What about this as an office policy (not a regulation)?

All solicitations shall include, immediately after the cover form, a sheet of paper which states who prepared it, as follows in the middle of the page, and nothing else. For example:

This solicitation was prepared by

Arthur Lowe, Contract Specialist

and was approved by

Jane Doe, Contracting Officer

DATE

Statements of work shall on the cover page, for example:

This statement of work was written by

Captain Janet Foster, Project Officer, and Contract Specialist Tom Brennan

DATE

Would that instill pride in workmanship?

What do you think of the idea?

In order to avoid adding an extra page, I’d include it on a cover page with the title and Solicitation number. But yes

I like it and think it would increase accountability and help instill pride in workmanship.

Also, I’m with Joel. Much like a college paper.

15 hours ago, joel hoffman said:

In order to avoid adding an extra page, I’d include it on a cover page with the title and Solicitation number.

I don't understand. The first page of most solicitations and contracts is a standard form. Why wouldn't a "cover page" be extra? Are you referring to Standard Form 1707? I don't see that much anymore.

While that may help accountability, granularly giving names (beyond the CO’s) out to the public, it would have too high of a drawback.  No, I think you keep that ownership reporting internal to your management chain.  In the acquisition workforce, that reporting should go up to the highest levels.  What else are the COCOs and HCAs and Program Executive Officers to measure for output of acquisition personnel but their writing?

The public, though?  They’d have no idea what they’re reading.  And they would all assume the worst intentions because of how bitter the general public is over most things beyond themselves and their tribes.  It’s only human, unchristian nature that they cannot trust anyone beyond their 150 nameable acquaintances as being friend - instead, they assume all foes.  You don’t want to encourage that dissonance anymore than the internet already does.  It’s why I’m anonymous, btw.  We humans, with our tribal brains, live in a wide world of scary technology capabilities.  Anonymity is a check and balance against this dissonance.

See: Dunbar, Robin. How Many Friends Does One Person Need? Dunbar’s Number and Other Evolutionary Quirks, Cambridge, MA and London, England: Harvard University Press, 2010.

1 hour ago, Vern Edwards said:

I don't understand. The first page of most solicitations and contracts is a standard form. Why wouldn't a "cover page" be extra? Are you referring to Standard Form 1707? I don't see that much anymore.

Sorry, I’m out of date Vern. Im used to having RFP solicitations with a cover page describing the project title and location as the first page. So used to industry complaining about page count for solicitations. Whatever works, fine.

46 minutes ago, WifWaf said:

While that may help accountability, granularly giving names (beyond the CO’s) out to the public, it would have too high of a drawback.  No, I think you keep that ownership reporting internal to your management chain.  In the acquisition workforce, that reporting should go up to the highest levels.  What else are the COCOs and HCAs and Program Executive Officers to measure for output of acquisition personnel but their writing?

The public, though?  They’d have no idea what they’re reading.  And they would all assume the worst intentions because of how bitter the general public is over most things beyond themselves and their tribes.  It’s only human, unchristian nature that they cannot trust anyone beyond their 150 nameable acquaintances as being friend - instead, they assume all foes.  You don’t want to encourage that dissonance anymore than the internet already does.  It’s why I’m anonymous, btw.  We humans, with our tribal brains, live in a wide world of scary technology capabilities.  Anonymity is a check and balance against this dissonance.

I think there ought to be enough pride to assume some accountability for your work products.

For as long as I was involved in design and construction both outside and inside the Government since 1971, every drawing included in solicitations and contracts have had a title box including the names of the designer(s) and the reviewing authority on them. As a licensed Professional Engineer, I also stamped every drawing and spec title/cover sheet that I was responsible for or personally prepared with my P.E. Stamp and license number.

I think that it is a Croc to remain anonymous for your work products. Take ownership…

And, for good or bad, i chose not to be anonymous on this Forum. Some others have come over from the dark side over the years. (Right, Don? 😃)

I am all in from the responsibility aspect.  Like many that is why you see my name in this Forum.   What would need to change is accountability of responsibiluity of those that would have their names stated.    I suspect their phones might ring off the hook as in this day and age give anyone a minute and they will find the contact numbers for Arthur, Jane, Janet and Tom.  And usually that "finding it" it is to raise hell not compliment them on a great product.

It takes "broad shoulders" to be a civil servant.

1 hour ago, WifWaf said:

While that may help accountability, granularly giving names (beyond the CO’s) out to the public, it would have too high of a drawback.  No, I think you keep that ownership reporting internal to your management chain.  In the acquisition workforce, that reporting should go up to the highest levels.  What else are the COCOs and HCAs and Program Executive Officers to measure for output of acquisition personnel but their writing?

