Blogs

Our community blogs

  1. Had you ever speculated on why April Fools’ Day seems to be such an important day for federal acquisition? After all, consider some of the regulatory and policy issuances on that day:

    • The Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) became effective on April Fools’ Day (1984).

    • The Federal Aviation Administration became exempt from the FAR on April Fools’ Day (1996).

    • The Office of Federal Procurement Policy (OFPP) memorandum on “Protests, Claims, and Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) as Factors in Past Performance and Source Selection Decisions” was issued on April Fools’ Day (2002).

    • Army Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (AFARS) Revision #25 was issued on April Fools’ Day (2010).

    • FAR Case 2010-015 on the Women-Owned Small Business (WOSB) Program was published in the Federal Register on April Fools’ Day (2011).

    No doubt a little research would provide a number of additional examples.

    Frankly, if it were me, April Fools’ Day would probably be the last day that I would pick for issuing important regulations or policy statements. That is one day that I would avoid like the plague. [Note: The last statement is not technically correct, I would go to greater extremes to avoid the plague than to publish an acquisition policy or procedure on April Fools’ Day.] Why not just wait a day, and avoid all the innuendo and snickering? After all, consider, April has 29 other days that are perfectly suitable for issuing regulations, policies, procedures, guidance and information.

    Comparison of Major Contract Types

    For example, on Monday, April 25, 2016, the Defense Acquisition University/Defense Systems Management College updated the Acquisition Community Connection with a revised version of its Comparison of Major Contract Types (i.e., Comparison of Major Contract Types - April 2016). [For those who would like a direct link: https://acc.dau.mil/CommunityBrowser.aspx?id=214513.] The new version better aligns with the terminology in the Contract Pricing Reference Guides, updates the charts on the reverse, and adds a chart on “Achieving a Reasonably Challenging but Achievable (RCA) Target Cost,” one of topics discussed extensively in the new Guidance on Using Incentive and Other Contract Types.

    Over the years, various versions of the “Comparison” have been fairly popular (i.e., 94,863 Page Views and 80,840 Attachments Downloaded. Although, given the number of personnel in the Defense Statutory Acquisition Workforce Contracting Career Field, 29,690 as of the 2nd quarter of 2015, those Lifetime Activity numbers may not be all that high, relatively speaking.

    The April Fools’ Day Announcements for 2016

    So, it can be done. However, this April Fools’ Day (2016) Defense Procurement and Acquisition Policy (DPAP) elected to issue two important pieces of procedures/guidance to the Defense Statutory Acquisition Workforce:

    • Guidance on Using Incentive and Other Contract Types (April 1, 1016).

    • Department of Defense Source Selection Procedures (SSP) (April 1, 1016).

    The Guidance

    Both documents have their warts. For instance, the Guidance incorrectly identifies one of the two statutory references for limitations on negotiation of price or fee. The good news is that thee one applicable to the DoD was identified correctly. Running the Spelling and Grammar checker one last time would not have been amiss.

    Warts aside, the results of this Better Buying Power (BBP) are somewhat disappointing. The Specific Action in the USD(AT&L) memorandum “Implementation Directive for Better Buying Power 2.0 - Achieving Greater Efficiency and Productivity in Defense Spending” was, “Director, DP will provide a draft policy guidance document on the use of incentives in contracting to the BSIG for review by July 1, 2013. The starting point for this document will be the DoD and NASA Guide, “Incentive Training (sic) Guide,” originally published in 1969.”

    For those of you unfamiliar with the Incentive Contracting Guide, it was the last of a number of such guides published in the 1960s. That particular version of the Guide was 252 pages. By comparison, the new Guidance is 41 pages. About 40 % of the Guidance is devoted to negotiation of fixed-price incentive (firm target) (FPIF) contracts in a sole-source environment a discussion of Reasonably Challenging but Achievable Target Cost (RCA), which go hand-in-hand. The coverage for Time and Materials/Labor Hour (T&M/LH) Contracts amounts to a paltry nine (9) lines. Ask yourself these two questions, “How many sole-source FPIF contracts does the Department award? If ‘T&M is the least preferable contract type,’ where should the emphasis have been placed?”

    For those of you who need guidance on structuring multiple incentive contracts the DOD and NASA Guide: Incentive Contracting Guide 1969 may be a better bet than the new Guidance. The good news is that it is still available on the Defense Acquisition University’s Acquisition Community Connection. [For those who would like a direct link: https://acc.dau.mil/CommunityBrowser.aspx?id=189615.]

