This is what is wrong with government contracting.

On September 3, 2016 at 0:01 PM, Vern Edwards said:

Here is a 47-page solicitation for the purchase of 12 standard sleeper sofas.

https://www.fbo.gov/index?tab=documents&tabmode=form&subtab=core&tabid=59a333df81617829031f7bb78ebb0de1

Vern, can you provide the solicitation number? When I click on the link above, I get the FBO Home page. Thx

Deleted.

Solicitation number DTFH61-15-R-00023 appears to be a  Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), request for proposals (RFP) for new structures laboratory support services, not for 12 standard sleeper sofas.  I searched the FBO on my phone, using that solicitation number.  I wondered if my phone was not able to access the correct solicitation.The maximum value of the IDIQ contract is $18,000,000 

So, tonight, I performed a Bing Search on my desktop  for "Solicitation number DTFH61-15-R-00023".  Here is a link to the July 21, 2016 GAO Decision of the protest by Professional Service Industries, Inc of the award to Genex Systems, LLC, of Hampton, Virginia.

http://www.gao.gov/assets/680/679456.pdf

I'll let someone else try to figure out what you were referring to in the OP.

Searching for Solicitation VA26016Q0936 gets me there....also "sleeper sofa".

Has anyone found the brand named item with the leather type?

Sorry about that.

Here's the correct solicitation number: VA26016Q0936. The solicitation was posted to FEDBIZOPS on September 3.

The brand name is stated in the solicitation as follows: Sleeper sofa, Conover Miller, Trundle Bed #70 Mahogany, Enviro Leather Berkshire Basalt BK58

What kind of a system requires a 47-page solicitation--that incorporates, by my guess, at least 500 pages of text by reference--in order to buy a max of $18,000 worth of cheap furniture? It's lunacy. You cannot reform such a system. You've got to destroy it in order to save it, and to save us.

Having been previously at the VA, I can tell you this is pretty standard for a commercial purchase of a supply.  Sad, but true.  I would have trimmed it down a bit by including 52.212-1 and 52.212-4 by reference which would have cut about 12 or so pages, but the lovely VAAR requires all the extra VAAR clauses.  The contract specialist here did make a few errors but for the most part this is pretty much a standard RFQ for the VA if going name brand or equal. The VA's duplicity and idiotic extra requirements always bothered me when I was there.  For example, why have VAAR 852.211-73 when you already have 52.211-6?

Even if 52.212-1 and -4 had been incorporated by reference, they still would have been part of the solicitation and part of the ultimate page count.

What we have to recognize is that this kind of craziness is the product of the way our government is organized and operated. We cannot reform the acquisition system until we reform our government.

Vern,

Do we reform it agency by agency or from the top down?

Agreed

I've always thought of this as akin to driving through a mountain tunnel. 

It took enormous effort to dig the tunnel - effort that far, far outweighs the value of any single trip through it.  As we drive through the tunnel, we barely see the walls or even think of what it took to make it viable.  We just have familiarity with tunnels and our experience guides our effortless passage.  Today, the tunnel requires some maintenance that is relatively small relative to the sum of the trips through. 

If it isn't apparent, the tunnel is procurement regulations and processes.   Each drive through is a procurement. 

Absolutely agreed that 40+ pages (plus references) for a furniture procurement is over the top - but so is the effort expended to blast open a mountain so I can have a Sunday joyride, right?   I'd say the good news is that (presumably) the office issuing the solicitation didn't take too much effort to do so, using boilerplate and such - nor does the bidder spend much time on it.   We've all been through tunnels before and we look for special warning signs...but so long as the circumstances are the typical ones we've seen before, we sail right through without hardly slowing down.

To extend the analogy though: Is tunneling the best way to get from A to B?  Maybe a better path is due.  Maybe 40+ pages for a small procurement is still inefficient by its nature, even if it seemed OK as we drove through.

here_2_help said:

Vern,

Do we reform it agency by agency or from the top down?

Honestly, H2H, I don't know.

I don't think top down will work. Presidents don't think in terms of managing agencies. They think in terms of areas of responsibility: the economy, national defense, foreign policy, social welfare, etc. Congress thinks in terms of managing constituencies. Agency by agency won't work. Some agencies are so vast that I don't think anyone can actually manage them. I don't think any single person can manage the Department of Defense or the Department of Homeland Security in a B-school sense of the word.

