The Contract Management Standard--What's Your Opinion?

[Don Mansfield]

NCMA is soliciting feedback on a draft version of the 2022 Contract Management Standard (CMS). What is your opinion of it? Is it an accurate depiction of the contract management profession?

[Vern Edwards]

I knew that they had developed a standard, but I had not read it. Now that I have, I'm horrified. From page 5:

Quote

"Contract management is the process of managing contracts throughout the contract life cycle while ensuring customer satisfaction."

And, on the same page:

Quote

"In terms of the responsibilities assigned to a contract manager, contract management has a very broad perspective."

Quote

Perform Contract involves the process of executing contract requirements, managing business relationships, ensuring quality, and managing changes.

Italics in original.

🧐  😞

The quality of writing (and thinking) is the same throughout. I would be embarrassed to show it to anyone as a consensus standard for the work that contract managers do. I will send comments, but I do not expect to see any improvement, given the short deadline for submittal. I suspect that they are eager to move on and are just following protocol.

[C Culham]

I will be commenting.   I am optimistic that improvement can be made based on public comments noting that the comments are reviewed by not only NCMA but ANSI as well.

the below reference maybe helpful in understanding the creation of the standard in 2019 and the process for comments and approval of this update of the standard. 

From the beginning it is evident that there is a strong influence from the Federal perspective.   Just the  use of "Guiding Principles" sends ones mind to the FAR.

 

[Matthew Fleharty]

I find it lacking and I am not sure it will add much value. For one, I don't see many "standards" in the document - instead it is full of attempts to provide concise definitions for a litany of tasks. Maybe my understanding of a standard is lacking though.

Overall, my initial assessment is that, in some ways, it may actually be harmful to our profession as it is hard enough to get people to understand the basics/fundamentals without misleading them with minutia or inaccuracies. Take, for example, the definition of "contract" on page 1 which limits contracts to furnishing supplies or services - I find that inadequate as it leaves a lot out (e.g. intellectual property, NDAs, etc). For a profession in which words matter, I wonder how the "rigorous process involving materially affected and interested parties...based on due process, which was established through consensus, openness, lack of dominance, and a balance of interests" got, arguably, the most important definition wrong...never mind, I just re-read the sentence I quoted and answered my own question.

[Vern Edwards]

I have changed my mind. I'm not going to comment. I watched the video that Carl posted, and I think it would be pointless to do so. The standard appears to be the product of a big committee.

[Don Mansfield]

16 hours ago, Vern Edwards said:

I have changed my mind. I'm not going to comment. I watched the video that Carl posted, and I think it would be pointless to do so. The standard appears to be the product of a big committee.

I hear you. I guess I'm a little more hopeful. I think if they received thoughtful comments, they would act on them. However, I wouldn't expect the committee to accept everything.

Regardless of what the committee does with the comments, I think it would be a fun exercise to develop what we (me, you, @C Culham, @Matthew Fleharty, and others in the Wifcon community) think would be a good CMS. We could brainstorm with criticism. I'll do all the work. Our product couldn't be worse than the current CMS.

Who's in?

 

 

[formerfed]

For starters I see a big disconnect with contract management terminology between government and this committees definition.  NCMA is using the term to cover the full gamut of contracting - “Contract management—the actions of a contract manager to develop solicitations, develop offers, form contracts, perform contracts, and close contracts.”  Many government agencies consider the term to only cover contract administration duties in a more robust or proactive manner working with the COR  and program offices to oversee contract performance. 

I was closely involved with NCMA for a number of years.  They try to merge industry contracting with government and it doesn’t work well.  The Federal government has a much different focus.  Some industry contract managers are heavily involved with business development and proposal writing.  Compensation is tied to increasing revenue.  In other cases, finding monetary savings in their contract awards are important.  Still in other cases, managing subcontracts in performing a Federal contract is a large factor. Whenever I gave presentations or actively engaged in committee work, the differences in focus was really apparent.

[Vern Edwards]

4 hours ago, Don Mansfield said:

Regardless of what the committee does with the comments, I think it would be a fun exercise to develop what we (me, you, @C Culham, @Matthew Fleharty, and others in the Wifcon community) think would be a good CMS. We could brainstorm with criticism. I'll do all the work. Our product couldn't be worse than the current CMS.

Thanks, but I'm too busy. Have fun.

[C Culham]

@Don Mansfield I have a commitment that takes me out of town that interferes with the due date.  My participating would be dependent on a timeline for the effort.  You can message me via WIFCON messages.

[Jamaal Valentine]

I’ve withheld comment until I could read it in its entirety. Creating a standard that tracks to at least three different rule sets is a challenge. Some commercial contracts are governed by the Uniform Commercial Code. Most government contracts are governed Federal Acquisition Regulations. Common law applies to both.

First, does the government care about a voluntary consensus American National Standard (ANS) for government buyers and sellers? If yes, why? If not, why include government buyers or sellers? Why not create a separate standard?

Maybe creating a set of principles is more appropriate.

