Performance-based Advisory & Assistance Services

[Jamaal Valentine]

There was a discussion, on another thread, of performance-based and knowledge based (otherwise known in the FAR as advisory & assistance services) being antithetical.

Here is a link to that discussion: http://www.wifcon.com/discussion/index.php?/topic/3192-continuity-of-services/#entry28513

Perhaps it really is as simple as explained and there isn't anything else to learn or be gained.

Perhaps a performance-based A&AS contract could result from the government's issuance of a SOO and acceptance of the offeror's proposed PWS that identifies measurable performance standards.

Maybe there is another answer that blends elements of build-to-bugdet and level-of-effort type arrangements that measure quality of results in other ways.

[JMG]

Good discussion. I'm not aware of a blended solution, and tend to think that cannot exist simply based on the requirement being either 1) performance based or 2) Level of effort (A&AS)

You either have a true need for a performance based solution, or you have a need to augment or aid governmental functions (what I like to call a warm body in a seat). The latter is typically procured by soliciting a total number of hours to be provided. You may see service efforts where the CO may try to fit the proverbial square peg in round hole-combining AA&S and performance based into one contract. It just doesn't work. This is based on my experience.

[MICHIGANKO]

While I agree that the application of PBSA to A&AS procurement is extremely complex (and rare), I do not necessarily agree that PBSA and A&AS are antithetical.

https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/getting-your-two-cents-worth-strategies-maximizing-mcmartin-esq-?trk=prof-post

[Jamaal Valentine]

MICHIGANKO:

Thanks for the timely information. It was interesting at first read. I'll have to read again for substance.

[Guest Vern Edwards]

I followed the link provided by MICHIGANKO to the article, "Getting Your Two Cents Worth." Whoever wrote the performance standards in the table in that article is simply clueless. They are silly, at best. Typical PBSA/PBSC propaganda. There are people in this business who really understand the PBSA/PBSC concept and movement, and none of them is the author of that article.

If you want to read something informative about PBSA/PBSC, read this: http://www.dau.mil/pubscats/pubscats/arj45/ARJ45_Edwards.pdf. While it does not address the specific issues raised in this thread, it provides a better basis for thinking about PBSA/PBSC problems that the "Two Cents" article.

Since MICHiGANKO provided us with no details of his thinking on the complexity of applying PBSA to A&AS, since he provided us with no explanation of his "I do not necessarily agree" comment, whatever the heck that means, and since his comments provide no substance to respond to, there is nothing more to say.

[Jamaal Valentine]

Vern:

Great article. It addresses why PBSA is not a good fit for, among others, long-term professional services, which A&AS usually are. Although I didn't subscribe to it before, I'm certainly not ruling out the facts provided thus far.

Oddly enough, it's been my experience that offices, unintentionally, engage in something similar to the described relational PBSA. Since requirements are rarely clearly defined, the preference is for ad-hoc arrangements that morph over time, often because acquisition planning is treated as a unavoidable technicality. I've seen everything from undocumented ad-hoc field changes to formal contract modifications in both services and construction.

Notionally, the performance standards in the article MICHIGANKO provided appeared normal; however, as previously mentioned I haven't been exposed to legitimate PBSAs.

After following your link, it appears there is an abundance of almost or so-called PBSAs in the government and most of us have a lot to think about.

[here_2_help]

Where I come from "Advice" and "Assistance" are explicitly divorced from responsibility for an outcome.

For example, I may provide advice and I may assist the customer, but the customer is always responsibile for the outcome and for determining the sufficiency of my advice/assistance. This agreement acknowledges that while I may advise and assist, the customer is free to ignore my advice and assistance--because the customer is the one with both authority and responsibility for achieving any outcomes/objectives. I have neither authority nor responsibility: I'm just there to offer advice and assistance to the process of achieving those customer outcomes/objectives.

Seems things may be different in the Federal government arena.

