The Federal Contracting Process: Starting from Scratch.

Bob - The purpose of doing this would be to draw new participants? Can you explain the nexus between the two?

For regular posters, I can't see that making much of a difference (for instance, see Vern's post on brainstorming source selection process improvements, which was extremely popular). For those who have never posted or occasional visitors, I can think of potentially better ways to increase participation (for instance, by making the message board link more visible on the Wifcon homepage).

bob7947 said:

I've been thinking about how I would build a federal contracting process from scratch.

I think that topic is too big. It's mind-boggling. I wouldn't know where to start.

How about narrowing it. For instance:

The Competition in Contract Act has been the pre-eminent contracting law since 1984. It requires that agencies seek and obtain full and open competition and conduct competitive acquisitions in certain ways. See 10 U.S.C. §§ 2304 and 2305 and 41 U.S.C. Chapters 33 and 37 and FAR Parts 6, 14, and 15. How should those rules be changed, if at all? For example:

• Should agencies still be required to seek "full and open" competition, or would some lesser standard be adequate or better?
• Should we still have advocates for competition (formerly, competition advocates)?
• Should sealed bidding (FAR Part 14) be eliminated as obsolete and replaced with LPTA competitive negotiation?
• Should we eliminate the concept and rules about responsible prospective contractors (FAR Subpart 9.1) and replace it with evaluations of offeror qualifications?
• Should price or cost still be a mandatory evaluation factor in all acquisitions?
• Should agencies have to disclose the "relative importance" of evaluation factors?
• If the CO wants to talk to an offeror about its proposal, should he or she be required to determine a competitive range and conduct discussions with all offerors within the competitive range?
• Should the rules permit contractor selection followed by one-on-one negotiations with the selectee?
• Should we still have a later proposals rule?

If you could change 10 USC §§ 2304 and 2305 and  41 USC Chapters 33 and 37, what would you change and how?

Vern:

That should be possible.    If we need to change things, we can do it as we move along.

I like the “from scratch” idea, if only because those who choose to discuss the topic can focus on principles, policies, and procedures of a new contracting process and the merits of such ideas rather than the “well X idea still conflicts with Y regulation/statute” conversations.  

As for where to start, the beginning of course:  “Begin at the beginning," the King said, very gravely, "and go on till you come to the end: then stop.” - Lewis Carroll -

Mathew:

My original thought was that.  I can call the forum starting from scratch.  After that, we could add one thing at a time and we could eventually complete the process.  If we take Vern's suggestion, we could hash out CICA and when that dies out, we could move on to the next area of discussion.  When we are done with our components or building blocks, we might have a thorough look at the acqusition process.  I can move things around to fit our structure and needs.

For example:

The forum might be called:  Federal Contracting, Starting from Scratch.  Our first area would be CICA, as Vern suggested.  Once that is discussed to our heart's content, we could move on to the next block and build on our structure.  That way we could stay focused on one thing at a time.

Under CICA, we could discuss Vern's bullets one at a time.

Would this new forum be used to discuss the federal contracting process as-is, or how we would like it to be?

Either way, I think starting with the end in mind is a good place to kickoff. For example, what is the purpose of having a/the process? What are the goals and objectives? 

Define (the problem), Ideate, Prototype

bob7947 said:

Mathew:

My original thought was that.  I can call the forum starting from scratch.  After that, we could add one thing at a time and we could eventually complete the process.  If we take Vern's suggestion, we could hash out CICA and when that dies out, we could move on to the next area of discussion.  When we are done with our components or building blocks, we might have a thorough look at the acqusition process.  I can move things around to fit our structure and needs.

For example:

The forum might be called:  Federal Contracting, Starting from Scratch.  Our first area would be CICA, as Vern suggested.  Once that is discussed to our heart's content, we could move on to the next block and build on our structure.  That way we could stay focused on one thing at a time.

Under CICA, we could discuss Vern's bullets one at a time.

Sounds good to me, though maybe we shouldn’t call it CICA if we’re starting from scratch - let’s call it “Contractor Selection” or something to that effect.  Two additional topic areas could be: (1) Ethics & (2) Public Policy (after all this is the federal contracting process).

Jamaal:

Quote

how we would like it to be?

That has to be decided.  Most of what we know is current law and regulation.  If we eliminate sealed bidding, we get rid of Part 14 in the FAR and in any supplement.  We could probably elimiante 1/2 of an attorney-year in GAO's bid protest unit too.  That is up to anyone that wants me to set up a discussion forum for the remake.

Bob, et al.:

I was recently thinking about the different ways the government goes about getting things done when it believes the current laws and regulations that apply to government contracts are too burdensome. The government has relied on expanded SAPs, OTAs, etc.

If the government can spend taxpayer dollars using SAP; or Other Transactions (OTs) using a 39 page guide, we should be able to create a contracting process guide from scratch. Services can spend up to $250M using OTAs and over $250M with approval.

