jonmjohnson

The above comments begs the question....are there too many federal contracting officers? This is counterintuitive to what is commonly the theme you hear in contracting operations across the government. "We don't have enough COs" "We are understaffed" From my understanding there still remains authority for direct-hire for the 1102 field.. Would the answer to replicated procurements be to squeeze off the 1102 series? Then people won't have time to waste putting together vehciles for commodity/cots/commercial items and can do the hard stuff that is actually much more interesting and challenging.

Boof...you are hitting the nail on the head with this statement. 47, 42, 41, 39, 36, 35 are only data points...and in and of themselves meaningless without the underlying knowledge of what went into each. Unfortunately the trend towards data analytics misses this primary point entirely. I don't know many who are involved in pushing this concept forward who have the procurement knowledge and subject matter expertise capable of asking the right questions to pull data in a way that can help resolve problems (concering non-COTS products). Prices paid without knowledge of the terms, or how the particular price point fits in with the entirety of a pricing strategy, is not only misleading but dangerous. I like to think that COs understand this as common knowledge, but I am often proven wrong on this point. You may be right about the outliers, and that could be a good thing for holding commodity/cots resellers more accountable. I can see this being a benefit for purchasing rather than contracting (pens, paper, printer toner, etc...) but less so in any non-commoditized products or services. Could this be a problem with people assuming COTS is the same as commercial, and therefore commercial pricing is the same as COTS pricing? I am clearly still playing with this between my ears a bit.

Jacques...correct on that assumption. But I wonder about the amount of information internal contract employees have concerning their competitors. Even if the federal government were able to devise a mechanism to provide this information only to those with a .gov email address, we know that there plenty of people with this access. What would stop vendor X with access to prices pain from finding line item pricing of a competetor and either disclosing that or using it for their own gain and benefit? Call me crazy, but I do view pricing practices as being trade secret information, otherwise it would be material that would be releasable through a FOIA process, and it is not. Just some thoughts on this....I appreciate the response Jacques.

This is a timely thread. Allow me to ask this question....currently OMB/OFPP and GSA are seeking to capture and share prices paid information https://www.federalregister.gov/articles/2015/03/04/2015-04349/general-services-administration-acquisition-regulation-gsar-transactional-data-reporting#h-15. Although I can see how this would be helpful and beneficial for agency COs when negotiating price positions (assuming they know the nuances associated with price competition) I can't help but wonder if this is allowable considering the Procurement Integrity Act and Trade Secrets Act. I wonder about controls over access to data, never mind the ability to capture and share transactional data. Thoughts?

Oh for (bleeps) sake! Now I feel stupid...thanks for pointing out the obvious to me. I feel like Fredo now.

I have read, re-read, written and re-written the above referenced section and this post three times already. Just when I think I have it, it doesn't end up making sense to me. Under exceptions of FAR 25.103e it states "(e) Information technology that is a commercial item. The restriction on purchasing foreign end products does not apply to the acquisition of information technology that is a commercial item, when using fiscal year 2004 or subsequent fiscal year funds (Section 535(a) of Division F, Title V, Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2004, and similar sections in subsequent appropriations acts)." I understand the early part of this section, but it is the later that I am not certain about. For an IT product to be considered exempt it must be a) commercial, and B ) using funds on or after 2004. Is that it? So if a computer or a device is a commercial item (and the one in question is a widely available commercial item), manufactured in a non-TAA compliant country, it can still be acquired under a FAR 25.103e exemption? Seems straight forward, but why am I questioning myself on drawing this conclusion?

