Four RFO Questions

When conducting a source selection under FAR Part 15, they no longer need to evaluate professional employee compensation

When conducting a source selection under FAR Part 15, they must negotiate (bargain, engage in give-and-take) with all offerors in the competitive range, rather than merely conduct discussions. The word "discussions" has been dropped.

Vern Edwards said:

When conducting a source selection under FAR Part 15, they must negotiate (bargain, engage in give-and-take) with all offerors in the competitive range, rather than merely conduct discussions.

wow, that is great- if it actually happens!

@joel hoffman Why do you think it's great?

joel hoffman said:

wow, that is great- if it actually happens!

Bargaining for better performance. I had numerous KO’s argue that it’s their Districts’ policy that if some aspect of a proposal meets the minimum technical requirements - even if it is objectionable or barely acceptable that they aren’t allowed to discuss that aspect with an offeror. They said they would have to issue a change after award to get what they want!!!

I’m certain that their supervisors from the pre- 1997 “FAR Part 15 rewrite” era never learned that bargaining for better performance was stressed in the rewrite”. So darned aggravating!!!

To clarify, these were design-build construction RFP’s.

I'm wonder what is the point of the OP's four questions. Aren't the answers available at the RFO section of Acquisition.gov? Don't the practitioner albums provide the answers?

Don Mansfield said:

What are contracting officers required to do post-RFO that they were not required to do pre-RFO?

Write a Determination and Findings pursuant to RFO 1.5 when soliciting from a single source for a noncommercial service or product that is valued at or below the SAT.

Don Mansfield said:

What are contracting officers not required to do post-RFO that they were required to do pre-RFO?

Determine only one source is "reasonably available" when restricting competition to one source for a commercial service or product at or below the SAT..

Vern Edwards said:

When conducting a source selection under FAR Part 15, they must negotiate (bargain, engage in give-and-take) with all offerors in the competitive range, rather than merely conduct discussions. The word "discussions" has been dropped.

What's the difference between discussions as used in the current FAR and competitive negotiations as used in the RFO?

Don Mansfield said:

What's the difference between discussions as used in the current FAR and competitive negotiations as used in the RFO?

Excellent question! The current FAR says discussions are negotiations. But the RFP drops "discussions" and speaks only of negotiation.

I recently published an article and said that most 1102s have little real negotiating experience and that competitive negotiations involve very little if any bargaining. I said that I wonder what COs will do differently.

Only time will tell.

I don't think that contracting officers are required to do anything differently post-RFO when it comes to competitive negotiations. The minimum information that they must communicate hasn't changed.

@Don Mansfield

Thanks for sharing what you don't think. 😄

On 2/26/2026 at 3:57 AM, Vern Edwards said:

I'm wonder what is the point of the OP's four questions. Aren't the answers available at the RFO section of Acquisition.gov? Don't the practitioner albums provide the answers?

If the answers are readily available, I’ll take a cite.

I don’t think reading the 52 different practitioner albums will provide the answers. The RFO Strategic Acquisition Guidance (SAG) requires much more reading. Even if you read it all, it seemingly leaves much more room for various interpretations *cough, discretion*.

Has any tallied the SAG page counts and compared them the old FAR?

Oh wait, I skipped the agency deviations…we need to read all of those too. Maybe we will never able to fully answer these questions until formal rule-making is complete.

Jamaal Valentine said:

Maybe we will never able to fully answer these questions until formal rule-making is complete.

Exactly.

On 2/26/2026 at 6:21 AM, C Culham said:

Determine only one source is "reasonably available" when restricting competition to one source for a commercial service or product at or below the SAT..

I think you’re right. It’s even worse. Under RFO FAR 12.102(a), contracting officers must document the decision that only one source is available and the basis for the decision.

Jamaal Valentine said:

If the answers are readily available, I’ll take a cite.

Ask a clear and specific question, and I'll see if I can provide a cite.

@Vern Edwards

Don asked the four questions virtually all practitioners are wondering. I’m open to answers others have curated or crowd sourcing answers to those questions. Carl offered a couple of examples.

Jamaal Valentine said:

@Vern Edwards

Don asked the four questions virtually all practitioners are wondering. I’m open to answers others have curated or crowd sourcing answers to those questions. Carl offered a couple of examples.