OTA Guide 17-Jan-2017

5 minute video on recent OTAs:

Pathways to Commercial Innovation and Other Transaction Authority ( OTAs)

Reportedly, OTs can allow for much greater speed, flexibility, and accessibility in promoting the engagement of non-traditional and small business contractors to design and implement innovative business models that would not be feasible or practical under FAR-based contracts. This can include instances where specific clauses within the FAR would create unnecessary burden on the government or contractor. This article tackles some of the beliefs surrounding OTs:

Other Transaction (OT) Authority Mythology: Reflections on the Cure-all of DEFENSE Procurement*

Jamaal:

Back in the 1980s, I had to analyze the purchasing system of a private company.  I ended up looking at PEPCO.  It's now an Excelon company but that doesn't make a difference.  They buy quite a bit of items from a lot of companies.  They had a purchasing manual and a purchasing organization.  Back then, I was interested in their small business efforts.  They were qualifying small businesses and searching for small businesses to participate as suppliers.  They did what the federal government did with only a purchasing manual.  Of course, they weren't burdened by a House Armed Services Committee and a Senate Armed Services Committee or a U. S. Congress, for that matter.  Now those jerks and their local counterparts will have an effect on an industry purchasing manual in some way but it is still manageable.  That is not the case for the U. S. Government.  Every committee in Congress oversees some federal agency..  With few exceptions, these committees' jurisdiction covered only one or a few agencies.  However, they can wreak havoc over a single agency's procurement system.  Look at the various VA and DHS bills now.

The Armed Services Committees' unintended goal is to make federal contracting impossible.  Look at that crap of Thornberry's that Mathew posted.  Yesterday, both Vern and I concluded it was crap at about the same time and offered simplicity.  Vern's ideas were elegant and mine were crude but they both tried to get down to something simple.  That is what is needed.

Maybe the solution for federal contracting is for Congress to declare a 5-year moratorium on contracting legislation.  During that period, OMB could hire a group of intelligent, untainted, university students to develop a purchasing manual for the federal government.  The rest of us, who have been involved with this mess for any amount of time, may never be able to see past the sand dues and clearly view federal contracting's promised land.

Jamaal,

The wind might be blowing the other direction in the matter of OTA’s. 

Section 204 of Representative  Thornberry’s new draft acquisition reform proposal calls for a reporting of DoD OTAs over $5Million.

Call the new paradigm the "NEAR" - New Excellence in Acquisition Regulations

Because, you know, its the opposite of the FAR.

bob7947 said:

I've been thinking about how I would build a federal contracting process from scratch.

Jamaal Valentine said:

If the government can spend taxpayer dollars using SAP; or Other Transactions (OTs) using a 39 page guide, we should be able to create a contracting process guide from scratch.

Let's be clear about your objectives.

Are y'all talking about building or creating (specifying?)

• a process (an ordered set of steps toward production of some outcome, from start to finish),
• a procedure (a way of doing something),
• a set of rules that govern a variety of processes and/or procedures,
• all of that,
• or something else?

And what do you mean by "contracting"? Are you going by the definition in FAR 2.101 or are you focusing on contract formation and contract administration? Do you want to include bid protests and legal settlement of disputes?

At present we do not have a single process, procedure, or set of rules for contracting. We have several processes and procedures and several sets of rules for buying different kinds of goods and services. Do you want to create a single ("overarching") process, procedure, or set of rules for all?

If you were contracting for this, how would you describe the work to be done (or output)? What is your statement of work (or performance work statement)?

There would likely be more participation if we crafted a new set of rules that govern contract formation and contract administration processes and procedures.

Analyzing the current rules and how they should be changed is perhaps a bit more likely to spark change, but few have the tools or know-how to facilitate participation.

If we created a new set of rules the Statement of Objectives could be:

(1) Satisfy requirements in terms of cost, quality, and timeliness of the delivered product or service;

(2) Minimize administrative operating costs;

(3) Conduct business with integrity, fairness, and openness; and

(4) Fulfill public policy objectives by --

(i) Maximizing the use of commercial products and services; and

(ii) Maximizing the use of small businesses, that have a track record of successful past performance or who demonstrate a current ability to perform, when reasonably expecting at least two will submit offers and that the award can be made at affordable prices that offers best value given any other factors.

Whatever's decided, hopefully we can avoid the Pentagon Wars - link to video.

@Jamaal Valentine

Jamaal Valentine said:

There would likely be more participation if we crafted a new set of rules that govern contract formation and contract administration processes and procedures.

So the its the new rules that must:

Jamaal Valentine said:

(1) Satisfy requirements in terms of cost, quality, and timeliness of the delivered product or service;

(2) Minimize administrative operating costs;

(3) Conduct business with integrity, fairness, and openness; and

(4) Fulfill public policy objectives....

Is that right? Is that all?