You do it to save time, to save money, and to provide some visibility from an agency-wide perspective concerning what you actually have. So long as the requirements are met through the RFQ of the FSSI it greatly reduces the amount of time needed to develop an RFQ, conduct a competition, and evaluate responses. In some of their vehicles they also offer the promise of triggered discounts at tiered levels, which means that all agencies get that automatic additional discounts so long as agencies use it. This is one of the big differences between the FSSI vehicles and what DHS is doing, and further DHS is cheating other agencies the opportunities for additional discounts by going it alone and not leveraging what exists. That and the prices paid against the FSSI BPAs are better than what DHS had been able to achieve....at least this is true for wireless services. You are correct in that competition is still required, but this is what drives discounting. The FSSI pricing on any vehicle is a list price for an item of one. Discounts come with actual work. The FSSI program offices have information concerning prices paid, so this can also be used for agency COs and their negotiation positions if handled tactfully. Lastly, most agencies have difficulty with strategic purchasing. Their are different pots of money spread out among different sub-agencies, bureaus, sub-bureaus, offices, and divisions. This is both a procurement problem and an inventory control problem. Agencies have no idea what they have as the information is siloed throughout their organization. If you are a fragmented organization the logical steps to take are to consolidate under a single vehicle to provide a level of transparency in terms of what you have and what you use, and then further consolidate from there. The FSSI BPAs are a means to do that, but the actual capability to do that rests with the agencies, their internal structure, internal politics, and corralling their funding sources.

Better Aragon than Dante: "Lasciate ogne speranza, voi ch'intrate"...though when considering the prospects we may indeed find ourselves in a sort of perpetual procurement purgatory without Virgil as our guide.

OK...I mean't 15.404-2 not 15.202-4. My point is that the information contained in the FAR part 15 within are informational (definitional?), not regulatory. Take the informational out, leave the prescriptive regulations in, and supplement the informational within the federal educational structure, whether formal or informal. The point with Subsection D...social goals are additive over time. When was a social goal stripped from the FAR? You may know better than I. It is the additive nature that prescribes that makes FAR burdensome? Also, why aren't there sunset provisions related to social goals and FAR? In other words, does social position x result in social outcome y? If social position x doesn't result in social outcome y, then why keep it embedded in acquisition regulations? Because it would not be politically expedient to take it out. I said that this is what I would take out to get the conversation going....I didn't mean to imply that anything I said was a really good idea. Your response indicates that everything there in the FAR today is purposeful. You may be right Joel. In which case there is no need to change FAR (I actually find people who complain about the FAR don't know the FAR - re: other posts). If, however, you did want to streamline and strip FAR, what would you take out? Not tinker around the edges, but eliminate completely. My premise is that if you want to change the FAR, one approach would be to take out everything information, and most everything related to social goals. That will never happen, as we all know. There isn't much to eliminate, because much of it is purposeful, therefore the subject becomes moot.

You pose a good question Vern, and one that I have been asking for the past 3 years as I have been listening to people complain about the FAR. So...to answer your question...I would start with: The entirety of subchapter D. This could be more abridged, less perscriptive, or left for each agencies and OMB to determine. Leave the solical policy to OMB, and allow that social policy to reflect each administration rather than the collective codification of 40 year whims based on politics and the impression of actually doing something. I would want to think about Subchapter F. My gut it telling me to get that out too, or at least some of them. There is no need for FAR Part 39 as there is nothing in their that is useful. That can be managed by Federal CIO Guidance, so there is little need for codification. Far Part 34 may be covered under PMI principles. I would want to think of the others. I would also get rid of FAR part 15.404-1(B )-(g), 15.202-2, & 15.404-4 because they appear to me to be parts that could be passed along via mentoring, experience, and education. I would adjust upward the threasholds associated with 5.101 and reporting and publicizing. I would simplify FAR Part 13 as there is little simply too many hoops to jump through for something freakin' simple. Specifically I would do the same as Part 5 and adjust the notification threasholds northward fairly substancially so that COs can make simple buys, document why, and move on. Let the IGs sort out when something dumb has occured. Further, I would claw back the competition rules and go back to the solicit three rather than receive three in FAR Part 8 for no other reason than for maximim flexibility for COs. This brings up a point that I would be interested in others' prespectives. Has the FAR become more definitized and descriptive because of the DFARS application and codification into the FAR? DOD had the receive three rule before it applied to the FAR. How much of the added language is due to DFARS rather than the CAO Council? I feel these folks sit in a room, talk about what each other has added, and then add what the others did with regards to internal guidnace. Lastly, and this doesn't have anything to do with FAR but more to do with OFPP, I would eliminate the business course requirements. There is no evidence that COs have been making better business decisions since the inception of this rule. Further, if you accept the logic of that rule, then you will also require that everyone doing IT contracting also have a degree in computer science, everyone doing engineering contracting a degree in engineering (god help us...), etc... How is that for a start? I have seen NOBODY involved in federal contracting from the federal end (other than Vern and now InNeedOfWisdom) make specific suggestions as to what to change. This is in part because the call to change are coming from people who don't understand FAR to begin with, so this is an insiders take on what we could get rid of. JJ

Boof - Thanks for point out that you folks are still using this authority. I don't know what I was looking at before but now see that GW-004 still covers agencies and the 1102 series (http://www.opm.gov/policy-data-oversight/hiring-authorities/direct-hire-authority/#url=Governmentwide-Authority). This is a powerful tool for managers and HR folks to fill their staffing needs with good people, if they know how to use it effectively.

