I'd suggest some.

I once had a boss (a colonel who became a major general) who would give me really hard tasks. If I looked at him blankly he would say, "Consider it an opportunity to excel."

I took him seriously.

Vern Edwards said:

Great expectations are the paving stones to power over the process.

I love great expectations. I love the looks on their faces when you produce.

If the people I supported didn't have great expectations, I'd suggest some.

Excellent thoughts! This seems like a great theme for an article or class. Very motivational.

On 12/15/2025 at 3:00 PM, formerfed said:

orkflow processing, contract management/administration support, vendor management, FPDS input, and financial integration. The financial portion is very important to some agencies because it allows seamless interface with accounting and financial systems.

All this means is someone with all these components can initiate and track requisi

On 12/16/2025 at 9:14 AM, Vern Edwards said:

By that time contracting was already a ruined career field. It became ruined because the contracting profession was not solving problems. I and others have been documenting and writing about the process of deterioration for more than 30 years. I have written about 300 articles about it in various publications, mainly in The Nash & Cibinic Report, buy also here.

The contracting profession can blame itself for many (not all) of their problems. Mainly, for lack of leadership.

Today, contracting has a chance to recover. The smart thinkers and hard chargers have the chance of a lifetime to seize the day. The rest will continue to be clerks.

You know how I can tell the difference? The clerks ask what's the difference between the old FAR and the overhauled FAR. The smart thinkers don't care about the difference; they don't plan to think about the old FAR; they are already thinking about what they can come up with to do better work and do it faster under the new FAR.

The clerks will wait for the "buying guides" from on high... and new software.

There is still a heavy emphasis, at least at my agency, on 1102s being "business advisors" that handle many aspects, including things that are normally done by supporting offices. I think program offices have grown quite comfortable with having CO's pick up all these extra duties. The amount of meetings and "planning" that goes into maintaining and even understanding these complex procurement systems is massive. We spend far more time studying and debating means and methods than we do with the fundamentals.

On 12/15/2025 at 6:47 PM, Vern Edwards said:

What's bothering me about this thread is that you're not talking about contracting. You're talking bout bookkeeping.

I'm coming to the realization that contracting is a dead field and a dead topic.

Contracting is less important today than it was then. As time goes on, we will no longer have "Contracting Squadrons" or "Contracting Agencies" the Contracting Officer will be absorbed under the requirement organization. Each requirement organization will have a Contracting person at their disposal, maybe they'll even change the name of the Contracting officer to a resource advisor, the FAR will be updated so that contracting officers are not the only ones that can obligate the government.

MatrixDealMaker said:

Contracting is less important today than it was then.

No, it's not. It's just not as much fun as it used to be, largely due to the contracting workforce itself

MatrixDealMaker said:

As time goes on, we will no longer have "Contracting Squadrons" or "Contracting Agencies" the Contracting Officer will be absorbed under the requirement organization. Each requirement organization will have a Contracting person at their disposal....

I hope so. For your sake(s).

Government contracting is the work of planning, designing, entering into, and managing (administering) contracts for the procurement of materials, products, and services that government agencies need in order to fulfill the duties assigned to them by Congress and the President, all in accordance with statute, regulation, and sound business practice.

Government contracting is a specialty largely because of the myriad statutes and regulations that govern contracting processes and procedures and the expectations of the American public. It will always be a specialty. It's not going away. It takes know-how in several action domains, and the quality of professional life for contracting officers is largely a function of their knowledge, competence, and energy. And that's where the profession has failed itself.

The last thing I would want to do is work in a "contracting squadron" or "contracting agency" or staff. I would want to work for, r_eport to, and be evaluated by_ the man or woman who ultimately needs the product or service. The "owner" of the requirement. My motto, on a plaque behind my office wall or cubicle partition:

Just tell me what you want, when and where you want it, and how much money you've got or can get.

All of you who think your work is harder now than it was when I was working are wrong. What's different is attitude, determination, and level of commitment. You think buying military space systems during the Cold War was leisurely and easy? If so, it's because you don't know the history of your profession.

You'll have a golden opportunity next year to seize the day. Take it!

Find a way or make one. That's the fun part. But it takes study and hard work.

Vern Edwards said:

Find a way or make one. That's the fun part. But it takes study and hard work.

I love this.

Also, thank you for the 300 plus articles written and the time you have devoted to this site. There are still a few of us out there who and are curious creatures seeking knowledge, growth, and opportunities outside of our comfort zone. I once had someone tell me experience comes from time, and you gain that experience by either having lived through it, or you can hijack that time and read about someone else's experience.