Other countries (e.g., UK) operate government procurement via a statement of principles intended to guide discretion and judgment. The US has chosen a more prescriptive, rules-based, approach. Perhaps we can learn from other countries' procurement regimes.

If we start from scratch, do we have to work within the Constitution, or is that on the table, too?

H-2-H

European Community?

Don:

Nah.  Although, 1792 was the first contracting law I could find.

Don Mansfield said:

If we start from scratch, do we have to work within the Constitution, or is that on the table, too?

Does it even need to be human-based?   This seems like an ideal task for the AI procurement bots.

AI, we can do that.  Gort would deal with all protests and enforce all rules.

Where does everyone think the problems in federal procurement are coming from? Is it the thick rule book(s)? Is it the lack of delegation to the lowest possible level? Is it the process? Fear of protests? The oversight? Fear of simplifying? Fear of a bad deal?

I'm curious to know everyone's opinion. My personal opinion is almost all of the above, but mostly the oversight and fear of protests.

It's been pretty rare in my experience that my leadership feared a bad deal. They always fear protests. That being said, my experience isn't large weapons systems or anything extremely complex.

I agree that the rules and regulations need to be scrubbed, but I feel that the more important change needs to be in the culture of our leaders (supervisors, chiefs, clearance authorities, etc). Stop being worried about avoiding protest and instead focus on "can we defend this position?" If we can, move forward. If we can't, then press forward.

The number one problem is a lack of professional knowledge and competence on the part of the workforce. I believe there is general agreement about that. All other problems are secondary,.

Vern Edwards said:

The number one problem is a lack of professional knowledge and competence on the part of the workforce. I believe there is general agreement about that. All other problems are secondary,.

I can get behind that. How do suppose it gets fixed? Training is a rough one, the Government "tries" with DAU. I think one big problem with the workforce is you've got two extremes. Ones who don't care and pencil whip everything with LPTA, and the others are "too good" in which they over-analyze and drag out acquisitions when it's unnecessary.

So two questions really:

How do you fix it?

Where do you start? From higher dollar acquisitions down to SAP? Or start from the bottom and work your way up? Or is there a "blanket" solution?

If we are going to improve professional knowledge I can add that to the sole beginning topic.  Let's not discuss it here.

The Forum would be:

Federal Contracting:  A New Start  (forum)

• Contracting Personnel  (category--holds discussions)

1. Discussion Issue -- (topic--in which discussions are held) (this would be the initial sole issue in which a discussion is held.  Other topics can be added as needed.  If a post strays from the first issue, it will be hidden until we find a place for it.   I think I can set it up in a manner similar to that.

The term Contracting will be used because it is the name of this site.  Other than that, I should be able to move things around to fit our needs.  It too can be defined later. If it is agreed that Personnel is the problem, come up with a discussion issue I can add.

Vern Edwards said:

Is that right? Is that all?

Yes to both. Place competent people in the system and hold them accountable for staying within that framework.

I have started the Forum and the first Category.  It is at the bottom of this page.  You cannot post anything yet.  Vern stated that Contracting Personnel was the most significant problem.  It seems that 2 others agree with him.

I will post the topics that can be discussed under the Category of Government Contracting Personnel when someone posts one here and others agree to it. 

After that, I will collect potential topics here and list them in a poll for possible inclusion to the new forum under Government Contracting Personnel.  The topics with the most votes will be added as the second topic, etc.   We will do this one topic at a time until you tell me to add another.  

Add any ideas here.  Let's see if anyone is willing to contribute.

Concur, I like the new forum, but am a little worried lest we forget or not consider as a first principal that our opportunity should be to fix government’s role in a problem after first recognizing that which needs no fixing. 

Milton Friedman’s comments about the price system come you mind right now 

Leonard Reid’s classic essay I, Pencil also comes to mind. http://www.econlib.org/library/Essays/rdPncl1.html

The commercial market is our first super computer and not so well understood. Its invisible hand solves problems in pricing, resourcing, and distributing goods and services while minimizing surplus and shortage and incentivizing innovation and change in ways that no one need understand and that no commissar or bureaucracy can hope to better. We don’t always need to see what is in the box...It is almost as if doing so, will alter the subtle dynamics of the mechanism at work (hello Shroedinger’s Cat, am I really proposing a kind of Quantum Economics...no, no really, it is just a metaphor). There are so many ways in which the commercial marketplace does not need an assist no matter how smart the master minds are. ...Except when it doesn’t. 

Knowing what to solve is the real debate and the real call for wisdom. Yes, there certainly are agency problems to detect and solve or social goods (externalities and inequities) that society and government should and must address.  That is what we all do here...and it is a joy of mine to both watch and participate.

Thank you Bob for giving us this Forum!

Far:

Don't get your hopes up.  We don't have any suggestions for discussion.

Let me give it a try.