On 2/25/2026 at 2:23 PM, Don Mansfield said:

2. What are contracting officers not required to do post-RFO that they were required to do pre-RFO?

@Jamaal Valentine

See FAR Subpart 22.11, Professional Employee Compensation, and RFO 22.11. FAR 22.1103 provides as follows:

All professional employees shall be compensated fairly and properly. Accordingly, the contracting officer shall insert the provision at 52.222-46, Evaluation of Compensation for Professional Employees, in solicitations for negotiated contracts when the contract amount is expected to exceed $900,000 and services are to be provided which will require meaningful numbers of professional employees. This provision requires that offerors submit for evaluation a total compensation plan setting forth proposed salaries and fringe benefits for professional employees working on the contract. Supporting information will include data, such as recognized national and regional compensation surveys and studies of professional, public and private organizations, used in establishing the total compensation structure. Plans indicating unrealistically low professional employee compensation may be assessed adversely as one of the factors considered in making an award.

The RFO deleted that requirement, FAR Subpart 22.11 is now RESERVED.

Does that satisfy your need for a cite? Need more?

See FAR 37.6, Performance-Based Acquisition, Section 37.601(b)(1) and (2) states that solicitations for services "shall include... (1) A performance work statement (PWS)" that "shall include— (2) Measurable performance standards (i.e., in terms of quality, timeliness, quantity, etc., and the method of assessing contractor performance against performance standards.

The RFO moves that coverage to 37.102-1(a)(3), which says that performance work statements must include measurable standards only to "the maximum extent practicable." In other words, not always, but only when you can.

Does that satisfy your need for a cite?

Need more? If so, READ!

You don't need "crowd sourcing." You need only one person with a brain and diligence.

1102s are supposed to be the FAR experts, the FAR know-it-alls. It's our job to STUDY and MASTER those parts of the FAR that affect the work we must do for our clients. If we don't do it, who will? And can we really expect to have mastery handed to us?

STUDY, STUDY, STUDY. I have preached that to 1102s since I first became a supervisor in the late 1970s. For professionals there are no days off. That's what is supposed to distinguish us from mere clerks.

We didn't need an RFO to make procurement faster and better. We needed to know how to do our jobs. But too many of us didn't, don't, and never will. Many of the things that made some of our processes cumbersome and slow weren't mandated by the FAR. They were just the way amateurs did their jobs.

While I agree we don’t “need” crowd sourcing, I’m a fan of Ecclesiastes 4:9.

Jamaal Valentine said:

While I agree we don’t “need” crowd sourcing, I’m a fan of Ecclesiastes 4:9.

I have never believed in study groups.

Vern Edwards said:

We didn't need an RFO to make procurement faster and better. We needed to know how to do our jobs.

Exactly.

@Jamaal Valentine Sticking just a minute to RFO 12 I forsee another issue with regard to the final rule making. Even with study, reading and thinking to accomplish the full grasp of what the changes are by a CO (broad term for agency acquisition folks) what about those outside of the loop. Those that have been trained, counseled, informed or whatever as to what is needed to make an acquisition happen. Consider my example offered - If it is non-commercial item at or below the SAT give me a D&F as to why only one source is reasonably available. Pursuant to the FAR something never required before now it is! I know some agencies did require the D&F but not all.

How about breaking a procurement into smaller elements to avoid statutory requirements. A no-no it seems that has been preached. Not a hard rule when it comes even the (old) FAR but now how about this interpretation in the "FAR Companion Version 2.0" (page 31) - "FC 12.201 Modular acquisition strategies. Consider breaking large, complex requirements into smaller, independently procurable components that align with how commercial markets naturally organize products and services." In truth FAR to RFO wording of 12.201 has not changed but it just struck me that the implied allowance put forth by the Companion interpretation has. But then again if I was a true practioner I would have carried this interpretation with me since day one of the FAR part 12.

Leaves me wondering again about the strategy of FAR to RFO to Deviations to Final Rule. Just give me the final new rule(s) and as noted let me read, study and apply because does it really matter about what I could not do or do in the past just let me concentrate on the here and now and future.

C Culham said:

How about breaking a procurement into smaller elements to avoid statutory requirements. A no-no it seems that has been preached. Not a hard rule when it comes even the (old) FAR but now how about this interpretation in the "FAR Companion Version 2.0" (page 31) - "FC 12.201 Modular acquisition strategies. Consider breaking large, complex requirements into smaller, independently procurable components that align with how commercial markets naturally organize products and services."

