FAR-flung 1102

The five day deadline for sweeps is a mighty incentive for a major contractor to pursue in earnest their own Blockchain Accountability System, similar to the idea advanced earlier on Wifcon for DoD to consider for itself: If a contractor implemented their own blockchain accountability system, every dollar could speak for itself...the contractor could determine their cost data (every use of every dollar) in near real time with such breadth and granularity that audience & report purpose, not system functionality, could determine the nature of any report: whether that is accountability, management reporting, or audit functions.

No definitely it's not the cat's meow...and I want it to become it to become a thing of the past, but I am afraid of what comes next if we do not reign in a few tendencies first. The "Severeid Effect" (So many of today's problems started out as yesterday's solutions) permeates Washington's political process like an oor. Almost nobody in power is willing to look for inconvenient truth. Its not mine to play kingmaker or Lord of the Realm, but I really do believe that if we kill the FAR Part 19 process right now, we also create a vacuum that small businesses are largely unable to fill. It's just that we create in our current bureaucracy so many problems that only large business has the ability to understand or solve. My main problem with how we treat small business lies in our byzantine systems and processes (which defy reasonable expectations and common sense)...it stifles so much initiative and often makes it very difficult to get a business on board and PAID timely for services or supplies rendered without the need for silver bullets or heroic measures. If a small business cannot get paid timely then THEY are financing government's ponderous machinations...it's wrong but in the current big picture almost inevitable that some will fall prey and their aspirations fade away accordingly. People's expectations are so low,, we should be able to meet them in making meaningful real improvements in doing the government's business and help many... if only we can manage to work with with an even, steady, and competent hand. There was a famous Federal Jurist with my all time favorite name: "Learned Hand"...a name for all time to live up to...metaphorically, we need more of those.. .Thank you for your part Vern. You pull much more than your own weight. Sorry, I think I have mixed a few metaphors, too.

I don't think a longitudinal study isolating for the right things is in the cards...there are too many exit ramps, scenic vistas and pretty snapshots to take along the way, so we won't know much about the real impact of small business however long we ask such question of ourselves. Take for example the authors' observation about small business failure. Anybody can reckon small business failures, in the same way that anyone can count the number of seeds in an apple...but that's a snapshot at an instant...even when the same statistic is gathered in serial fashion every year...it is a series of snapshots and does not tell us what becomes of any given failure or set of failures. Instead, what will we imagine if we ask ourselves how many apples in a seed? Similarly, does anyone know the real impact of small business failure and even the prospect of small business failure over time for even one business or in the aggregate, all businesses? We might as well try to discern the Invisible Hand taught by Adam Smith in all the goods and services that surround us. Attempt to banish the twin horribles of failure and the prospect of failure and society will find out quickly that is does not have the wherewithal to underwrite all success. What does that tell us about failure? What phoenix rises from these ashes we call failure, time and again? What is in the economic DNA of almost every success you and I know?...We will find a lot owing to failure, if for no other reason than that failure tends to be such a generous teacher.

Jenkins83, Thank you for your service and I really do wish you well. You might ask yourself some questions: 1) Am I looking for a solution or am I dug in? and 2) Have I noticed others offering ways to fill in the hole and help me (and the customer) move on?...and why would they do that? Its not personal...and It’s a bigger issue to DoD...one of the biggest; Look, we are not immune from the effect of dysfunctional relationships; why should we think we are? We see examples where scarcity problems (turf wars among them) and administrative inertia are liable to chase away many a good solution and leave us in the weeds. I no of no lasting solution to this problem that would avoid focusing on the individual; Each one of us would do well to ask as often as need be, questions fitting two themes: “What is my part in this chase for solutions?” and “How am I doing?” The exact questions and insightful answers to these questions will probably change some each and every day, but the self assessment need never stop.

