Jump to content

jonmjohnson

Members
  • Posts

    138
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by jonmjohnson

  1. Mr. Cullam....thank you. I feel a little foolish that I had not picked up on that and am thankful that you had. Thank you sir. And so ji20874...it applies, then, to an agency's own contracts....not its own contracting officers. So if it is a clause that is in the IDIQ schedule contracts, and has been agreed upon by the schedule holder during the refresh period if after June 2010, then whoever uses that contract (or schedules contracts) can leverage the deviation. And because it is in the government-wide contracts, there is defacto government-wide ability to leverage the deviation through those contracts. That sound about right?
  2. 1. What is your all time favorite book? - Fiction - The Master and Magarita by Mikhail Bulgakov. Non-fiction - Thinking Fast and Slow by Daniel Khaneman 2. What is your all time favorite song or album? The untitled 4th album by Led Zeppelin 3. What is your all time favorite movie? Cool Hand Luke 4. Who is your favorite poet? William Blake and John Keats
  3. When developing my program I starting thinking about, and looking at, FAR 51 Deviation authority as a potential acquisition approach. The deviation is posted by GSA and can be found here: http://www.gsa.gov/portal/category/100975?utm_source=FAS&utm_medium=print-radio&utm_term=far51deviation&utm_campaign=shortcuts I don't advocate the use of this as a cure all for complex IT actions, but do clearly see it as a potential option in the procurement toolchest that could be leveraged if the conditions fit. It largely hinges on the definition of ancillary and integral, and the guidance that is available does not put a quantitative amount (dollars or level of effort) on how to define it. They just state that a $1,000,000 procurement with $990,000 would not be applicable or justifiable. There is ample wiggle here in the terminology that is being used. While meeting with an agency yesterday I ended up getting some pushback in terms of the overall legitimacy of this deviation. They stated that despite GSA providing this on their website they could not find supporting documentation in FAR or in FACs that allow GSA to issue this deviation. My interpretation was that IAW FAR 51 an agency CO must secure permission from the government supply source for a vendor to procure on behalf of the agency. I viewed the FAR 51 deviation as applying that permission in a blanket format for agencies to leverage FSS under FAR 8.4. I understand how it may not fit with their particular requirements, but that doesn't mean that it is not a legitimate approach generally. What is your take on this? If GSA publishes a deviation on their website would corresponding information in a FAC be required? This doesn't make sense to me. What am I missing here? I was accused of being a cowboy and playing loose with regulations, which is the equivalent of calling a CO a know-nothing s.o.b. (I take exception to the former).
  4. help and Vern...as always thanks for the posts. Just to set the record straight...I am not a pure adacemic. I am a federal employee working in and around the contracting field. More pragmatic practicioner that likes to engage in productive reading, research, and thinking rather than a pure academic (it keeps me out of the pubs...which keeps my wife happy). In other words....I am no navel gazer (at least I hope I am not). Vern...you made my point for me. You may be correct about working around poorly written laws and regulation, but laws and regulations are written for a number of other reason's beyond what you characterize. Social goals, political expediency, the desire for policy makers to show that they are doing something. But once something has been set in regulation it is no longer an innovation. Again, FAR 1.102-4(e) - “absence of direction should be interpreted as permitting the Team to innovate and use sound business judgment that is otherwise consistent with law and within the limits of their authority. Contracting officers should take the lead in encouraging business process innovations and ensuring that business decisions are sound.” So if it is in the FAR it is by definition no longer innovative.
  5. I like it! Regulations create conditions that squelch innovation when it attempts to formalize them. Again....organizational innovation becomes bunk. As the above FAR reference 1.102-4(e) would indicate...if it is in the FAR it is no longer innovative and thus perscriptive. Rather than let agency personnel tinker and fiddle, thus making and learning from mistakes (a key compoent of the development of technological innovation), policy makers try to document and formalize a process. Innovation is not a formula, therefore a formulaic documentation (new FAR rule) and perscription (application of that rule), or the misapplication of a on the part of the in-laws (legal, IG, leadership, etc...), leads to a more restrictive and less innovative environment. This may be the classic case of the politics-admininstration dichotomy that tries to reign in public administrators and have them simply exercise rules rather than judgements. What I am excited about right now is that others see the same as I do (Ji, FF, and H2H) and are thinking along the same lines. Would investigating this from an academic, as well as practical, perspective be helpful?