FAR parts 7 and 19 permitted and even discussed dividing procurement requirements into separate solicitations suitable for award to small business concerns. RFO seems to be encouraging more reasons to consider dividing requirements. This makes sense since the general prohibitions were to prevent splitting requirements merely to avoid thresholds.

C Culham said:

Just give me the final new rule(s) and as noted let me read, study and apply because does it really matter about what I could not do or do in the past just let me concentrate on the here and now and future.

The presumption is that a professional knew what they could and couldn’t do in the past so identify the differences is the point of reading and studying. Why not make that easier? Someone changed it and presumably changed it for a reason. What did they want stopped? What did they want started? Tell us that part.

Alternatively, play a game and waste taxpayer dollars forcing more than 400K federal acquisition workforce employees to individually do the same work to figure it out. How much time and money is that costing? What is the mission impact?

@Jamaal Valentine

Jamaal Valentine said:

The presumption is that a professional knew what they could and couldn’t do in the past so identify the differences is the point of reading and studying. Why not make that easier? Someone changed it and presumably changed it for a reason. What did they want stopped? What did they want started? Tell us that part.

Alternatively, play a game and waste taxpayer dollars forcing more than 400K federal acquisition workforce employees to individually do the same work to figure it out. How much time and money is that costing? What is the mission impact?

Most 1102s conduct certain types of acquisitions covered mainly by a few FAR parts, not all 53. Very few know or need to know the entire FAR. The 1102s who know their business will hot have a problem finding or recognizing the changers that affect them. The others, the PWACs, will just ask the pros.

Vern Edwards said:

Most 1102s conduct certain types of acquisitions covered mainly by a few FAR parts, not all 53. Very few know or need to know the entire FAR.

I agree in part and disagree in part. I agree if we were talking about day-to-day operations. You learn the general content of the FAR Subchapters and master key concepts and principles. From there you tend to revisit a fewer number of parts to get something done.

The problem is getting there and this is where I disagree. With little thought, I counted more than 20 parts an ordinary commercial acquisition touches. Everything has changed so we need to read virtually everything. You can’t rely on the old construct because things have been moved. For example, things in 13 are now in 12.

My frustration changes nothing and amounts to sport b*%@ching. I’ll roll up my sleeves like everyone else and keep getting after it. That’s not to say there isn’t a better way.

@C Culham

C Culham said:

Even with study, reading and thinking to accomplish the full grasp of what the changes are by a CO (broad term for agency acquisition folks) what about those outside of the loop. Those that have been trained, counseled, informed or whatever as to what is needed to make an acquisition happen. Consider my example offered - If it is non-commercial item at or below the SAT give me a D&F as to why only one source is reasonably available. Pursuant to the FAR something never required before now it is! I know some agencies did require the D&F but not all.

Currently FAR 13.106-1(b) states:

(b) Soliciting from a single source.

(1) For purchases not exceeding the simplified acquisition threshold. (i) Contracting officers may solicit from one source if the contracting officer determines that the circumstances of the contract action deem only one source reasonably available (e.g., urgency, exclusive licensing agreements, brand-name or industrial mobilization).

Emphasis added. So a determination is required.

RFO FAR 13.101 would say:

(b) Contracting officers may solicit from a single source based on a determination and findings (see subpart 1.5) that only one source is reasonably available (e.g., urgency, exclusive licensing agreements, brand-name or industrial mobilization).

Emphasis added.

RFO FAR subpart 1.5 would say:

SUBPART 1.5 - DETERMINATIONS AND FINDINGS 1.506

Subpart 1.5 - Determinations and Findings

1.500 Scope of subpart.

This subpart prescribes general policies and procedures for using determinations and findings (D&Fs).

1.501 Definition.

Determination and findings (D&F) means a special form of written approval by an authorized official that is required by statute or regulation before taking certain contract actions. The determination is a conclusion or decision supported by the findings. The findings are statements of fact or reasons essential to support the determination, and must cover each requirement of the statute or regulation.

1.502 General.

(a) (1) Ordinarily a D&F applies to an individual contract action. Unless otherwise prohibited, agencies may execute class D&Fs for classes of contract actions (see 1.503). The approval granted by a D&F is restricted to the proposed contract action(s) reasonably described in that D&F. D&Fs may provide for a reasonable degree of flexibility.

(2) Unless the D&F states otherwise, reasonable variations in estimated quantities or prices are permitted.

(b) When an option is anticipated, the D&F shall state the approximate quantity to be awarded at first and the extent of the increase the option permits.