Johnsoee, I believe that there is also still a direct hire authority for federal agencies for the 1102 series (someone can correct me if this is no longer the case). You can leverage this through your network (and I know that the USAF has a very good and robust network). Get on list serves like this, GovLoop, and NCMA. Further feel free to contact me offline. There remaind high turnover with 1102's and you shouldn't have a problem. That said...this perspective is based on the DC metro area. If you are in another region of the country (or world) then it may not apply. *** Note - I just checked the OPM website and it appears that 1102's are no longer on the list. That is a pity if this is in fact the case. Some of the best CO's I know entered the agency workforce through this program. That being said...with your veteran preference and training you should not have much of a problem. Start applying now. If someone likes you then will keep the spot open and work with you. The offer to contact me offline still applies.

Contractor100...you are correct and your colleagues are wrong. The task order is applicable to the terms and conditions under which it was written....not future terms that are not known. Your colleagues would have to modify the task order to reflect the updated terms. It does not make logical sense to do otherwise. If there is silence on the issue concerning agreements (BPAs), then make an interpretation that serves you best. I had this discussion this week as well. The agreement is (should be) specific to the version of the Schedule. I had written the version into BPAs whenever I established them, therefore any refresh on the IDIQ would not be applicable. If the BPA is silent on the issue, then you make the rule that makes the most sense to you and your customers and defend your position.

We need more and better thinkers, not training. If a person has no hand eye coordination then all the training in the world will not teach them how to hit a ball. We need the core foundation which training could possibly improve. If someone can't think, if they don't have a grasp of language and nuance, if they don't have the capacity to engage in informal logic, then all the training in the world won't help. These are sweeping generalizations and not particular to any CO, but contracts is more an excercise in language over methodology.

"silent about what clauses to include. I have seen extremes on Task Orders with almost every commercial clause included and some with no clauses included." My point - nobody should be including clauses that are already represented, and that list is extendive in terms of clauses explicitly stated and incorporated by reference. The silence is not a confusing factor...what CO's feel the need to do is. "- sparsely detailed with source selection guidance compared to FAR Part 13, 14, and 15." My point - how does this increase complication? A CO now has to use his/her head and is given tremendous flexibility to make their source selection determination. "- ambiguous, as results may vary with terms like "brief explanation." My point - ambiguitiy is a CO's most powerful friend as it allows language to be used most favorably to them in order to do their job efficiently and effectively. Not picking a fight here...but every regulatory "fix" that has meant to "clarify" or "perscribe" takes away flexibility for COs to use their brain and use the language of regulation in a way that is compliant and most favorable to them. I can understand COs looking for less regulation, but rarely more.

metteec - I can't help but disagree. Lack of specificity is opportunity for a CO to do what is right in a thoughtful way that satisfies a customer's need. If it is silent, then you can make it up. The clasues are already included, so there is no real necessity to include more clauses, just ensure that the clauses you require are addressed in the schedules contract. Unncessary redundancy to do so otherwise. And the source selection guidance (or lack there of)....this gives flexibility. Boof - You can still do as you use to. There is no requirement to use eBuy. I often advise COs not to because there is no rule that states it, and if they are assured that they can get the three quotes, thereby satisfying the competition rules as indicated (3 or more...as practiable IAW 8.405). If you know you will get three quotes from three vendors, then why use eBuy? cs123 - Where does it require that strengths and weaknesses be identified? This can be done as a courtesy, but all that is required is "timely notification" to unsuccessful offerors and the basis for best value decision if they ask. Interestingly enough, a sharp CO pointed out to me that there are none of these requirements for making an award against a BPA IAW 8.405-3, therefore you don't have to say squat (though it could be bad form...depending on the situation). As far as discussion go... you could use the following language in your RFQ "The government reserves the right to hold discussions with one or more of the quoters at any time after receipt of quotations. The government is not required to hold discussions with a quoter whose quote has no reasonable chance for award." Lastly, can you explain more of the logic for your position concerning 8.402(f). This is asked out of ignorance. I think people make the rules in 8.4 more complicated than needed. Too much mixing in other parts of the FAR that are just inapplicable. There is alot of "wiggle" in 8.4 that makes things easier so long as we don't bog ourselves down with reading into it more than what it says. 2 cents.