  6. Thanks FF. I actually like your characterization of "formalized meaninglessness." In the public administration literature academics contend that there exsists such as thing as "organizational innovation." I dove pretty deep into it during my quals and it it appeared to me to be a sort of contrived academic hooey. I can clearly see an argument that organizations (leadership) should support innovation conceptually, which is a part of "organziational innovation." There is then the assessment of the impact or decision to apply innovation across-the-board, which bleeds into beuraucratic decision making (not saying this judgementally....just the structure of public administration). Leadership then applies the innovation across the agency, or organization, or regulation, in terms of a standardized, formalized structure, which is a description of change management. That, according to some, is the essence of "organizational innovation." It is this last part that you hit on directly, because the application is absent the conditions that made it appropriate in the first place. Thus formalized meaningless. Theories aside...I would have to do some digging in terms of when oral solicitations were first used, when they were formalized in FAR, and how that limits their application now. Thanks for the thought provoking response FF.
  7. Roger that...and I agree with your characterization of this dilema. Program offices (the wife) cleraly have to be on board with an innovative approach. Some COs also have to deal with pre-approval from legal and IG offices (the in-laws). I would naively say that clear communication on what is being done and why can help alleviate some of this, but I agree that this is easier said than done in many cases. Thanks Ji20874.
  8. I was going to add this in a previous thread that dealt with prospective academic research topics, but then thought that it may be beneficial for this to serve as a stand alone discussion. Before I begin, I once again I thank everyone who had contributed to the previous thread. After some long though I wanted to bounce something else off the community to see if it would be something of interest as a prospective research topic, or as a point of discussion. Innovation is repeated desire throughout the federal government, but most often it is in terms of schitcky promotions associated with technological desires/advances. It is, however, clearly addressed in my personal favorite FAR reference: FAR 1.102-4(e) - “absence of direction should be interpreted as permitting the Team to innovate and use sound business judgment that is otherwise consistent with law and within the limits of their authority. Contracting officers should take the lead in encouraging business process innovations and ensuring that business decisions are sound.” This gives a contract officer, and program office, alot of creative flexibility when it comes to addressing problems. Most COs, however, look at the FAR as a framework that is perscriptive, which is as it should be when applicable, but limits the ability for COs to look at problems differently and look for different ways to address them. This can be said to be a matter of framing and decision making that many academics (Daniel Khaneman, Herbert Simon, Nassim Taleb, and many others) have addressed. To take it further, however, policy often makes the mistake of misapplying innovative contracting practices and making them a rule rather than admiring them for it being a successful exception. I think performance-based acquisitions is a prime example of this. My understanding of the development of PBA is that it was developed at a particular time, in a particular place, to address a particular problem. It worked brilliantly, and became a defacto rule/methodology for procurement...even when inapplicable. Post-success application aside, it is an example of a contracting innovation. Other innovative methodologies exist, and many can be culled from the discussion board of this service. For example, establishing an open ordering arrangement under a BPA is an innovative concept that steers clear of the whole BPA under a BPA restriction. Leveraging FAR 51 deviaiton authority to address agency IT and wireless communication carrier needs is something that is to me is clear so long as it is framed and applied properly. GSA released a Request for Technical Capabilities (RFTC) that appeared to be an innovative approach that was neither a BPA nor a QVL. What are people's thoughts on this generally? More specifically, can you think of other innovative applications of FAR? What are the some of the challenges to the application of innovation as it relates to COs?
  9. OK....so I have let this sit and simmer for a bit and think I understand Vern and wvanpup's point a bit better. I have been reading a book called Little Bets by Peter Sims who talks about Innovation and creativity. He brings up the example of Chris Rock who takes a very methodological approach to creafting his work, noting the body language as well as the reactions of certain jokes he tests in smaller clubs and venues. Anyway...an interesting read, and applicable to this thread. Thanks for your responses and insight. As usual I learned something.
  10. I have started and stopped a response 3 times now, which means that I probably need to sit and think on this a bit more. Vern, I can't help but respecfully disagree but will acquisesce. That being said....it wouldn't take much to change the Noah joke around a bit for greater pretinance to federal contracting. For example - "First I assigned a project manager to deliver on the requirements that you had laid out, but he got so wrapped up in trying to articulate the exact description of a cubit, and obviously had no understanding of Ark building, that he never developed the package to be sent to our CO so that it could be put out for bid. He then had to develop requirements to hire a consultant to help develop requirement to build an Ark. This pushed out the timeline. Unfortunately this consultant never built an Ark before, but did have building experience with building an Arch once, so they felt qualified. Apparently the project manager I assigned this to thought so as well, but this turned out not to be the case. They ended up building a version of Stonehenge that sank during the pilot phase (damn pagans)." Contact me if you have a good joke, or a sense of humor, related to federal contracting, or one related generally to government that could be adapted to contacting or project management. In the mean time....I'll keep my day job.