1.503 Class determinations and findings.

(a) A class D&F provides authority for a class of contract actions. A class may consist of contract actions for the same or

related supplies, services, or other contract actions that require essentially identical justification.

(b) (1) The findings in a class D&F must fully support the proposed action either for the class as a whole or for each action. A class D&F must be for a specified period, with the expiration date stated in the document.

(2) When a solicitation has been furnished to prospective offerors before the expiration date, the authority under the D&F will continue until award of the contract(s) resulting from that solicitation.

(c) The contracting officer must ensure that individual actions taken under the authority of a class D&F are within the scope of the D&F.

1.504 Content.

At a minimum, each D&F must include the following information:

(a) Identification of the agency and the contracting activity and specific identification of the document as a Determination and Findings.

(b) Nature and/or description of the action being approved.

(c) Citation to the appropriate statute and/or regulation upon which the D&F is based.

(d) Findings that detail the particular circumstances, facts, or reasoning essential to support the determination. Necessary supporting documentation shall come from appropriate requirements and technical personnel.

(e) A determination based on the findings that the proposed action is justified under the applicable statute or regulation.

(f) For class D&Fs, an expiration date.

(g) The signature of the official authorized to sign the D&F (see 1.506) and the date signed.

1.505 Replacement and modification.

(a) If a D&F is replaced by another D&F, that action will not invalidate any action taken under the original D&F before

the date of its replacement. The contracting officer is not required to cancel the solicitation if the modified D&F supports the contract action.

1.506 Signatory authority.

When a D&F is required, the appropriate official according to agency regulations must sign it. Authority to sign or delegate signature authority for the various D&Fs is shown in the applicable FAR part.

Most of that is merely descriptive and explanatory. The substantive text is in 1.504, Content. I presume that agencies generally require that such determinations be written and filed in light of the fact that (1) they can be protested (see the attachment) and that (2) the GAO typically rejects after-the-fact justifications. The new D&F requirement and content instructions seem helpful. And I would assume that contracting officers that conduct simplified acquisitions would scan Part 13 to look for changes.

Might it open the door to "one source" class determinations?

But I could find nothing in the RFO materials that explains the change.

Matter of Assessment and Training Solutions Consulting Corporation.pdf

Jamaal Valentine said:

My frustration changes nothing and amounts to sport b*%@ching. I’ll roll up my sleeves like everyone else and keep getting after it. That’s not to say there isn’t a better way.

Better way? Such as... ?

For me, better would be waiting until the formal rule-making was complete. Better is not having agencies use FAR and RFO simultaneously. Better is not talking about acquisition bureaucracy and creating a so-called revolution that leaves the man in the arena similarly situated at best or even more burdened ant worst. Why not treat contracting like Other Transactions? Why not do contracting by negotiation like SAP or A-E? You want better? I don’t think there is a shortage of better ways.

Now, to be fair, I don’t know objectives or constraints of the people responsible. Maybe this is the best they could do. Only they know.

Jamaal Valentine said:

Now, to be fair, I don’t know objectives or constraints of the people responsible. Maybe this is the best they could do. Only they know.

Only they know?

Nonsense. A lot of people know.

The overhaulers tried to do what the president told them to do—complete an edit of the 2,000+ page FAR within 180 days after issuance of the executive order. The couldn't do it. None of the policy bureaucracy could have done it. But I think they did their best. Their mistake was making a big deal out of it. Ballyhoo is the style of all acquisition reformers.

I've been around a long time, 50+ years, and like other old timers I've lived through many acquisition "reforms". Every acquisition reform has ultimately been fruitless in terms of significant acquisition improvement. But in its time every one was declared the greatest thing since sliced bread.

Don has studied the RFO deeply, and the point of his questions was to try to show that the RFO did not really change much of substance. Like previous acquisition reforms it's mostly noise, "a disturbance, especially a random and persistent disturbance, that obscures or reduces the clarity of a signal."

Bottom line: The RFO will only increase the confusion of the hoi polloi. But it's the career opportunity of a lifetime for the smart set, the ones who know how to fill a vacuum.

For those seeking career advancement, not just a steady job, look around, size up the situation, decide what's needed, and seize the day.

OODA!

