jonmjohnson

Vern, As usual I think that you are spot on regarding the potential concerns and impact this legislation will have on the federal procurement community. I was hoping that more people would begin to pick up on and think about the acquisition content of this current legislation, and would love to get a copy of your Nash Report article. But to your question "I don't know what problem it would solve." This is a matter of perception in IT procurement on the part of the program community. They see procurement as being part of the problem rather than part of the solution. The 1102 series has been watered/dumbed down (as you mention in your previous post on the 1102 contracting field), and this legislation further emasculates the position. With a FPTC competition the 1102 does very little when it comes to picking or chosing a vendor. Take price and negotiation out of the equation and there is nothing that remains for the CO to do other than process the paperwork and ensure that the technical evaluation has merit. I am oversimplifying but don't think I am too far off the mark here. I have been in meetings where program staff explicitly state that COs are a problem, and that they should simply listen to what they are told by the "SME." This is usually stated by a SME that lacks the E in the acronym. If the SME knew what they were talking about regarding the requirements (ie., thought everything through), he or she should be able to explain it in a way that the CO finds convincing (evidence based) and logical (major premise, minor premise, conclusion), and it should take too much time if they knew what they were talking about. Often the evidence comes from dubious sources and isn't presented with any assemblance of informal logic, thus the back and forth between them and the COs. Now this is a blatant overgeneralization, but I am finding more evidence of the rule than exceptions. People want IT tools, but it is either their CISOs or COs that often seen as the roadblock for getting them. The FPTC portion of this legislation may clear at least one preceived hurdle for people who view IT procurement in this framework. JJ

http://oversight.house.gov/wp-content/uploads/2013/03/FITARA.pdf I was wondering if some of the senior members of this discussion board had any impressions of the proposed legislation. It is a bit different from the initial draft (Summary of changes found here: http://oversight.house.gov/wp-content/uploads/2013/03/FITARA_RevisionsSummary.pdf). One piece of the proposed legislation is the introduction of the "fixed-priced technical competition" that I thought would be of interest to some (Sec. 503). I know that some find IT acquisitions dry as dirt, but IT procurement is something that every agency procurement division manages in some form or fashion, and the implications of this legislation fall beyond IT procurement. Just interested in your impressions. Jon Johnson

Vern and Don, I read through your citations and it clarified what I needed to think through. Thanks for pointing me in the right direction and offering your guidance. JJ

Vern, napolik, and Don, Thanks for the homework. Let me look through this and think about it more before I get back to you. I appreciate the guidance. Jon

Good morning, I have been looking at and thinking about this topic for quite some time. Because I have not found a way to address it I am either a) correct in my analysis or, haven't thought of it in the way that I need to. I am hoping that the contracting vets on this forum can let me know where I stand. Issue: Throughout the federal government many agencies have been speaking about a shared services model for acquisitions, particularly IT acquisitions. What they mean by this is a government-wide vehicle where other agencies can simply place orders. Without getting too deep into the weeds on this, let’s assume that Agency X, Agency Y, and GSA (one of the few agencies that have the ability to create government-wide contract vehicles) come together, identify common requirements, and successfully procure a single solution. Let’s also assume that they state it could be used by other agencies, and set a ceiling high enough for this to be practicable. Question: How could Agency Z then come in and buy off that vehicle? I look at this as a CICA violation either way. I see how GSA could set this up for use, but I do not see how, legally, another agency could simply go to them and use it. Yes I understand SmartBuy does allow for this to a certain extent (products). Without getting into a SmartBuy discussion, conceptually such a scenario can be arranged for products. The context I speak of is related to solution sets for Cloud Computing or Federal Mobility Efforts. Any input or direction you could offer would be welcomed. Shared services strike me as a desired end state that is largely rhetorical and not practical. I will caveat that by saying it is certainly possible and doable within a single agency as they pool resources and eliminate redundancy between sub-agencies/divisions. I just don't see how it is CICA compliant when we refer to it between agencies. Thoughts? JJohnson

I have a question that I was hoping that someone may be able to address. Here is the hypothetical: A winning vendor for a big IT BPA wants to set up their help desk services abroad. Nothing was mentioned in the RFP/RFQ concerning CONUS for help desk support, though CONUS was mentioned in terms of other facilities. There is no FAR regulation that I see that would prohibit such an arrangement, as it is an TAA country. It is more of a security question that would be dependent on the ordering activity. Does anyone know of any active regulation that would prohibit this? I thank you in advance for your help. JJOHNSON