What is your favorite FAR Part?

For me, it's Part 15. All of the FAR is applicable, of course, but Part 15 is the one that is utilized the most (in my humble opinion).

A patently ludicrous question, like asking someone to name their favorite word. There are so many....

Or asking what part of the dictionary is preferred. My answer is the part that I used for my last procurement, and the one that I used to answer a question from the attorney reviewing my last contract action.

Personally I would not ask such a silly question. I would ask a question along the lines of which customer in the interviewees experience was the best to work with and why he or she felt that way.

Now, if they want to talk cars or even better, motorcycles, then we might have an interesting interview!

Reminds me of an interview I had a few years back. One of the questions, was: "Tell us about the FAR." (then long silence)

I was so taken back by it, that I almost smart-axed with a...."well, it is a thick paper-back etc. etc."

Reminds me of an interview I had a few years back. One of the questions, was: "Tell us about the FAR." (then long silence)

I was so taken back by it, that I almost smart-axed with a...."well, it is a thick paper-back etc. etc."

You were taken aback? You almost smart-alecked? (smart-axed?) Why? The question was a gift. There was a lot that you could have said. For instance, here are four things that you could have said:

1. The FAR contains three types of texts: (1) rules (indicated by shall, must, and should); (2) guidance, which is suggestive and informative, but not directive, such as FAR 15.101, about the "best value continuum"; and (3) solicitation provisions and contract clauses, which implement the rules in the conduct of acquisitions and in contract performance.

2. The FAR directs government personnel in the conduct of acquisitions; it does not direct competitors and contractors, except to the extent that it is incorporated into solicitations and contracts.

3. The FAR can be said to have two major divisions: The first division includes FAR Parts 1 through 51, Subparts 52.1 and 52.3, and Part 53, which state the rules for the conduct of acquisitions and prescribe solicitation provisions, contract clauses, and forms that are used to impose those rules upon contractors; the second division includes Subpart 52.2, which contains the texts of solicitation provisions and contract clauses that impose the rules on contractors.

4. The FAR cites at least 18 titles of the United States Code that also govern acquisition in some way and that, in some cases, take precedence over the FAR in the case of a conflict.

In speaking those four sentences you would have shown knowledge and insight that 99.9 percent of contract specialists do not have, including the person who asked the question. (Maybe you did say those things.)

One of the first questions I was asked for my current position was, "How would you handle violence in the workplace?"...made me chuckle, but sadly, they were being serious!

Vern,

Which is why I am putting in for the FAR Bootcamp training you conduct, so I can grow in my understanding of the FAR. It was highly recommended by a mutual friend who just started working in my office who attended the training in the past.

Civ,

My answer would be in the form of a question: Against who and under what conditions?" As a former law enforcement officer, I have a history of handling violence in a very quick and convincing way that might offend the gentle ears of some supervisors. Somehow I doubt that is what they are looking for.

Despite being taken back, I hopefully responded adequately enough though certainly sans the succinct objectivity of your statement though! I understood it to be a substantially behavior type question too as most questions are - (let's see how he handles this).

If I were on an interview panel and had to pose a similar question, I would state it with a context more along the lines of:

This next question I have concerns the FAR. Imagine that I am a new program manager client of yours with limited contracting experience. Please give me a no more than three minute brief on the FAR.

Great information Vern!

Thanks to everyone who responded to the post!

FAR parts 13 (simplified acquisition) and 8.4 (Federal Supply Schedules) provide very easy and prompt ways to buy products and services. Unfortunately most buyers don't seem to understand and make things very complicated.

If I were on an interview panel and had to pose a similar question, I would state it with a context more along the lines of:

This next question I have concerns the FAR. Imagine that I am a new program manager client of yours with limited contracting experience. Please give me a no more than three minute brief on the FAR.