Mark Zuckerberg made hoped for further developments in AI the centerpiece of his deflections while appearing before Congress last month. When pressed on FB’s own enforcement of community standards...his invocation of AI as a prospective cure seemed to me at best a transparent attempt at political alchemy and at worst an inversion of rational standards of trust. I hope that such superficial blandishments are not a harbinger of things to come. Issues over commonplace AI technology do not strike me as a trivial...these issues call for great care in what we cede knowingly or not, to AI. We may not get a redo in our lifetime. The feedback loop is necessarily the most important part of any iterative system...Just what will happen should AI become “self-interested” and already have a role in many feedback processes? We hold to a chain abounding in weak links...will we catch them all before any one of them breaks...and who is doing the watching?

AI can’t vote or run for office...it’s part way to felon status right out of the box...

Milkenhiem, I don’t know the answer to your question. It’s been my experience that getting a job is best approached as a job...you’ll probably find answers to those questions and much more in your first a half week’s work at it (20-25 hours) of seeking out, researching about, striving to demonstrate qualifications of, applying to, and interviewing for your next job opportunity. You may want to work the problem from different angles to begin with...consider paths that many others won’t look at...for example, see this deployable position with the Army Air Force Exchange Service (AAFES) Announcement number C1-000248-2018. The opportunity closes in a week, deploys to Kuwait, has a $51K salary, indicates that Bachelors degree is highly desired...it doesn’t say a bachelors is required. The position probably works with non-appropriated funds, meaning it doesn’t touch the FAR, requires a lot of hard work, and isn’t an “internship”, but you probably weren’t counting on living an ordinary life anyway...this might lead to other things...you can do a web search on the interchange agreement for NAF employees of the DoD allowing some to compete for civilian federal jobs after they achieve some certain sort of status...at their NAFI (Non-Appropriated Fund Instrumentality of the Department of Defense). Happy trails and best wishes for you whatever you pursue....

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?

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!

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.

The US Government first might not get there first...I just ran accriss what this observer had to say in Ireland... https://www.siliconrepublic.com/enterprise/digital-government-blockchain

And one Introductory discussion is on WIFCON: There are so many opportunities including, a new accountability framework, smart contracts, and reporting systems. I think we’ll either be leading or following, but we are going to follow the blockchain...which will change aspects of governance that are hard to imagine now.

Since DLA is on the cutting edge, I wonder if they have a plan...if things go badly, just how does an AI get sentenced to Leavenworrth?

Thank you, Vern. I think that is correct...and I am schooled by your brevity. I am concerned that establishing a reporting requirement for bridge contracts may only serve as a proxy for a real solution...GAO was content not to recommend further steps though they discussed a lot of factors. I have one more solution: mentoring and I don’t just mean that which is done by supervisors...I mean mentoring (both formal and informal) by anyone who models valuable professional traits and practices and is willing to mentor. Personally, I think of peer reviews of solicitations and awards as a kind of “peer mentoring”. Yes, we might all learn to make the same mistakes through peer review that way, but I like to think that we tend to spiral upward when we are being mentored.

What would you do?

A recent discussion of lengthy protests reminded me that DoD has newly implemented a reporting requirement for Bridge Contracts with the expectation of reducing their use. This initiative follows a recommendation of the GAO in its report 16-15: https://www.acq.osd.mil/dpap/sa/docs/learnmore/DPAP-SA-Report FY15.pdf The GAO report’s main recommendation other than defining bridge contract, is an unsurprising application of the useful adage...”if you can’t measure it you can’t manage it”... GAO in their 43 page report conducted an analysis that should have called for a root cause analysis, for example by using five “Whys”, but GAO did not in my view conduct a root cause analysis...instead they looked at a sizable collection of data and seemed to ask one “Why” many times over and recorded the first unique answer each time. The bevy of complaints or causes they elicited is an impressive list and it might strike one as comprehensive in that it covers a lot of landscape, albeit at one inch depth; and I don’t think you’ll find many roots at one inch depth or by using GAO’s method. Where is the comparison with contracts that need no bridge contract?...What are the elements common between those contracts that needed bridging and those that don’t...couldn’t those elements be ruled out as a root cause? I am curious...By asking “Why” five times or by any other favorite method, what is your analysis of the root cause(s) Question 1) What is the real problem (the root cause) of too many bridge contracts? Question 2) What is the real solution(s) to the root cause you cited? Maybe you think GAO nailed it...after all, they did get a working definition of bridge contract for use in a new DoD Report. Or maybe not, let me know...if not, there’s...Question 3) What is the root cause of a superficial 43 page GAO report?

