Jump to content

The Federal Contracting Process: Starting from Scratch.


bob7947

Recommended Posts

The Forum would be:

Federal Contracting:  A New Start  (forum)

  • Contracting Personnel  (category--holds discussions)
  1. Discussion Issue -- (topic--in which discussions are held) (this would be the initial sole issue in which a discussion is held.  Other topics can be added as needed.  If a post strays from the first issue, it will be hidden until we find a place for it.   I think I can set it up in a manner similar to that.

The term Contracting will be used because it is the name of this site.  Other than that, I should be able to move things around to fit our needs.  It too can be defined later. If it is agreed that Personnel is the problem, come up with a discussion issue I can add.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 74
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

I have started the Forum and the first Category.  It is at the bottom of this page.  You cannot post anything yet.  Vern stated that Contracting Personnel was the most significant problem.  It seems that 2 others agree with him.

I will post the topics that can be discussed under the Category of Government Contracting Personnel when someone posts one here and others agree to it. 

After that, I will collect potential topics here and list them in a poll for possible inclusion to the new forum under Government Contracting Personnel.  The topics with the most votes will be added as the second topic, etc.   We will do this one topic at a time until you tell me to add another.  

Add any ideas here.  Let's see if anyone is willing to contribute.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Concur, I like the new forum, but am a little worried lest we forget or not consider as a first principal that our opportunity should be to fix government’s role in a problem after first recognizing that which needs no fixing. 

Milton Friedman’s comments about the price system come you mind right now 

Leonard Reid’s classic essay I, Pencil also comes to mind. http://www.econlib.org/library/Essays/rdPncl1.html

The commercial market is our first super computer and not so well understood. Its invisible hand solves problems in pricing, resourcing, and distributing goods and services while minimizing surplus and shortage and incentivizing innovation and change in ways that no one need understand and that no commissar or bureaucracy can hope to better. We don’t always need to see what is in the box...It is almost as if doing so, will alter the subtle dynamics of the mechanism at work (hello Shroedinger’s Cat, am I really proposing a kind of Quantum Economics...no, no really, it is just a metaphor). There are so many ways in which the commercial marketplace does not need an assist no matter how smart the master minds are. ...Except when it doesn’t. 

Knowing what to solve is the real debate and the real call for wisdom. Yes, there certainly are agency problems to detect and solve or social goods (externalities and inequities) that society and government should and must address.  That is what we all do here...and it is a joy of mine to both watch and participate.

Thank you Bob for giving us this Forum!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Let me give it a try.

Here is a suggested Contracting Personnel topic: Does anyone think we should discuss Duty?

Some things we might consider: What kind of a thing is Duty? (credit comes from elsewhere, as I have seen Vern ask this question of a different kind of thing) Why does it matter to Contracting personnel? What follows from Duty? What doesn’t follow from Duty? As practitioners are contracting personnel engaging in a profession? If so, what standards of conduct or principles do they as a body and as individuals profess?  How does Duty differ from Responsibility? Should Duty and Responsibility be used as terms of art?...Or will their plain language meanings suffice? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, bob7947 said:

I will post the topics that can be discussed under the Category of Government Contracting Personnel when someone posts one here and others agree to it.

Maybe we should outline the duties and qualifications. (Personnel does seem like a strange place to start since we haven't defined the system they'll operate [within].)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 hours ago, Vern Edwards said:

The number one problem is a lack of professional knowledge and competence on the part of the workforce. I believe there is general agreement about that. All other problems are secondary,.

Bravo!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Vern Edwards
2 hours ago, bob7947 said:

Under personnel there are 2 potential topics.

  1. Duties
  2. Qualifications.

Instead of Duties, which are prescribed by employers, how about:

Contracting officers and contract specialists: 

  1. What should they know?
  2. What should they be able to do?
Link to comment
Share on other sites

51 minutes ago, Vern Edwards said:

Instead of Duties, which are prescribed by employers, how about:

Contracting officers and contract specialists: 

  1. What should they know?
  2. What should they be able to do?

Vern's post only as reference to a thought.  What is the intended reach of audience?   Reading through all the comments it seems the target is Contract Specialists.   I say this as the term Contracting Officer would encompass GS-1105 Purchasing Agents as well. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, napolik said:

Bravo!

In a related note, I have discussed with Don what I think is an omission in the CON curriculum. He didn't agree it was a big deal (or perhaps he suggested it was covered elsewhere). I agree with him that, unless you deal with the topic, it would be at most a technical point. But if you deal with the topic, you had better know your stuff. Regardless, I learned last week that certain government contracting personnel are coming to us (contractor) to be trained in the topic because they perceive we know it better than anybody else. (Or perhaps they think we know it better than anybody else they have access to.)

I don't mean to be coy but I won't identify the specific topic in a public forum. Don already knows it (if he recalls our discussion). The point is, many in the government acquisition team know their knowledge gaps and they are trying to fill them ... any solution to the knowledge gap needs to include the means of providing individual learning that is tailored to individual need, rather than focusing on a one-size-fits-all approach.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Quote

Contracting officers and contract specialists: 

  • What should they know?
  • What should they be able to do?

I will add the two discussions under the New Forum under Government Contracting Personnel.  However, we must remember this is a New Beginning.  The terms contracting officers and contract specialists are placeholder terms until you decide whether you will keep those terms in the new process.  Don't state they should know how to deal with GAO and COFC protests because, at this point, you have not decided if there is such a thing as a protest.  Neither do we have government contract law or regulation to deal with at this time.  We have no fair and reasonable price, we have no cost realism.  Think like that. We are dealing with contracts so we all should have a general idea of what a contract is.  What we are trying to do is figure out what the government's contracting agent should know and be able to do.  You will have to decide what we will call the agents in the end.  You are now up the creek with only your imagination to lean on.