As for the contracting system, I don't think we can look at it in isolation and as ourselves how to fix it. I think we have to look at it as part of the bigger enterprise of government, and I think that government is just a terrible mess. I am very pessimistic about our government's ability to function effectively except in times of national emergency, when we toss the rules out, at least at the beginning. I think that's generally true of all the Western democracies. They remind me of George Kennan's description of America in his book, American Foreign Policy:

Quote

But I sometimes wonder whether in this respect a democracy is not uncomfortably similar to one of those prehistoric monsters with a body as long as this room and a brain the size of a pin: he lies there in his comfortable primeval mud and pays little attention to his environment; he is slow to wrath—in fact, you practically have to whack his tail off to make him aware that his interests are being disturbed; but, once he grasps this, he lays about him with such blind determination that he not only destroys his adversary but largely wrecks his native habitat.

I wish I could say that I know what to do about the acquisition/contracting mess. But I don't know. I think it's up to the young people to figure it out, if they can.

I'm reading books about bee-keeping and thinking of writing a horror novel.

Vern

Ill considered legislative schemes (think Severeid Effect, whereby so many of today's problems in Washington, DC first started out as yesterday's solutions) amount to an enormous "incumbency premium". This  premium is paid in a myriad of ways, but ultimately at great cost to both government and society.  Maybe if more of us start seeing this for what it is...we might eventually run more of government on a best value basis.

In one experience, I was smothering contracts with clauses, as required by leadership to "protect the Government's rights" without any specific reference to which rights we were concerned about. The resulting contract for a micro-purchase was in excess of 20 pages, despite the desperate pleas of FAR 13.

I think micromanagement (an especially wrong type of micromanagement where the "management" part came from people who don't understand contracting) is a significant player in the nonsense I experienced as well as what was shown in the OP.

Granted that in the contract linked to the in OP, 15 of those pages are representations and certifications, but at least it only was one clause by reference spent encouraging contractors to discourage texting while driving.

So now we have created yet another contract clause to try to enforce already existing laws...

In  construction contracting, that would (should) be a topic for safety meetings and should be addressed in contractors' hazard analyses, not by adding another clause. 

There are already over 150 pages (!) of contract clauses that would be applicable in a construction contract, as of a few years ago.

These problems affect other more high-profile areas (e.g. taxation, war-fighting, private sector hiring, land use, etc.), and we may benefit as free riders from whatever progress they make in those areas.  People in other areas are generating ideas like the House of Repeal.  Such a thing, were it to come to pass, may help us here. 

(Thought I should offer *something* hopeful since I'm a Pollyanna at heart).

Quote

I'm reading books about bee-keeping and thinking of writing a horror novel.

These are two diverse interests just begging to be merged together!  Some of this field has already been plowed, though unsuccessfully.

Lincoln, Wilson, FDR, and LBJ: Goodbye, American federalism. Hello, George Kennan's leviathan state.

Vern Edwards said:

destroys his adversary but largely wrecks his native habitat

Does anyone believe that America has her best days ahead of her, rather than behind her? That's a serious question, so please don't answer using any of the following words or concepts:

diversity, satellites, cell phones, Internet, amazing selection of ethnic restaurants, spreading democracy, social justice

PepeTheFrog,

Some of us follow Jim Wright, CWO, USN(R), on Facebook and on Twitter and on his website (www.Stonekettle.com). He is optimistic about America and explains why. On the other hand, he has less optimistic things to say about certain politicians and certain special interest groups, and says those things in a way consistent with his military service -- i.e., his language is definitely NSFW. This is by no means an endorsement ... just responding to your serious question. PM me and I'll send you a link.

PepeTheFrog said:

Does anyone believe that America has her best days ahead of her, rather than behind her? That's a serious question...

It may be a serious question, but it's not the right question.

The right question is: What can each of us who work in contracting do to conduct sane contracting processes?

I have to get back on task now. We're going to Paris week after next, and I've been tasked to research activities for seniors who've seen all the museums and shopped everywhere. Would it be unseemly for a 70 year old to hang out in a gypsy jazz joint in Montmartre? Is there a curfew for old guys?

Vern,

Absolutely not! Montmartre deserves to have a cool 70 year old like yourself hanging out all night long listening' to jazz...no curfew!!! Enjoy Paris - it's one of my favorite cities. Cheers.

Vern Edwards said:

I have to get back on task now. We're going to Paris week after next, and I've been tasked to research activities for seniors who've seen all the museums and shopped everywhere. Would it be unseemly for a 70 year old to hang out in a gypsy jazz joint in Montmartre? Is there a curfew for old guys?

