FAR-flung 1102

From a recently received National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) Draft Report (January 2018) : "Blockchain technologies have the power to disrupt many industries. To avoid missed opportunities and undesirable surprises, organizations should start investigating whether or not a blockchain can help them." Here's the link I just received, NIST Draft Report (Draft NISTIR 8202) on Blockchain Technology, dated January 2018: https://csrc.nist.gov/CSRC/media/Publications/nistir/8202/draft/documents/nistir8202-draft.pdf It's quite readable, somewhat lengthy (59 pages), and is intended to introduce the topic to its readers and give an overview. Up front in the report, NIST provides an email address and notes a public comment period running through 23 February 2018. NIST gives use case examples including supply chain (not unlike a portion of this whole Accountability System idea); NIST also made mention of permissioned systems which is what I suppose would be desirable in a Blockchain based DoD Accountability and Reporting system. NIST has a public comment period on the Report - through 23 February 2018. Keep in mind the idea is to know (manage) the use of every dollar in near real time. Essentially, every dollar will have a name, that you can call and learn not only where it is now, but its whole history, all in what is essentially real time. If combined with RFID it becomes a seamless property accountability and lifecycle tool as well.

Slowcountry, Just checking...I take it that these services are not considered a commercial item, (i.e., they do not include FAR clause 52.212-5 or its alternate), is that correct?

Come on, RAND, if it is so, I want to know! Fsscinating! At least RAND could reach for their best tool box and try to convince me in this paper about Truth. This is a subject worthy of granite and they are working in wax. Setting sentiment aside, what evidence does RAND offer to support its conclusions? Where is their data? What contra-indications do they frankly acknowledge (e.g. what significant weaknesses do they realize might belie in their conclusions)? What predictions might their conclusions allow us to make?...and if there are, such, in the final analysis, if not verifiable, is this thing at least falsifiable? If not, what have we really learned?

The 2018 NDAA, at Section 1646, includes a requirement for a DoD briefing to committees of Congress on Blockchain Technology within 180 days: https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/house-bill/2810/text#toc-HBA0AA81CFC4F410E95EF87129909DC2AR Will that Blockchain Technology Briefing nclude the topic of Blockchain’s potential for major advances in Government Reporting/Accounting Systems?

Fara Fasat, Yes, your question is a hypothetical, but I still ask the question: What's in the contract, clause 52.245-1, or maybe 52.245-1 with its Alternate 1? If so, what have your read in the clause? It's easy to overlook the Government's default position in so many contracts (see 52.245-1), which is assumption of the risk for loss of Government property with few caveats. I view this practice as a sensible outgrowth of Government's monopsony status, which results in the Government's systemic reluctance to trade dollars on property insurance covering its own interests and an unwillingness for Government to pay the premium for a contractor who will for some kind of fee indemnify the government for loss of its (Government's) own property. Or perhaps you are beyond all this and the real hypothetical issue is contract performance and the Disputes Clause...well, I begin again pressing on about the fact set, asking, what's in the contract?

Here is another link, to a "Chain Letter" newsletter from MIT Technology Review: https://www.technologyreview.com/newsletters/chain-letter/

I've thought quite a bit about how it seems this interview/hiring process is best described as a concerted effort at discovering the "best fit" as Vern indicates above. For the interviewee, having the "right answers" to the most frequently asked interview questions might help you get you in the door, but on that score, it may leave you and/or your employer soon feeling that you don't belong there. So, you may want to make a practice on the job and in and out of interviews of being diligent, interested and letting your character and apptitudes show in addition to the experience that already shows in your resume. Additionally, strange as it may sound, I believe we can cheat our own self if we are feel too casual and don't act the part, so I would probably dress as I do for any interview (that means a suit and tie for me) even though it takes place over the phone.

Matthew Fleharty, You're right...i can see that it's sloppy speculation on my part...I took the small excerpt to be a thematic and ran wild with that comment. I hope my speculation proves wrong, and also hope to repair the damage I've done.

I plead guilty. No, I have not read the book.

When monopoly status is a grant, it should be done wisely, even warily. Some monopolies are necessary (regulated utilities and some functions at various levels of government are examples). Some monopolies I view as inherently good (marriage, private property, patents are examples). All monopolies require special care as they are largely exempt from corrective mechanisms of the marketplace. All too often government enjoys an enduring, unearned, and implicit exemption from cares and concerns over its own largely unrecognized monopoly status....And at what cost? I don't think the author has taken this one question seriously and it's the one most worth asking.

