Jed

Hell no. After 18 years, the only joy I get out of the career field now is showing people how to fish. In other words, how to research, analyze, and understand....so that they can challenge positions and defend their own. No one "manages down" anymore. Our reward systems are broken, and we seem to incentivize the wrong behavior, as the self-serving typically rise to the top. If we want to shift the paradigm of half-baked contracting "professionals", we no kidding have to find a way to promote....no.....DEMAND hands-on, long-term grooming in this field by managers. And if they lack the skills to teach others to fish (or are too absorbed in their own career progression), then we need to send a message to them on just what type of behavior we need by kicking them to the curb. But that will never happen. Time to cut bait.

These are the best two paragraphs ever written.

I think we then agree that an RFI and Sources Sought are two different things. And (although I'm slow), I believe I'm tracking with how a Sources Sought can technically be termed a "synopsis" since it is type of an advance notice specified in FAR 5.205 that is posted on the GPE of a pending "contract action". Thanks again for the help!

Depending on the agency, these terms may be used synonymously. But, I don't believe they are. When I read FAR PART 5 (specifically FAR 5.205a), a "Sources Sought" is an advance notice typically generated through the GPE to communicate to industry the Government's potential interest in a specific R&D program. These are used only when Market Research doesn't already tell the story that competition exists....at least that's how I read it. RFI's are a FAR SUBPART 15.2 product - no set format - that is posted on the GPE via a "Special Notice" (FAR 15.201d points me to FAR 5.205c). The intent isn't necessary to see if there are sources out there interested in competing, but rather to pulse industry in the context of price, delivery, etc for planning purposes. In fact, the provision that corresponds with an RFI states that a contract award is not intended. I would go even further by stating that neither one of these are technically a "synopsis". With the term "contract action" defined in FAR PART 5 as something resulting in a "contract" (defined in FAR 2.101) - and the term "contract action" used purposely throughout those sections and subsections in relation to a "synopsis", "synopses", "synopsize", etc - that things like a sources sought and an RFI are not (technically) a synopsis as they do not result in a contract...... I'm usually 66% right 100% of the time.....comments? Corrections? All are welcome and encouraged.

Thanks for weighing in, Vern.

A PWS is a SOW for Performance-Based Acquisitions (PBA). PBAs are structured around the desired results/objectives, as opposed to the "how". In other words, the Government doesn't (or at least shouldn't in PBA) attempt to tell the KTR the step-by-step guidance on how to meet the objectives - it leaves the approach up to the KTR - after all, they are the SME most of the time. In the PBA world, and within the services arena, agencies have a choice to deploy either a SOO or a PWS to industry. When you read FAR Part 37, and what is included in each, there are naturally some differences. One of the differences is that a PWS includes performance standards - in other words, "to what level" the Government's performance objectives/desired results must be met. A SOO includes the performance objectives/desired results, but does not include these performance standards. Instead, the KTR would propose performance standards that it feels are comensurate with the nature of the requirement - risk and other factors considered. They do this by submitting a PWS as part of their proposal. Now, FAR 37.601( states that Performance-based contracts for services "shall" (the imperative) include a PWS. However, the PWS is not the "how" the KTR intends to meet the objectives and standards specified in the PWS. By sheer definition of PWS and PBA in FAR 2.101, a PWS should never include the "how". Some PCO's want to know the "how" as well though. I've seen it as a separate volume requirement. They want to evaluate it. They want to attach it to Section J and then (here it gets tricky) enforce it once the contract gets awarded. They feel that if they made an award decision based upon the best value continuum - namely trade-offs - and they award a contract to a KTR based upon (among other factors) that KTR's "how", then that award decision is invalidated if the KTR possesses the agility to freelance after the award is distributed. That said, if we stick to the spirit of PBA after the award is made, then the Government shouldn't focus on the how - only on if the true objectives and performance standards of the contract are being met. Because if the Government has done a good job up front in identifying the true objectives, then, as long as they are being met at the standards identified, it shouldn't matter the approach the KTR is taking. I've seen the Government manage what is called a FFP as if it were a LH contract - simply because the contractor proposed an approach that included a certain amount of people/labor cats....and now the Government is holding them to it, but still calling it a FFP PBA. I think I may be muddying the waters though.....sorry, I'm new to the blog...(smile)