I would caution that you and your group to be extra vigilant in Paris.  I saw this yesterday about Paris:

"Arrests made after car containing gas cylinders found near Paris's Notre Dame" http://www.france24.com/en/20160907-arrests-car-gas-cylinders-notre-dame-paris

Enjoy Paris - it is on my travel list - but be alert - safe travel!

Thanks, policy guy. I saw that, too. We'll be alert. We generally avoid tourist sites and large evening venues. The gypsy jazz clubs are very small.

To preface, I will say that I am an Intern with just a little over a year of experience in contracting. I came into this career field having no past history of contracting or the fact that 500 trees that must die in order to complete a SAT purchase. I think my first solicitation I posted, I was flabbergasted that it came out to be 73 pages. Of course, being my first solicitation, there were errors that needed to be fixed within. So, I printed it off again. After my KO approved said solicitation, I needed to print off yet a third copy, but this one with out the draft watermark. According to my math, that is 219 pages of paper I used just for the solicitation. By the time I made the award, I can't remember off the top of my head the exact page number for it, but for the sake of a conversation let's just say it was 50 pages, I used 319 pages for COTS items that cost roughly $65,000. The total price per item was anywhere from $25 to $150 so it's not like these parts even fell under DFARS 252.211-7003.

Hello, NavyBuyer,

I'd happily torch a few acres of rainforest to get a few laws repealed and corresponding regulations removed

On 9/21/2016 at 1:42 PM, apsofacto said:

Hello, NavyBuyer,

I'd happily torch a few acres of rainforest to get a few laws repealed and corresponding regulations removed

apsofacto,

Which laws would you like to see repealed?  Which regulations would you like to see removed?

Let's eliminate the Anti-Deficiency Act, for starters

here_2_help said:

Let's eliminate the Anti-Deficiency Act, for starters

Why?

It is rare that anyone is held accountable for a violation. Check out the remedial actions from 2015, here.

I had a trainer (lawyer) say you have to be anti-deficient at the appropriation level to be truly anti-deficient. (If the funds are available in the agency - you are not anti-deficient.) If this is true, how often does this occur for most offices?

Repeal of laws is hard. How about amendment?

1. Truth in Negotiations Act -- raise the dollar threshold to $50M for contracts and $10 for mods under contracts for which certified cost or pricing data were required.

2. Cost Accounting Standards--raise the dollar threshold to $50M for negotiated contracts with large businesses and with high likelihood of mods in excess of $10M.

3. Competition in Contracting Act--eliminate requirement to use specific contracting methods; permit certain awards without consideration of price; raise SAT to $1,000,000; set SAT at $100,000 per unit for quantity buys; raise micro-purchase threshold to $50,000; eliminate mandatory use of sealed bidding.

4. Amend OFPP Act and Small Business Act to raise synopsis threshold to $50,000.

5. Amend protest statutes to forbid changing venues after filing; forbid protest to GAO then to COFC; limit COFC jurisdiction to protests of $50M or more.

6. Service Contract Act--raise dollar threshold to $150,000 for contracts not covered by collective bargaining; make inapplicable to all contracts for commercial services.

7. Davis-Bacon Act--raise dollar threshold to $1,000,000.

Jamaal Valentine said:

I had a trainer (lawyer) say you have to be anti-deficient at the appropriation level to be truly anti-deficient. (If the funds are available in the agency - you are not anti-deficient.) If this is true, how often does this occur for most offices?

That's not true.  The ADA imposes prohibitions at the appropriations level (31 U.S.C. § 1341(a)(1)(A) and (B)), at the apportionment level (31 U.S.C. § 1517(a)), and at the formal subdivision level (31 U.S.C. § 1517(a)).  So, a violation at any of those levels would be a violation of the ADA.

Quote

apsofacto,

Which laws would you like to see repealed?  Which regulations would you like to see removed?

Hello, Navy,

How about 25 USC 1544?  Seems like a scam.  Subchapter D looks like a target rich environment.

Vern Edwards said:

Repeal of laws is hard. How about amendment?

Yes, all of those are more practical that my earlier rainforest torching thought. 

It may be worth indexing all of those dollar thresholds to inflation so they would self-adjust over the years?

Lionel Hutz said:

That's not true.  The ADA imposes prohibitions at the appropriations level (31 U.S.C. § 1341(a)(1)(A) and (B)), at the apportionment level (31 U.S.C. § 1517(a)), and at the formal subdivision level (31 U.S.C. § 1517(a)).  So, a violation at any of those levels would be a violation of the ADA.

