FAR 13.5 Test Program for Commercial Items - expires Jan 1, 2012?

Good question. Previously the authority was included in the National Defense Authorization Bill. I checked through the 2012 bill that was signed a few days ago and it's not in there.

I wonder if they decided the test wasn't benefical and just dropped it. Much of what the government buys that's commercial is included on GSA Schedule. If you're buying something that's not, it doesn't take much more time to put together a non-SAT solicitation as it does a SAT one. While one could argue a CO make make a much similer source selection process using SAT, most of the ones I've seen at no different than a FAR 15 one. So maybe a conculsion was reached that the test should be over.

Good question. Previously the authority was included in the National Defense Authorization Bill. I checked through the 2012 bill that was signed a few days ago and it's not in there.

I wonder if they decided the test wasn't benefical and just dropped it. Much of what the government buys that's commercial is included on GSA Schedule. If you're buying something that's not, it doesn't take much more time to put together a non-SAT solicitation as it does a SAT one. While one could argue a CO make make a much similer source selection process using SAT, most of the ones I've seen at no different than a FAR 15 one. So maybe a conculsion was reached that the test should be over.

I just learned that the FAR 13.5 Test Program is dead for now, as far as DoD is concerned. I suspect that neither GSA nor NASA will push for its renewal. It seems that the test program was used only 7,200 times in a universe of 3.2 million DoD actions.

If it is to be resurrected - an unlikely occurrence, it won't reappear before FY13.

No More Test Program

Wow.

Yes, I hope it gets reinstated. I already had my Procurement Executive checking into the expiration.

It does not affect me much on my current job but I used it extensively in my previous position. It allowed me to treat commercial services, such as audit or evaluation services, of $3 or $4M as simplified acquisitions. I could just get 3 to 5 proposals from companies with good past performance and known to not be sore losers. I could solicit and award in 2 to 3 months with no issues.

Now I would have to post the same solicitation on FEDBIZOPPs, get 10 or more proposals, evaluate them all, make a selection, get protested by 2 or 3, reevaluate or recompete, then go through it all again and get an award in maybe 9 months or a year. I am very negative on protests due to our agency being swamped with them this year.

I think the test program may have been used more and just coded wrong in FPDS. That is shame on us.

I think the test program may have been used more and just coded wrong in FPDS. That is shame on us.

My agency suspects this as well. In fact, we have already found evidence of possible mis coding on what could be a significant scale. As you said, shame on us if that's true.

However, I can't believe for the life of me why no one questioned the tiny percentages of less than 1% reported in FPDS. It would have made more sense for the someone to at least ask the questions they are asking now in the referenced memorandum before throwing out the baby with the bath water. But that makes too much sense, sorry, I forgot.

Our Agency for one HEAVILY relies on 13.5, so this is going to be a rather painful impact when we are already short handed. Maybe this is the higher up's way of "encouraging" greater use of GSA / FSS?

Wow.

Why are you surprised? Congress is relying ever more on data from FPDS and yet the contract community has not even though the FAR holds Contracting Officers and Agency Heads accountable for accurate data in FPDS. I am not surprised this program was cancelled if the decision was based solely on FPDS data.

Regardless of what one in the contracting community thinks of data entry into the numerous systems they are faced with and even though it is not considered an important task Contracting Officers must be certain the data they enter into systems such as FPDS are accurate since decision makers are using this data to make decisions.

One may not like it but this is the new reality - systems and the data they receive and contain matter!

...we have already found evidence of mis-coding on what could be a pretty significant scale. As you said, shame on us.

However, I can't believe for the life of me why no one questioned the tiny percentages of less than 1% reported in FPDS. That would be like a study that claims that only 1% of Americans shop at frickin' Wal-Mart. You'd have to be dense not to question the validity of the data before making a decision. It would have made more sense for the someone to at least ask the questions they are asking now in the referenced memorandum before throwing out the baby with the bath water. But that makes too much sense, sorry, I forgot. This is about the most dain bread thing I've seen in a while. At a time when the government is bleeding red ink, we are going to loosen the turniquit a little bit by making things more cumbersome, time consuming and therefore expensive. Brilliant!

Our Agency for one HEAVILY relies on 13.5, so this is going to be a rather painful impact when we are already short handed. Maybe this is the higher up's way of "encouraging" greater use of GSA / FSS?

Folks, if your agencies are under DoD, I suggest that all of you or someone in your agencies quickly contact the POC identified in Mr. Ginman's memo at:

http://www.acq.osd.mil/dpap/policy/policyv...339-11-DPAP.pdf.

If you are not under DoD, I also suggest contacting her ASAP to obtain the POC for non-Defense agencies (probably in GSA).