    The Procedures

    The updated Source Selection Procedures are more than 505 longer than the previous version. The Procedures would have benefited from fact checking, copy editing and proof reading. Another warts issue.

    Warts aside, for those of you who will be involved in DoD source selections that meet the thresholds in the Procedures, you will want to give it a thorough read. Among other things, you will see some new descriptions of adjectival ratings and a new source selection procedure in APPENDIX B, “TRADEOFF SOURCE SELECTION PROCESS: SUBJECTIVE TRADEOFF AND VALUE ADJUSTED TOTAL EVALUATED PRICE (VATEP) TRADEOFF.” The latter came about as the result of USD(AT&L) memorandum “Implementation Directive for Better Buying Power 2.0 - Achieving Greater Efficiency and Productivity in Defense Spending.” Under the heading of Better define value in “best value” competitions there was a Specific Action, “Director, DP will review the ‘Process Manual’ developed by the joint Service team led by the Air Force and present a recommendation for adoption with any recommended changes to the BSIG by July 1, 2013.” You need to read the entire section to understand the direction. No doubt you will see a good deal of discussion about VATEP percolating up.

    Understand that although the Guidance and Procedures were issued on April Fools’ Day, they are no joke. Read them carefully, and implement them wisely.

  2.  

    Innovation: How Not To Go Down In Flames

     

    The role of each member of the acquisition team is to exercise personal initiative….

    Contracting officers should take the lead in encouraging business process innovations….

     —FAR 1.102

                                                  There’s guns across the river aimin’ at ya

                                             Lawman on your trail, he’d like to catch ya

                                                  Bounty hunters, too, they’d like to get ya

                                                  Billy, they don’t like you to be so free

                                              —Bob Dylan, “Billy 1”

     

    In a thread in the Wifcon Forum Contracting Workforce category entitled, “Personal Initiative: Who Has Used It?”, Bob Antonio asked for answers to four questions:

    Quote
    1. Have you ever tried personal initiative but you were shot down by "higher ups" because the FAR did not authorize something?
    2. Have you ever used personal initiative and your idea was supported by "higher-ups?"
    3. In federal contracting, is it easier to be human or to be an automaton?
    4. If you answer automaton to #3, is it because of GAO protests, supervisors, etc?

          I’m especially interested in the answers to the first question: “Have you ever tried personal initiative but you were shot down by ‘higher ups’ because the FAR did not authorize something?”

    So far, Bob has received seven responses. Five of the seven were “Yes.” The “yes” answers are the ones that interest me. I wonder why the would-be personal initiators got shot down, given the persistent calls for innovation these days. Even some blockheaded bureaucrats say that they want to change their world.

    My complaint about all the presidential appointee/career management calls for initiative and innovation is that they they’re not honest about just how hard it is to move a bureaucracy in a new direction, even if by only a compass point or two. Such faithless calls risk alienating the very people the bosses claim to want to motivate, especially newcomers, who might react badly when their initiatives are rejected. The bosses may be preparing fertile ground in which to grow a new generation of cynics.

    In my experience, many, maybe most, working level proposals for innovation fail, because the initiators didn’t know what they were in for, didn’t understand the need for intelligence and tactical planning, and made a poor presentation. They wanted to beneficially change their agency’s behavior, but they didn’t know how to go about it in the right way.

    *  *  *

    Suppose that you are a journeyman contract specialist in a “conservative” Government contracting office. Suppose further that you have just completed a three-day seminar in source selection in which a charismatic instructor argued persuasively that you could streamline and speed up the source selection process by asking for oral presentations from offerors instead of written technical proposals. The instructor even pointed out that the technique is expressly authorized  by FAR 15.102.

    You have no hands-on experience with oral presentations. You’ve never seen one, and you haven’t read much about them. But, newly enthused, you go back to your office, make some inquiries, and learn that your agency has never used them in place of written technical proposals. So you go to your boss and propose asking for oral presentations instead of written technical proposals in an upcoming source selection to which you have been assigned.

    Your boss, the Contracting Officer, who has not used oral presentations and who is not really expert at source selection (though he thinks he is), cuts you off. He says that oral presentations will expose the agency to protests about improper discussions. He also says that there’s no good way to document the presentations or the evaluations of them. Bad idea. Forget about it.