Vern, Loosely constructed I think of three categories of things: private property, public property, and public goods, by which I mean externalities such as air, water, and rights or responsibilities in those public goods (for notable examples of management of rights and responsibilities look up riparian rights (the story of the West is largely the story of water) and also look up South Coast Air Quality Management District in Southern California). Specifically, Privatization is movement from public property to private property or from public goods to private property. Contracts can contribute to this movement. Yes, government is capable of getting fleeced and losing some of our freedom for us, especially by misunderstanding the externalities, the longevity of either or both resources or needs (call them requirements if you will) or by pursuing short term solutions to the long term problem of the commons. In a keen sense, every ethical issue in government is really a concern over privatization. In this way, it constantly looms as an agency problem (to borrow a term from economics) where if unchecked public officials may pursue interests that run counter to the trust and public interest unless carefully managed and subject to ethical standards and review.

So, absent some additional conditional qualifier such as "when", what Is the imperative meaning of the term "shall" followed by "only if"? Take the example given, what all is the Contracting Officer required to refrain from doing and/or do by the language found at FAR 15.403-4 (a)(1)?

Vern:, You're welcome and you're probably correct about the future of government...though that doesn't stop me from trying to work toward something a little better than what we have now.

Carl, Other Transaction Authority (OTA) has recently been revised and given a new statutory basis. Using OTA is not an attempt to make a prototyping project comply with the FAR and that is what makes it interesting. An OTA GPC transaction, if it could be done, would be outside the FAR, and may have other significant features, see one explanation at https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/section-815-other-transaction-agreement-prototype-mcmartin-esq- All, Are we taking the right path trying to: Either shoehorn commercial vendors into compatible agreements with the federal government, (see https://www.digitalgov.gov/resources/federal-compatible-terms-of-service-agreements/) Or Render unenforceable the offending portion of common agreements that nevertheless may remain included in the stated terms of Supplier Agreements (see the 15 types of terms and conditions rendered unenforceable by the three classes GSA implemented in their 31 July 2015 Class Deviation: http://www.esi.mil/download.aspx?id=5726 Or providing for this extraordinary treatment given to commercial terms purchased via GPC out of government concerns that terms involving indemnification are incompatible with the Anti Deficiency Act, see FAR 13.202: "13.202 Unenforceability of unauthorized obligations in micro-purchases. Many supplies or services are acquired subject to supplier license agreements. These are particularly common in information technology acquisitions, but they may apply to any supply or service. For example, computer software and services delivered through the internet (web services) are often subject to license agreements, referred to as End User License Agreements (EULA), Terms of Service (TOS), or other similar legal instruments or agreements. Many of these agreements contain indemnification clauses that are inconsistent with Federal law and unenforceable, but which could create a violation of the Anti-Deficiency Act (31 U.S.C. 1341) if agreed to by the Government. The clause at 52.232-39, Unenforceability of Unauthorized Obligations, automatically applies to any micro-purchase, including those made with the Governmentwide purchase card. This clause prevents such violations of the Anti-Deficiency Act (31 U.S.C. 1341)." I have heard that remarkable paragraph termed a Chridtian Doctrine in reverse. It is not as broad as the other mechanisms above, in that it does not treat other types of terms such as automatic renewal or legal jurisdiction, and a host of others, but it does reveal the heavy hand of government; it is one of the new top down 70 percent solutions that will eventually replace most of the older top down 70 percent solutions. Whose job are the 30% solutions? How many purchased don't happen for these reasons? For the most part we don't track what we don't buy and why we don't buy it. And what will be the trend? In a marketplace where bricks and mortar increasingly become a burden, might the government learn a lighter touch? ...we might then ask ourselves as a government: "Who will be around to do business with us the old fashioned way, if we don't learn a new way? I have hope that eventually the digital natives will sort this out...

Really??? Is it just me or does anyone else wonder how many current contracts include the now obsolete link to farsite.hill? What's a diligent contract administrator to do? I suppose, send an eMail to the contractor, to be placed in the file, and wait until the next contract modification to include the new link. Either that or send off a note asking folks at Farsite.hill if the tail must really wag the dog...and hope for the best.

