Jamaal Valentine Posted April 30, 2016 Report Share Posted April 30, 2016 FAR 1.602 outlines that contracting officers are responsible for ensuring that all requirements of law, executive orders, regulations, and all other applicable procedures have been met, including that sufficient funds are available to cover obligations. What are the responsibilities, purposes, and outputs of reviewers, clearance approval authorities (CAA), and legal counsel? It seems as though the contracting process has a lot of redundancy and wasted effort, particularly in reviews. In my experience, all reviewers (peer, CAA, legal, etc.) perform the same duties, albeit, in a non-standard application of "professional judgement", that results in differing opinions and findings. This causes a lot of rework and disjointed contract actions and files. Are business judgement and administrative process reviews handled by reviewers and clearance authorities, while legal validity is handled exclusively by attorneys? Who are the fiscal, technical, FAR, government contract law, policy, and business experts? What do they review and how? As opposed to answering each question, I want to start a discussion on the process and value of reviews. Have you participated in a contract review process that you feel was value added? If yes, what was the added value? If no, why? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
joel hoffman Posted April 30, 2016 Report Share Posted April 30, 2016 Yes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Vern Edwards Posted April 30, 2016 Report Share Posted April 30, 2016 Reviews are a fact of life. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jamaal Valentine Posted April 30, 2016 Author Report Share Posted April 30, 2016 24 minutes ago, joel hoffman said: Yes. Joel, will you explain in what ways it added value, outside of it being another set of eyes? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
joel hoffman Posted April 30, 2016 Report Share Posted April 30, 2016 Not today, perhaps later. Recovery from surgery and "other duties as assigned" prevent me from spending any more time to respond to posts for now. Sorry that you don't have an awareness of the value of reviews. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jamaal Valentine Posted April 30, 2016 Author Report Share Posted April 30, 2016 Just now, Vern Edwards said: Reviews are a fact of life. Vern: This is understood, but if you were king for a day, what would your contracting office's review process aim to accomplish and look like? Not considering any review processes outside of the contracting office. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
joel hoffman Posted April 30, 2016 Report Share Posted April 30, 2016 8 minutes ago, Jamaal Valentine said: Not considering any review processes outside of the contracting office. Clarify what you mean, please. Are you referring only to reviews within Contracting office? Or are you asking the value added by reviews outside the contracting office? if you think that the contracting office is self sufficient for those actions that require review, I disagree. Basic fact of life: the author(s) think they know what they are trying to say but they don't necessarily know what the receptor thinks it says. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jamaal Valentine Posted April 30, 2016 Author Report Share Posted April 30, 2016 Joel: My question to you was in general (internal and external reviews). My question to Vern was limited to the contracting office. Many thanks and a speedy recovery! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Vern Edwards Posted April 30, 2016 Report Share Posted April 30, 2016 26 minutes ago, Jamaal Valentine said: f you were king for a day, what would your contracting office's review process aim to accomplish and look like? Objective: Quality control and training. Focus: 1. Compliance with statute, regulation, and policy. 2. File completeness. 3. Clarity and adequacy of explanations. 4. Clarity, validity, and soundness of arguments in support of judgements. 5. Reasonableness of judgements. 6. General editorial quality: spelling, grammar, syntax, etc. 7. General appearance of the file and documents contained therein. (Very important. A messy appearance may be indicative of content quality.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Todd Davis Posted May 2, 2016 Report Share Posted May 2, 2016 Yes. So long as the person who is reviewing them is competent and the person on the receiving end is accepting of the feedback/comments and willing to learn. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matthew Fleharty Posted May 4, 2016 Report Share Posted May 4, 2016 If you're curious about the purpose or objective of a process that is likely required or codified in a regulation I'd start there. For the DoD (which I believe you're a part of if I remember correctly from another post of yours) DFARS PGI 201.170-1 states the objectives of peer reviews as follows: Quote The objectives of peer reviews are to- (a) Ensure that DoD contracting officers are implementing policy and regulations in a consistent and appropriate manner; (b) Continue to improve the quality of contracting processes throughout the DoD; and ( c ) Facilitate cross-sharing of best practices and lessons learned throughout the DoD. Are you curious as to whether or not those objectives (or the objectives of other review processes) are accomplished through reviews? Or are you questioning the necessity/value of reviews because you feel they usurp the responsibilities of contracting officers outlined by 1.602? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jamaal Valentine Posted May 4, 2016 Author Report Share Posted May 4, 2016 Matthew: Thanks. I am familiar with the DoD and AFFARS objectives. I am mainly curious as to the process. Let's say you have a peer, Team Lead, Flight Chief, compliance/committee reviewer, legal counsel review, Chief of Contracting Office, and Senior Contracting Official w/ their review delegation reviewing a contract action (assume one of theses individuals is the contracting officer). Now, take the AFFARS below: Quote AFFARS 5301.9001 Policy, Thresholds, and Approvals (a) The objectives of the business and contract clearance process are to ensure that: (1) Contract actions effectively implement approved acquisition strategies; (2) Negotiations and contract actions result in fair and reasonable business arrangements; (3) Negotiations and contract actions are consistent with laws, regulations, and policies; and (4) An independent review and assessment (e.g., by the clearance authority) for the proposed contract action is accomplished. Who is responsible for reviewing and commenting on what (e.g. compliance with rules, legal validity/sufficiency, business judgments, editorial quality)? Or, do all of these reviewers look at the same thing? Do they all have the same authority to direct changes? Do any reviewers have greater powers than anothers or is it simply the last reviewer has final say? Does each review add value? If yes, in what way? How can you be sure? Do they have a structured repeatable process? A checklist? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Vern Edwards Posted May 4, 2016 Report Share Posted May 4, 2016 (edited) 12 hours ago, Jamaal Valentine said: Who is responsible for reviewing and commenting on what (e.g. compliance with rules, legal validity/sufficiency, business judgments, editorial quality)? Usually, in the USAF, the contract review committee and the staff judge advocate. The committee usually works for the chief of the contracting office or the HCA. Those reviewers look at the same stuff, but for different purposes, although there is often some overlap. The reviews add value to the overall contracting process by assuring compliance. Depending on the reviewers they may contribute to general work quality. Whether they add value to a particular acquisition depends on the CO who is conducting the acquisition and the results of the reviews. Edited May 4, 2016 by Vern Edwards Add comments. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jamaal Valentine Posted May 5, 2016 Author Report Share Posted May 5, 2016 All, Thanks for the input ... This wasn't a witch hunt, or because I don't appreciate aspects of the review process. I'm taking a new position leading a plans and programs shop, which includes the contract review committee. I wanted to get some general feedback on perceptions of the review process. Maybe there is an organization out there with an ideal or noteworthy process. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matthew Fleharty Posted May 6, 2016 Report Share Posted May 6, 2016 Congrats on the new position. In leading your shop maybe you'll be interested in the following TED Talk and Simon Sinek's book "Start With Why." The 20 minute video summarizes the book quite well and if you like what you hear I'd encourage you to pick up a copy, I've personally found it quite insightful and helpful. He breaks down organizations into three components: what they do, how they do it, and why they do it. It seems you're focused on the process (how) at the moment, but I'd encourage you to take some time to think about the why as you make improvements and lead your organization. Best of luck Jamaal! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jamaal Valentine Posted May 6, 2016 Author Report Share Posted May 6, 2016 Matthew: Thanks, great post. I actually got to see Simon live ... My old job hosted a event where a grabbed a signed copy of his book. I like the concepts and use a lot of his ideas. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
.gif)
Recommended Posts