Vern Edwards said:

Most of that is merely descriptive and explanatory. The substantive text is in 1.504, Content. I presume that agencies generally require that such determinations be written and filed in light of the fact that (1) they can be protested (see the attachment) and that (2) the GAO typically rejects after-the-fact justifications. The new D&F requirement and content instructions seem helpful. And I would assume that contracting officers that conduct simplified acquisitions would scan Part 13 to look for changes.

Might it open the door to "one source" class determinations?

But I could find nothing in the RFO materials that explains the change.

Here is my view of the change.

The FAR left it to a determination, no structure, but something as you note would be in writing to document the file. As to GAO and rejecting after the fact determinations it does not look like it was an issue that needed fixing. My reference is a quick scan of GAO decisions regarding FAR 13.106-1(b) and this - /legacy/reg/1ea733e5c869939a.html

The RFO now requires a Determination and Finding, something more prescriptive. Is doing so really more efficient and economical? Consider the discussion found elsewhere regarding bringing back 1105's. They will have a warrant up to the SAT and by experience of the days when 1105's were around the 1105's would not be left to making such a "determination" on their own. And then there is this, the example of one agency turning a "determination" into a full fleged JOFOC! https://www.fiscal.treasury.gov/files/doing-business-with-fiscal-service/SF1009.pdf I would offer this agency is not the only one that applied FAR Part 6 prescriptions to FAR part 13.

I think the door was already open for class "determinations". Changing to "determination and findings" is a change of structure and prescription on how to do it not that it was not already allowed.

I have a concern that is based on the fact CICA does not apply to procurements equal to or under the SAT which both the FAR and now RFO validate at 6.001. Now it has been slipped in to RFO 13. The RFO now stretches to part 13 a requirement that which is common for RFO part 6 exceptions. This concern poses a question for me - Will agency's move away from JOFOC's with this change? I will not bet on what they do as they never "got it" before!

In the end the change is what it is but I personally do not view it as consistent with CICA or case law but something someone brought to the table because they think it is more efficient and economical to be prescriptive. Beyond common sense in my book!

Jamaal Valentine said:

For me, better would be waiting until the formal rule-making was complete. Better is not having agencies use FAR and RFO simultaneously. Better is not talking about acquisition bureaucracy and creating a so-called revolution that leaves the man in the arena similarly situated at best or even more burdened ant worst. Why not treat contracting like Other Transactions? Why not do contracting by negotiation like SAP or A-E? You want better? I don’t think there is a shortage of better ways.

Now, to be fair, I don’t know objectives or constraints of the people responsible. Maybe this is the best they could do. Only they know.

A strategy of waiting until rule making is done would result in delays measured in years. Then the likely result is something not much different than when revisions started. Take a look at the outstanding FAR and DFARS open cases. Some are several years old in themselves. Most even small proposed change involves large numbers of suggested revisions or flat out disagreement. Opposition comes from just about every possible segment of the public and government affected.

Since the Administration wanted something more immediate, an Executive Order was issued with a date of 180 days to complete. Contracting work is being accomplished using the RFO through deviations while rule making is ongoing. Public responses to the published FAR changes will take a very long time to review, analyze, and consider. The reality is those comments face an uphill battle for acceptance as the RFO will be firmly implemented by then.

Here are the open FAR and DFARS cases as of 2/27/2026. Note current status.

Open FAR Cases 2:27:2026.pdfOpen DFARS Cases 2:27:2026.pdf

Here is the overhaul Executive Order.

Restoring Common Sense to Federal Procurement – The White House.pdf

Here is the OMB overhaul guidance.

M-25-26-Overhauling-the-Federal-Acquisition-Regulation-002 (1).pdf

Nine-tenths of the acquisition workforce will not read the proposed rules or the final rules. They would wait to be told what to do by the local policy folks. I remember when the FAR was published. Same thing.

C Culham said:

I have a concern that is based on the fact CICA does not apply to procurements equal to or under the SAT which both the FAR and now RFO validate at 6.001. Now it has been slipped in to RFO 13. The RFO now stretches to part 13 a requirement that which is common for RFO part 6 exceptions. This concern poses a question for me - Will agency's move away from JOFOC's with this change? I will not bet on what they do as they never "got it" before!

In the end the change is what it is but I personally do not view it as consistent with CICA or case law but something someone brought to the table because they think it is more efficient and economical to be prescriptive. Beyond common sense in my book!

@C Culham Do you believe that requiring a D&F to support a single source procurement under Part 13 somehow brings CICA and full and open competition into the simplified acquisition process?