    You visit an attorney in the legal office, who says much the same.

    You talk to colleagues, but none of them have used oral presentations and don’t know much about them.

    You approach the program manager, who is not expert in source selection, has no experience with oral presentations, and doesn’t understand how oral presentations can replace written technical proposals, even though she says that written proposals are a time-consuming pain to read, evaluate, and score. She worries about how you would incorporate oral presentations into a contract. She asks a lot of questions about the process, to which you have no definite answers.

    Finally, by happenstance, you run into the director of contracts, your boss’s boss, at lunch in a nearby sandwich joint. You mention your ideas to her. She listens politely, but says that she hasn’t the time right then to discuss the matter. She tells you to make an appointment to come to her office. Later that afternoon your boss fusses at you for going over his head. He tells you again to forget about it.

    You’ve gone down in flames, crashed, burned. So you cut and paste the traditional proposal preparation instructions and grumble about the higher-ups and the lawyers.

    What have you learned? Well, if you paid attention, you should have learned that you just tried to sell the idea of using a bicycle to people who’ve never seen a wheel.

    *  *  *

    Before we go any further, it’s a good idea to keep in mind that many of today’s established contracting rules and procedures were once innovations. The Truth in Negotiations Act was an innovation of the late 1950s, as was the source selection tradeoff process, sophisticated numerical proposal scoring, and the modern concept of discussions with offerors within a competitive range. The formal evaluation of past performance was an innovation of the mid-1960s that failed and was revived in the 1990s. The imposition of Cost Accounting Standards was an innovation of the 1970s, as was the proposal color-rating system, which was designed to solve problems created by misuse of numerical scoring. The Competition in Contracting Act was an innovation of the early 1980s. Electronic proposal evaluation software was an innovation of the 2000s.

    Another thing to keep in mind is that managers and staffs in organizations involved in Government contracting are geared for rule compliance. Failure to comply can have consequences, sometimes serious ones. It would be one thing if the rules were clear and unambiguous, but they’re not. The rules are badly written and subject to lawyerly interpretation games and to time-consuming and costly litigation. The compliance mind casts a shadow over all proposals  to innovate. Compliance is not risky. Innovation might be very risky. These realities tend to make managers and staffs conservative and reluctant to embrace change that is promoted from the bottom up.

    What makes me mad at political appointees and career managers who call for innovation is that they fail at one of their most important leadership functions—teaching their people. If you want people in a compliance-oriented organization to innovate, you must teach them how and pave the way through the bureaucracy. Senior managers who encourage people to innovate without giving them navigation charts for the Sea of Bureaucracy and a reliable course heading deserve a kick in the pants. Some of their best people will end up lost.

    Most of you initiator/innovators don’t have good senior managers, so you will have to plot your own course. Suppose that you want to innovate with oral presentations in source selection. Start by asking yourself some questions:

    1. How well do you know and understand the applicable source selection rules and practices —not just as they appear in FAR, your agency supplement and policy documents, and in your agency’s handbooks and manuals, but also as interpreted and applied by the GAO and the Court of Federal Claims? What do you know about the history of those rules and practices, where they came from and why? How deeply have you thought about them?

    2. What do you know about the concept of the technical proposal and about their typical content? What do you know about preparing them? What do you know about the actual experience of evaluating them? What do you know about their legal role in contract formation and administration? What have you read about the criticisms of them?

    3. What have you read about oral presentations in the professional literature, in publications such as Public Contract Law Journal and Contract Management magazine? Did you Google <oral presentations in source selection> and read what you found?

    4. Do you know how many protest decisions there have been in which oral presentations were an issue? How many of them have you read? Did you take notes about the kinds of acquisitions in which oral presentations were used, the particular methods that were used, and the issues involved? Did you compile won/lost statistics and reasons?

    5. Did you check the past year’s listings at FedBizOpps to find acquisitions in which oral presentations were employed? Did you get the solicitations? Did you call the contracting officers to ask how they went about it, how it came out, and lessons learned?

    6. Did you conduct market research to find out whether oral presentations or something similar (marketing presentations or “sales pitches”) are used in the industry with which your agency will engage in the upcoming acquisition?

    7. Did you do a pro and con analysis? What would your office gain, if anything, by evaluating oral presentations instead of written technical proposals? What might it lose, if anything, not just in terms of potential protests, but also in terms of information necessary to make a sound a source selection decision? What are the risks? What are the benefits? What are the tradeoffs?