Thanks for the info. I may have misunderstood or mistated what was said…I remember that they were insistent that as long as the agency had the correct type of money available - you were not deficient.

Maybe they said you were not deficient if you had funds at the agency level (not the appropriation level).

DoD FMR defines an apportionment as a distribution made by the Office of Management and Budget of amounts available for obligation in an appropriation or fund account into amounts available for specified time periods, program, activities, projects, objects, or any combination of these.

Matthew Fleharty said:

Why?

Because compliance contributes to the creation of a myriad of additional rules and procedures and processes, and because it creates funding uncertainty for contractors. Funding uncertainty is one of the top contributors to suboptimal program/contract outcomes and impacts military readiness. That's not my opinion, it's the opinion of contractors and military leadership.

"Eight years of continuing resolutions — and a year of sequestration — have caused budget uncertainty that has resulted in additional cost and time requirements for 'just about everything we do,' Chief of Naval Operations Adm. John Richardson told the Senate Armed Services Committee at a hearing on long-term budget challenges... "

Yes, it's not just about the ADA, but the ADA is my starting point because I can't repeal Congress.

here_2_help said:

Yes, it's not just about the ADA, but the ADA is my starting point because I can't repeal Congress.

What's the alternative? Or is there one? I'd imagine there would have to be because, according to the Constitution, Congress has the power of the purse...

H2H:

Repeal of the ADA is dead on arrival. The law implements the Constitution's grant of the power of the purse to Congress. You want Congress to repeal the ADA so the Executive can fearlessly engage in Constitutional overreach and ungoverned spending--the same Executive that cannot manage programs like the F-35 and the Littoral Combat Vessel?

Have a drink or two and get real.

Besides, the problem isn't the ADA, but the inability of the political Left and the Right to reach agreement on a theory of government and budgeting, so that Congress and the Executive can agree on annual appropriations. The problem is much, much bigger than acquisition reform.

While we're on the subject, can we get rid of FAR 19 and the applicable sections of its statutory basis? 

I'll settle for a study on whether or not the policies implemented through FAR 19 provide a net macroeconomic benefit.

Junius said:

While we're on the subject, can we get rid of FAR 19 and the applicable sections of its statutory basis? 

I'll settle for a study on whether or not the policies implemented through FAR 19 provide a net macroeconomic benefit.

I could not disagree more.  The small business preference programs incentivize job creation and provide a major source of income to the American economy.  You want a study?  Take a look at this... In 2014, small businesses in Maryland had a marginal tax rate of 49.1-percent.  No state in the union had less than a 40-percent average marginal tax rate for small businesses. You may be interested in this chart from the Tax Foundation on the tax burden on small businesses: 

http://taxfoundation.org/blog/small-businesses-and-their-income-tax-burden

Now, compare that to the tax burden of other than small businesses that the Government typically works with.  Between 2008 and 2010, Lockheed Martin had a marginal tax rate of 20.2-percent.  Raytheon had a 13.7-percent marginal tax rate.  AT&T, 8-percent.  Boeing, despite its billions in Government contracts, had a NEGATIVE 1.8-percent marginal tax rate because of its deferred taxes.  These numbers are from Citizens for Tax Justice research (source: http://ctj.org/ctjinthenews/2013/04/the_huffington_post_here_are_the_effective_tax_rates_of_17_companies_pressuring_congress_to_cut_corp.php)

Those small businesses represent major sources of income for millions of American citizens.  Further, small businesses are more likely to invest their revenue further into their communities and businesses.  Small businesses typically do not have access to the high-class accountants available to large businesses.  That means less money funneling through foreign banks, tax shelters, and questionably legal tax loopholes.  By investing in small businesses, you are investing in America. 

Are there flaws in the small business programs?  Do some small businesses exploit the internal controls on subcontracting and commit fraud?  Sure.  But that happens with large businesses, as well.

Let me be more specific with my question.  I’ll preface with a statement:

Logically, if a small business concern truly provides best value for a specific acquisition, they will receive the contract award regardless of whether or not the acquisition is set-aside for small business concerns.  Therefore, by setting aside acquisitions for small business, the Government, at best, only matches the value that it would receive under full and open competition, but there’s also the chance that the Government receives sub-optimal value.