The suspense for input to DoD is 27 January. DO something - don't just complain about possible mass mis-coding of acquisition methods.

Our Agency for one HEAVILY relies on 13.5, so this is going to be a rather painful impact when we are already short handed. Maybe this is the higher up's way of "encouraging" greater use of GSA / FSS?

I liked 13.5 very much; I am sorry to see it go. However, can we not do the same thing in the same time as FAR 13.5 using FAR 12.6?

What extra steps and time are required using 12.6?

I liked 13.5 very much; I am sorry to see it go. However, can we not do the same thing in the same time as FAR 13.5 using FAR 12.6?

What extra steps and time are required using 12.6?

You are correct. We are already in the process of re-edumacating ourselves into the world of Part 12/15 and are looking closely at the language in 12.6. We certainly don't care to go back to the old "FAR Part 15 Plus" way of doing business, what Vern Edwards described as "The FAR Part 15 Process Model" in is excellent article at /legacy/reg/a5f88d4bdacf44e9.html.

Joel,

My Agency is already working on a response to the DPAP memo.

However, I suspect some agencies (like the one I used to work for) probably won't bother because they never followed the spirit of 13.5 anyway. The prior agency was in the habit of developing 60 page source selection plans, conducting the evaluation using a formal evaluation / SSA structure, establising a competitive range, conducting formal discussions, requesting FPRs ... even requiring each eval team member to sign and date every single note, worksheet, coffee stained napkin, etc they used to develop their formal tech report ... for commercial procurements as low as $180,000 in one case.

Interesting, when you consider that even if agencies report 13.5 actions, how many of those really followed the spirit of 13.5 in the first place vs how many are literally just "checking the box"?

Why are you surprised? Congress is relying ever more on data from FPDS and yet the contract community has not even though the FAR holds Contracting Officers and Agency Heads accountable for accurate data in FPDS. I am not surprised this program was cancelled if the decision was based solely on FPDS data.

Regardless of what one in the contracting community thinks of data entry into the numerous systems they are faced with and even though it is not considered an important task Contracting Officers must be certain the data they enter into systems such as FPDS are accurate since decision makers are using this data to make decisions.

One may not like it but this is the new reality - systems and the data they receive and contain matter!

policyguy:

I don't know anyone who thinks that data entry doesn't matter. It matters, I just don't think contracting officers and contract specialists should be the ones doing it. But I don't believe for a minute that some congressional staff looked at FPDS data and decided that the program was not necessary. I think renewal was simply overlooked because DOD and GSA policy people didn't do their job.

The program was not cancelled or terminated. It lapsed. I think it lapsed because policy people in DOD and GSA dropped the ball. Look at the next to the last paragraph in the Ginman memo and the comment "we need data on [the program's] importance" and then the line "Request each activity review your use of the test program and provide justification for its reinstatement if appropriate." Why did they wait until now to ask for data? Policy staffs are supposed to be up to speed on that kind of thing and do what needs doing when it needs doing, which in this case was early last year. Hell, DOD policy people didn't even send out the Ginman memo until yesterday. If a conscious decision was made they should have sent it out last year to give people a heads up that the program was coming to an end. I hope they enjoyed their Christmas dinner and New Year champagne.

This was an oversight, a screw up by the policy people, not a conscious decision to let the program lapse. If you think I'm wrong, tell me who on what congressional staff looked at the FPDS data and told what committee not to renew the program.

P.S. The statistical "analysis" in the second paragraph of the Ginman memo comes across as half-baked. Why look at test program buys as percentages of "all" FY10 and FY11 purchases? If they mean "all" literally, then they included purchases that were not eligible for use of the test program. What percentage were they of the actions eligible for the use of the test program? And are the percentages percentages of actions or of dollars?

P.S. The statistical "analysis" in the second paragraph of the Ginman memo comes across as half-baked. Why look at test program buys as percentages of "all" FY10 and FY11 purchases? If they mean "all" literally, then they included purchases that were not eligible for use of the test program. What percentage were they of the actions eligible for the use of the test program? And are the percentages percentages of actions or of dollars.

Vern,

In consideration of you other reply to policyguy, probably to get all the way down to the .5% figure in the memo. In other words, it appears that someone played with the math (the numerator and the denominator) to get the 13.5 useage % as low as possible (and unintentionally made it look ridiculous in the process). I guess they figure if they are going to do the CYA thing, they might as well come out with all guns blazing ... "Ah, yes, well you see, that 13.5 test program is so unimporant and insignificant. I mean, look at the tiny percentage of cases where anyone actually used it. So may as well just let it go, ditch it. Just a waste of electrons and ink. Nothing to see here ... "

Okay, that may be hyperbole on my part, and I might well be full of it. But I suspect many have come to the same basic conclusion, right or wrong.