Vern Edwards said:

You'll have a golden opportunity next year to seize the day. Take it!

Find a way or make one. That's the fun part. But it takes study and hard work.

So true. The RFO provides a means for someone to shine. While others sit back and wait for additional guidance, detailed policy memorandums, examples to copy, and see that’s it fine to proceed, a few will see the opportunity to be a pioneer. They will just jump in and use RFO now. Those will be looked at as taking bold actions and not timid. They will be in demand. Others will be eager to listen to or read what they have to say.

I know already what the typical reactions to this will be - “wish I could but I can’t do that where I work.” If you are motivated, you’ll just be able to do it.

I saw this in another site on a completely different topic. But it’s relevant here.

“While your organization debates strategies, policies, governance, and pilot plans….you could be operating in expert mode.”

formerfed said:

While others sit back and wait for additional guidance, detailed policy memorandums, examples to copy, and see that’s it fine to proceed, a few will see the opportunity to be a pioneer.

There it is!

Don't ask what's different between what the old FAR said and what the new FAR says! It kills me when people ask that. It doesn't matter! Forget the old FAR! What matters is what the new FAR says.

Don't wait for guidance! Just:

1. read the new FAR,

2. decide what you think it allows/requires you to do,

3. talk it over with colleagues you respect for their knowledge, competence, and willingness to think new thoughts,

4. think it through, plot a course, and develop a supporting argument for the staff naysayers (write it out for preparation and presentation), then

5. Go for it.

They want innovation, so innovate! Keep doing it! Don't let fear of criticism enter into your way of thinking. You don't have to win your first battle or every battle, but you must learn after each battle.

Be a leader. Consider every battle to be an opportunity to excel.

Vern Edwards said:

he last thing I would want to do is work in a "contracting squadron" or "contracting agency" or staff. I would want to work for, r_eport to, and be evaluated by_ the man or woman who ultimately needs the product or service.

Years ago, I was an Army officer who had some COR duties while deployed. As I was responsible for base security, I was the COR for related contracts (3rd country guards, perimeter maintenance, interpreters, fancy security devices, etc.). Our base security contracts were ... satisfactory. The Contracting Office was AF. I visited their base sometimes. You know who had exceptional base security contract performance - fences maintained, barriers and bunkers trash-free, well-disciplined contract guards, the latest fancy devices scanning and detecting threats? The base home to the COs who ran the base security contracts.

Going back in this thread, here’s an interesting comment about tools to track I copied from another forum:

Flywheel of Failure: Stop Managing Programs. Start Managi...

Mark says it best - government CULTURE "... rewards the perfect management of a failure, rather than the messy iteration of a success." We need to embrace OUTCOMES over process. Battlefield success

“And I can tell you, with absolute certainty, that there is almost zero correlation between a program marked "Green" on a PowerPoint slide and a piece of software that actually works for the mission.

This is the enduring flywheel of failure facing the Department of Defense (DoD) today. We are culturally addicted to Program Management—the administration of contracts, schedules, and compliance artifacts. But we are starving for Product Management—the relentless pursuit of value, quality, and user satisfaction.

We have built a system that rewards the perfect management of a failure, rather than the messy iteration of a success”

formerfed said:

Going back in this thread, here’s an interesting comment about tools to track I copied from another forum:

Flywheel of Failure: Stop Managing Programs. Start Managi...

Mark says it best - government CULTURE "... rewards the perfect management of a failure, rather than the messy iteration of a success." We need to embrace OUTCOMES over process. Battlefield success

“And I can tell you, with absolute certainty, that there is almost zero correlation between a program marked "Green" on a PowerPoint slide and a piece of software that actually works for the mission.

This is the enduring flywheel of failure facing the Department of Defense (DoD) today. We are culturally addicted to Program Management—the administration of contracts, schedules, and compliance artifacts. But we are starving for Product Management—the relentless pursuit of value, quality, and user satisfaction.

We have built a system that rewards the perfect management of a failure, rather than the messy iteration of a success”

The map is not the territory.

I'm not an expert in software development and never awarded a software production contract, but Mark Munsell's essay makes sense to me. I do know that software production has long been problematical.

We track it in excel. We track it in teams. We track it in a useless center wide database that is only flagged for compliance once a year and is never looked at. We track it in biweekly meetings. We track it in KTfileshare.

Let me count the ways we waste our time.