Assuming that the interview is for a contracting job, my answer to that question would be as follows:

The FAR is a nearly 2,000 page long compilation of rules and guidance, mainly about contracting, and of boilerplate RFP and contract language. It's not the only set of rules, but it's the main one that governs most day-to-day contracting operations. It's often difficult to understand even for a person with considerable contracting experience. But it's not as restrictive as most people seem to think that it is, and a first-rate contracting person can get almost anything done without violating it. If you hire me, you can let me worry about the FAR. You've already got enough to do. I'll get the things done that you want done, expeditiously, at a reasonable cost to the program, and without breaking the law. Just tell me what you need and when you need it and let me worry about how to get it. Our contracting work will look good to higher ups, the IG, and the GAO. I'll keep you up to speed about important matters. I promise that you'll never hear bad news about your contracting shop from anyone before you hear it from me. When you hear it from me, you'll also hear about the fix. All I ask is that you keep me in the loop and invite me to all the meetings, so I can stay ahead of the curve on your work.

If the people conducting the interview don't like that answer, then I don't want to work for them.

Of course, in the contracting world that 1102s have created, with its clerical tasks and lack of self-respect, it may be that nobody can give an answer like that and hope to keep the promises.

But it's not as restrictive as most people seem to think that it is, and a first-rate contracting person can get almost anything done with violating it.

Hopefully, typo - you meant without violating it.

Hopefully, typo - you meant without violating it.

Yep, typo. Thanks much.

Vern

Of course, in the contracting world that 1102s have created, with its clerical tasks and lack of self-respect, it may be that nobody can give an answer like that and hope to keep the promises.

Vern,

Great answer to the question above.

In addition to the 1102 contracting worlds lack of self-respect and all the clerical tasks involved, I see a lot of schedule delays created by oversight and reviews. It seems like many agencies answer to poor contracting and lack of trained staff is creating extensive reviews. The review/approval process is done through committees where everyone seems to try and find items to criticize. For example, someone posted here on a another thread a couple weeks ago about it taking months to get an acquisition plan approved.

Formerfed,

How about a J&A that took 6 MONTHS just to route internally, then another 6 months seeking a signature in DC, and 12 months later, it is STILL not approved! The J&A took less than a day to create, and the KO signed it that same day, but once it left the contracting officers desk, it went into a bureaucracy from hades, and even though the senior executive is calling DC daily on this matter, it still is just sitting on some policy weenies desk with no hint of urgency on their part.

I have used this question during interviews for "seasoned" GS-1102 positions off and on for a couple of years. Quite frankly, I use it not for a specific answer but to find out if the candidate can actually think and articulate an answer on what is our primary regulatory guide. I have seen applicants with close to 20 years of 1102 experience just stumble around with it.

Personally, my favorite part of the FAR is specifically FAR 1.102(d) - "The role of each member of the Acquisition team is to exercise personal initiative and sound business judgment in providing the best value product or service to meet the customer's needs. In exercising initiative, Government members of the Acquisition Team may assume if a specific strategy, practice, policy or procedure is in the best interests of the Government and is not addressed in the FAR, nor prohibited by law (statute or case law), Executive order or other regulation, that the strategy, practice, policy or procedure is a permissible exercise of authority."

I have also asked variations on how would you describe the FAR. Sad to say many of our "experiened" 1102's don't seem to be able to do that well.

I teach a class in which the student body often includes both 20-year veterans and total newbies. During the first hour of the first day I give everyone a very basic three-part "diagnostic" test to see what they know coming in. The questions are very basic. A first-rate 1102 who has been on the job for two years should be able to answer all of the questions correctly. I have found over the last four years that the 20-year "veteran" 1102s do poorly--no better on average than people with six months of experience or less. It's astonishing, really.

To say that an 1102 is "experienced" generally means that he or she is familiar with routine procedures. I have found that it means absolutely nothing when it comes to knowledge of concepts and rules. "Experienced" is not the same as knowledgeable, and to say that a person is "experienced" does not mean that he or she will do a good job in any particular instance of performance. To tell me that so-and-so is an "experienced" 1102 is to tell me nothing that I need to know.