Well, let's consider some other things.

1. What about the civilian agencies? Were they in on the "decision" to let the program expire? We've heard nothing from them and the Ginman memo makes no mention of them. Did DOD make the decision for everybody? And did anybody consult OFPP? Was that office in on the "decision"?

2. 7,000 actions and $2 billion are nothing to sneeze at. They only seem unimportant if you are not doing the procurements. Why let the program lapse because of those numbers? Did the program cost anything? If so, was there a cost-benefit analysis? Even if the program accounted for only 7,000 actions and $2 billion, why not let it continue? What harm? Had a goal been set for use that was not met?

3. Were the test program actions scattered throughout the acquisition community, or were they concentrated in a few organizations? If the latter, were those organizations consulted?

4. To what extent were the statistics affected by the fact that many purchases in FY10 and FY11 were in support of contingency ops, where the SAT is higher and so the test program was not needed? With the wars winding down, might the test program be more significant in the future?

5. Finally, if the "decision" was based on the analysis cited in the Ginman memo, and the analysis was not found wanting, why ask for more data now?

Well, let's consider some other things.

1. What about the civilian agencies? Were they in on the "decision" let the program expire? We've heard nothing from them and the Ginman memo makes no mention of them. Did DOD make the decision for everybody? And did anybody consult OFPP? Was that office in on the "decision"?

2. 7,000 actions and $2 billion are nothing to sneeze at. They only seem unimportant if you are not doing the procurements. Why let the program lapse because of those numbers? Did the program cost anything? If so, was there a cost-benefit analysis? Even if the program accounted for only 7,000 actions and $2 billion, why not let it continue? What harm? Had a goal been set for use that was not met?

3. Were the test program actions scattered throughout the acquisition community, or were they concentrated in a few organizations? If the latter, were those organizations consulted?

4. To what extent were the statistics affected by the fact that many purchases in FY10 and FY11 were in support of contingency ops, where the SAT is higher and so the test program was not needed? With the wars winding down, might the test program be more significant in the future?

5. Finally, if the "decision" was based on the analysis cited in the Ginman memo, and the analysis was not found wanting, why ask for more data now?

I know my Agency wasn't in on the "decision."

I'll take part of the blame on this one because I did not go to my supervisors 6 months ago and asked them to go to their supervisors so they would go to their supervisors... and make sure this was updated (LOL!!)

I was told by my Policy folks that, for whatever reason, only DOD can resurrect this program but if they are able to do so, it will also apply to Civilian Agencies.

To me, this is one of those things 'if it ain't broke, don't fix it' and it should be made a permanent process for commercial items. I think it is going to get ugly as actions over $150k will take more time. And neither the customers or the vendors will be happy and we in procurement will be in the middle paddling as fast as we can (or not...)

I don't know why it should be the case that only DOD can resurrect the program. Even though the original legislation and the extensions have been included in DOD authorization acts, they have been codified in both Title 10 and Title 41 of the U.S.C.

It sounds to me that somebody is not very enterprising. Couldn't they have gone to OFPP for help?

However, it may be that Congress would not extend the program unless DOD also wanted it extended. I don't know.

I think it is going to get ugly as actions over $150k will take more time.

Why will use of FAR 12.6 take more time than FAR 13.5? What additional steps must you take under the former that you avoided under the latter?

I don't know why it should be the case that only DOD can resurrect the program. Even though the original legislation and the extensions have been included in DOD authorization acts, they have been codified in both Title 10 and Title 41 of the U.S.C.

It sounds to me that somebody is not very enterprising. Couldn't they have gone to OFPP for help?

However, it may be that Congress would not extend the program unless DOD also wanted it extended. I don't know.

I don't have any information on how or why this happened but I understand my Agency, which is not DOD, is gathering data and information in order to consider submitting a legislative proposal to turn this back on. Not sure how successful this will be but I think they will give it a try and see what happens.

Ah! So now they're gathering information. More confirmation of my hypothesis that the thing was overlooked.

I don't doubt that they'll get the authority reinstated. Maybe even in a few weeks or months, rather than next year. They would already have gotten it extended if they had done their jobs properly -- last year, when they should have.

Yes, I hope it gets reinstated. I already had my Procurement Executive checking into the expiration.

It does not affect me much on my current job but I used it extensively in my previous position. It allowed me to treat commercial services, such as audit or evaluation services, of $3 or $4M as simplified acquisitions. I could just get 3 to 5 proposals from companies with good past performance and known to not be sore losers. I could solicit and award in 2 to 3 months with no issues.

Now I would have to post the same solicitation on FEDBIZOPPs, get 10 or more proposals, evaluate them all, make a selection, get protested by 2 or 3, reevaluate or recompete, then go through it all again and get an award in maybe 9 months or a year. I am very negative on protests due to our agency being swamped with them this year.