What evidence do we have that small business preference programs provide enough surplus benefit to overcome this issue,  or are taxpayers subsidizing small business concerns at the expense of the economy as a whole?

I am specifically interested to know if there is a study that addresses this question or something similar to it.  I’m not interested in *any* study.  The relative tax burden of small businesses and corporations don’t tell me whether or not taxpayers, as a whole, derive a net-positive economic benefit from FAR 19.  I want data, not rhetoric.

Junius said:

are taxpayers subsidizing small business concerns at the expense of the economy as a whole?

Yes, under the assumption that the proliferation and flourishing of small businesses (artificially defined by the SBA and NAICS code system) "helps the economy."

Purposefully staying within a NAICS code (revenue or employees) is 100% the result of the artificial, exogenous constraints. It's unusual for a business turn down work (even if it is to maintain a competitive advantage). The small businesses either stay small and avoid growth beyond a certain point, or they are absorbed (bought out) by larger corporations, further contributing to consolidation (going against the purpose of "helping small business"). This undercuts the entire economic and philosophic argument for the small business programs.

The federal contracting marketplace is bimodal, devoid of a strong "middle class." There are always a lot of small businesses, forever staying young in their NAICS codes, and then you have the (truly) large contractors, which win the lion's share of all federal contracts. It's an imperfect system.

Lets get rid of the ratification process.  It always punishes the contracting personnel and the vendors instead of the program offices it is supposed to wake up.

Vern Edwards said:

H2H:

Repeal of the ADA is dead on arrival. The law implements the Constitution's grant of the power of the purse to Congress. You want Congress to repeal the ADA so the Executive can fearlessly engage in Constitutional overreach and ungoverned spending--the same Executive that cannot manage programs like the F-35 and the Littoral Combat Vessel?

Have a drink or two and get real.

Besides, the problem isn't the ADA, but the inability of the political Left and the Right to reach agreement on a theory of government and budgeting, so that Congress and the Executive can agree on annual appropriations. The problem is much, much bigger than acquisition reform.

Vern if the Constitution were so clear we wouldn't need an implementing statute, enacted 100 years after the country's founding. So obviously there's something other than Congress' "power of the purse" going on.

In my view, the ADA acts to give the government an "out" with respect to fulfilling its obligations under a contract to which it is a party. It permits the Federal government to enter into a contract and then welsh on the deal, using the excuse that Congress hasn't appropriated sufficient funds. As we all know and as you noted, the additional problem is that Congress has over the past decade or so proven unable to execute with any consistency its Constitutional duty in that regard.

Rather than accept the status quo I advocated the position that a contract is a contract, and that doing away with the ADA would return the parties to a more equal footing. You don't like my position? Fine. Doesn't mean my point isn't valid. (Though I accept my suggestion would be rather difficult to implement.)

Go now and enjoy Paris. Hoist a glass to von Steuben and to Koscuisko.

here_2_help said:

In my view, the ADA acts to give the government an "out" with respect to fulfilling its obligations under a contract to which it is a party. It permits the Federal government to enter into a contract and then welsh on the deal, using the excuse that Congress hasn't appropriated sufficient funds. As we all know and as you noted, the additional problem is that Congress has over the past decade or so proven unable to execute with any consistency its Constitutional duty in that regard.

Rather than accept the status quo I advocated the position that a contract is a contract...

Emphasis added.

A contract is not a contract if the person who signed it exceeded his or her authority. The ADA makes that clear. It's no different in that regard than any number of laws and legal doctrines, e.g., the Christian Doctrine and the cardinal change doctrine, except that it provides criminal penalties for those who violate its terms. If you do business with the Government you've got to know the limits of its officers' authority. That's the price of doing business with the sovereign.  If you work for the Government, you've got to know the limits of your authority or maybe pay a different price.

I'm enjoying Paris. The weather is beautiful, the food is great, the wine is superb, and the art is magnificent. I'm also enjoying poking holes in pointless recommendations. A proposal to repeal of the ADA is dead on arrival. Stillborn.

You know a lot about this business. Now that you've proven your boldness bona fides, how about proposing something that has even a slim chance of being considered.

On 9/24/2016 at 0:30 AM, here_2_help said:

In my view, the ADA acts to give the government an "out" with respect to fulfilling its obligations under a contract to which it is a party. It permits the Federal government to enter into a contract and then welsh on the deal, using the excuse that Congress hasn't appropriated sufficient funds. As we all know and as you noted, the additional problem is that Congress has over the past decade or so proven unable to execute with any consistency its Constitutional duty in that regard.