Most contracting work is simple and routine. An 1102 can sit in a cubicle and crank out paperwork every day for a very long time without learning or knowing very much about contracting, if that is what the 1102 is willing to do in his or her working life. Not that there's anything wrong with that. You can have a profession or just a job.

I have used this question during interviews for "seasoned" GS-1102 positions off and on for a couple of years. Quite frankly, I use it not for a specific answer but to find out if the candidate can actually think and articulate an answer on what is our primary regulatory guide. I have seen applicants with close to 20 years of 1102 experience just stumble around with it.

Personally, my favorite part of the FAR is specifically FAR 1.102(d) - "The role of each member of the Acquisition team is to exercise personal initiative and sound business judgment in providing the best value product or service to meet the customer's needs. In exercising initiative, Government members of the Acquisition Team may assume if a specific strategy, practice, policy or procedure is in the best interests of the Government and is not addressed in the FAR, nor prohibited by law (statute or case law), Executive order or other regulation, that the strategy, practice, policy or procedure is a permissible exercise of authority."

I have also asked variations on how would you describe the FAR. Sad to say many of our "experiened" 1102's don't seem to be able to do that well.

With respect, 1.102(d) isn't a part of the FAR.

It's apparent that FAR 1.105-2 isn't anybody's favorite subsection of the FAR.

With respect, 1.102(d) isn't a part of the FAR.

It's apparent that FAR 1.105-2 isn't anybody's favorite subsection of the FAR.

Do you mean that it's not a part, but a paragraph?

I teach a class in which the student body often includes both 20-year veterans and total newbies. During the first hour of the first day I give everyone a very basic three-part "diagnostic" test to see what they know coming in. The questions are very basic. A first-rate 1102 who has been on the job for two years should be able to answer all of the questions correctly. I have found over the last four years that the 20-year "veteran" 1102s do poorly--no better on average than people with six months of experience or less. It's astonishing, really.

To say that an 1102 is "experienced" generally means that he or she is familiar with routine procedures. I have found that it means absolutely nothing when it comes to knowledge of concepts and rules. "Experienced" is not the same as knowledgeable, and to say that a person is "experienced" does not mean that he or she will do a good job in any particular instance of performance. To tell me that so-and-so is an "experienced" 1102 is to tell me nothing that I need to know.

Most contracting work is simple and routine. An 1102 can sit in a cubicle and crank out paperwork every day for a very long time without learning or knowing very much about contracting, if that is what the 1102 is willing to do in his or her working life. Not that there's anything wrong with that. You can have a profession or just a job.

I started out as an Army intern and went to the "Fort Lee" basic contracting course just after starting the job. I literally knew nothing going in. Because of that I studied long and heard and carefully listened during class/lectures. I did well on the exams and much better than many "experiened" 1102s. I think many of the experiened people didn't listen carefully in class because they felt they already knew the subjects. I know they also spent much more time than I did at the Officer's Club each evening while I studied.

With respect, 1.102(d) isn't a part of the FAR.

It's apparent that FAR 1.105-2 isn't anybody's favorite subsection of the FAR.

Sorry for the double post.

Also with all due respect, part as it little "p" using the Websters definition of part. Traditionally, when referring Part or Subpart of the FAR the "P" and the "S" are capitalized. Just like it shows in FAR 1.105-2©.

I also remember when the basic contracting course focused on the FAR (took my 4 week class at Pease AFB, NH) a long time ago. One of the best classes I took.

Also with all due respect, part as it little "p" using the Websters definition of part. Traditionally, when referring Part or Subpart of the FAR the "P" and the "S" are capitalized. Just like it shows in FAR 1.105-2?.

1.105-2 -- Arrangement of Regulations.

(a) General. The FAR is divided into subchapters, parts **(**each of which covers a separate aspect of acquisition), subparts, sections, and subsections.

Please do tell me more about your capitalizing traditions.