...and if using oral solicitations, under authority found at FAR 13.106(c) as described at FAR 5.101 (a)(2)(ii), from only local sources, and applying the FAR 5.202(a)(12) exception to the usual FAR 5.201 synopsis requirement, then absent the requirement to synopsize, the requirements of FAR 5.102 do not apply, and the single source brand name documentation which is prepared under authority of FAR 13.106(b)(1) need not be posted on the GPE.

Don, Are qualified local sources available?

Thank you, all. Could you imagine doing this for a living? Oh well, if it were easy they would not need us in the first place...

Thank you, Joel. Reading that also led me to search out a similar 2016 GAO Report for a different agency... In which GAO added reporting of an Anti-Deficiency Act violation to the mix as well: https://www.gao.gov/mobile/products/D13774. This serves as an apt illustration that it is not enough alone to know the regulation (FAR and agency Supplements),...see FAR 1.602-1 (b) “No contract shall be entered into unless the contracting officer ensures that all requirements of law, executive orders, regulations, and all other applicable procedures, including clearances and approvals, have been met.” In the spirit of prevention, I could stand to learn more of other rules or unknowns in our sphere, which are not in regulation...Anyone know what else what might be lurking in the trees just out of sight?

I hope I can mention a NYT article with a political subject and still have a professional dialogue...A 14 March 2018 NYT article mentioned, “federal laws that prohibit expenditures of more than $5,000 on office furniture without congressional approval.” I have not heard of and can’t find those laws...does anyone know what legal restriction the NYT is referring to?...I'd be much obliged. By the way, the CAR Report for the subject buy, a furniture purchase and return, (both in the amount of $31,561) are searchable on the public facing FPDS.gov site.

How a about a test involving number four above, but instead of making it apply to all RFPs, do so only for those issued in odd numbered months of the year and make the test procedure more of a stark difference, say limit protest venue to COFC only? We would learn more that way, have a traditional path as a backup, if needed, and be able to judge the effectiveness of this significant change.

I love it...but, maybe Watson should finish with the FAR first. How is that going for the Air Force? For background, see the earlier discussion:

Look, If we’re not seeing authority and responsibility delegated to the lowest level consistent with law” (one of the guiding principles of the Federal Acquisition Regulation System, see especially paragraph b at FAR 1.102-4 -- Role of the Acquisition Team)...this being in many cases simply a bridge too far (or is it “FAR”, if you don’t mind the pun) at this point in time...how about, instead, assigning every procurement chain a “waiver Czar”, an experienced senior official not directly in any leadership chain, whoosh only formal, accountable role is to be delegated and use authority? The Czar could hold every Authority that can be delegated to sign any type of waiver, finding, determination, or similar document that stands in the way of efficiently and effectively doing the government's acquisition business. This official would be a sort of one stop shop....their job can be to find and actively seek out people and problems and find new ways of doing old things. The Waiver Czar (I’m not in love with the term) can teach, publicize, mentor, shop for new government “clients”, grandstand, cajole, sign, and “waive” using any delegated Authority that does not violate law, regulation and policy, is in the government’s interest, and makes good business sense.

A recent article indicates that there is still more talk about in the long term effort to replace the 9mm Beretta. See this linked article about operational test failures for two Sig Sauer models: : https://www.military.com/kitup/2018/01/31/army-responds-dod-report-criticizing-new-sidearm-reliability.html Are there any lessons learned to come out of this? (The original topic was closed, so I have opened a new one here.)