Here is a suggested Contracting Personnel topic: Does anyone think we should discuss Duty?

Some things we might consider: What kind of a thing is Duty? (credit comes from elsewhere, as I have seen Vern ask this question of a different kind of thing) Why does it matter to Contracting personnel? What follows from Duty? What doesn’t follow from Duty? As practitioners are contracting personnel engaging in a profession? If so, what standards of conduct or principles do they as a body and as individuals profess?  How does Duty differ from Responsibility? Should Duty and Responsibility be used as terms of art?...Or will their plain language meanings suffice?

bob7947 said:

I will post the topics that can be discussed under the Category of Government Contracting Personnel when someone posts one here and others agree to it.

Maybe we should outline the duties and qualifications. (Personnel does seem like a strange place to start since we haven't defined the system they'll operate [within].)

Let me know what you want to do.

Under personnel there are 2 potential topics.

1. Duties
2. Qualifications.

Vern Edwards said:

The number one problem is a lack of professional knowledge and competence on the part of the workforce. I believe there is general agreement about that. All other problems are secondary,.

Bravo!

bob7947 said:

Under personnel there are 2 potential topics.

1. Duties
2. Qualifications.

Instead of Duties, which are prescribed by employers, how about:

Contracting officers and contract specialists: 

1. What should they know?
2. What should they be able to do?

Vern Edwards said:

Instead of Duties, which are prescribed by employers, how about:

Contracting officers and contract specialists: 

1. What should they know?
2. What should they be able to do?

Vern's post only as reference to a thought.  What is the intended reach of audience?   Reading through all the comments it seems the target is Contract Specialists.   I say this as the term Contracting Officer would encompass GS-1105 Purchasing Agents as well.

napolik said:

Bravo!

In a related note, I have discussed with Don what I think is an omission in the CON curriculum. He didn't agree it was a big deal (or perhaps he suggested it was covered elsewhere). I agree with him that, unless you deal with the topic, it would be at most a technical point. But if you deal with the topic, you had better know your stuff. Regardless, I learned last week that certain government contracting personnel are coming to us (contractor) to be trained in the topic because they perceive we know it better than anybody else. (Or perhaps they think we know it better than anybody else they have access to.)

I don't mean to be coy but I won't identify the specific topic in a public forum. Don already knows it (if he recalls our discussion). The point is, many in the government acquisition team know their knowledge gaps and they are trying to fill them ... any solution to the knowledge gap needs to include the means of providing individual learning that is tailored to individual need, rather than focusing on a one-size-fits-all approach.

Quote

Contracting officers and contract specialists: 

• What should they know?
• What should they be able to do?

I will add the two discussions under the New Forum under Government Contracting Personnel.  However, we must remember this is a New Beginning.  The terms contracting officers and contract specialists are placeholder terms until you decide whether you will keep those terms in the new process.  Don't state they should know how to deal with GAO and COFC protests because, at this point, you have not decided if there is such a thing as a protest.  Neither do we have government contract law or regulation to deal with at this time.  We have no fair and reasonable price, we have no cost realism.  Think like that. We are dealing with contracts so we all should have a general idea of what a contract is.  What we are trying to do is figure out what the government's contracting agent should know and be able to do.  You will have to decide what we will call the agents in the end.  You are now up the creek with only your imagination to lean on.

Don't get bogged down in the current terminology we use because it doesn't exist anymore.  It's a new beginning.  I may or may not write a summary of the completed discussion when we decide we have hashed it out.  At that time, you may suggest editing my summary or whatever.  Other than that and some nudging when we stray aside from the concepts, I will not participate in the discussion.  I have my own ideas but I want your ideas.  Your ideas means the groups' ideas not any one member's ideas.  Let's see if there is any imagination or innovation in our contracting membership.

I hope you make an effort.

Bob,

It is not at all clear to me what you want ideas about. Unless you get a lot more specific, the responses you get are going to be all over the map. I won't say any more. I wish you well with this.

Vern

I wanted to see if we can move away from CICA, ASPA, FPASA, FAR, DFARS, etc., etc., contract specialists, and the same old crutches the government has burdened and punished us with.  That is the most significant problem facing government contracting, not the people.  You can hire people anywhere to fill purchasing jobs. What does it take to order from Amazon?  Carl's wondering about contracting clerks, you show Carl that pudding or something is a mil-spec.  We have a political fool writing lines of crap trying to define something billions of people do online every day.  (In China, Alibaba is much bigger than Amazon.)  He really thinks he is helping.  He's adding more baloney to existing baloney that his predecessors scooped up.  Here it is a simple definition: (1) If you can't buy it from less than 2 online retailers, it is not a commercial product; if you cannot find a service from more than 2 service providers online, it's not a commercial service.  Nothing more is needed.  

I don't think my effort will go anywhere because everything needs to be torn down and renewed with a view of the future.  Eventualy it will.  What would we do when we got to a replacement for FAR Part 52.  Some of it might make sense and it is of some value but who is going to wade though it.