    8. Did you develop a detailed plan and process for using oral presentations? Does it reflect what you have learned? Is it practical? Will it show the decision maker and others that you’re not just winging it?

    9. Do you know the bureaucratic structure of your headquarters organization, its history, and its temper? Do you know the backgrounds of the decision maker and other affected and influential staff? Do you know their likely issues, questions, and objections, and are you ready with detailed responses? Do you have allies? Do you know your opponents?

    10. Did you assemble pertinent and verifiable facts, prepare a persuasive written argument and appropriate presentation, and choose the right time, place, and audience at which to present them? Did you invite the right people to attend? Did you rehearse?

    11. Did you think tactically about how to work your way through the layers of bureaucracy: whom to approach first, whom next, and how to build support and momentum toward your objective before hitting up the decision maker? Did you think about how to prepare for attacks by opponents against your argument's flanks and rear?

    Sound very formal and like a lot of work? Well, it is. And it might require some or all of that if you want to initiate an significant innovation. While some innovations are produced by flashes of insight and inspiration, most, especially big and important ones, are produced by fact gathering, analysis, deep thinking, careful planning, and good tactics.

    You probably won’t have to go to all that trouble when proposing minor innovations that effect only one routine, relatively small dollar acquisition in only one office. For that kind of thing you might be able to walk into the boss’s office and simply say: “I’d like to try something…” But when proposing a “major” change in policy or procedure, get into the research, planning, and persuasion mode.

          Every working-level proposal for innovation is a sales pitch that, hopefully, will lead to a negotiation. A famous expert in negotiation once arrived home from a business trip only to be pounced upon by his teenage son, who presented him with all sorts of ideas that he wanted his father to buy into right away. According his son’s recollection, the father was quiet for a moment, then said:

    “My ideas are my old friends and your ideas are your old friends. You may have some very good friends. But you cannot expect me to throw away my friends and adopt your friends at a moment’s notice, as soon as you introduce them to me. Give me time to get used to them and I may adopt them. But I need that time—I need that acceptance time.”

    See Gary Karrass, Negotiate to Close: How to Make More Successful Deals (1987).

        Mid and senior-level bureaucrats, who are not always up to speed on the latest and greatest ideas, and who tend to be conservative, will need a persuasive introduction to your friends. Selling innovation takes time, thought, tactics, preparation, and guts. By the way, that’s half the fun. And keep in mind that a well-done study, plan, proposal, and presentation might attract the attention of a higher-up and be a big career boost, even if the proposal is rejected.

  3. I'm looking for feedback on a tool that I'm creating for DoD. Basically, it would be a single document that would contain the FAR, DFARS, DFARS PGI, and DoD Class Deviations. The concept is similar to that used in the General Services Administration Acquisition Manual (GSAM), where both regulatory (GSAR) and nonregulatory information is integrated into one document and distinguished by shading. The main difference is the document that I envision also contains the FAR. I've attached a sample of what an integrated FAR subpart 1.1, DFARS subpart 201.1, and DFARS PGI subpart 201.1 would look like. Take a look and let me know what you think. I'd appreciate any feedback, but I'm particularly interested in the following:

    1. Would you use such a tool?

    2. Is there a better way to distinguish between FAR, DFARS, and DFARS PGI text than the use of shading?

    3. Do you have any ideas to make the tool better (more useful)?

    Consolidated FAR, DFARS, DFARS PGI, DoD Class Deviations.docx

  4. All of us can probably agree that each year seems to go by faster than the year before. The older we become, the rate at which we age seems to increase. So now, with 2016 upon us, (and without providing a comprehensive listing of new contracting laws, statutes, regulations, personnel changes, or best practices during 2015), perhaps it’s best to simply summarize and reflect on what 2015 might signify regarding acquisition success. Let’s also not use the “R” word even though talking about acquisition reform keeps us blog writers and consultants busy.

    Some initiatives that began with great fanfare are no longer around. The government almost “closed” again, although the list of program exceptions to shutdowns is now so large that many don’t notice. Those programs with greater lobbying power are essential, while many very worthy programs are used as pawns. Probably the greatest damage to government contracting, dwarfing any new legislative improvement, is the indecisive nature and short-term environment under which government programs must operate.

    GSA launched initiatives in category management, including its acquisition gateway, eBuy Open and other initiatives intended to improve contracting officer market knowledge and vehicles available to meet specific needs and better leverage government buying power.

