Jump to content

Can a CO with a $1 warrant award a $100M IDIQ contract?


Sunstrider

Recommended Posts

3 hours ago, jwomack said:

Issuing warrants above what’s necessary increases risk to the agency.

I understand this is a common belief, but what is it based upon? What risk? In what ways does risk increase?

Even so-called Unlimited Warrant hold Contracting Officers have limited authority. Contracting Officers may bind the Government only to the extent of the authority delegated to them; and no contract shall be entered into unless the contracting officer ensures that all requirements of law, executive orders, regulations, and all other applicable procedures, including clearances and approvals, have been met.

The current DAS(C) specifically stated that he doesn't view having more capable people with unlimited warrants than 'necessary' as a risk. In my view, any minimal risk (low severity and likelihood of an event) is offset by the benefit (capability, capacity, human capital considerations).

I didn't think you meant it negatively, but I know that kind of thinking leads to separations and turnover. Having a deep bench ready to go should be seen as the prudent thing to do. There have been many occasions where a large enough warrant wasn't around for an action or task.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Jamaal Valentine said:

any minimal risk (low severity and likelihood of an event) is offset by the benefit (capability, capacity, human capital considerations).

 

4 hours ago, Jamaal Valentine said:

Having a deep bench ready to go should be seen as the prudent thing to do. There have been many occasions where a large enough warrant wasn't around for an action or task.

Minimal risk is still risk.  That being said, I agree a deep bench should be a significant consideration and that most(?) agencies are too stingy.

 

4 hours ago, Jamaal Valentine said:

that kind of thinking leads to separations and turnover

I've seen this a couple times and, in both situations, the COs' ego was the driver, not the agency's needs.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

40 minutes ago, jwomack said:

Minimal risk is still risk. 

To achieve efficient operations, the System must shift its focus from “risk avoidance” to one of “risk management.” The cost to the taxpayer of attempting to eliminate all risk is prohibitive. The Executive Branch will accept and manage the risk associated with empowering local procurement officials to take independent action based on their professional judgment.  FAR 1.102-2

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, PepeTheFrog said:

@Sunstrider Is it true that your question is about the warrant authority, not the validity of a $1 IDIQ contract award? If so, can the question change to:

"Can a CO with a $10,000 warrant award an IDIQ contract with a minimum of $5,000 and a maximum of $100,000,000?"

Absolutely. This new scenario will have addressed my same concern (warrant authority).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, Matthew Fleharty said:

 Care to elaborate?

Ever worked in a small contracting office with limited COs who work for someone who is not a CO and doesn't understand federal contracting?

 

Typical scenario -

 

Office needs a CO to buy basic supplies via placing GSA orders.  A GS-7 in some random career field is given minimal training so they can receive a warrant and place orders as a collateral duty.  The office who needs the CO convinces the warrant-issuing office to give the newly trained person a warrant.  A more competent CO in the office who normally handles more difficult acquisitions leaves.  The office is now down to one CO...the one who barely knows how to place GSA orders.

 

There's still a need to make the more complex (sometimes Part 15) acquisitions.  Who do you think the CO's boss is going to assign the acquisition work to?  The sole, incompetent CO in the office who has an unlimited warrant (because the warrant-issuing office didn't recognize the risk associated with giving this incompetent CO a warrant above his/her capabilities)?  Or to another office with more competent COs?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, jwomack said:

the warrant-issuing office didn't recognize the risk associated with giving this incompetent CO a warrant above his/her capabilities

If you have an incompetent person, should they have a warrant at all?  Unfortunately, while on the contractor side, I have had to deal with such situations.  Many small businesses have had to close their doors because of the actions of incompetent contracting officers who should never have had a warrant.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, jwomack said:

It depends on how desperate the agency is and what their alternatives are.

That is scary for contractors and the taxpayer.  In this case, I presume the agency would not give the incompetent a fair and realistic performance evaluation, but would create a false document to avoid having to remove the individual for poor performance.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Matthew:

jwomack made is thoughts clear in saying:

On 11/27/2018 at 5:57 AM, jwomack said:

Responsible agencies issue warrants on an “as needed” basis not an “as capable” basis. 