Rather than accept the status quo I advocated the position that a contract is a contract, and that doing away with the ADA would return the parties to a more equal footing.

You are more accurately criticizing and advocating for the elimination of an important distinction in government contract law: apparent authority vs. actual authority. The agents of the government (contracting officers) can only bind the government with actual authority (not apparent authority). The actual authority is limited by authorized programs with appropriated funds and the contracting officer's "warrant." The ADA did not create this distinction.

Your (restated) idea is interesting, but consider its unintended consequences. If apparent authority applies in government contract law, contracting officers could obligate the taxpayer beyond what Congress intended. The Executive Branch is supposed to be subject to the "power of the purse" of the Legislative Branch. Allowing the government and taxpayers to be bound by the apparent authority of contracting officers would weaken the separation of powers.

On 9/24/2016 at 4:56 AM, Vern Edwards said:

A contract is not a contract if the person who signed it exceeded his or her authority.

PepeTheFrog is 1,000% certain Vern Edwards knows this, but only wants to clarify for the other readers: This rule applies to government contracts, but not to private contracts. In private contracts, an agent can bind its principal in a contract even if that agent exceeded its authority.

Example: Everyone in Springfield knows that Smithers is the right-hand man of C. Montgomery Burns. Smithers signs and negotiates deals for Burns all the time, and Burns holds out Smithers as his agent. One day, Smithers signs a contract for $2 million even though Burns told him he couldn't sign the contract for more than $1.75 million. The contract is valid and binds Burns, even though Smithers did not have actual authority. Smithers had apparent authority and Burns cannot "welsh" on the deal.

On 9/23/2016 at 5:31 PM, Boof said:

Lets get rid of the ratification process.  It always punishes the contracting personnel and the vendors instead of the program offices it is supposed to wake up.

Boof,

How would you propose to deal with the situations that the ratification process handles now?

PepetheFrog,

"It is very well to say that those who deal with the Government should turn square corners. But there is no reason why the square corners should constitute a one-way street."

-- Justice Jackson, writing for the four Justices who dissented in Federal Crop Insurance Corp v. Merrill in 1947. I would ask SCOTUS to rehear a similar case and reverse its prior holding.

I know I'm just a dreamer....

here_2_help:

PepeTheFrog is with you. While we're dreaming, what do you think about making federal civilian employees at-will? PepeTheFrog is happy to see the occasional political termination if it means ending constipation in federal employment as well. Why should federal employment be (close to) an entitlement?

PepetheFrog,

From my (outsider) perspective there are a number of problems with the Federal personnel system. Would some of them be fixed if it were easier to hire and fire? Absolutely. But to my way of thinking the real problem is a lack of leadership with respect to a "human capital" strategy at each department/agency. Taxpayers and Congress should demand that Secretaries and other leaders testify regarding their plans to attract and hire the right people, develop and retain the right people, and rightsize the staff as necessary. Then the leaders should be held accountable for the results against their plans. Accountable how? As in, no budget increases for non-personnel activities until personnel management improves.

While we are dreaming ....

here_2_help:

Like Defense Acquisition Workforce Improvement Act (DAWIA)? Top-down human capital "initiatives" cannot be implemented effectively without the power to hire and fire at a decentralized level. These federal initiatives often involve hiring, but never firing. They can throw money at the problem, but they can't throw people out (apart from the highest levels). No organism can survive without the ability to excrete its waste.

Cut the Gordian knot!

Do you want to know the easiest way to gauge a federal employee's competence? Ask what he thinks about converting federal employees to at-will employment. You will have your answer.*

*Not counting scholarly frogs who bring up the patronage system or political influence. Ask them to ignore those concerns.

PepeTheFrog said:

While we're dreaming, what do you think about making federal civilian employees at-will?

I think some of you folks should have done less dreaming and paid more attention in the college classes you took in political science and American government. You did take those classes, right? And you paid attention? And you got a passing grade?

Know anything about the old spoils system? Read the history of U.S. civil service reform? Know anything about the Tenure of Office Acts, the Pendleton Act, the Hatch Acts, and the Civil Service Reform Act? Read anything about political appointees in modern government? Thought about how to establish a human capital strategy when Congress and Executive budget and appropriations processes are dysfunctional?