Bagheera - Here are my observations and 2 cents. Take them for what they are worth. I have never worked for DOD, but I worked with people who have. My immediate supervisor who was DOD trained and came from DCMA worked very much like the way that PoisonIvy described. She would never tell me what to do, but I would form a position, she would say "consider x, y, z and come back to me." I would read the regulations, gao decisions, or internal policy, consider whether it was applicable, return to her summarizing what was said and arguing that it didn't apply (if that was the case) of showing how it changed my position (if that was the case). I say this because it was engaging, fun, and professional. I have not found many people like her in the civilian agencies, so I look at her as being an exception rather than a rule. With 2 years in, and as a CO, you are going to have more opportunities in the future than you realize. The primary reason (I think) why people move from DOD to Civilian is because of the pay grades and advancement. You will hit a ceiling eventually...when you do then look around. I would suggest staying in DOD until you reach the GS 12-13 pay grade then look around. Others mention that there if reciprocity between DAWIA and FAC-C but not for FAC-C to DAWIA. Keep working towards your DAWIA III so that if/when you jump between agencies you have greater opportunities. If you leave DOD after 1 year it will be more difficult to return because DAWIA I can be had by anyone. DAWIA III CO's on the other hand don't grow on trees. You have a lot to consider, but the grass is seldom greener on the other side. I advocate for moving once you have hit the point where there is little upward mobility, and then move on. Your colleagues (or an internal mentor) may be able to help identify when that happens. When I was hired by the government the person who hired me told me my first day "congratulations...don't stay too long." Most would find that to be weird, but his point was in the position he hired me for would hinder rather than help me if I stuck around too long. A good mentor/supervisor will know when they have to lose you for your own benefit. Moving around within an agency (if don't right and smart) looks better than moving around between agencies. Make sense? J

Coincidentally Steve Kelman has been writing abeout this recently as well. He directly addresses TechFAR in his most recent post here: http://fcw.com/blogs/lectern/2014/08/the-challenge-of-agile-development.aspx Ever the diplomat, he is more bullish on the guidance than I. I never discount the fact that I could be wrong. He also indicates where he sees areas for improvement concerning this guidance.

OMB released something that they call TechFAR (http://playbook.cio.gov/techfar/), which is guidance meant "to facilitate a common understanding among [agency] stakeholders of the best ways to use acquisition authorities in making [iT] investments to level set expectations and maximize the likelihood for success." It is particular to Agile Software development, a concept that is bleeding into other parts of the federal enviornment including procurement, program development, and organizational behavior. That aside...and please tell me if I am wrong...I see this to be of limited value. General Considerations Most appear to be Agile specific and not related to FAR, but their main contention is that FAR does not address Agile development, therefore FAR 39 should apply as people apply modular contracting to agile software development. Requirements Development and Acquisition Planning The takeaway here is that it should be SOO based, not SOW based, and it is assumed that the government is compliant enough to monitor progress and identify when something is done. Further, they claim that there is no conflict of interest even when contractors are heavily relied upon and have a foothold in an operation, so long as they are not evaluating their own proposals. This part I find a bit tenuous both legally and ethically. Just appears a bit convenient and overly simple. Contract Vehicles and Use of Existing IT Contracts This section says nothing of importance. Pricing Considerations Fixed-price, T&M, and incentives are all acceptable approaches depending on the nature of the work involved. They offer some scenarios for firm fixing some CLINS under the FP scenario, and offer some vanilla advice on creating an IGCE. Use of Competition Competition is ample and not restricted at any point in the agile environment, the Product Vision serves as the scope (broad scoped to give flexibility...though they shift from SOO to SOW in Q#2 in this section), the risk of protest "should not be increased" because of the lack of prescription or fixed technical requirements, and small businesses can still compete. Contract Administration This section is just repeat and regurgitation on agile software development and project monitoring. It includes roles for the CO, COR and "Project Owner." I will take another look at what they charge the CO with in their responsibility sets later. ********************************************************************* I am curious to hear what others think of this guidance. TechFAR as a label certainly gives connotations of something other than what I just read. I deal more with commercial IT than software or systems development, but there is nothing in this that I was enlightened by. I actually fear that this will be regurgitated without thought, and though it quotes FAR I would have to look more into the number of leaps it makes through the different parts of the regulations to make a judgement on the soundness and applicability. By the way...they are also taking comments for anyone interested in submitting them, though I don't know many COs who use GitHub (a coding exchange and content development platform) as a communication medium. (https://github.com/whitehouse/playbook#readme)

