Todd Davis

I looked up antonyms for the word "reform."  Words include break, damage, harm, hurt, ruin, worsen.  Unfortunately, these words better describe the results of most reform efforts. 

I think the next reform should include the removal of laws and regulations that represent a significant burden to the acquisition workforce, combined with proper employee incentives, but most of all accountability of all involved (acquisition workforce and its management).  I've worked in Government procurement for over 18 years and another 5 in a Fortune 100 company.  The differences in results and accomplishments that I've witnessed are striking. 

While at the private sector company, I was on a small team (4 people) and we were responsible for a nearly $1B spend.  We had no regulation, policy or handbook. Certainly not a 1000 page plus FAR, or hundred plus page long guides for certain contracting tasks.  We had specific strategic goals to achieve, developed a plan on how to accomplish the goals, and implemented the plan, and had a system to measure our results.  Leadership made it clear they expected results and I was accountable for achieving them.  I had a healthy concern for my job.  While I didn't think about it much, I knew I never wanted to give leadership a reason to let me go.  Instead I strived to be a top performer and was able to achieve that result.  I was also incentivized with pay increases and performance bonuses tied to the team's accomplishments.

In all my years of experience and having been in or observed different Federal agencies, I cannot recall any instance of anyone being held accountable for not achieving any specified results.  Heck, I haven't even seen a meaningful or accurate system of measuring results.  Folks claim to save millions or billions with little proof or a way to validate the savings, yet appropriations and spending often increase.  I've also not seen any meaningful incentive for folks to make processes more efficient or manage budgets more efficiently.

I learned relatively little by going to all the contracting courses throughout my career.  I wouldn't be sad if the number and duration of courses was significantly reduced.  For me, the majority of learning occurs on the job by actually performing the task and it being evaluated by others.  I used that feedback to improve the accuracy and efficiency of what I was doing.  While exams are necessary to measure learning in a course, it doesn't prove the individual can do their job accurately or efficiently on the job, just because they went to a class and passed a test.  

The number of courses and length of courses has gotten out of hand over the last couple decades.  I believe a GS-12 or 13 with a Level 2 or 3 certification (who has been to more classes), but only has 3 years of experience is more dangerous and FAR (pun intended) less knowledgeable than a Level 1 GS-9 or 11 (or enlisted contracting specialist) that has been "doing" the job for several more years.

I believe more emphasis needs to be placed on OJT and evaluation of completed tasks, rather than formal training courses.

Also, the whole idea of needing a certification to work in contracting for the Federal government is questionable.  When I worked in the private sector for a Fortune 100 company in procurement, there was no formal training program or certification required.  They younger people worked with, observed, and learned from the senior people in the organization, then performed the tasks and received feedback.

Just last week I drafted an update to our agency internal operating procedural guidance for issuing combined synopsis/solicitations. This is what I have so far. May update based on comments here or your sample. Already took Vern's recommendation on para (f)

Appendix A – Sample of Provision 52.212-1 Tailored for Simplified Acquisition Procedures
The following paragraphs of 52.212-1 should be tailored similar to as follows:

( a ) change all references to “offers” to “quotes” and remove requirement for quotes to be signed and dated;
( b )(9) delete;
( b )(11) delete;
© delete;
(d) change all references to “offers” to “quotes”;
(e) change all references to “offers” to “quotes” and “offerors” to “firms” or “quoters”;
(f) delete;
(g) change all references to “offers” to “quotes” and “offerors” to “firms” or “quoters” and remove references to conducting discussions or waiving informalities and minor irregularities;
(h) rewrite paragraph to simply state that the government reserves the right to issue multiple purchase orders for different line items when advantageous to the government and use the term “quotes” instead of “offers”; and
(l) delete.