Some background reading:

http://www.govexec.com/management/2015/09/pentagon-plan-move-civilian-workers-outside-civil-service-system-draws-fire/121043/

https://archive.org/stream/hicivilse00libr/hicivilse00libr_djvu.txt

http://www.mspb.gov/MSPBSEARCH/viewdocs.aspx?docnumber=253644&version=253931&application=ACROBAT

http://academic.udayton.edu/richardghere/POL 305/Fall 2010/Condrey and Bat.pdf

http://work.chron.com/can-fired-civil-service-jobs-19492.html

http://www.govexec.com/magazine/briefing/2012/07/wielding-ax/56558/

Scientific American described dreams as "fragmentary, disconnected, and illogical." http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/what-is-dreaming-and-what-does-it-tell-us-about-memory-excerpt/

Wake up. If you think at-will employment policy would fix acquisition you're not dreaming, your hallucinating. If you think democratic republics like ours are capable of effective strategic management planning, you either haven't read any history or you didn't pay attention.

Vern,

I know you mean well but you are coming across like that guy in the brainstorming session who keeps criticizing other people's ideas. We seem to have differing ideas regarding the point of the thought experiment.

In related news, your notion to roll-back CAS applicability is a great idea, except to implement it you will have to substantially rewrite FAR Part 31. Approximately 10 of the 19 Standards are invoked by the cost principles as a condition of cost allowability. If you have a contract with 52.216-7 then you are subject to a lot of the CAS requirements, including some of the more onerous Standards, even if you are a small business.

Just sayin'

On 9/22/2016 at 9:15 PM, Navy_Contracting_4 said:

apsofacto,

Which laws would you like to see repealed?  Which regulations would you like to see removed?

H2H:

That's the post that started the current discussion. Navy didn't say he was launching a brainstorming session, and I do not think that brainstorming rules apply. I presume that Navy wanted argument-supported recommendations, not simple wish lists (dream schemes). So I feel free to criticize what I think are pointless recommendations and unsound arguments.

I frankly don't give a damn about dreams that can't come true. Repeal of the ADA is not going to happen. Congress will NEVER agree to it. And anyone who thinks that going back to 19th Century civil service firing rules will solve acquisition problems isn't thinking. The problems it would create governmentwide would be much, much worse than any we have now. (Sorry, Pepe, but government employment is nowhere close to being an "entitlement.") What we need is supervisors who'll do their bleeping jobs under the current rules and take the heat.

Will elimination of CAS require rewriting of FAR Part 31? Yes, but that was the idea behind Navy's question. What laws and regs can we change to remove costly and ineffective administrative burdens? The FAR councils rewrote FAR Part 15, and they can rewrite FAR Parts 30 and 31 to change the references to CAS, which would be much simpler. Hell, H2H, you could probably rewrite them in a week or two. If we can't rewrite burdensome regulations, then there's is no point to this exercise.

This people who post at this website likes to think of it as a font of knowledge and wisdom. Well, stop dreaming and be wise. What ACQUISITION laws and regulations can we change, and what are the arguments for changing them? That's where our expertise is supposed to lie, and that's what we can talk about with some claim to knowledge. Why make fools of ourselves?

Quote

Vern... You are coming across like that guy in the brainstorming session who keeps criticizing other people's ideas. We seem to have differing ideas regarding the point of the thought experiment.

I hope so.

On 9/23/2016 at 11:31 PM, Boof said:

Lets get rid of the ratification process.  It always punishes the contracting personnel and the vendors instead of the program offices it is supposed to wake up.

Boof:

I understand your point, and I agree to some extent that ratification "punishes" the wrong people. But your recommendation is not clear. The purpose of ratification is not punishment. The purpose of ratification is to put a seal of approval, so to speak, on an unauthorized commitment. Punishment is another thing entirely.

Are you recommending that the government just pay the bill whenever someone makes an unauthorized commitment? Or are you recommending a different ratification process? Or a different process manager?

On ‎9‎/‎23‎/‎2016 at 2:35 AM, Vern Edwards said:

Repeal of laws is hard. How about amendment?

3. Competition in Contracting Act--eliminate requirement to use specific contracting methods; permit certain awards without consideration of price; raise SAT to $1,000,000; set SAT at $100,000 per unit for quantity buys; raise micro-purchase threshold to $50,000; eliminate mandatory use of sealed bidding.

4. Amend OFPP Act and Small Business Act to raise synopsis threshold to $50,000.

I like it, but let's also set the synopsis value up to the current SAT level ($150,000) and allow oral quotes up to that dollar value (or close to it).

I like it.