H2H

[MICHIGANKO]

Vern -

Criticism appreciated as always. One of the rights of passage of wifcon is the inevitable question of one's intelligence/competence/professionalism from yourself, so I appreciate the opportunity to post this thread to the office bulletin board, and allow everyone a chuckle, at my expense. Your comments are continuously entertaining to myself and my colleagues, so thank you for that.

I've read the Edwards / Nash article you linked prior, and now again. I appreciate the argument, however, has this approach been adopted/executed, or is it merely academic?

-MICHIGANKO

[Jamaal Valentine]

H2H:

Understanding the differentiation of an advisory and assistance role, what would your performance standards and desired outcomes look like in that situation? Not the responsible official's, but yours as the advisory.

I think that's the rub for me. I haven't settled on what sound standards and outcomes could be. MICHIGANKO's post was in-line with my original thinking, but I'm hesitant to let it validate my belief simply because it supports my original thinking.

[Guest Vern Edwards]

Vern -

I've read the Edwards / Nash article you linked prior, and now again. I appreciate the argument, however, has this approach been adopted/executed, or is it merely academic?

-MICHIGANKO

Nash and I proposed it. Defense AT&L published it. It's no concern of ours whether anyone has had the intelligence, imagination, energy, influence, moxie, and personal drive to try it. Most people in contracting are like you were until you read the article -- they never even heard of those ideas, much less thought of them. I have no idea if anyone has "adopted/executed" it.

"Merely academic"? "Merely"? God knows what-all in this world started out as merely academic. Someone has to have an idea now and then, don't you think? Where are your publications? But I guess Nash and I have to be relegated to the "merely academic." A sad fate, indeed, especially when I think of what Nash has contributed to acquisition.

People who won't act until someone else has "adopted/executed" an idea prompt others to say that contracting folk can't think critically and won't innovate and keep contracting a professional backwater. I'm sorry that you think you have endured a rite (not "right") of passage. I don't recall questioning your intelligence, competence, or professionalism, but I do wonder about your critical judgment in thinking that stupid article was worth posting a link to. I presume that you were not the author.

Enjoy life in Clerksville. It's a living.

[here_2_help]

H2H:

Understanding the differentiation of an advisory and assistance role, what would your performance standards and desired outcomes look like in that situation? Not the responsible official's, but yours as the advisory.

I think that's the rub for me. I haven't settled on what sound standards and outcomes could be. MICHIGANKO's post was in-line with my original thinking, but I'm hesitant to let it validate my belief simply because it supports my original thinking.

If I were a CPA, I would have AICPA professional consulting standards with which to comply, but I'm not a CPA so the performance standards for my work are due care and reasonable person actions. In my view, this is consistent with my contract, which is very explicit that the customer is responsible for outcomes, not me. I'm just there to provide advice and assistance, and if I don't add value then the customer can decide my services are no longer required.

In other words, the other side of the coin for me not being responsible for customer outcomes is that I have no guarantee of continued work. There is no quantity of hours being procured and no period of performance. The customer hires me to support a particular project or to meet a specific need, and either we complete the project or the customer gets rid of me and finds somebody else who will add the necessary value. I bill only for hours worked and the customer reviews those bills in light of value-added or not. I have no right to expect to receive additional work if I'm not adding value in the customer's view.

Naturally, my desired outcome is to keep on billing and keep on getting my bills paid. That's a great motivator. It's also nice when customers recommend me to other potential customers because of the value I added. To that end, a lot of my customers perform reference checks before signing a contract for my services.

Obviously I'm in the commercial world not the Federal acquisition environment, but fundamentally I don't see why "advisory and assistance" contracts in the Federal environment should focus on outcomes when it is the quality of the advice and assistance that matters. Is quality and value-add tough to measure? I thought that's what CPARS and FAPIIS were for.

H2H

[Don Mansfield]

Nash and I proposed it. Defense AT&L published it.

Actually, Defense Acquisition Research Journal published it--the one that's peer reviewed.

[Guest Vern Edwards]

Thanks, Don. Old man's memory.