Well, Bob, I see you're pessimistic. I don't think you've thought your concept through. You need to focus the discussion.

I gave you a pretty well defined topic the other day. Why not start with it? Or with another that is as well focused.

On 4/26/2018 at 10:34 AM, Vern Edwards said:

The Competition in Contract Act has been the pre-eminent contracting law since 1984. It requires that agencies seek and obtain full and open competition and conduct competitive acquisitions in certain ways. See 10 U.S.C. §§ 2304 and 2305 and 41 U.S.C. Chapters 33 and 37 and FAR Parts 6, 14, and 15. How should those rules be changed, if at all? For example:

• Should agencies still be required to seek "full and open" competition, or would some lesser standard be adequate or better?
• Should we still have advocates for competition (formerly, competition advocates)?
• Should sealed bidding (FAR Part 14) be eliminated as obsolete and replaced with LPTA competitive negotiation?
• Should we eliminate the concept and rules about responsible prospective contractors (FAR Subpart 9.1) and replace it with evaluations of offeror qualifications?
• Should price or cost still be a mandatory evaluation factor in all acquisitions?
• Should agencies have to disclose the "relative importance" of evaluation factors?
• If the CO wants to talk to an offeror about its proposal, should he or she be required to determine a competitive range and conduct discussions with all offerors within the competitive range?
• Should the rules permit contractor selection followed by one-on-one negotiations with the selectee?
• Should we still have a later proposals rule?

If you could change 10 USC §§ 2304 and 2305 and  41 USC Chapters 33 and 37, what would you change and how?

If any law drives what COs and contract specialists do and how they do it, it has been CICA. We are using a process that was built upon a 19th Century competitive bidding process model, the FAR Part 15 process model. Other procedures are exceptions to competitive bidding. Let's see if people can't think of variations and alternatives.

Offer a small prize for the 5 best ideas. That might bring in new contributors and bring out those that have been laying back. Awards to be based on

1. focus on CICA;
2. ideas that would reduce the time and expense of source selection;
3. the practicality of the ideas;
4. their fairness to industry; , and
5. the clarity and concision with which they are presented. (Let's see if people can think and write.)

I'll select and fund the prizes.

It's up to you.

Vern

That's fine.  I will add that.  One item at a time to try to maintain control.  I think it is easier to start with that.  Do you know the names of all federal laws directly affecting contracting.  I don't know all of them.

Bob, NOBODY knows the names of all the federal laws that directly affect contracting. Why would you ask that?

I was just wondering how many there were.

Nobody knows. NOBODY!

Let's take the last offer and get started. Like was said earlier, we can refine on the way.

Vern:

Quote

Offer a small prize for the 5 best ideas. That might bring in new contributors and bring out those that have been laying back. Awards to be based on

1. focus on CICA;
2. ideas that would reduce the time and expense of source selection;
3. the practicality of the ideas;
4. their fairness to industry; , and
5. the clarity and concision with which they are presented. (Let's see if people can think and write.)

I'll select and fund the prizes.

It's up to you.

Vern

Thank you for the offer.  There will be no other prizes.  A free and privately held discussion board is the prize.  Members need to understand the importance of the highlighted text and they must decide if they are leaders or followers.  This is the site's Thermopylae.

Well, good. Thermopylae.

I've written a lot about CICA and my issues with it, and my views are already pretty well known among the cognoscenti, so I won't participate. But I'll enjoy reading what others post, and I might steal any good ideas.

Have fun!

I've just posted the first item--Should Sealed Bidding be Abolished?  There is a poll to go with it since it is a yes or no response.  It can be discussed also.  It's a race to 10 votes for either yes or no.  If we cannot get 10 votes for a yes or a no, the community gets a Doh?  The incentive or disincentive is the fate of Wifcon.com.  I really don't care anymore and I won't participate either.

here_2_help said:

I don't mean to be coy but I won't identify the specific topic in a public forum. Don already knows it (if he recalls our discussion). The point is, many in the government acquisition team know their knowledge gaps and they are trying to fill them ... any solution to the knowledge gap needs to include the means of providing individual learning that is tailored to individual need, rather than focusing on a one-size-fits-all approach.

While DAU courses are important to reducing the lack of knowledge among contract personnel, I believe OJT is equally, or more, important. One can learn concepts in DAU courses offered in classrooms or on line, but the true meaning of the concepts and their application can be learned only on-the-job. The actual application of concepts, policies and procedures via the conduct of a procurement creates knowledge, not the viewing of Power Point slides in a classroom or on a computer screen.

From my experience, very few, if any, contracting offices have an OJT program.