  11. You know...when I started working with the federal government I was concerned that I would lose my sense of humor. I viewed feds as having an utter innability to laugh at oneself, even when given cause to. Thanks for proving my point on the latter, and I am still fighting the former. Humor is a sign of creative innovation...an ability to play with words, concepts, or pre-suppositions in a different way to elicit a smile or a laugh. If people can't joke, in other words if people can't use language creatively or appreciate the creative use of language in such a way that gets one to laugh, how the hell can we work with and play with language in a creative way in terms of the FAR and contracts? How can one look at FAR differently? How can one look at requirements writting differently? This is a bigger question, and I am getting the impression that we may have just stumbled on what one of the issues are in contracting (another potential research topic). There is an expression in Eastern Europe that every joke is 10% joke, 90% truth. Lets not slip into provencial thought where our dander gets raised over any preceived slight....lighten up a little. By doing so we can see the occassional absurdity of the environment we find ourselves in, and potentially address issues that we face.
  12. OK....here is one for you. Got a tickle out of it, and kind of reminded me how the FAR gets all FARed up on occassion. Noah must have been a CO, because no project manager I know would have known any of this....he would have just blamed the CO. _____________________________________________________________________ And the Lord spoke to Noah: ''In six months I'm going to make it rain until the whole earth is covered with water and all the evil people are destroyed. But I want to save a few good people, and two of every kind of living thing on the planet. I am ordering you to build Me an Ark.'' And in a flash of lightning He delivered the specifications for an Ark. ''Okay," said Noah, trembling in fear and fumbling with the blueprints. ''Six months, and it starts to rain,'' thundered the Lord. ''You'd better have my Ark completed, or learn how to swim for a very long time.'' And six months passed. The skies began to cloud up and rain began to fall. The Lord saw that Noah was sitting in his front yard, weeping. And there was no Ark. ''Noah," shouted the Lord, "where is my Ark?'' A lightning bolt crashed into the ground next to Noah, for emphasis. ''Lord, please forgive me," begged Noah. "I did my best, but there were big problems. First I had to get a building permit for the Ark construction project, and your plans didn't meet code. So I had to hire an engineer to redraw the plans. Then I got into a big fight over whether or not the Ark needed a fire sprinkler system. My neighbors objected claiming I was violating zoning by building the Ark in my front yard, so I had to get a variance from the city planning commission. Then I had a big problem getting enough wood for the Ark because there was a ban on cutting trees to save the spotted owl. Then the carpenters formed a union and went out on strike. I had to negotiate a settlement with the National Labor Relations Board before anyone would pick up a saw or a hammer. Now we got 16 carpenters going on the boat, and still no owls. Then I started gathering up the animals, and got sued by an animal rights group. They objected to me taking only two of each kind. Just when I got the suit dismissed, EPA notified me that I couldn't complete the Ark without filing an environmental impact statement on your proposed flood. Then the Army Corps of Engineers wanted a map of the proposed new flood plain. I sent them a globe. And the IRS has seized all my assets claiming I'm trying to avoid paying taxes by leaving the country, and I just got a notice from the state about owing some kind of use tax. I really don't think I can finish your Ark for at least another five years,'' Noah wailed. The sky began to clear. The sun began to shine. A rainbow arched across the sky. Noah looked up and smiled. ''You mean you're not going to destroy the earth?'' Noah asked, hopefully. ''Wrong!'' thundered the Lord. ''But being Lord of the Universe has its advantages. I fully intend to smite the earth, but with something far worse than a flood. Something man invented himself.'' ''What's that?'' asked Noah. There was a long pause, and then the Lord spoke: ''Government.''
  13. Once again I am looking to tap into the collective intelligence, and humor, of this community to see if anyone would be interested in a fun little project though this messageboard. I am looking to collect and assemble any jokes or humorous anecdotes related to the federal government and contracting. This is not something I am looking to publish but merely collect for my own (and hopefully other's) amusement. Let me give an example: This was told to me by a friend who is Chief Technology Strategist for the Department of State. A man is in a hot air balloon that is slowly losing altitude. He ends up hovering over the side of the road in the desert. A man happens by. The man in the balloon calls down to him "Sir...could you happen to tell me where I am?" The man look up, assesses the situation, and responds "Yes...you are about 30 feet in the air on the side of the road in the desert." The man in the balloon wansn't too amused with this response and calls down to him "Well thanks Einstein...you must be a government contractor." "Why do you say that?" responds the other. "Because you just told me everything that I already knew and were no help what-so-ever." The fella looks up at the man in the balloon and says "Well sir I would guess that you must work for the federal government." "Why do you say that?" responds the man in the balloon. "Because you have no idea where you are, no idea where you are going, and no idea how to get there from here."