Mr. Fleharty, I would be surprised if it could not be done. It would be a lot of work, that's for sure. It would involve setting up a new GPC card program (totally separate from an appropriated fund GPC program, such as is done for Non Appropriated Funds (NAF) and Chapel funds). It would need business rules and make use of one of the contracted banks. This site discussing eligibility for SmartPay programs is linked here: https://smartpay.gsa.gov/content/about-gsa-smartpay#sa356 and this link below gives contact information for the GSA SmartPay Program Management Office: https://smartpay.gsa.gov/content/contact#sa608

Hmm...maybe there's still a way... In DoD depending on department or agency notable exceptions to the advance payment using GPC are training and subscriptions. Those don't seem to get the job done. Chapel GPC programs fall entirely outside of the FAR...could Kickstarter be compatible with it? Could it fit their mission? I doubt it, but I don't know. I don't like to give up on an opportunity to do the government's business; So on to appropriated fund GPC... I say, why fret about ADA before we have thiroughly considered what we are buying? What is our requirement? And what authority exists that allows advance payment? The DoD FMR is okay with advance payment on Copyrights and Patents (DoD FMR Vol 10, Ch. 4 , paragraph 040305). Isn't that what this is? We get lifetime rights to use? Is it an ADA violation if we buy a patent and it does not work as hoped? Or is it an ADA violation if we buy a patent that we never use? How is this different? At a fundamental level is not our requirement the permanent right to an opportunity, whatever that opportunity affords us? I think commercial transactions in the government's interest should be viewed with a strong bias toward commerciality, whatever that might mean. Sometimes we just don't know how not to act like a monopsony. Now about using the card, the Air Force GPC, for example; some of the advance payment exceptions at DoD FMR Ch 4 are already permitted in the Air Force appropriated fund GPC guide (AFI 64-117). Their general prohibition on GPC advance payments is at paragraph 4.5.1.15. So, I say Ask. There is a waiver process near the beginning of the guide,; use it. The authority to make advance payments for copyrights and patents is already stated in FMR, so if I wanted to do it, I'd send a request above my operational unit through my MAJCOM Contracting Division to SAF/AQC for approval. I'd cite the FMR authority and describe the requirement and include any required functional area approvals required (I can't think of any for this one). If approved, I would also expect to have to elevate a request via eMail to adjust the merchant category code on the card account to allow the transaction to go through at the bank; my MAJCOM GPC Level 3 should be able to do that. From cardholder to SAF/AQC, the GPC waiver request could have eyes on by as few as 4 and as many as 7 or 8 levels of government, when a final decision is made...which kind of validates the original questioner's concern.... Or if GPC is not accepted by the vendor, which is a real possibility, a micro-purchase can be done via contract, which in DoD, unless in exceptional circumstances, requires a written determination by a general or flag officer or member of the SES IAW DFARS 213.370 (b) (1). Also, kind of validates the original questioner's concern, doesn't it?

Thank you Mr. Fleharty. The resources you linked are clear eyed and helpful. Yes, I see the features of this effort fitting nicely in the early implementation described by the authors in the linked HBR article. Namely, the initial effort I envision is: One customer, that being DoD or one of its components; limited scope, that is accountability systems (accounting & property); simplistic regulatory framework, that is mainly Congressional oversight instead of being a commercial sector concern which may face many multi-level considerations in a GAAP/SEC/FNRA/FED/IRS/shareholder/congressional oversight environs; a long cherished elusive and difficult to achieve goal, that is achieving and maintaining audit readiness; the prospect of fulfilling the promise of improvements in doing government business , that is the essence of this effort to re-envision government accountability; overall improvements in cost avoidance, cost visibility, responsiveness to oversight, and decreased management burden, these are major incentives with obvious appeal both in and out of the executive branch.