Vern:

Years ago, I don't know if it was before CICA or after, FSS was using negotiation to buy autos.  They were using standards instead of specifications.  I never saw them asking anyone for clarifications, discussions, best and finals (used back then), etc.  Negotiation worked.  I could have challenged their use of negotiation instead of formal advertising/sealed bidding but I decided it might have had a detrimental effect on FSS.  I let it slide.

In 1842, the U. S. Congress laid out 4 basic procedures for advertising at 5 Stat. 526.  They are

• public notice of the agency need,
• sealed offers,
• public opening of bids, and
• award to the lowest bidder.

I'm sure GAO and its predecessors filled in the blanks.

They should look there for exceptions or conditions to advertising that permitted something called negotiaion.  Then they should go to 1862 and think qui tam.

That is what members should strive to learn--everything they can.  They should go to 1 Stat 234, 2 Stat 536, (2 Ops. Att'y Gen. 257., 259). 12 Stat 103.  Take on ASPA of 1947 and FPASA of 1949.  Read the legislative histories. Study the COGP and what it said.  (I've posted links to it and GAO reports that Congress required.)  Find out why there is an OFPP, why there is a CICA, etc.

Find out about the old House Committee on Government Operations and the Senate Committee of Government Affairs.  They need to know how PL 87-653 came about and who Carl Vinson, Lawton Chiles, and Jack Brooks were.  I've been there, I've done that, decades ago.  Who else knows anything about procurement history.  I'm sure there are a handful of people here that do and they are the ones that post here.  There are a handful that will check my citations to statute and maybe look for that Attorney General opinion.  Those that do will say huh and enjoy any new knowlege they gain.  I'm sure that Thornberry has no idea of what came before him and that is one reason he spews crap before us.

That is the problem, too few people care.  It's easier to be an automaton.

bob7947 said:

They should look there for exceptions or conditions to advertising that permitted something called negotiaion.  Then they should go to 1862 and think qui tam.

Who is "they"?

napolik said:

While DAU courses are important to reducing the lack of knowledge among contract personnel, I believe OJT is equally, or more, important. One can learn concepts in DAU courses offered in classrooms or on line, but the true meaning of the concepts and their application can be learned only on-the-job. The actual application of concepts, policies and procedures via the conduct of a procurement creates knowledge, not the viewing of Power Point slides in a classroom or on a computer screen.

From my experience, very few, if any, contracting offices have an OJT program.

I'm not disagreeing with you, but my point was a bit different. Having taught a course or two in my time, I've learned to start every class with a request (essentially a demand) that the students ask questions. I can provide the class with a lot of theory and a lot of rules, but I cannot provide each student with the ability to apply that knowledge to their particular job. Only they can do that, and the only way they can do that is to ask questions about how to apply the theories/rules to their unique circumstances. Moreover, I would urge DAU and other training centers to better tailor what is taught to what is actually needed by the student. Some people don't need to know cost-reimbursement contracting (right now) because they aren't doing it. Teaching the theory and the rules before the knowledge can be applied just wastes the limited RAM in peoples' heads. It's like learning a foreign language: if you don't practice speaking and reading and writing the language, the knowledge just atrophies.

Now that I write this, I feel this post might be seen as disagreeing with what Bob just posted above me. He seems to be exhorting everybody to learn everything. I agree with that! Intellectual curiosity is a rare trait that identifies high performers.* But timing is important. Learning information without the ability to apply that information doesn't help. In fact, most of us will need to relearn that information downstream when it comes time to use it.

* I recently heard somebody say of Vern that he is "the most intellectually curious man I've ever met." The person who said that is a well-respected government contracts attorney.

bob7947 said:

They should go to 1 Stat 234, 2 Stat 536, (2 Ops. Att'y Gen. 257., 259). 12 Stat 103.  Take on ASPA of 1947 and FPASA of 1949.  Read the legislative histories. Study the COGP and what it said.  (I've posted links to it and GAO reports that Congress required.)  Find out why there is an OFPP, why there is a CICA, etc.

Find out about the old House Committee on Government Operations and the Senate Committee of Government Affairs.  They need to know how PL 87-653 came about and who Carl Vinson, Lawton Chiles, and Jack Brooks were.

I don't agree with Bob. It takes time to find and read those kinds of things, and I don't think there is an immediate payoff for people who are trying to learn their profession. A student taking his or her first flying lessons needs to learn many things, but not the history of how the Wrights developed their flyer and of the early flights at Kitty Hawk and Ohio.

Concepts, principles, rules, and practices, in that order. You learn by observing or having something pointed out to you, asking questions of yourself and others, answering the questions, and questioning the answers.

Vern

Quote

I don't agree with Bob.

Don:

Quote

Now that I write this, I feel this post might be seen as disagreeing with what Bob just posted above me. He seems to be exhorting everybody to learn everything. I agree with that! Intellectual curiosity is a rare trait that identifies high performers.* But timing is important. Learning information without the ability to apply that information doesn't help. In fact, most of us will need to relearn that information downstream when it comes time to use it.