    The Department of Defense says it’s at a 35-year best in controlling costs for major acquisition programs and bestowed a variety of 15 individual and five organization awards for the past year. Heidi Shyu stepped down as the Army’s acquisition executive and off of the acquisition “bus,” where she coined the analogy that all acquisition program “passengers” have a brake and steering wheel, but no gas pedal.

    Legislation intended to improve the current process within information technology is underway and new legislation within DoD was passed. It will be sometime before it is clear how well these latest changes have performed.

    Discussion with today’s acquisition leaders reveals a determination to do the right thing as best as possible despite the peripheral (beyond acquisition) system challenges at each step. This past year may best be remembered for cyber security breaches; new and enhanced multiple-crises emanating from the Middle East; successful space probes and retrieval; cyclones, earthquakes, and changing climates; gun violence from Tunis to California; and a never-ending political campaign.

    For contracting managers, the faster nature of societal change and news cycles may mask the great strides being made to respond more effectively to ever-changing government requirements and outsourcing needs. Ineffective conference, education, and industry communication restrictions appear to be abating. However, lengthy debate over government salary, bonuses, or predetermined solutions to unresearched acquisition problems continues.

    From a contracting standpoint, 2015 may not be momentous in terms of single legislation or headlines. However, the complexities and challenges of successfully navigating today’s acquisition environment—from reduced spending to cyber security to Federal Reserve policy to the sheer complicated nature of the business enterprise itself—continues to grow. The requirements are harder, and the solutions harder still. Contractors supporting the government (and indeed the government itself) have a more difficult time understanding how to prepare, respond, and execute to these ever-evolving challenges. From workforce to technology, uncertainty is increasing and proven solutions decreasing. A new workforce is growing up in an environment of more employment uncertainty, from challenges to the education they’ve received to the manner of training and on-the-job experience they need.

    However, we should all be impressed by the professionals working within this environment and what they accomplish. They don’t have time to publicly write or promote their efforts, but they are there and are noble. The year 2016 promises to be no easier than 2015. Our contracting leaders and managers are up to the challenge, but let’s understand for ourselves the causes and concerns, offer our advice and support, and be part of the solution.

    Michael P. Fischetti

    Executive Director

    National Contract Management Association

  5. The Competition in Contracting Act of 1984 requires the Government Accountability Office (GA0) to report to the U. S. Congress annually when government agencies fail to fully implement its bid protest recommendations. GAO has posted these reports on its website since fiscal year (FY) 1995. Initially, these reports provided little information but by FY 2004, GAO published its "Bid Protest Statistics" covering FY 2004 through 2001. I have added every one of these reports to the fiscal year numbers at the top of the bid protest statistics.

    Beginning in its report for FY 2013, GAO began listing its "most prevalent reasons for sustaining protests" during the FY. This has continued for FY 2014 and FY 2015. Although the information provided does not include cases where an agency took corrective action before a formal sustained decision was reached, it does provided information on 227 sustained decisions. In that sense, it may provide some help whether you are trying to prevent a protest or whether you may protest a procurement.

    Below is my ranking of the most prevalent reasons for sustained protests listed by GAO for FY 2015 through FY 2013:

    1. failure to follow the evaluation criteria (listed 3rd in FY 2015 and 1st in FYs 2014 and 2013).
    2. unreasonable cost or price evaluation (listed 1st in FY 2015 and 4th in FY 2013) and
    3. inadequate documentation of the record (listed 4th in FY 2015 and 2nd in FY 2013)
    4. unequal treatment of offerors (listed 4th in FY 2014 and 3rd in FY 2013)
    5. unreasonable technical evaluation (listed 5th in FY 2015 and 3rd in FY 2014)

    This ranking also requires a caveat because the number of sustained protests varied significantly for FY 2015 (68), FY 2014 (72), and FY 2013 (87).

    Other reasons for sustained protests GAO listed include

    • unreasonable past performance evaluation (listed 2nd in FY 2015)
    • flawed selection decision (listed 2nd in FY 2014)

    In addition to listing the most prevalent reasons, GAO also gives 1 example decision for each of the most prevalent reasons it lists in a FY. For example, under unreasonable cost or price evaluation which GAO placed first in FY 2015, GAO lists Computer Sciences Corp.; HP Enterprise Servs., LLC; Harris IT Servs. Corp.; Booz Allen Hamilton, Inc., B-408694.7 et al., Nov. 3, 2014, 2014 CPD ¶ 331.