I think the test program may have been used more and just coded wrong in FPDS. That is shame on us.

Test Program (nor SAP in general) is not an exception to use of the GPE. See FAR 13.105(a).

With regard to FPDS-NG coding issues, for some lengthy period of time (I can't recall exactly how long nor exactly when, but it was on the order of many months approx. 1 year ago), data validation rules would not accept "Test Program" unless the acquisition's value exceeded $1M. My agency conducted many test program acquisitions > $100K (at the time) but < $1M under the test program but could not code them correctly. I always suspected it was a programmer's typo, simply adding an extra $0. I, and others, pointed this out to our agency, and in turn our Department's FPDS-NG POC, who notified GSA. GSA's response, in typical GSA fashion, was that it was a known problem and was scheduled to be fixed with the next release. I highly doubt any body went back to correct these records after GSA "fixed" the program.

With regard to FPDS-NG coding issues, for some lengthy period of time (I can't recall exactly how long nor exactly when, but it was on the order of many months approx. 1 year ago), data validation rules would not accept "Test Program" unless the acquisition's value exceeded $1M. My agency conducted many test program acquisitions > $100K (at the time) but < $1M under the test program but could not code them correctly. I always suspected it was a programmer's typo, simply adding an extra $0. I, and others, pointed this out to our agency, and in turn our Department's FPDS-NG POC, who notified GSA. GSA's response, in typical GSA fashion, was that it was a known problem and was scheduled to be fixed with the next release. I highly doubt any body went back to correct these records after GSA "fixed" the program.

Just curious - has anyone here tried to contact the POC mentioned in the DOD memo and find out what really happened concerning non-renewal? Does Congress have concerns with it that DoD decided not to mess with it? Has anyone called the POC to explain the less than $1 million programming validation problem, which may have skewed the available data? Lots of speculation in this thread. Seems like asking the point of contact might yield some answers for those concerned about the expiration.

What did the POC say when you contacted her?

What did the POC say when you contacted her?

Vern, I started to contact her on January 5th, out of curiosity. However, I don't use the program and am not one who is especially concerned about it one way or the other. I don't know whether or not the test program at 13.5 results in the best deal for both the taxpayer and the customer. I don't know what, if any, concerns that the policy makers and/or Congress had about the program. Once all the detailed posts here with various opinions and degrees of speculation started coming in, I realized that I apparently don't know enough about it to know what to ask her. Those that have a vested interest in the program (or their designated internal POC) should be able to call the POC, however.

The folks at DoD are really just people. I've called them and corresponded with them before. I've even asked for and obtained archive background material from old DAR and FAR Cases from them for use in some current USACE policy initiatives. They are usually pretty friendly. If you aren't with DoD, they might refer you to the GSA POC. I've also called GSA points of contact listed in some FAR Cases. Sometimes they politely referred to the DAR Council rep or reps for certain FAR cases or other actions and sometimes directly answered my questions.

I frankly don't see the point in calling anybody to ask about anything, other than idle curiosity or research into bureaucratic processes.

The real task now is for everyone who cares to make a case for the program and to provide numbers or anecdotal evidence in support. My bet is that the program is going to be reinstated as soon as practicable.

Since the passage of the Federal Acquisition Streamlining Act of 1994 (FASA), the preference within the Federal Government has shifted from the acquisition of items developed exclusively for the Government to the acquisition of commercial items. This change was necessary to take full advantage of available and evolving technological innovations in the commercial sector. The Government?s increased reliance on commercial items is essential to provide technology solutions that increase warfighter capabilities.(Source: http://www.acq.osd.mil/dpap/Docs/cihandbook.pdf )

For the past 11 years, we have used this test program extensively to acquire commercial equipment, supplies and services. The loss of the test program rescinds the COs' ability to use procedural discretion and flexibility, so that commercial item acquisitions in this dollar range could be solicited, offered, evaluated, and awarded in a simplified manner that maximized efficiency and economy and minimized burden and administrative costs for both the Government and industry.

At this Agency, we?ve been tasked to provide examples of our use of the Commercial Item Test Program, and describe the resulting benefits derived by using Federal Acquisition Regulation Part 13 procedures for Commercial Items valued in excess of the Simplified Acquisition Threshold. Rather than providing anecdotal evidence of the effectiveness and efficiencies of the Test Program, however, it may be relevant to bring forth conclusive evidence that has already been provided to justify the continuation of the Test Program, and/or conversion to a permanent acquisition methodology going forward.