I wanted the rationale. Why wouldn't you warrant to capability? (I am particularly interested because this belief is what is blocking me from boarding)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Jamaal Valentine said:

Why wouldn't you warrant to capability?

Because capability is not competence.  Someone may be a smart, hard-working employee fully capable of learning and understanding the ins and outs of $100M contract awards.  But, if that person only works on GPC and SAP purchases, he or she is less likely to have the training, knowledge, and experience to be competent (or maintain competence over the long term) in much larger procurements.

An agency is going to see spending money on training and maintaining employee competence in an area that the employee does not need as a waste of resources.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Lionel Hutz said:

Because capability is not competence.

I am not buying that and I hope you aren't either. They are synonymous within the context used here.

https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/capable

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Jamaal Valentine said:

I am not buying that and I hope you aren't either. They are synonymous within the context used here.

https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/capable

You're right.  I compared "capable of learning" something with "competence to do" that thing.  That's not a fair comparison.

Warranting every KO up to the level of his or her capability works in theory when things like budgets, schedules, and training availability are not issues.  And it could work for certain offices, or KOs.  But I still maintain my second point, which is that agencies, in general, are not going to expend significant time, money, and other resources to maintain a deep bench of KO capability above that which is needed for the KOs to do their jobs.  Giving KOs warrants but not adequate experience and training to maintain capability commensurate to the warrant and then asking them to step in when needed increases risk to the agency.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, PepeTheFrog said:

The above discussion is one of several reasons why intelligent, industrious, and ambitious frogs almost NEVER stay in the federal government.

Pepe, if you don't stay in the government pond, you stand a good chance of getting gigged by an incompetent government contracting officer.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, Lionel Hutz said:

An agency is going to see spending money on training and maintaining employee competence in an area that the employee does not need as a waste of resources.

I know of a pretty big agency that spends a lot of money training employees to know and do things that they don't need to know or do in order to do their jobs. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

For the record, I'm not saying the government's approach is good, bad or mediocre.  The discussion started with jwomack's statement that "Responsible agencies issue warrants on an 'as needed' basis not an 'as capable' basis," and Jamaal asked why an agency "wouldn't warrant to capability."

My answer is that "warranting to capability" requires more training and resources than warranting to "agency need."  If you don't provide that addition training and resources, then "warranting to capability" increases risk over issuing warrants on an as needed basis.  Either choice, more money or more risk, is unattractive to an agency so that is the reason it doesn't "warrant to capability." 

Now, there may be a million reasons why that is a bad approach (e.g., it is short-sighted, it undervalues cross training, it is a disincentive to keep star employees, etc.), I don't know.  But that's my best guess as to why an agency would take such an approach.  Anyone else can feel free to offer a different explanation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 hours ago, Lionel Hutz said:

Giving KOs warrants but not adequate experience and training to maintain capability commensurate to the warrant and then asking them to step in when needed increases risk to the agency.

Lionel, I think you’re putting the cart before the horse...my position, and I think Jamaal’s (though I’ll let him speak for himself) is that if a person has adequate experience and training why does it drive increased risk to give that individual a warrant commensurate with that person’s abilities?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 11/29/2018 at 8:19 AM, Lionel Hutz said:

Giving KOs warrants but not adequate experience and training to maintain capability commensurate to the warrant and then asking them to step in when needed increases risk to the agency.

jwomack asserted that agencies frequently appoint to need not capability.  What he is saying is that agencies do not comply with FAR 1.603-2 when appointing contracting officers.  Appointing contracting officers is an issue that is distinct from what agencies do after they have appointed a contracting officer.  In any field, if an individual does not keep current, that individual will become less of an asset and more of a liability.  Maybe some of the government types at this Forum and provide some insight as to what is being done with the acquisition training fund that is supposed to be established to provide training to members of the acquisition workforce.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...