Don't get bogged down in the current terminology we use because it doesn't exist anymore.  It's a new beginning.  I may or may not write a summary of the completed discussion when we decide we have hashed it out.  At that time, you may suggest editing my summary or whatever.  Other than that and some nudging when we stray aside from the concepts, I will not participate in the discussion.  I have my own ideas but I want your ideas.  Your ideas means the groups' ideas not any one member's ideas.  Let's see if there is any imagination or innovation in our contracting membership.

I hope you make an effort.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Vern Edwards

Bob,

It is not at all clear to me what you want ideas about. Unless you get a lot more specific, the responses you get are going to be all over the map. I won't say any more. I wish you well with this.

Vern

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I wanted to see if we can move away from CICA, ASPA, FPASA, FAR, DFARS, etc., etc., contract specialists, and the same old crutches the government has burdened and punished us with.  That is the most significant problem facing government contracting, not the people.  You can hire people anywhere to fill purchasing jobs. What does it take to order from Amazon?  Carl's wondering about contracting clerks, you show Carl that pudding or something is a mil-spec.  We have a political fool writing lines of crap trying to define something billions of people do online every day.  (In China, Alibaba is much bigger than Amazon.)  He really thinks he is helping.  He's adding more baloney to existing baloney that his predecessors scooped up.  Here it is a simple definition: (1) If you can't buy it from less than 2 online retailers, it is not a commercial product; if you cannot find a service from more than 2 service providers online, it's not a commercial service.  Nothing more is needed.  

I don't think my effort will go anywhere because everything needs to be torn down and renewed with a view of the future.  Eventualy it will.  What would we do when we got to a replacement for FAR Part 52.  Some of it might make sense and it is of some value but who is going to wade though it.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Vern Edwards

Well, Bob, I see you're pessimistic. I don't think you've thought your concept through. You need to focus the discussion.

I gave you a pretty well defined topic the other day. Why not start with it? Or with another that is as well focused.

On 4/26/2018 at 10:34 AM, Vern Edwards said:

The Competition in Contract Act has been the pre-eminent contracting law since 1984. It requires that agencies seek and obtain full and open competition and conduct competitive acquisitions in certain ways. See 10 U.S.C. §§ 2304 and 2305 and 41 U.S.C. Chapters 33 and 37 and FAR Parts 6, 14, and 15. How should those rules be changed, if at all? For example:

  • Should agencies still be required to seek "full and open" competition, or would some lesser standard be adequate or better?
  • Should we still have advocates for competition (formerly, competition advocates)?
  • Should sealed bidding (FAR Part 14) be eliminated as obsolete and replaced with LPTA competitive negotiation?
  • Should we eliminate the concept and rules about responsible prospective contractors (FAR Subpart 9.1) and replace it with evaluations of offeror qualifications?
  • Should price or cost still be a mandatory evaluation factor in all acquisitions?
  • Should agencies have to disclose the "relative importance" of evaluation factors?
  • If the CO wants to talk to an offeror about its proposal, should he or she be required to determine a competitive range and conduct discussions with all offerors within the competitive range?
  • Should the rules permit contractor selection followed by one-on-one negotiations with the selectee?
  • Should we still have a later proposals rule?

If you could change 10 USC §§ 2304 and 2305 and  41 USC Chapters 33 and 37, what would you change and how?

If any law drives what COs and contract specialists do and how they do it, it has been CICA. We are using a process that was built upon a 19th Century competitive bidding process model, the FAR Part 15 process model. Other procedures are exceptions to competitive bidding. Let's see if people can't think of variations and alternatives.

Offer a small prize for the 5 best ideas. That might bring in new contributors and bring out those that have been laying back. Awards to be based on

  1. focus on CICA;
  2. ideas that would reduce the time and expense of source selection;
  3. the practicality of the ideas;
  4. their fairness to industry; , and
  5. the clarity and concision with which they are presented. (Let's see if people can think and write.)

I'll select and fund the prizes.

It's up to you.

Vern

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Vern:

Quote

Offer a small prize for the 5 best ideas. That might bring in new contributors and bring out those that have been laying back. Awards to be based on

  1. focus on CICA;
  2. ideas that would reduce the time and expense of source selection;
  3. the practicality of the ideas;
  4. their fairness to industry; , and
  5. the clarity and concision with which they are presented. (Let's see if people can think and write.)

I'll select and fund the prizes.

It's up to you.

Vern

Thank you for the offer.  There will be no other prizes.  A free and privately held discussion board is the prize.  Members need to understand the importance of the highlighted text and they must decide if they are leaders or followers.  This is the site's Thermopylae.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Vern Edwards

Well, good. Thermopylae.

I've written a lot about CICA and my issues with it, and my views are already pretty well known among the cognoscenti, so I won't participate. But I'll enjoy reading what others post, and I might steal any good ideas.

Have fun!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've just posted the first item--Should Sealed Bidding be Abolished?  There is a poll to go with it since it is a yes or no response.  It can be discussed also.  It's a race to 10 votes for either yes or no.  If we cannot get 10 votes for a yes or a no, the community gets a Doh?  The incentive or disincentive is the fate of Wifcon.com.  I really don't care anymore and I won't participate either.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...