I can accept that.  I didn't read and study those things until 15 years into my career.  Now, those who are interested and have the time can look at the citations and learn some good stuff without having to do the research that I did.  I know one or two people here will check my citations.  I'll probably do it again myself because I want to see it again.  

Vern:

Quote

Who is "they"?

The people who don't know it is there.  Come to think of it, I'm going to look at some of those citations again.

bob7947 said:

They should go to 1 Stat 234, 2 Stat 536, (2 Ops. Att'y Gen. 257., 259). 12 Stat 103.  Take on ASPA of 1947 and FPASA of 1949.  Read the legislative histories. Study the COGP and what it said.  (I've posted links to it and GAO reports that Congress required.)  Find out why there is an OFPP, why there is a CICA, etc.

Nonsense, Bob. A contract specialist can spend a good part of a professional career learning just the ins and outs of cost and price analysis, profit analysis, fact-finding, pre-negotiation planning, and contract negotiation. Young people starting out should not waste valuable time looking up and reading 19th Century attorney general decisions, old statutes and their legislative history, and old committee reports, and delving into the origins of government bureaus as inconsequential as OFPP, trying to figure out how we got to where we are today. Instead, they should immerse themselves in study of the fundamentals of their work in pursuit of mastery. They should be working at learning how to read, write, think, and argue.

They can study old maps after they know every nook and cranny of the terrain in which they find themselves now. They can become philosophers of contracting after they've learned contracting.

Quote

Nonsense, Bob.

Nonense Vern.  They need to make time or maybe they need someone to explain in a 10 minute discussion.  That's all it takes.  Probably the time it takes to drink a six-pack and a family size bag of doritos.  If they don't take the time to read or hear about where we've been, they will never spend the time to do what you want.  I agree that they should strive to be the best at their jobs.  I just want them to be complete.  That isn't nonsense.

Bob,

The typical newcomer to contracting does not know how our laws are made, organized, or published. Same for regulations. I've had persons in my classes with 20 years of experience and unlimited CO warrants who could not say what U.S.C. stands for, what is in it, or how it got there. They don't know what the 10 in 10 U.S.C. 2304 stands for. They can't interpret citations like 2 Stat. 536. They don't know the relationship between the Stat. and the U.S.C. And since I've explained it all to thousands of people, I can tell you that it takes more than 10 minutes, and that they forget it two days later.

What you are asking people to do would discourage them. Basics first. Basics, basics, basics.

But you're entitled to your opinion, ill-considered and unrealistic though it may be.

Vern:

Quote

I've had persons in my classes with 20 years of experience and unlimited CO warrants who could not say what U.S.C. stands for, what is in it, or how it got there. They don't know what the 10 in 10 U.S.C. 2304 stands for. They can't interpret citations like 2 Stat. 536. They don't know the relationship between the Stat. and the U.S.C.

 Did you recommend to their agency that they be quarantined?

Bob,

I think you'd be surprised at how common it was. I could put you in touch with other teachers who would tell you the same. We've often discussed it among ourselves. Many, many adult Americans know little if anything about our legal system.

Quote

I could put you in touch with other teachers who would tell you the same.

That's OK.  When I found that Attorny General opinion in the GAO Library on its 6th floor, I was excited for 2 reasons.  First, the decision was interesting.  Second, the volumes were first editions but they were annotated by individuals from agencies that preceded GAO.  Because of that, they had little value. I tried to share my excitement about the first ediditons with the librarian and I was given the classic doh stare.  After a few more dohs, I shrunk back to my little corner of the law library.  I had access to all sorts of things including the hard copy legislative histories of procurement laws such as the Competition in Contracting Act (CICA).  That's where Lawton Chiles came from.  His versions of CICA began in the late 1970s.  I did the same for 87-653 at 76 Stat 528.  FPASA, 95-507, etc.  I cannot remember them all.  

I had access to the B-files and ordered them from an elderly woman in the procurement law branch.  She told me about the A-files that prededed the B-files.  She's probably in her 120s now and swallowed up by the cloud. 

Eventually, Lexis emptied out the law library and I was the last regular researcher that used the place.  I don't even know if it exists now.  If it does, its shrouded in cobwebs.

Anyone want to guess what the U.S.C.C.A.N. is?  Don't cheat.

All I know is that I put "1 Stat 234" into Google search and I got back links to a number of statistics classes at the Univ. of Chicago.

The debate between @Vern Edwards and @bob7947 assumes a workforce that can learn complex concepts or procedures from written materials. 

There is a frightening large proportion of the federal workforce that would be struggling with a cash register if they had not been blessed by a federal hiring program (call it "work for welfare"). This proportion is hopeless. They cannot prosper under Vern's or Bob's regime.

There used to be a federal civil service exam, which ensured that the federal bureaucracy was staffed with intelligent, competent, and conscientious professionals. But that conflicted with America's new religion, so it was abandoned.