  14. I did a little thinking about this, and a little digging. I asked each contracts professional in my organization whom I respect (both of them....joking) what their undergrad was in. Not one of them majored in a business related field, and all of them would not have gotten to be a CO using today's standards without leveraging their additional and graduate coursework. That seems to be the sense here as well. Because the field of federal contracting is one that deals primarily with law and regulation, it would strike me that those majors that are most prevalent in law schools could be most applicable in contracting. Though there are no nation-wide statistics that I can find on this, it appears to me that business management is a large minority in terms of majors accepted to law school. Accounting is also very low on the list. The highest related major was Finance, and that fell below the traditional liberal arts assocated degrees like History, Political Science, English Literature and Letters, Philosophy, and Economics. Interestingly it looks like Physics had the higest acceptance rate. I haven't met a CO who majored in Physics yet, but the more I think about it the sillier it seems that the federal government would exclude a rocket scientist as candidates for COs (at say Missle Defense Agency) because they lack 24 hours of busniess. I read over the Kriegner article. Seems to me that OFPP has been doing agencies and the contracting community a disservice with the 24 business course requriements.
  15. Dingoes...I am always taking ideas, and I like very much the work of Paul Light. I am going to make it a point to get more in depth into hiw work and have his RAND study on order now. He is somewhat similar thematically to a collegue of his at NYU whose work I am equally fond of in Nassim Teleb (Fooled by Randomness, Black Swan, Anti-Fragility). Fragility and robustness of federal programs is still something that I play with and was the initial impetus of pursuing an advanced degree. Thank you. here_to_help...intuitively I think you are correct. I will have to look at that GAO report and think about it a bit more to see what they mean by TRL if it makes logical sense. Without knowing how they are using the reference, just because something is commercially ready and in use doesn't not necessarily mean that it can be easily applied to the federal government. Commercial readiness and Federal readniess are two very different things in terms of technology. Cloud computing and mobile technologies are a prime example of this. I thank you for adding to my reading list!
  16. Thank you Vern. You, Don, and FF have given me quite a bit to think about and I appreciate you taking the time to provide such a thoughtful response. On a side note, in terms of your 4th suggestion. I was hired through direct hire authority. The director who hired me said "Do you know why I like you as a candidate? You aren't burdened by management and business courses...(My undergrad is in English Literature with a minor in Philosophy)...that means you can think (or at least have the capabilities of attempting logical thought) and can write (somewhat legibly and coherently)." I did have the requisit courses covered to be considered, but I tend to agree with you. The most capable COs I know are those that have the capability to think logically, which is often more of a product of a liberal arts education than a business/management education focused on rules and formulas. Businesses seem pretty adamant that the MBA curiculum is not fostering candidates with the skills needed to excel in their positions or as leaders, and I would think that you (and I) would contend that an undergraduate education in business or management doesn't provide the proper foundation for an 1102. Whether in business or as an 1102, what is needed are people who have the ability to think logically, are capable of pointing out flaws in logic, express their thoughts clearly and coherently in both written and oral form, and has an inquisitive nature backed by an ability to research the subject matter they are acquiring. If they can do that, then everything else can be picked up in time. If you don't have that capability, I would think it would be a dubious proposition that it is something that can then be learned through training or on the job. I would have to put some thought into how one would study and measure (quantitatively or qualitatively) educational discipline and performance (prove it), or just make a logical claim based on existing evidence (anacdotal or via survey's). Thank you again Sir. You and the others have given me plenty to think about. Again, I appreciate the time you all had taken to respond. Respectfully, JJ
  17. Vern...as always thank you for taking the time to look this over and offer feedback and your impressions. To answer your questions: "What is your area of interest: the acquisition workforce or acquisition practices?" - Both, though I am more than likely going to approach the latter from a dissertation perspective. "You seem a little all over the place -- 1102 workload content versus reasons for IT project problems. Those are very different matters. Which is it going to be?" - You are correct that they are very different matters. From a dissertation perspective I again am looking at the latter. That being said, I am also interested in what practicioners would like to see in terms of research, and I am anticipating doing more research in the field of both acquisition workforce and acquisition practices in the future. Again, the intent of the inquiry is to also see what would be of interest to practicioners rather than academics. "What do you mean by "modern field of contracting"? What makes the "field" "modern"? Is it what is being bought? Is it how it's being bought? Is it both?" - Good question and I am glad you point this out. My intent was more on how things are being bought. I admit that I am a little lax in this area and do need to conduct some additional research in terms of what regulations guided acquisitions before FAR? I know FAR established as part of the Office of Federal Procurement Policy Act of 1974, so this could be a possibly be considered a point of the modenr field of contracting my some, but again, it is something I would need to look into more and think about. You are correct in calling me out on a thoughtless point. "You'll get better responses if you provider a clearer, more focused statement of your interests." - You are probably correct. My interests are varied, but my purpose was to find out others interests as well. In the future when it comes to my particular interests I will be more clear and focused. As always Vern I thank you for your feedback. I never mind being called out for sloppy thinking or writing.