Specifically, please refer to the Under Secretary of Defense FY2007 Competition Report, which includes references to Component Initiatives such as the Commercial Item Test Program, and provides numerous specific examples of the savings and efficiencies gained via use of the Test Program:

http://www.acq.osd.mil/dpap/cpic/cp/docs/DoDFY2007Report.pdf

Based on the recurring extension(s) of the Test Program, it appears that it may be appropriate to make the Test Program a permanent fixture in the Federal Acquisition toolbox.

For the past 11 years, we have used this test program extensively to acquire commercial equipment, supplies and services. The loss of the test program rescinds the COs' ability to use procedural discretion and flexibility, so that commercial item acquisitions in this dollar range could be solicited, offered, evaluated, and awarded in a simplified manner that maximized efficiency and economy and minimized burden and administrative costs for both the Government and industry.

Why will use of FAR 12.6 take more time than FAR 13.5? What additional steps must you take under the former that you avoided under the latter?

Why will use of FAR 12.6 take more time than FAR 13.5? What additional steps must you take under the former that you avoided under the latter?

napolik,

There is some additional flexibility with regard to evaluation of quotations and source selection (FAR 13.106-2( b )), file documentation/retention (FAR 13.106-3( b )), and postaward notifications/debriefings (FAR 13.106-3( c ) and (d)). But there are precious few, if any, "steps" that can be saved.

The lapse of this program is hardly a crisis.

-Geo

P.S. Sorry about the weird spacing in my FAR references; they were necessary to avoid the insertion of smileys.

One problem with the loss of the test program is that acquisitions of commercial items in excess of the SAT must now comply with the Competition in Contracting Act and FAR Part 6. During the test program, acquisitions of commercial items above the SAT up to the test program threshold were exempt from CICA and FAR Part 6 pursuant to FAR 6.001(a). Agencies had to prepare a J&A in the format specified in FAR 6.303-2 when making a sole source acquisition, but they otherwise did not have to justify getting other than full and open competition.

Joel - Just an FYI, and whether PC or not, as civilian still very much interested in Federal acquisition matters I sent an email to the POC on 1/5/12 referencing this discussion thread to represent one piece of anecdotal evidence.

napolik,

There is some additional flexibility with regard to evaluation of quotations and source selection (FAR 13.106-2( b )), file documentation/retention (FAR 13.106-3( b )), and postaward notifications/debriefings (FAR 13.106-3( c ) and (d)). But there are precious few, if any, "steps" that can be saved.

The lapse of this program is hardly a crisis.

-Geo

P.S. Sorry about the weird spacing in my FAR references; they were necessary to avoid the insertion of smileys.

Like you, I am having a difficult time identifying a crisis arising from additional steps and time associated with use of the streamlined procedure set out in FAR 12.603.

When doing the evaluation of quotes or proposals, FAR 13.106-2( is very similar to FAR 12.602. While the latter procedures require a statement of relative importance of evaluation factors, I do not consider that to be a problem. In fact, I find that a statement of relative importance enables contractors to submit quotes or proposals that better meet my customers? needs.

When evaluating quotes or proposals, I do not know why the evaluations, and their documentation, would be substantially different. In this regard, I note that the rather cumbersome DoD Source Selection Procedures issued in March of 2011 do not apply to FAR Part 12 Streamlined Acquisitions,

With regard to post award notifications and debriefs, I provide the notifications in all cases and the debriefs when they are requested.

There are also procedural differences associated with FAR 15 not seen in FAR 13. One must prepare a competitive range, if one seeks to exclude a firm from discussions. But, one must always document the bases for such a decision.

I frankly don't see the point in calling anybody to ask about anything, other than idle curiosity or research into bureaucratic processes.

The real task now is for everyone who cares to make a case for the program and to provide numbers or anecdotal evidence in support. My bet is that the program is going to be reinstated as soon as practicable.

Gee Whiz, I sure do hope this program gets reinstated. I spent three years trying to convince the contracing officers I work with to utilize the program and simplify their acquisitions. I can't tell you how many copies of the N&C report I e-mailed to folks on the topic! Just in the past two months several different offices began seriously teaching their staffs how to take advantage of the test program! I agree with Vern, though, that this obvioulsy fell through the cracks and will most likely be reinstated. I am not aware of any controversy with this program that would have lead to a conscious effort on the Hill to scrap it.

One problem with the loss of the test program is that acquisitions of commercial items in excess of the SAT must now comply with the Competition in Contracting Act and FAR Part 6. During the test program, acquisitions of commercial items above the SAT up to the test program threshold were exempt from CICA and FAR Part 6 pursuant to FAR 6.001(a). Agencies had to prepare a J&A in the format specified in FAR 6.303-2 when making a sole source acquisition, but they otherwise did not have to justify getting other than full and open competition.