On ‎9‎/‎26‎/‎2016 at 8:31 PM, Vern Edwards said:

Are you recommending that the government just pay the bill whenever someone makes an unauthorized commitment? Or are you recommending a different ratification process? Or a different process manager?

FAR 1.602-3(d) states non-ratifiable procurements could be resolved by the GAO, and is therefore very scary to the wayward PM since his chain of command cannot help him. 

Should all unauthorized commitments (ratifiable or not) be referred be referred to the agency OIG? I don't expect the OIG to retroactively approve the commitment, of course, but . . . we were talking punishment, too . . .

apsofacto said:

FAR 1.602-3(d) states non-ratifiable procurements could be resolved by the GAO, and is therefore very scary to the wayward PM since his chain of command cannot help him.

FAR 1.602-3(d) is out of date. GAO no longer has claims settlement authority. Pub. L. 104-53, 109 Stat. 514, 535, November 19, 1996, transferred that authority to OMB. See Transfer of Claims Settlement and Related Advance Decisions, Waivers, and Other Functions, B-275605, March 17, 1997, http://www.gao.gov/assets/200/198248.pdf.

See also: https://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/foia_transfer_gao_auth

If you want to see what's wrong with acquisition regulation today, see this GAO witness statement about VA procurement that was recently submitted to a congressional committee. Read the discussion of Veterans Administration procurement policies that begins on page 6. .

http://docs.house.gov/meetings/VR/VR08/20160920/105313/HHRG-114-VR08-Wstate-MackinM-20160920.pdf

Here is a source for ideas about what needs to be done. The problem is not unique to VA. The statutory/regulatory/policy system that governs acquisition is a real mess.

What's "wrong" with Government contracting is that it is not, nor has it ever been, about achieving the lowest price for an item or service.

If that were the case, drinking fountains would still read "whites only", job ads would still read "Irish need not apply", only Fortune 500 companies would sell to the government, and women would still be fired from their jobs when they got pregnant.  Am I the only one who didn't sleep through that part of CON 101?

So I think it's fair to say that eliminating all these "nuisance" provisions would be good for the acquisition community, bad for the country.  And when you are spending taxpayer dollars, "bad for the  country" is a cost like any other.

If paperwork ain't your thing, you're in the wrong business.

REA'n Maker said:

What's "wrong" with Government contracting is that it is not, nor has it ever been, about achieving the lowest price for an item or service.

If that were the case, drinking fountains would still read "whites only", job ads would still read "Irish need not apply", and women would still be fired from their jobs when they got pregnant.

Am I the only one who didn't sleep through that part of CON 101?

I don't follow...Are you stating that Government contracting should be about achieving the lowest price for an item or service?  Or is that what you think others on this forum are advocating for?

REA'n Maker said:

If that were the case, drinking fountains would still read "whites only", job ads would still read "Irish need not apply", only Fortune 500 companies would sell to the government, and women would still be fired from their jobs when they got pregnant.  Am I the only one who didn't sleep through that part of CON 101?

So I think it's fair to say that eliminating all these "nuisance" provisions would be good for the acquisition community, bad for the country.

cool story, bro

REA'n Maker said:

What's "wrong" with Government contracting is that it is not, nor has it ever been, about achieving the lowest price for an item or service.

If that were the case, drinking fountains would still read "whites only", job ads would still read "Irish need not apply", only Fortune 500 companies would sell to the government, and women would still be fired from their jobs when they got pregnant.  Am I the only one who didn't sleep through that part of CON 101?

So I think it's fair to say that eliminating all these "nuisance" provisions would be good for the acquisition community, bad for the country.  And when you are spending taxpayer dollars, "bad for the  country" is a cost like any other.

If paperwork ain't your thing, you're in the wrong business.

Let me see if I understand you, REA'n Maker --

You think that this thread has been about wanting to (a) bring back segregated drinking fountains, (b) allow discrimination against immigrants, (c) award contracts only to large businesses, and (d) allow companies to fire women who get pregnant, all in order to get the lowest price.

Do I understand you correctly? Is that what you think this thread is about? Wanting those things?

I understood REA to be saying that government contracting is more concerned with public policy objectives than lowest prices.

Maybe.

I read it as an assertion that procurement rules were responsible for the Civil Rights Movement, various worker protections, dramatically reducing the transaction costs of small businesses selling goods/services to the Government, and a cry for help.  If that is the case, my response is "false", "false", "does the opposite", and "I'm here for you brother" respectively.