Vern Edwards said:

@C Culham Do you believe that requiring a D&F to support a single source procurement under Part 13 somehow brings CICA and full and open competition into the simplified acquisition process?

Not statutoryly.

Yes regulatory and by ill-advised policy. My example. Currently a if solicitation and its processes talk like and look like FAR part 15 even though to be claimed to be otherwise by calling it a quote, GAO by case law history usually views it as a RFP. Make a single source look like a CICA exception by use of D&F, JOFOC, and possibly higher level approval its no longer a determination. It becomes as defined by the now RFO as a D&F and what agencies do beyond.

My question outside of Don's query is - What common sense has the RFO brought to Federal acquisition? Time will tell I guess.

Vern wrote: "Don has studied the RFO deeply, and the point of his questions was to try to show that the RFO did not really change much of substance. Like previous acquisition reforms it's mostly noise, "a disturbance, especially a random and persistent disturbance, that obscures or reduces the clarity of a signal."

I agree with that, although I note the RFO 12.102(a) "...only one source is available..." vice the legacy "...reasonably available..." seems significant, as does the explicit construction as a commercial service business (which I think is silly).

Jamaal commented on agencies using FAR and RFO simultaneously. That's really ridiculous and disruptive. RFO Part 12 was issued 08/14/2025 and some agencies still have not deviated. Why not?

formerfed said:

A strategy of waiting until rule making is done would result in delays measured in years. Then the likely result is something not much different than when revisions started.

formerfed said:

Since the Administration wanted something more immediate, an Executive Order was issued with a date of 180 days to complete. Contracting work is being accomplished using the RFO through deviations while rule making is ongoing. Public responses to the published FAR changes will take a very long time to review, analyze, and consider.

Which is better? Was there not good cause for an APA exception? Which would the warfighter prefer? Which would the taxpayer prefer?

Just now, C Culham said:

Not statutoryly.

Yes regulatory and by ill-advised policy. My example. Currently a if solicitation and its processes talk like and look like FAR part 15 even though to be claimed to be otherwise by calling it a quote, GAO by case law history usually views it as a RFP. Make a single source look like a CICA exception by use of D&F, JOFOC, and possibly higher level approval its no longer a determination. It becomes as defined by the now RFO as a D&F and what agencies do beyond.

@C Culham

Your argument does not make sense. A D&F is just a determination with specific content and format. It's not especially associated with CICA. The concept has been around since at least the late 19th century. It's just a kind of syllogism, a structured argument, which all sound determinations should be. I think it's a helpful change, especially if a determination might be challenged. A D&F makes the argument clear to lawyers who might have to judge it.

But I know better than to pursue this further with you. So thanks for your response to my question. I'm moving on.

Just now, Jamaal Valentine said:

Which is better? Was there not good cause for an APA exception? Which would the warfighter prefer? Which would the taxpayer prefer?

Oh, come on, Jamal. The warfighter couldn't care less. Neither could the taxpayer.

The RFO isn't rocket science. I'm surprised that this is coming from you.

Are you having operational problems because of the RFO? Care to be specific? Maybe someone can help.

@Vern Edwards

You’re right. I’m not being productive. It is what it is and it’s far from insurmountable. Complaining is contagious and I know better.

That's the Jamal I know. 👍

Vern Edwards said:

All the RFO is doing is requiring that a determination to procure from a single source have a specific content presented in a specific order. I think it's a helpful change, especially if your determination might be challenged.

But I know better than to pursue this further with you. So thanks for your response to my question. I'm moving on.

Thanks. I understand your view.

History shows as well that agencies turned a determination into a JOFOC. Time will tell if they feel compelled to make more of a D&F than there needs to be. RFO 1.5 allows them to.

And we have not even touched on the other change noted in my original comment. RFO 12.102. No D&F, not even a determination just "document". If a D&F is good standard for RFO 13 then I would think a good one for RFO 12.

I am moving on too.

Here is the article by Don Mansfield about the RFO. We apologize for the earlier attachment error.

NCR_40_3_17.pdf

Jamaal Valentine said:

Which is better? Was there not good cause for an APA exception? Which would the warfighter prefer? Which would the taxpayer prefer?

FYI, APA does not apply to the FAR System. The relevant statute is 41 USC 1707.

Don is quite right.