Bring back the federal civil service exam and fire at least one third of the federal workforce.

For the record, PepeTheFrog favors Vern's military, Prussian, practical approach for the workforce. 

By the way, do you know one of the few American institutions that still (directly) discriminates on intelligence? The U.S. military. Look up the ASVAB. The U.S. military will not let you become a pilot if you're an idiot because you and others will die. 

Almost all other institutions or corporations were forced to indirectly discriminate by using expensive and wasteful proxies like college and certifications.

To discriminate -- "to recognize and understand the difference between one thing and another."

Discrimination is a good thing, except when based on protected characteristics. For example, the ability to discriminate between a poisonous snake and a harmless snake is a good thing.

PepeTheFrog said:

Vern's military, Prussian, practical approach for the workforce

What approach is that?

On 4/27/2018 at 2:19 PM, Vern Edwards said:

The number one problem is a lack of professional knowledge and competence on the part of the workforce.

And the number two problem is the lack of responsible and accountable leadership. After all, somebody is signing that crap that goes out the door.

Hence, my Two Golden Rules of Government Consulting:

1. Management never believes it's their fault, and;

2. It's always management's fault (see first sentence above).

Posted twice... see below.

On ‎4‎/‎27‎/‎2018 at 2:19 PM, Vern Edwards said:

The number one problem is a lack of professional knowledge and competence on the part of the workforce. I believe there is general agreement about that. All other problems are secondary,.

General agreement? Who agrees with this? Your contractor friends? I see no evidence provided to support this proposition, but I must accept that there is, apparently, a general agreement that this is the number one problem. Well, I don't accept this, so back to the drawing board for you, sir.

On ‎4‎/‎30‎/‎2018 at 12:14 PM, Vern Edwards said:

What approach is that?

Yeah, what approach is that? The "Everyone's an Idiot but Me" style?

@Tony Bones Stop trolling - clearly you have a bone to pick with Vern, so pick it elsewhere (i.e. you can send direct messages if you must)

As always, this topic is being monitored for violation of forum rules.  Specifically,

12. No stalking of another poster. This means do not constantly contest posts by another poster from one thread to another.

On 4/27/2018 at 6:19 PM, Vern Edwards said:

The number one problem is a lack of professional knowledge and competence on the part of the workforce. I believe there is general agreement about that. All other problems are secondary,.

Tony Bones said:

General agreement? Who agrees with this? Your contractor friends? I see no evidence provided to support this proposition, but I must accept that there is, apparently, a general agreement that this is the number one problem. Well, I don't accept this, so back to the drawing board for you, sir.

Tony has made a faulty analysis of the statement in question. I offered no proposition about general agreement. I offered a proposition about my belief. He need not accept any proposition of mine about general agreement, because I offered no such proposition in that post. The issue about my statement is not whether a general agreement actually exists. The issue is whether, in fact, I believe that there is general agreement. A secondary issue might be why I believe such a thing.

In any case, Tony is not seeking the truth about anything I said in that post. He is angry with me and so is being antagonistic. I believe that nothing I could say would convince him of anything, so why should I try? That post is two months old, and Tony Bones is just a fictional entity created in order to conceal the true identity of someone who intends to be a perpetual provocateur.

I believe that Tony's comment about "contractor friends" were inspired by another thread, in which Joel Hoffman said he wouldn't debate me about a DOD pricing policy because I'm a contractor. I believe that Tony's comment was inspired by what Joel said. In more than ten years of posting at Wifcon, no one had ever said anything like that to me before. Joel's stance was and is absurd. Why not debate a government policy with someone who feels that he would be negatively affected by it? Who better to debate it with?

Since I now know that "Tony Bones" is an antagonist and not an honest debater, I won't satisfy his need for recognition by responding to him in future. He does not intend to be a substantive contributor here.

Tony Bones said:

General agreement? Who agrees with this? Your contractor friends? I see no evidence provided to support this proposition, but I must accept that there is, apparently, a general agreement that this is the number one problem. Well, I don't accept this, so back to the drawing board for you, sir.

On what grounds or basis do you disagree? What evidence do you have to refute it? What evidence do you have to support an alternate theory or hypothesis?

I won't offer an appeal to authority, but senior government contracting leaders seem to believe there is merit to Vern's observation. Heck, the Better Buying Power initiative has a focus area to 'Improve the Professionalism of the Total Acquisition Workforce'.

Another focus area is improving the 'Tradecraft of Service Acquisition' … at least two of seven focus areas involve something you seemingly disagree about. The rest of the focus areas rely on the professional knowledge and competence of the workforce.

What is more important? Many stakeholders highlight the problems associated with the regulatory framework, but even those are secondary or tertiary. For example, good tax attorneys successfully navigate our convoluted tax law because of their knowledge and competence - i.e., professionalism.

http://bbp.dau.mil/bbp7focus.html