Vern,

This is true. However, in practice, there is no discernable difference within my Department between a Part 6 J&A and a 13.5 J&A. Even the approval thresholds are the same. The argument that Part 13 requires competition only to the "maximum extent practicable" and that the noncompetitive standard is "only one source reasonably available," IAW FAR 13.106-1( b )(1), not "only one responsible source," IAW FAR 6.302-1( a )(2) has fallen on deaf ears. I attribute this mostly to the fact that many of those in policy positions have never actually conducted a simplified acquisition, or did so early in their careers when the threshold was $25K and long before the Test Program, and just cannot fathom that such a "big" purchase could be so "easy." So, via agency and Department policy, the Test Program has been thwarted to the point of being unrecognizably different from a regular Part 12 commercial acquisition in this way.

A similar thing has occured with supposed simplifed evaluation and source selection (i.e. a formal acquisition plan is required > $300K, commercial and/or Test Program or not.) Agency and Department policy just never caught up with the flexibilities the Test Program offered.

Vern,

This is true. However, in practice, there is no discernable difference within my Department between a Part 6 J&A and a 13.5 J&A. Even the approval thresholds are the same. The argument that Part 13 requires competition only to the "maximum extent practicable" and that the noncompetitive standard is "only one source reasonably available," IAW FAR 13.106-1( b )(1), not "only one responsible source," IAW FAR 6.302-1( a )(2) has fallen on deaf ears. I attribute this mostly to the fact that many of those in policy positions have never actually conducted a simplified acquisition, or did so early in their careers when the threshold was $25K and long before the Test Program, and just cannot fathom that such a "big" purchase could be so "easy." So, via agency and Department policy, the Test Program has been thwarted to the point of being unrecognizably different from a regular Part 12 commercial acquisition in this way.

A similar thing has occured with supposed simplifed evaluation and source selection (i.e. a formal acquisition plan is required > $300K, commercial and/or Test Program or not.) Agency and Department policy just never caught up with the flexibilities the Test Program offered.

I echo those comments about the simplified acquisition procedures. It has taken me several years to get our contracting shops to acknowledge that there is a difference between Part 12 procurements and Part 15 procurements. Old habits die hard! I still see solicitations for commerical items that purport to be issued under the authority of the test program or under part 12 that then go on to add a half dozen evaluation factors, each with another half dozen subfactors, and a source selection plan that includes an evaluation scheme that could rival anything used by NASA or DOD for a complicated Mars mission or Star Wars system! It seems the contracting community is afraid of its own shadow, and believes that the more you litter a solicitation with factors, subfactors, colors, adjectives, and narratives, the better off everyone will be (read: the contracting officer can't then be blamed if a procurement goes south). I believe that a good many agencies never took full advantage of the test program because of this very fear. But eventually, with a newer crop of Contracting Officers arriving on the scene, things could change. Perhaps they will be more apt to use simplified procedures because the procedure won't seem so foreign to them.

Fear is part of the problem, but professional ignorance and incompetence is a much bigger problem and the well-spring of most fears. The newer crop of contracting officers won't fix anything if they are trained by the current crop and if they rely on OJT, FAI, and DAU for their training instead of buying some books, thinking hard about what they read, and going their own way.

In order to avoid needless "you'e being offensive" comeback, I will make the de rigueur stipulation that there are some good ones mixed in among in the bad ones in the current crop. Anyone among the current crop who is inclined to feel offended should just think of yourself as being one of the good ones.

Fear is part of the problem, but professional ignorance and incompetence is a much bigger problem and the well-spring of most fears.

LOL, I was going to say "group think beauracratic inertia", but, that works too!

When I first came into the contracting world and the larger universe of government acquisition, I too was guilty of learning purely from others in the organization and the DAU courses. I suppose when you are so green, this will be the natural tendency. One day, I decided to carefully read Parts 12, 13 and 13.5 and was rather confused that it did not match up with how my agency did things. That's when I first started having my own questions, not the least of which was why the heck we were making it more difficult than it needed to be. The classic lame answer "but we've always done it this way" seems to be the culprit.

How ironic that just as a tipping point seems to have been reached, with 13.5 finally started to sink into the thick skulls of many in the "old guard", the program slips away.

Ironically, most reports would have you believe that the impending exodus of "experienced" 1102s is a bad thing.

Don't despair. The program will be back.

Ironically, most reports would have you believe that the impending exodus of "experienced" 1102s is a bad thing.

To the contrary, that's just what many agencies need. I have been in this career field for almost 10 years. Don Acquisition was my first PCO, in fact (hi, Don.) I have now reached a point in my career where I can both interact comfortably with management-level acquisition professionals and train new 1102s. The difference in attitude is generally remarkable. Forgive the broad generalizations here, but those with 20+ years of experience tend to think in terms of how they used to do things, or have always done them, and those without experience are forced to research how things are supposed to be done NOW. And please don't get me started on my continuous learning rant, which is mostly meaningless once core DAU/FAI courses have been completed.