    My listing of each decision that GAO provided as a most prevalent reason with a link to the decision is here.

    To me, the most striking reason for GAO sustaining a protest is inadequate documentation. That can be prevented by a thorough review of what documents are provided in the evaluation and selection decision. If there is something missing, identify it and correct it. You can get more information on the documentation issue by looking at the Wifcon.com protest page FAR 15.305 (a)(3): Technical Evaluation - Documentation.

    Another striking reason for sustained protests is the first that I list--failure to follow the evaluation criteria. One time a friend of mine was sitting on an evaluation panel for a GAO procurement that I had no involvement in at all. He had something extra he wanted to include in his evaluation of proposals and he asked me about it. Although I was stunned at the question, I simply told him that he must follow the evaluation criteria in the solicitation and if he had any questions he should ask the contracting officer--not me.

    Before ending this entry, I will once again remind you that the information provided by GAO only includes sustained protests. These are decisions in which the agency digs in its heels and fights the protest to a final decision. As GAO explains, "agencies need not, and do not, report any of the myriad reasons they decide to take voluntary corrective action." What you see here may be the tip of the iceberg.

  6. The long-standing principle that the federal government had the same implied duty of good faith and fair dealing as any commercial buyer was put in jeopardy by a 2010 decision of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, Precision Pine & Timber, Inc. v. U.S., 596 F.3d 817 (Fed. Cir. 2010). There a panel of the court adopted a narrow rule seemingly limiting application of the principle to situations where a government action was “specifically targeted” at the contractor or had the effect of taking away one of the benefits that had been promised to the contractor. Although the decision concerned a timber sales contract not a procurement contract, when I wrote it up in the May 2010 Nash & Cibinic Report (24 N&CR ¶ 22), I expressed the fear that the reasoning would be subsequently applied to procurement contracts.

    My fear was realized in a construction contract case, Metcalf Construction Co. v. U. S., 102 Fed. Cl. 334 (2011). In that decision, the judge described eggregious conduct on the part of the government officials that would have been held to be a breach of the implied duty of good faith and fair dealing under many earlier cases. However, the judge held that under the Precision Pine standard, the contractor had not proved that the actions were specifically targeted at the contractor. In the February 2012 Nash & Cibinic Report (26 N&CR ¶ 9), I criticized this decision but stated that I believed that even if the decision was affirmed on appeal, most contracting officers would not take this as a signal that the proper way to administer contracts was to abuse the contractor.

    Fortunately, a panel of the Federal Circuit has reversed the decision, Metcalf Construction Co. v. U. S., 2014 WL 519596, 2014 U.S. App. LEXIS 2515 (Fed. Cir. Feb. 11, 2014). The court held that the lower court had read Precision Pine too narrowly and that “specific targeting” was only one example of the type of conduct that could constitute a breach of the implied duty of good faith and fair dealing. Importantly, the court also rejected the government’s argument that this “implied duty” only could be found when it was footed in some express provision of the contract. The court concluded that the correct rule was only that the express provisions of a contract had to be examined to ensure that they had not dealt with the conduct of the government; for if they had, they would override the implied duty.

    This leaves us in a tenuous position with regard to the views of the Federal Circuit. We have one panel in Precision Pine stating a narrow rule, another panel in Metcalf Construction stating the traditional rule, and a third panel in Bell/Heery A Joint Venture v. U.S., 739 F.3d 1324 (Fed. Cir. 2014), ruling in favor of the government because the contractor had not alleged facts showing that the government had “engaged in conduct that reappropriated benefits promised under the contract” (which is part of the Precision Pine reasoning). Thus, it is difficult to state where the judges of the Federal Circuit stand. Hopefully, the court will agree to take either Metcalf Construction or Bell/Heery to the full court for an en banc review of the issue.

    I’ve never been sure why the Department of Justice has so vigorously argued that the government should not be held to the same standards of conduct as a commercial buyer. Of course, persuading the courts and boards that a narrower standard should be applied to the government is a way to win litigated cases. But, in my view, encouraging abusive or non-cooperative conduct hurts the government as much as it hurts its contractors. I have taught for many years that in the long run the government benefits from actions that show industry that it is a fair contracting partner. A line of published judicial decisions that demonstrates that the government is not such a partner is one more of the many messages that tell companies they should sell to the government only when they can find no other customer. Surely, this is not the message that government agencies in need of products and services on the commercial marketplace want to convey to companies that can provide those products and services.