  18. Don and Former Fed...you bring up some very thought provoking areas of potential exploration that could very well fit with my research. Failure and cost overruns associated with major IT projects (Defense Integrated Military Human Resources System, IRS's Business Systems Modernization, the ACA roll-out, Defense Travel System, FAA Aircraft computer upgrades....never mind the non-IT efforts like the Joint Strike Fighter) can have many areas where things can go wrong, and the two issues you mention (concerning past performance and oversight of the management plan) are areas that are often neglected. With each of these breaches, however, it may appear to indicate that there is a general inability to capture costs associated with any major IT effort. The unknown, unknowns (or after the fact known unknowns) drive up costs. But more related to your points, I wonder if CO/CORs are documenting what they need to during the course of the project to at the very least cover their backsides when breach occurs. With the above mentioned projects, they are highly visible and highly political, and having been caught between OMB, political appointees, and senior leadership it is very difficult if not impossible for a CO to cut ties and squash an effort when it is on the verge of collapse. This is the clerical function of the job, or at least the appearance of it by executives and program staff, that emaciate the position of CO in the federal workforce. As to the later one concerning 1102 vs. 1105 and 1106...this is another area of exploration that interests me. The professionalization of the field of contracts, contracting officers, and the evolution of the field from (what starting date?) to the present? Contracting out has been a matter of course in our country since before it's founding. When do you think the modern field of contracting, guided by regulation, began? What would the starting point be? I would assume after WWII, but would need to do some historical work on that (may look at the Judge Hartman Space Gateway decision more closely). I clearly see the importance of this research to help guide policy decisions, and it clearly needs to be looked at, despite the administrative commitment to focus on acquisitions in ways other than bandaids.
  19. I am a former CO who has moved to the "program" side of the house but interact mostly with COs and maintain my FAC-C III certification, as well as still enjoy diving into FAR. I have just completed my quals for my PhD program in Public Administration and Public Policy. My academic focus has been on Federal IT, Federal IT Policy, Federal IT Procurement, Procurement Policy, and IT Acquisitions. I remain fascinated with government's inability to predict or deliver IT projects on time and within budget (and have a number of theories why this is). This aside I know there are ample areas of study and research that relate to federal contracting, and the breadth of the area is large indeed. Some academics like Steve Kelman (“Remaking Federal Procurement”), Paul Light (Creating High-Performance Government), and Jocelyn Johnston ("The Promise, performance, and pitfalls of government contracting") have addressed contracts and procurement either directly or indirectly. My question for my colleagues in the federal CO community is: What kind of research questions would you like to see explored in a way to have a functional impact on the profession? My interests are less normative positions (making value judgments of how things should be..an example being Charles Goodsell's "Six Normative Principles for the Contracting-out Debate) but rather taking a look and applying qualitative/quantitative research at how things are. I am interested in dispelling myths about the community, the acquisition process, and the roles of CO and program offices in procurement. For example, Johnston talks about the inability for the federal government to consider Transaction Costs when deciding to contract out. If we accounted for transaction costs are we still looking at the equivalent of the $500 dollar toilet seats of the late 70's (I could see how this could be the case in federal IT)? Digression aside, what type of research would you like to see?