Sparky87 wrote: "Personally, my favorite part of the FAR is specifically FAR 1.102(d)... ." My friend Formerfed wrote: "FAR parts 13 (simplified acquisition) and 8.4 (Federal Supply Schedules) provide very easy and prompt ways to buy products and services." The two read differently to me.

According to FAR 1.105-2( c), when referring to a particular part of the FAR one should write "FAR Part 15," with the word part capitalized. That seems to be the rule in the GPO Style Manual (2008). See Ch. 3 at 3.5. In The Nash & Cibinic Report, for which we use a professional editor, we capitalize the word part when using it in a reference: FAR Part 15 or just Part 15.

If the above are valid guides, then what Sparky87 wrote seems okay. I don't read his entry as mistaking a paragraph for a part, although he could have written that his favorite passage in the FAR is 1.102(d). But Formerfed should have written: "FAR Part 13 and Subpart 8.4... ."

With respect, 1.102(d) isn't a part of the FAR.

It's apparent that FAR 1.105-2 isn't anybody's favorite subsection of the FAR.

Thanks for pointing that out. I didn't have the heart to.

Don.

What do you think was pointed out? Paragraph 1.102(d) is a part of the FAR, just like FAR Subchapter B, but it isn't a FAR part. (When used as I just used it in "FAR part," part is not capitalized, because it does not refer to a specific FAR part, such as FAR Part 1. The distinction is that of a common versus a proper noun.)

1.105-2 -- Arrangement of Regulations.

( b ) Numbering.

(1) The numbering system permits the discrete identification of every FAR paragraph. The digits to the left of the decimal point represent the part number.

1.105-2 -- Arrangement of Regulations.

( b ) Numbering.

(1) The numbering system permits the discrete identification of every FAR paragraph. The digits to the left of the decimal point represent the part number.

Yes. FAR says that. I can read. What does that have to do with Sparky87's use of the word part? I do not believe it is reasonable to interpret Sparky87's post as indicating that he did not know the difference between a FAR paragraph and a FAR part. FAR 1.102(d) is part of the FAR, but it is not a FAR part. As far as I'm concerned, Sparky87's post is okay. Maybe his diction could have been better, but his intention seems clear to me.

Don.

What do you think was pointed out? Paragraph 1.102(d) is a part of the FAR, just like FAR Subchapter B, but it isn't a FAR part. (When used as I just used it in "FAR part," part is not capitalized, because it does not refer to a specific FAR part, such as FAR Part 1. The distinction is that of a common versus a proper noun.)

The question posed in the title of the thread is "What is your favorite FAR Part?" Sparky87's response was FAR 1.102(d), which is not a FAR Part. If he meant "part" with a little p, then his answer was not responsive to the question.

The question posed in the title of the thread is "What is your favorite FAR Part?" Sparky87's response was FAR 1.102(d), which is not a FAR Part. If he meant "part" with a little p, then his answer was not responsive to the question.

Yest the title of the thread was "What is your favorite FAR Part, but the text it was favorite FAR part (twice). Part with a little "P".

I chose to respond in that context because just talk favorite FAR Part is kind of like talking about baseball teams without mentioning favorite players. For example, what conversation about the St. Louis Cardinals would be complete without a discussion on hitters like Pujols and Musial. Much like the rest of the thread pointed out.

And we wonder why personnel get frustrated with our career field.....

What I find ironic is that there wasn't a single comment about the specific passage (nod to comment from Vern Edwards) cited. Quoting/using that FAR cite has helped me do more good in my career than perhaps any other. In practice, our culture practices the opposite. That we can only consider ideas that ARE specifically addressed somewhere. It is a passage that I frequently encourage my trainees to become familiar with and to use when advocating their positions on why they do or don't want to do something. I want to develop some thinking problem solvers not FAR thumping clerks.

Hmmmm. Maybe I should start a thread about the most empowering passage(s) in the FAR.

Don't worry about it Sparky87. I consider the criticism to be groundless. I'll be reading the posts of certain people very closely in the future, expecting perfection in every sentence.