-Geo

To the contrary, that's just what many agencies need. I have been in this career field for almost 10 years. Don Acquisition was my first PCO, in fact (hi, Don.) I have now reached a point in my career where I can both interact comfortably with management-level acquisition professionals and train new 1102s. The difference in attitude is generally remarkable. Forgive the broad generalizations here, but those with 20+ years of experience tend to think in terms of how they used to do things, or have always done them, and those without experience are forced to research how things are supposed to be done NOW. And please don't get me started on my continuous learning rant, which is mostly meaningless once core DAU/FAI courses have been completed.

-Geo

I have mixed feelings about the exodus only because at my agency anyone who knew what they were doing either never applied to work here or only stayed three months before leaving. As a result, the newer ones who have absolutely no idea what they are doing are using "old documents" to cut and paste into new ones, and because of attrition are being promoted to supervisors to pass on their lack of any understanding of the procurement process. To "fix" the quality control problem, my agency decided to require "peer reviews" of everything that goes out, and instituted a "checklist" review process. If it weren't so appalling, it would be funny to see a written review asking the contracting officer to change a comma to a period, while neglecting to recognize that the schedule reflects an IDIQ contract, while the clauses reflect a requirements contract. The checklists are used to ensure that appropriate documents are created (J&As, D&Fs, etc.) but no one reads them to see if they make any sense. Presumably, at least the "old dogs" sort of knew what they were doing, even if they had bad habits. Some of the news ones lack foundational knowledge altogether. In reviewing a claim we once received, I actually had a supervisor ask me what this term I kept using--"salient characteristics"--meant, when I was asking about them in relation to a brand-name-or-equal acquisition. She seemed shocked at the explanation and told me she had never heard of it before. In another instance, a contracting officer argued--forcefully--that the way to conduct a part 15 acquisition was to evaluate all of the proposals and then enter into discussions with only the one company that the evaluators wanted. It made no sense to her whatsoever why anyone would enter into discussions with all of the offerors. How do you combat this level of ignorance? Just how easy is it to get a warrant these days? Is it on a pass/fail bais, i.e., if you show up to class, you pass?

In condering using FAR 12.6 as an one option, is there a $ threshold for using a Combined Synopsis??

In condering using FAR 12.6 as an one option, is there a $ threshold for using a Combined Synopsis??

I suggest you read FAR Parts 12 and 5.

Please let us know what you find.

Ah! So now they're gathering information. More confirmation of my hypothesis that the thing was overlooked.

I don't doubt that they'll get the authority reinstated. Maybe even in a few weeks or months, rather than next year. They would already have gotten it extended if they had done their jobs properly -- last year, when they should have.

I obtained some additional info on DoD and FAR 13.5.

* DoD requested that FAR 13.5 be made permanent in FY 2008 and 2010 legislative submissions to Congress.

* DoD will request re-approval of FAR 13.5 in its FY 13 legislative submissions. Civilian agencies will do the same.

* The FPDS data do not reflect significant usage rates of FAR 13.5. A number of DoD components admit that their data were incorrect.

Hooray! Looks like the President signed the NDAA for FY13, which provides a provision to extend the Clinger-Cohen Act, i.e., FAR 13.5, to 2015.

We were a little worried as that provision disappeared from the bill after the House approved it the first time, but it reappeared after conference with Senate and House.

Some here at my agency will be happy to see the update in an upcoming FAC!

Hooray! Looks like the President signed the NDAA for FY13, which provides a provision to extend the Clinger-Cohen Act, i.e., FAR 13.5, to 2015.

We were a little worried as that provision disappeared from the bill after the House approved it the first time, but it reappeared after conference with Senate and House.

Some here at my agency will be happy to see the update in an upcoming FAC!

Any idea how long it will be before we can start using it again? I haven't noticed how long it take for a FAC to be issued.

Public Law 112-239, Sec. 822 The simplified acquisition test program was extended until 2015:

SEC. 822. EXTENSION OF AUTHORITY FOR USE OF SIMPLIFIED ACQUISITION PROCEDURES FOR CERTAIN COMMERCIAL ITEMS.

(a) EXTENSION.—Effective as of January 1, 2012, section 4202 of the Clinger–Cohen Act of 1996 (division D of Public Law 104– 106; 110 Stat. 652; 10 U.S.C. 2304 note) is amended in subsection (e) by striking ‘‘2012’’ and inserting ‘‘2015’’.