Audit readiness and information reporting are the reasons for more and more of the things we are called upon to do as stewards of a vast public trust. There seems to be an air of inevitability about it...a kind bureaucratic mission creep so easily sets in and there are new reasons to ever add new tasks, new considerations, and new demands to our day. It has come to dominate the landscape around us. With new tools we may be able to query most any question about government spending and get the answer immediately. Blockchain, the technology behind Bitcoin should enable us to uniquely label (or perhaps instead of "label" call it "name" if you like, in a nod to personal finance and budgeting authority, Dave Ramsey) every single dollar to spend and add to that label for every event involving that dollar. To conduct an audit or obtain a report (they become the same thing done by different people) read the label for every single dollar spent at any time during the acquisition cycle and compile the result to your heart's content. In Real Time. Every single dollar will carry its complete history: Appropriation data, time and date infirmation, the personnel making approvals and authorities cited award data, socio economic data, acceptance and chain of custody, associated RFID identification, physical inventory results and emergent ideas not yet considered. I wouldn't get concerned over things this idea isn't. This isn't a budget process; and it isn't a new currency; and it isn't using Bitcoin to pay vendors; it isn't using bitcoin at all. It is a new tool to track the flow and use of dollars in government in real time. What's more there will be ways to reliably and permanently obscure proprietary information so that it will have proper and determinable boundaries. We don't have to do what we have always done. Without statistical sampling we can query the dollars themselves and learn anything we want from those dollars about government spending in real time. Who da thunk it? Insight into uses of blockchain technology is growing now: http://www.businessinsider.com/bitcoin-blockchain-tech-leaders-according-to-morgan-stanley-2017-6?utm_medium=email&utm_source=newsletter&utm_term=170616&utm_campaign=moneystuff A daily watcher of blockchain technology, Matt Levine can be found here: https://www.bloomberg.com/view/topics/money-stuff Thoughts? Predictions? Reality Checks, anyone?

I apologize for the typo: deobligation. For info on ADA you might start with this site: http://www.gao.gov/legal/anti-deficiency-act/about

I might as well mention the elephant in the room. What steps should I take to avoid an Anti Deficiency Act Violation for improper drobligation?

Thank you for the explanation...with that I see no issue with induction/deduction. Understanding definitions can be a fun ride...I learned that in Guam, which sonetimes does or most of the time does not fall under the pertinent FAR or DFARS definition of the United States.

It strikes me that this discussion, removed one level, is really about the usefulness in our career field of both inductive and deductive reasoning. To me, Don's observations here demonstrate the usefulness of inductive reasoning, that is, arguing from the particular case toward that of the general case. I think that Vern's query aims at considering a rule by process of deduction, that is, a rule from the general case to the particular case. The Wikipedia article on inductive reasoning gives a succinct example of these two kinds of reasoning: "Given that "if A is true then that would cause B, C, and D to be true", an example of deduction would be "A is true therefore we can deduce that B, C, and D are true". An example of induction would be "B, C, and D are observed to be true therefore A might be true". A is a reasonable explanation for B, C, and D being true." (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inductive_reasoning) The two methods when offered in argument variously for or against a proposition present an interesting challenge that we might find on the job fairly often. As a novice, I try to think carefully about such things to avoid confusion. I might find it useful to ask myself "what, if anything, has been refuted?" At times, I may be tempted to surrender too early and be too easily convinced of an alternative proposition. At other times I have let myself get needlessly stubborn in the face of a better argument to the contrary. Vern, I find your observation, above, curious. I am interested what direction this will take and what, if anything might be refuted.

105 CONS, 1) Before deciding that the Service Contract Labor Standards Act (SCLSA) applies, you might consider if the "representative of the manufacturer") was really an employee of the manufacturer. If, instead, the individual who performed the services was directly engaged by the government for his or her services, see the FAR 22.1003-3 (f) exemption which includes "Any employment contract providing for direct services to a Federal agency by an individual or individuals;" 2) The point is now moot, but if the vendor had already provided the necessary certification and if the contracting officer had already made the subject determination, you might be using the exemption to SCLSA at FAR 22.1003-4 (c) for office/business machine repair, subject to the listed qualifications.

I like how Ben Franklin really put it (common misattribution explained): " 1. "A penny saved is a penny earned." Did Ben Franklin say it? No. "Franklin never actually said his most famous misattribution," McCormick said. "The actual quote from 1737 is 'A penny saved is two pence clear,' which is far more financially sophisticated. The misquote blends cost saving with revenue creation and stays completely on the income statement. The actual quote comes from the balance sheet." From: https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2015/07/150701152634.htm