    Many years ago when I came to Washington to work in the field of government contracting, I concluded that there was one major advantage to being on the government side of the negotiating table. That advantage was that I was under no pressure to extract money from the contractor by unfair bargaining or unfair contract administration. To me fairness was an integral part of the job of a government employee. I still believe it and teach it. Thus, no matter what the outcome of the good faith and fair dealing litigation, I will continue to urge government employees that fair treatment of contractors is the only way to go.

    Ralph C. Nash

  7. When I get older, losing my hair

    Many years from now . . . .

    When I'm Sixty-Four

    John Lennon, Paul McCartney

    Shortly after we celebrate our country's independence on July 4, 2013, Wifcon.com will end its 15th year on the internet. With much help from the Wifcon.com community, I've raised a growing teenager. When I started, I was 49 and my hair was so thick that I often shouted ouch or some obscenity when I combed it. Wifcon.com has existed in 3 decades and parts of 2 centuries. During that period, I've updated this site for every work day--except for the week or so when I called it quits. I remember the feeling of relief. I thought it was over. However, many of you convinced me to bring it back. Yes, just when I thought I was out, many of you pulled me back in.

    As I mentioned in an earlier post, someone once told me that Wifcon.com was my legacy. I once had great hopes for a legacy. Perhaps, a great saxophone player belting out a solo in front of thousands of fans and seeing them enjoying themselves. Instead, here I sit in my solitude looking for news, decisions, etc., to post to the home page. For many years, my dog Ambrose kept me company. Now, my dogs Blue Jay and Lily stare at me and look for attention. With my sights now set realistically, I accept that Wifcon.com is my legacy. It's the best I could do.

    Every now and then, I receive an e-mail from someone thanking me for Wifcon.com. They tell me how it helped their careers. These e-mails keep me and Wifcon.com going.

    Send me a postcard, drop me a line,

    Stating point of view

    Indicate precisely what you mean to say

    Yours sincerely, wasting away

    Give me your answer, fill in a form

    When I'm Sixty-Four

    John Lennon, Paul McCartney

    The thoughts in these e-mails won't let me quit. I still search each night for something to add to the site in hopes that it will increase your knowledge. If I find something new, I still get excited. Often, it feels like a self-imposed weight around my neck. What started as a release for my imagination has evolved into a continuing and daily addition to the contracting community. In the evenings, it is as if I'm Maillardet's automaton. I head over to my office, sit before the computer, and update. Then I send the updated pages to Virginia where it is accessed from around the world. Maybe I'm addicted to Wifcon.com; maybe I was born with the Wifcon.com gene.

    If you haven't added the numbers, I'm 64 now. Wifcon.com and I are showing our age. I can comb the top of my head with my fingers. The ouches and other obscenities caused by my once thick hair are gone. A recent upgrade to the discussion forum requires that I turn the "compatibility mode" off on my browser. In that mode, I realized that Wifcon.com is ugly. I have current software for the needed future redo of this site.

    I am Wifcon.com; Wifcon.com is me. It is my legacy and my albatross. As always, thank you for your support.

    You'll be older too,

    And if you say the word,

    I could stay with you.

    When I'm Sixty-Four

    John Lennon, Paul McCartney

  8. Generally speaking, contractors flow mandatory FAR and DFARS clauses to vendors in a haphazard, incoherent manner with very little updating as changes to clauses occur. Some contractors post a huge list of clauses on their website and refer to them on vendor Purchase Orders (PO's) - telling the vendors they are responsible for complying with the clauses that apply to them. Anybody know a vendor that has the time or inclination to review these lists and determine which clause apply to their purchase order.

    Some contractors separate the clauses by $ thresholds. This is helpful because a vendor can easily figure out that the clauses in the $650,000 and above category don't apply to their $2,700 PO. Some contractors include two lists of clauses - one list for commercial items and one list for non-commercial items. This kind of segmentation is helpful also; especially, if the vendor is providing a commercial item and very few clauses actually apply to the PO.

    Government auditors are taking shots at contractors about the way they tell vendors which FAR and DFARS clauses apply to a purchase order; but auditor opinions vary greatly.

    I would like to hear about methods for clause flow down to vendors that truly meet the requirements of FAR and are relatively easy to update. Does anyone have any suggestions