  20. And here comes more: http://thehill.com/blogs/healthwatch/health-reform-implementation/189224-in-wake-of-botched-rollout-obama-to-seek-it Procurement reform in terms of Information Technology has been a fairly constant topic for the past few years and has slowly gaining momentum. FITRA begins the conversation but my last read of the proposed legislation does not have a heavy FAR bent (other than the federal government proposing a price and letting vendors base technical submissions against the pre-set price identified). But don't be surprised if more FAR based changes that result. I do find it funny that people say it needs to change but never cite a specific FAR part or clause to change.
  21. I have been watching the rollout and blowback concerning the Healthcare.gov release issues and watched the committee hearings on this with interest. I was wondering what people have thought about this generally. There are some who blame the contractors and some blame HHS. It was just a matter of time before people started asking questions about the contracts, and play the blame the CO game (it has already started...how COs could allow this to happen? Isn't it your job to prevent this?). This, to me, is the drawback of an overly architected, prescriptive, and incredibly complex system, the result of which could have been predetermined. Simplicity scales, but this program was not constructed in such a way, and few large scale IT projects in the federal government are. It is reported that there are over 55 seperate systems that make for the underlying architecture for this to work. Anyone in the federal government who needs to tie in multiple IT systems (often poorly designed legacy systems), never mind 50+ that is reported know that these complications were unavoidable. They will be doing system work on this for the next 10-20 years. I will be interested to know not only the number of contractors involved, but how their contracts were written and applied. How these seperate pieces were cobbled together not only from a systems perspcetive, but how they were cobbled together from a contractual perspective. Agile IT and agile contracting is one of the newer trends and appear to be a glib way at addressing complexity. One of the results that we can predict in the federal procurement community will be some sort of directive (Executive or FAR-based) will include the preferance for agile contracting methods, as they had done with performance work statements and other situational solutions in the past. My dissertation looks like it is staring me in the face with these recent events. This will be a fascinating case study to discect from a number of angles (contract formation, acquisition planning, requriements writting and definition, etc...) in any event. I would welcome people's thoughts or perspectives on the recent news and its relationship to CO and COR communities. My guess is...prepare for the fallout (again).
  22. Don Acquisition - agreed, but there is a difference between following the FAR and interpreting the FAR. Some COs have a restrictive interpretation where there is no explicit restrictive regulation and misapply restrictions. This is why we are viewed as clerks rather than knowledgable advisors (ie., looking for reasons to say no rather than yes). Vern - I thought that was the case and I find it interesting. I had not been able to find a case either. Thank you sir!
  23. We recognize that there is ample rhetoric among COs and the profession that is completely false. People have already commented in the past that, despite the rhetoric, a CO is not a business partner or business professional functionally within agencies operations. Another statement that I have heard fairly often from some COs is "Well I am responsible and not willing to spend time in jail for this decision." This has always struck me as being ridiculous. Other than for cases involving fraud, can anyone provide me a case where a CO was sent to jail for anything other than an outright crime (fraud)? Where does this rhetoric come from? I find it debilitating, and it is often used as an excuse when they interpret the FAR too narrowly and what they have been asked doesn't have a clear allowable pathway that is spelled out to them. Where does this rhetoric come from, and has there ever been a case where a CO was sent to jail because of faultly logic IAW FAR? They don't put COs in jail for mistakes, or laziness, or because of the way they interpreted (or misinterpreted) something (a wiseguy would say they do....they just call them policy shops). I always wondered and have yet to find a good answer. When COs say this I usually just look at them like I smelled some Limburger, or start laughing at them which is never helpful. Thanks in advnace for anyone who bites on this.
  24. Rather than rotation with industry, COs and PMOs should have internal rotations (more robust than simple details). By understanding the challenges with writting requirements and articulating needs learned by one (the CO), and the challenges associated with navigating a 1500+ page book (along with internal procurement rules and case law) learned by the other (PMO), there would be greater benefit. The gap between COs and PMOs can only be closed with greater understanding gained by walking in each other's shoes. Jorden never states the purpose of his proposal (at least in the articles). An idea without a purpose is a solution looking for a problem. Problem identification seems to be a challenge to many. Ideas are a dime a dozen, but the ability to impliment a solution that solves a problem is what is needed.
  25. Looks like the US Court of Federal Claims agrees that the language found in FAR is a bit silly regarding late submissions. Once proposals reach an agency server they are now under "government control." Not sure if I am articulating the nuance of the ruling, but that strikes me as its sense. Vern...you may have to rework that case study in your class now. As always, wondering what your thoughts are concerning this ruling: http://www.uscfc.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/ALLEGRA.INSIGHT050613.pdf JJ
×
×
  • Create New...