( TECHNICAL AMENDMENT TO CROSS REFERENCES.—Subsection (e) of such Act is further amended by striking ‘‘section 303(g)(1) of the Federal Property and Administrative Services Act of 1949, and section 31(a) of the Office of Federal Procurement Policy Act, as amended by this section,’’ and inserting ‘‘section 3305(a) of title 41, United States Code, and section 1901(a) of title 41, United States Code,’’.

Why wait for a FAC? Use the statutory authority. Statute trumps regulation. Use it now.

Our office learned about the reinstatement of 13.5 at 0630 this morning and we started using at 0800 . Happy new year everyone!

What took you so long?

To jad: What is your authority to start using the Test Program for Commercial Items? Don't get me wrong, my office has been anxiously awaiting this extension, but I have not seen a FAC that extends the test program to date.

To jad: What is your authority to start using the Test Program for Commercial Items? Don't get me wrong, my office has been anxiously awaiting this extension, but I have not seen a FAC that extends the test program to date.

Are you asking what is jad's authority to deviate from the FAR?

The only thing keeping anyone from using the test program described in FAR 13.5 is the fact that FAR 13.500(d) says that the authority for the program expired on January 1, 2012. Well, that is no longer factually correct. Pub. L. 112-239 extended the program beyond that date. Statute trumps regulation. All a FAC should be expected to do is change that date. I see no FAR deviation in proceeding now to use the test program authority.

Our office learned about the reinstatement of 13.5 at 0630 this morning and we started using at 0800 . Happy new year everyone!

Plus, all those folks who didn't realize the authority had expired, and continued doing business like they always had, are retroactively forgiven, by the inclusion of the phrase, "Effective as of January 1, 2012, . . ."

The only thing keeping anyone from using the test program described in FAR 13.5 is the fact that FAR 13.500(d) says that the authority for the program expired on January 1, 2012. Well, that is no longer factually correct. Pub. L. 112-239 extended the program beyond that date. Statute trumps regulation. All a FAC should be expected to do is change that date. I see no FAR deviation in proceeding now to use the test program authority.

Apparently, the bureaucrats in DoD disagree with you. Yesterday, DPAP issued a class deviation to incorporate the new expiration date.

Why am I not surprised? I wonder how many phone calls they got from the field asking if it was okay to act in accord with the law? I wonder how long it took them to "staff" that memo? I wonder how long it will take them to change the FAR? They could have accomplished the same thing in less time with a single email.

Better buying power, I guess.

It will be interesting to see the GAO Report that comes with this extension.

"The conferees direct the Comptroller General to report to the congressional defense committees, the Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs, and the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform by October 1, 2013, on the use of this authority. The Comptroller General's report should address, at a minimum: (1) the extent of use of the authority;(2) the cited rationales for use of the authority; (3) the acquisition outcomes that have resulted; and (4) any waste, fraud, or abuse that have resulted from the use of the authority."

Maybe they will also weigh in on why class deviations were issued??

It will be interesting to see the GAO Report that comes with this extension.

"The conferees direct the Comptroller General to report to the congressional defense committees, the Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs, and the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform by October 1, 2013, on the use of this authority. The Comptroller General's report should address, at a minimum: (1) the extent of use of the authority;(2) the cited rationales for use of the authority; (3) the acquisition outcomes that have resulted; and (4) any waste, fraud, or abuse that have resulted from the use of the authority."

Maybe they will also weigh in on why class deviations were issued??

I believe that Congress wants to know to what extent that the FAR 13.5 Test Program for Commercial Items has really been used and if it is effective. From earlier threads, it was apparant that policy officials thought it was not used much, so they did not pursue an extension before it expired. Apparently, there were holes in the data concerning acquisitions that used the test program.

I believe that Congress wants to know to what extent that the FAR 13.5 Test Program for Commercial Items has really been used and if it is effective. From earlier threads, it was apparant that policy officials thought it was not used much, so they did not pursue an extension before it expired. Apparently, there were holes in the data concerning acquisitions that used the test program.

Anyone want to place any bets on whether GAO will do any better at finding if this authority is effective than the last couple of times they looked? See Benefits of Simplified Acquisition Test Procedures Not Clearly Demonstrated, GAO-01-517, Apr 20, 2001 and

No Reliable Data to Measure Benefits of the Simplified Acquisition Test Program, GAO-03-1068, Sep 30, 2003.

I do not believe the reauthorization act is self executing. Thus, the reason for a FAR deviation until a FAC is issued. I tell my folks to use 13.5 anyway, because there is literally no risk--when the FAR cathes up, everything will be retroactive. But alas, in my agency no one has the courage to do it, which is surprising to me given that they seldom follow any of the other procurement rules.

???????????????

Its been extended. See https://www.federalregister.gov/articles/2013/02/28/2013-04601/federal-acquisition-regulation-extension-of-authority-for-use-of-simplified-acquisition-procedures

How embarrassing.