According to the Attorney General's Manual on the Administrative Procedure Act (1947), page 28, the act exempts:

Contracts. All rules relating to public contracts are exempt from section 4. The exemption extends to wage determinations made by the Labor Department under the Davis Bacon Act (40 U.S.C. 276a et seq.) and the Walsh Healey Act (41 U.S.C. 35-45), as conditions to construction and procurement contracts entered into by the Federal Government. See Perkins v. Lukens Steel Co., 310 U. S. 118 (1940).

Although the AG's Manual is quite old, it is still cited by the Federal Courts. See, e.g., Massachusetts v. National Institutes of Health, et. al., 770 F.Supp. 3d 277, 312, United States District Court, D. Massachusetts.

Don Mansfield said:

FYI, APA does not apply to the FAR System. The relevant statute is 41 USC 1707.

Thank you, @Don Mansfield . I should have asked @formerfed about a waiver under 41 U.S.C. 1707(d).

Jamaal Valentine said:

Thank you, @Don Mansfield . I should have asked @formerfed about a waiver under 41 U.S.C. 1707(d).

Still the RFO is still undergoing a public comment process and seeking public input. It’s the same long drawn out process that will take years to come to conclusion. Hard to imagine the magnitude of responses received and how long it takes to consider it all. Think of the time likely saved operating under perhaps interim rules.

formerfed said:

Still the RFO is still undergoing a public comment process and seeking public input. It’s the same long drawn out process that will take years to come to conclusion.

Well, maybe not years.But here's the thing...

The goal of the the RFO is to speed up the procurement process by cutting unnecessary rules and procedures.

But if Chiefs of Contracting Offices and COs would think things through and redesign their processes for speed they could dramatically reduce the time from acquisition planing, through solicitation and proposal evaluation. They could do that now, without waiting for the final RFO, and without violating statute or regulation.

Consider one of the most famous mottos in the history of American business, IBM's: THINK.

According to IBM: "The "Think" motto comes from a quote from our company's founder: 'All the problems of the world could be settled easily if men were only willing to think.'"

Don't wait for the RFO. Think now!

Vern Edwards said:

Well, maybe not years.But here's the thing...

I’m betting on years. OFPP has a very small staff and I think responses from government and industry numbers in the thousands. Plus OFPP has many other things to deal with and I doubt many agencies will agree to detail employees there to help. So it all is a huge undertaking. If I’m not so old to remember when it’s all done, I’ll say I was right. 😃

formerfed said:

Still the RFO is still undergoing a public comment process and seeking public input. It’s the same long drawn out process that will take years to come to conclusion. Hard to imagine the magnitude of responses received and how long it takes to consider it all. Think of the time likely saved operating under perhaps interim rules.

My question was about using an exception (and now waiver) to that process. I don’t think you answered.

formerfed said:

I’m betting on years. OFPP has a very small staff and I think responses from government and industry numbers in the thousands. Plus OFPP has many other things to deal with and I doubt many agencies will agree to detail employees there to help. So it all is a huge undertaking. If I’m not so old to remember when it’s all done, I’ll say I was right. 😃

Maybe so.

Jamaal Valentine said:

My question was about using an exception (and now waiver) to that process. I don’t think you answered.

I think the Administration is looking for feedback, suggestions, and new ideas. Despite issuing an EO initially to get things going, it appears they are looking for a process that continuously evolves and improves. They know industry has lots of constructive thoughts and are open to adopting those that are beneficial. They also don’t want to keep things that don’t help as well as evidenced by the four year sunset provision.

This looks like a great idea. They can quickly scan through suggestions and perhaps adopt promising ones soon

https://www.acquisition.gov/content/far-overhaul-community-crowdsourcing-campaign

Just now, formerfed said:

I think the Administration is looking for feedback, suggestions, and new ideas. Despite issuing an EO initially to get things going, it appears they are looking for a process that continuously evolves and improves. They know industry has lots of constructive thoughts and are open to adopting those that are beneficial. They also don’t want to keep things that don’t help as well as evidenced by the four year sunset provision.

I have been asked for suggestions and I have made some, but I never volunteered any. I just spent about an hour talking with someone in the Pentagon who is working on acquisition reform. Among other things I said that acquisition reform through regulatory reform is hopeless, a fool's errand.

That's not to say that elimination of some rules would not be helpful. But the only way to real acquisition reform is through workforce reform.