Nonetheless, assuming there is government interest, the first challenge in setting a standard is creating a lexicon. Currently, government buyers and sellers have their own lexicon(s). Even with a common lexicon, these buyers and sellers still use jargon and colloquialisms. Be sure to add code switching to the standard.

[Vern Edwards]

3 hours ago, Jamaal Valentine said:

First, does the government care about a voluntary consensus American National Standard (ANS) for government buyers and sellers?

See DOD DPC memo USA000182-21-DPC.

https://www.acq.osd.mil/dpap/policy/policyvault/USA000182-21-DPC.pdf
 

Quote

We are adopting a single level of certification with foundational training and an examination. This certification will be based on the Contracting common competencies in the new Contracting Competency Model. The redesigned Contracting Professional Certification will prepare workforce members for initial readiness in the Contracting Functional Area and provides flexibility for the Components to tailor training and experiences to job performance and mission needs.

The Contracting Competency model is based on the American National Standards Institute/National Contract Management Association (ANSI/NCMA ASD 1-2019) accredited Contract Management Standard and complies with section 861 of the Fiscal Year 2020 National Defense Authorization Act (Public Law 116-92). This provision requires a professional certification based on standards developed by a third-party accredited program. The Contracting Competency Model represents a set of competencies that are foundational and common among the Contracting workforce, regardless of the organization or mission area, and will form the basis of the Contracting training program. In addition to achieving certification in Contracting, a workforce member may earn credentials and complete specialty training relevant to the needs of their current job assignment, and will engage in continuous learning throughout their career. All positions in the Contracting Functional Area will follow the DoD Acquisition Workforce requirement to achieve 80 Continuous Learning points within a two-year period.

Emphasis added.

The DAU curriculum will be tied to it.

[Jamaal Valentine]

21 hours ago, Vern Edwards said:

The DAU curriculum will be tied to it.

I wonder if they watched or listened to this discussion of “DoD’s gaffe in interpreting the [Contract Management Standard] when developing the new DoD Contracting Competency Model.”

 

[Matthew Fleharty]

On 3/11/2022 at 12:50 PM, Don Mansfield said:

Regardless of what the committee does with the comments, I think it would be a fun exercise to develop what we (me, you, @C Culham, @Matthew Fleharty, and others in the Wifcon community) think would be a good CMS. We could brainstorm with criticism. I'll do all the work. Our product couldn't be worse than the current CMS.

Who's in?

Thanks for the invitation Don - I'll share a few thoughts on where my head is at and we can see where we can go from there:

• Purpose: I don't think the goal should be to merely "improve productivity, increase efficiency, and reduce costs" - this idea that everything should be minimized/maximized is misplaced as I prefer optimizing. For instance, if the goal is to go as fast as possible with as few expenditures as possible and a team has to "write" a solicitation, odds are they're going to copy and paste so they can "go fast" vs. taking the extra time to start with a clean sheet, think things through, and actually write a solicitation (less efficient, but more effective both in the short term, a better solicitation, and in the long term, more learning).
• Tasks: For most things beyond mere purchasing, there is a level of complexity that makes it difficult to clearly define a standard for tasks (or, in some cases, to even adequately identify the tasks). The CMS takes this for granted - see description of job tasks on page 2 "contract managers systematically process the job tasks to achieve the expected results of the competences" (emphasis added). I think successful contracting professionals are able to use good judgment and adapt to varying situations versus operating "systematically" (i.e. according to a fixed plan). I will note it's not like they ignored the notion of adaptation completely - they mention it on page 5 ("must be adaptable to a changing business environment") - but that gets to another problem with the task focus and the drafting process they're utilizing is that it produces inconsistencies like this (losing the forest for the trees).
• Standards: It is not clear whether the CMS seeks to establish a baseline minimum or if the goal is to establish something aspirational - the difference between satisfactory and excellent. Regardless of what it is, I think it ought to be the latter - a profession deserves more than mere minimums and a professional organization should seek to show their members standards for professionalism so they can become more than just practitioners.

What are your thoughts Don? I haven't had the chance to watch the video Jamaal posted so my apologies if I'm asking you to regurgitate what you've already said (just reply with a timestamp if they're in that video).

[Don Mansfield]

@Matthew Fleharty,

Thanks for the input. I owe you a response. I'm still thinking about it.

Don

[Don Mansfield]

On 3/14/2022 at 8:24 AM, Matthew Fleharty said:

What are your thoughts Don?

Although the time to submit comments has passed, I still wanted to answer your question.

I like the idea of something that defines our field and the functions that it performs. It's helpful for people entering the field to have a schema to refer to. It's also helpful in designing and developing training products.

I think the CMS does this at a high level, but things start to fall apart as you get in to the task and subtask descriptions. It seems like they've invented some words and terms that I have never heard used: "solicitation plan", "offeror-evaluation plan", "Offer/no-offer analysis", etc. They've also included some tasks that I don't see as part of contract management like "Evaluate requirement achievability". 

I think the CMS is probably trying to serve too many audiences. I would prefer a Federal CMS that uses official words and terms that are commonly used and understood in Federal contracting--something that organizes a body of knowledge that already exists.