Bad Writing in Government Documents

No law will improve Government writing. The Government doesn't write. People who work in Government write, and people in our society write badly. (Read the posts here at Wifcon Forum.) People write badly because they have been poorly educated and because they don't work at improving their skills.

Good writing first requires good thinking. You think with words. If you write badly, you probably think poorly. If you think poorly, you will write badly. Thinking and writing are skills that can be learned, but you have to want to do them well, and you have to work at doing them well.

To write badly is to be embarrassed. I've noticed that the people who post here under their own names are generally competent writers. I hope that the person who was embarrassed in this thread and deleted his post takes this to heart. A person who thinks and writes well can have a lot of success in the world.

In the cited case, the judge wrote:

Quote

The evidence demonstrated that the notices do not meet due process standards. They must be changed to provide claimants with comprehensible explanations of the actual reason full reimbursement is denied. In addition the trial revealed the persistence of error in the claims reimbursement process resulting in part from a dearth of information available to beneficiaries and those acting on their behalf.

David v. Heckler, 591 F. Supp. 1033 (E.D.N.Y. 1984)  can be found at justia.com

Here's a better quote from the decision:

Quote

The language used is bureaucratic gobbledegook, jargon, double talk, a form of officialese, federalese and insurancese, and doublespeak. It does not qualify as English.

That is a problem with the style of language and expression, not necessarily with the grammar, punctuation, or syntax, which, in addition to the above, are often problematic in Wifcon Forum posts. Typesetting in government regulations can also cause confusion.

Thinking and writing skills can be learned. Writing to Win: The Legal Writer,  is a inexpensive training tool and a good read. I stumbled upon it while searching for a different book on persuasive writing that includes tests and exercises. I'm glad I found it...it's reinforcing some feedback I received to think clearly and organize your thoughts, simplify prose, write clearly and simply as succintly as possible (for your reader, not yourself), eliminate uneccessary adverbs and adjectives (use strong verbs), etc.

http://www.amazon.com/Writing-Win-The-Legal-Writer/dp/0307888711

I recommend any of the books by Bryan A. Garner, the editor of Black's Law Dictionary and an authority on writing:

• Garner's Modern English Usage (2016)
• Garner's Modern American Usage (2009)
• Garner's Dictionary of Legal Usage (2011)
• Garner on Language and Writing (2009)
• The Redbook: A Manual of Legal Style (2013) 
• The Chicago Manual of Style 16th ed. (available online by subscription http://www.chicagomanualofstyle.org/16/ch06/ch06_toc.html)

Also, for the truly, deeply serious: The Cambridge Grammar of the English Language (2002) by Huddleston and Pullum, and Warriner's English Grammar and Composition (1986).

As for thinking:

• The Craft of Argument 3d ed. (2007) by Williams and Columb
• Informal Logic: A Pragmatic Approach, 2d ed. (2008) by Walton
• Logic and Contemporary Rhetoric: The Use of Reason in Everyday Life, 12th ed. (2013) by Cavender and Kahane
• Think: Why You Should Question Everything (2013) by Harrison
• Think for Yourself: An Essay on Cutting through the Babble, the Bias, and the Hype (2003) by Hindes
• The Art of Thinking Clearly (2013) by Dobelli

The book I was originally looking for is Bryan A. Garner's, Legal Writing in Plain English 2d Edition: A Text with Exercises (Chicago Guides to Writing, Editing, and Publishing).

I will check out some of these other texts as my wallet and/or wife permit.

Well, someone has performed a study on Federal procurement documents, declaring them incomprehensible. The study goes on to suggest this is driving costs higher amongst other consequences.

http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/study-declares-us-federal-procurement-documents-incomprehensible-300236573.html

Jamaal,

You saw that the publisher of the study cited in the article is a firm that "helps executives in large organizations govern content quality with less cost and risk," right? I'm sure that's just a coincidence, though.

H2H

H2H:

Of course. 

Members, always read a web site's "About" page when reading an item.  By doing that, you may identify any bias, if one exists.  Of course, it may take more research than that.

I just signed up for the company's free trial and did a "Clear Language" analysis of FAR 52.215-1, Instructions to Offerors--Competitive Acquisition. The results:

Long Sentences: 37.50% (30 sentences)

Passive Language: 31.25% (25 sentences)

Readability: 24 (out of 100)

Grade Level (US): 15

Least readable paragraph, with a grade level of 36:

Quote

If an emergency or unanticipated event interrupts normal Government processes so that proposals cannot be received at the office designated for receipt of proposals by the exact time specified in the solicitation, and urgent Government requirements preclude amendment of the solicitation, the time specified for receipt of proposals will be deemed to be extended to the same time of day specified in the solicitation on the first work day on which normal Government processes resume.

Most readable, with a grade level of 10:

Quote

Use or disclosure of data contained on this sheet is subject to the restriction on the title page of this proposal.

I think they are on to something.

This is too much fun. I just ran my FAR 52.212-1 Tailored for SAP for readability. The results:

Long Sentences: 24.32% (18 sentences)

Passive Language: 20.27% (15 sentences)

Readability: 32 (out of 100)

Grade Level (US): 13

The results for Vern's plain language version of FAR 52.212-1:

Long Sentences: 25.93% (14 sentences)

Passive Language: 1.85% (1 sentences)

Readability: 54 (out of 100)

Grade Level (US): 9

Gettysburgh Address:

Long Sentences: 50.00% (5 sentences)

Passive Language: 30.00% (3 sentences)

Readability: 68 (out of 100)

Grade Level (US): 10

Don:

I'm devastated.  I must do better. But I don't understand the scoring. Can you explain? Especially readability? Or can you direct us to the site where we can get an explanation?

Vern:

I bet it's based, at least in part, on the Flesch-Kincaid readability statistics (reading ease; and reading grade level). If so, you scored well - I think.

You can see a demo at http://www.visiblethread.com/products/visiblethread/. Except for the long sentence score, your other scores were all green. Nothing to be ashamed of. If this link doesn't work, let me know and I'll e-mail the report to you.

Clear Language report for INSTRUCTIONS TO QUOTER1.docx.pdf

On ‎3‎/‎23‎/‎2016 at 10:39 AM, Jamaal Valentine said:

Well, someone has performed a study on Federal procurement documents, declaring them incomprehensible. The study goes on to suggest this is driving costs higher amongst other consequences.

http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/study-declares-us-federal-procurement-documents-incomprehensible-300236573.html

In the recent past I have seen contractor proposals in response to a single solicitation vary in cost by 100% ($400K to $800K) and in simple page counts by the same percentages.  Meanwhile the Government estimate for that same project was $200K and was written on just over 4 pages of technical information.  In my review I suggested that the technical office have their technical information reviewed to see if it made any sense at all because I could not understand what they wanted, other than a comprehensive research project of some sort or another.  The 4 pages were full of acronyms that were not explained, technical jargon and I could not find an end product other than "a research paper". 

As a 3rd party reviewer for 13 different buying agencies, it is amazing how we (procurement officials), can send out solicitations that only we understand and then expect everyone else to understand our madness as well as we do.