If I were in charge of acquisition workforce reform, CO selection, appointment, and advancement would be intensely competitive. The CO job would be vey different than it is today, more attractive, and higher-paying. There would be many fewer CO appointments, and appointment would require demonstrated mastery of concepts, principles, processes, procedures, methods, and techniques. Most contract specialists would be purchasing agents, and I would bring back procurement clerks.

Education and training would be challenging and intense. Those who fail would be told to seek other employment.

Vern Edwards said:

If I were in charge of acquisition workforce reform, CO selection, appointment, and advancement would be intensely competitive. The CO job would be vey different than it is today, more attractive, and higher-paying. There would be many fewer CO appointments, and appointment would require demonstrated mastery of concepts, principles, processes, procedures, methods, and techniques. Most contract specialists would be purchasing agents, and I would bring back procurement clerks.

Education and training would be challenging and intense. Those who fail would be told to seek other employment.

This sparked lots of thoughts from me.

When I started out in the government, this type arrangement existed both in my duty station as an intern and the first regular duty station. It was very effective and contracting officers were greatly respected for their knowledge and experience. Obtaining a warrant was very different and involved written application and grueling interviews by a board of senior officials. Very few warrants were granted. But the arrangement worked well.

An interesting study would involve seeing how many orders versus formal contracts are done by 1102 contract specialists. I think the result might shock some. Between higher SAT thresholds, orders placed under GSA Schedule contracts, and all the orders under GWACS and IDIQ contracts, that will comprise a good bit of contracting workload. I just saw Navy anticipates over $5 billion of orders in their Seaport contract pool this year alone.

OPM will need to change their Position Classification Standards for something like this to happen. Much weight for higher grades in the 1102 series is based on supervisory duties. But I know from personal experience, one can’t be the best possible contracting officer when a large portion of your time and efforts goes to supervisory duties. On the reverse side, the standards for a purchasing agent need revised to reflect what goes on with placing orders today versus decades ago where a GS-07 or 09 often tops out.

On a similar note, the traditional procurement clerk duties largely have changed. But a typical 1102 performs much non contracting work related to automation. None of this envisioned in formal job functions by anyone.

A comprehensive examination of all this is needed.

formerfed said:

On the reverse side, the standards for a purchasing agent need revised to reflect what goes on with placing orders today versus decades ago where a GS-07 or 09 often tops out.

Just as aside. I found this in the last couple of days when doing research regarding threads in Forum. I am always intrigued about how long some topics have been discussed but never resolved. 8 years or more for 1105's and even AI!

Reflections from NCMA World Congress

Reflections from Chicago at the end of day one at NCMA World Congress 2017 AI or Bring back GS 1105s? The consensus was that Contracting Officers and 1102s, Contract Specialists, spend too much time c

C Culham said:

Just as aside. I found this in the last couple of days when doing research regarding threads in Forum. I am always intrigued about how long some topics have been discussed but never resolved. 8 years or more for 1105's and even AI!

So true. The purchasing agent issue is even more complicated now. So many orders of all types are based on tradeoff selection rather than just price and are significant in terms of value and complexity. Purchasing agent job descriptions and position standards assume orders are for low dollar value and non-complex commodities.

formerfed said:

An interesting study would involve seeing how many orders versus formal contracts are done by 1102 contract specialists.

I can answer that question. For civilian agencies, Orders are the vast majority, but as you suggest, this distinction is no longer as important as it once was. What once were C contracts are now orders. We have so many GVT-wide contract vehicles - GSA lists 381 of them. Thousands of internal-use-only IDIQs and BPAs. The need to make 'C' contracts is increasingly rare - FAR 15 is the last resort.

Consider 75FCMC23F0133 Current Sources of Income and Employment Verification Services. It provides a critical service that is public-facing, complex and high-stakes. Many millions of Americans applying for federal benefits every year rely on it. If it broke it would make the news. It obligates a bit under $100MM per year. Ceiling is $2B over 5 years, First RFI went out more than year before the RFQ was issued. The largest action its agency awarded that year. Evaluation was long and complicated. It is a FAR 16.505 order. It's not on sam.gov.

Vern Edwards said:

The CO job would be vey different than it is today, more attractive, and higher-paying.

The SEC has about 40 people in the contracting occupational series whose base pay is more than $200,000. All 20 contracting personnel at the Federal Reserve makes more than $180,000. At least 18 at the FDIC make over $250,000. How are things going in these agencies who clearly aren't bound by normal GS pay scale constraints? These are tiny offices, I grant you, but they would be an interesting study in what happens when 1102 salaries are much higher.