Don't worry about it Sparky87. I consider the criticism to be groundless. I'll be reading the posts of certain people very closely in the future, expecting perfection in every sentence.

In other words, no change.

In other words, no change.

Oh, I never sought perfection, just competence. But some of you have raised the bar by picking on poor ol' Sparky87.

What I find ironic is that there wasn't a single comment about the specific passage (nod to comment from Vern Edwards) cited. Quoting/using that FAR cite has helped me do more good in my career than perhaps any other. In practice, our culture practices the opposite. That we can only consider ideas that ARE specifically addressed somewhere. It is a passage that I frequently encourage my trainees to become familiar with and to use when advocating their positions on why they do or don't want to do something. I want to develop some thinking problem solvers not FAR thumping clerks.

I recently dug up the Federal Register notice which set forth the Guiding Principles that were subsequently incorporated into the FAR. Here's the introduction:

On September 7, 1993, Vice President Gore released the report of the National Performance Review (NPR) which, among other things, required the Administration to simplify the procurement process through reform of the federal acquisition regulatory system. In response to the report, Steve Kelman, the Administrator for Federal Procurement Policy, established a Board of Directors, comprised of senior level individuals from the Executive Branch, to develop a plan for regulatory reform.

As a first step the Board decided to formulate a set of core guiding principles intended as a vision statement for the federal acquisition system. The Board also decided to supplement the basic principles with accompanying discussion and performance standards for the system.

The first drafts of principles (59 FR 26772 and 59 FR 52844) drew on the concepts espoused by the NPR and what the Board considered to be good business practices such as greater reliance on the good sense and business judgment of the procurement workforce; satisfying the needs of the customer; reducing unnecessary layers of review; emphasizing the importance of timeliness in the procurement process; and an orientation to best value judgments in making contract awards.

The final version of the principles clarifies the principles set forth in the first draft and includes an additional concept, suggested through the public comment process, which the Board believes would significantly increase the opportunity for innovation in procurement. Thus, the revised set of principles make it clear that if a policy is not specifically addressed in the FAR, Government members of the acquisition team should not assume that it is prohibited.

It is intended that the core principles be used in a twofold manner; first, they will be issued in the preface to the FAR not only as a statement of the goals of the system but also to guide future changes to the FAR; and second, they will be used by the drafting teams in the actual rewrite of the FAR.

We encourage agencies to make this statement of core guiding principles available to program customers and contractors, and to make the core principles a part of the basic training materials provided to all personnel involved in the acquisition process.

(Statement of Steve Kelman, former OFPP Administrator, paraphrased from 60 FR 4205-01)

[bold added].

Based on my mood today, FAR Parts 20, 21 & 40 are my favorites. I'm mentally burned out.

I know just how you feel. Why, this week I have to work at Pearl Harbor Naval Base. I have to spend my evenings at a hotel on the beach in Waikiki, where there are all these gals lying around in bikinis, keeping me from getting any work done. The weather is a stifling 84 degrees, without much humidity to keep my skin soft. The gentle trade winds blow incessantly in the evening. Tomorrow I have to take time off to attend a change of command ceremony on the deck of a great big aircraft carrier, where there will be food! Yuck! And there's all this liquor, too. Everywhere! Mai Tai's, ugh! Every time I walk through the hotel door they hand me one. And this is my second week here in a row!!!

I'm forced to do all this just to teach people about the FAR, the awful thing! I'm telling you -- I suffer for contracting. I can't take this much longer.

Vern:

I feel for you. Fortunately, I have none of those distractions here.

Vern:

I feel for you. Fortunately, I have none of those distractions here.

Whew! What would happen to Wifcon if you did?!

One of my favorite "pieces" of the FAR, from a contractor's perspective seemingly observed most often in the breach, is 1.602-2( b ).

Question: What is your favorite FAR Part?

Response: FAR Part 2.

S.A.R.: And that's a capital P.