Thanks for the article Vern. Lets differentiate between the "schtick of innovation" (which is how this term is being used today by gurus, hucksters, millenials, and business schools) and the "stick of innovation". B-School schtick sells books but doesn't necessarily solve problems. The schtick is grounded formulaic B-school structure. The stick is simply look at problems and address them differently working around constraints. My premise is that COs (good COs anyway) look beyond that which is perscribed in FAR to frame issues, identify problems, and look for different ways to address them...exacty as you had done with Performance Based Contracting before it became standardized, formulized, and misapplied. To do that, COs need to not only know the FAR, but also know what the problems are, how to possibly reframe them, and then address them in a different way (rather than simply saying this is how the previous problem was solved, therefore frame your problem to fit this solution in a way things were done before).

Thank you napolik. Your response was educational, and I can't say that I disagree. The ability to do so depends on the quality and experience of evaluators.

napolik - you stated: "While use of evaluators’ personal experiences may be acceptable when assessing contractors’ experiences or past performances, it is not acceptable when evaluating other factors (e.g. résumés, staffing plans, technical approach, etc.)." Why not? Why can personal experience, or for that matter information gleened during market research but not called out in a vendor's response, be used? I would think an evaluation panel member would be entirely remiss (negligent) if they didn't account for that which they know, or better yet accounted for something they know is not technically possible from a proposed solution despite the claim in the response otherwise. Not in a biased way (heading Desporado off at the pass) but in an informational way that adds to but not detracts from the quality of the evaluation.

policyguy...a quick follow up to your question #3. I don't deny that this is what the CO rhetoric claims, but I am wondering if "business managers" are different than "business advisors." Business managers assume control over the business line, whereas business advisors provide feedback and information without necassarily intruding on the decision making capacity of the project manager. Do you think this perception leads to a certain level of contention that often exists between COs and PMs? In other words, who is really in charge? Who should be? This is a never ending debate. Just wondering what your thoughts are on it. JJ

Vern, You are touching upon a continual and perpetual debate on this subject. I never heard a good answer on this, and maybe it is a contract officer myth that has been repeated so many times people assume it to be true. To get around this debate/perception I started advising the use of open orders or open ordering agreements under BPAs to achieve the same affect without using the same language. The problem is that, absent of any proof that shikakenin identifies, this is a perception that a CO will have to battle with their branch chief, director, and HPA. To avoid these headaches I simlly change the frame to avoid pushback. JJ

Actually, Desparado, I don't mean to disagree but it doesn't say that. It says "Placed on a time-and-materials (T&M)/labor-hour (LH) basis—a contract awarded or an order placed by the Federal Government to the buying contractor can be partially fixed price, but the portion of the contract/order for the items to be procured using the FAR 51 deviation must be T&M/LH" In other words, your task order can be fixed price, but you would have to indicate the CLINS that are applicable to the component to be procured by the vendor and indicate in the solicitation that you consider them to be of a T&M nature. These CLINS are merely identified and not completed by the respondent to the RFQ. This is only to document in the solicitation that these are the CLINS that will be addressed with your letter of agency to the integrator. They go into more detail in 2.1 and state "The overall contract/order can be fixed price, but the items to be purchased under the FAR Part 51 authority must be structured on a T&M/LH basis." The underline is in the guidance which highlights the main point.