May 22, 20241 yr Author comment_83072 Ahh! Construction terms. There nothing quite as essential to CO for construction as a good dictionary of construction terms and a class on construction specs and drawings. Is the material rock or cemented fanglomerate?
May 22, 20241 yr comment_83080 As a fellow jack-of-all-trades myself, I think when I assist my requirements owner in development of Section C of a cost-reimbursement RFP (see FAR 16.301-2 application above) I am more open to including process descriptions as a requirement of the contract. If it’s a firm-fixed-price RFP, I examine it with a lens for removal of all “how” descriptions in favor of just the “what”. So, my written state of affairs is contract type-dependent. Furthermore and along that vein, I also have to examine the state of affairs with a lens for my ACO and TCO’s benefit, imagining what is needed in there to someday T4D this thing - given all the heightened political pressure that accompanies that - without needing to capitulate conversion to a T4C.
May 23, 20241 yr comment_83111 6 hours ago, Voyager said: If it’s a firm-fixed-price RFP, I examine it with a lens for removal of all “how” descriptions in favor of just the “what”. So, my written state of affairs is contract type-dependent. The what versus how sounds like most training on performance-based acquisitions versus non-performance-based acquisitions. Especially when talking about requirements documents (e.g., PWS vs traditional SOW).
May 23, 20241 yr Author comment_83145 The notion of a rigid what-how distinction is stupid. Sometimes how is what. Sometimes agreement on how is essential to mutual success and dispute-avoidance, especially in service contracting. The official approach to "performance-based contracting" has been one of the greatest failures in the history of acquisition policymaking, as is the rigid policy of proposal-based competition. Read-up on contract design principles. I have provided references elsewhere.
May 23, 20241 yr comment_83165 4 hours ago, Vern Edwards said: Sometimes how is what. Agreed. I once got involved in a situation where the government had a "requirement" to have paint removed from the exterior of a building. The contract did not state how this was to be done. The contractor started to remove the paint by sandblasting. The government stopped the contractor from using this method because the building was a historic preservation property and sandblasting would damage the building. The government insisted on a more costly and time consuming method of removal by hand. Here, obviously, how was the what. I am sure there are other examples of situations like this.
May 23, 20241 yr comment_83169 5 hours ago, Vern Edwards said: The official approach to "performance-based contracting" has been one of the greatest failures in the history of acquisition policymaking, as is the rigid policy of proposal-based competition. Vern, I know you won’t agree with this but some of the earlier PBAS were successful. Yes, there’s not quantifiable proof but post award information from customers and end users showed happiness with the outcomes. It’s just too difficult and time consuming to establish baselines and measures of success and most agencies don’t want to spend the time and effort - getting a timely award is what counts. But most PBAs over the years didn’t produce positive results. I think that’s because of two things - one is contracting personnel didn’t have proper training and guidance as well as expertise to pull them off and the OFPP mandate to get a certain share of awards as PBAs. That usually resulted in taking a SOW and changing a few works and call it a PWS. As far back as I can remember the successful PBAs had common elements - use of a SOO, conduct of comprehensive market research, employment of IPTs, and strong, experienced COs and PMs.
May 23, 20241 yr comment_83171 5 hours ago, Vern Edwards said: The notion of a rigid what-how distinction is stupid. Is it stupid or is it just a rule of thumb suitable to requirements written by people in positions of nonessential function and with no professional aspirations? There’s a lot of them in this career field. It may be good enough for their government work.
May 23, 20241 yr Author comment_83176 45 minutes ago, formerfed said: Vern, I know you won’t agree... You're right. In my 50 years in government contracting I have learned not to trust undocumented "success stories." Most don't stand up to scrutiny. They're propaganda. But I'm receptive to documented evidence. Tell me the tale and show me the facts.
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.