The public, though?  They’d have no idea what they’re reading.  And they would all assume the worst intentions because of how bitter the general public is over most things beyond themselves and their tribes.  It’s only human, unchristian nature that they cannot trust anyone beyond their 150 nameable acquaintances as being friend - instead, they assume all foes.  You don’t want to encourage that dissonance anymore than the internet already does.  It’s why I’m anonymous, btw.  We humans, with our tribal brains, live in a wide world of scary technology capabilities.  Anonymity is a check and balance against this dissonance.

I unfortunately have to second this comment.  While it shouldn't be this way, social media has warped the reality for many who don't pay attention and are looking for conspiracies wherever they can find them.  Say a GS-7 CS is named on an SOW for a solicitation/contract accused of being "DEI."  That CS has either donated in their individual capacity to a disfavored political party or has a spouse/parent/family member who is engaged in partisan political activity.  It doesn't take much these days for a conspiracy to form and harassment to follow, and I don't see any Federal agency providing personal protection services like they would in the case of a Judge or SCOTUS Justice.  If I were a low-level CS, why would I want to invite that level of risk to my personal safety?

I do not think it would have much of an affect, if any. Those that take professional pride in their work will do so with or without the cover sheet, those that don't (or feel so encumbered by our bureaucracy they've developed learned helplessness), won't. Regarding learned helplessness, some (though certainly not all) of the insanity of modern solicitations are outside of COs/CAs control, caused by inadequate contracting writing systems generating terrible formatting or the Clause Logic System inserting excessive/inappropriate clauses (I think I've think bent your ear on this once or twice Vern).

Moreover, solicitations already require the Contracting Officer's name on them (via the "issued by" and "for information call" blocks). SAM.gov also lists primary and secondary points of contact (usually the CO and the CA) tying names to the solicitation. If the hypothesis is that by tying a name to the solicitation may result in more professional products, we already have that. If the hypothesis is that the way the cover sheet is written may add an additional level of ownership, I'm not so sure.

1 hour ago, jjgott said:

If I were a low-level CS, why would I want to invite that level of risk to my personal safety?

I have written lots of stuff, books, articles, and posts in this forum. I write more stuff for the public in a month than most write in a year, in five years. I always put my name on my work, and I post under my real name here. It's easy to look me up. It never crossed my mind that people would be afraid to put their name on their work. What a sad state of affairs.

37 minutes ago, Matthew Fleharty said:

If the hypothesis is that by tying a name to the solicitation may result in more professional products, we already have that.

@Matthew Fleharty Well... The way those names appear at SAM and on the soliciation form they associate persons with documents, but don't say, "Prepared by... " But your closer to today's working world that I am. But every time I see my name on a publication I feel pride and that it could have been better. Keeps me at it.

When I think of all the people down through the ages who wrote and published and relished hearing people talk about their thoughts and words, I can only feel sad for those who fear it, don't want to take responsibility for what they produce, and are not motivated by it.

But, oh well... I feel sorry for those who do not want people to know their work.

 

Here's something that might interest Forum readers:

The Quality and Professionalism of the Acquisition Workforce: Report of the Investigations Subcommittee fo the Committee on Armed Services, House of Representatives, One Hundred First Congress, Second Session, May 1990.

776 pages. The word "pride" appears only once.

Downloadable from Google Books. Only one of many congressional inquiries into the workforce.

In my mind, the desire to produce work anonymously scotches all talk of professionalism.

 

 

2 hours ago, joel hoffman said:

And, for good or bad, i chose not to be anonymous on this Forum. Some others have come over from the dark side over the years. (Right, Don? 😃)

Right. 

Ah, I hope you don’t mind me mentioning “Don Acquisition”. I figured it was a clever, double entendre for “Department of the Navy Acquisition”. 😁

I originally thought use of names is a good idea.  But I saw something recently online that made me rethink that.  The author states that all the levels of review common now at the acquisition plan, solicitation and award levels adds extensive delays but little benefit.

Apart from that I hear many complaints from senior acquisition folks saying contract specialist and contracting officers do a sloppy job because of reviews.  Thay don’t take the time and effort to do the best they can feeling that reviews will catch errors and that reviews will cause them to redo lots of work anyway.  

This is also a common statement made by lawyers saying CS/COs seem to almost prepare a draft document to send for

So now I’m thinking use of names might not have a large impact on quality except for the few conscientious ones.

51 minutes ago, formerfed said:

Apart from that I hear many complaints from senior acquisition folks saying contract specialist and contracting officers do a sloppy job because of reviews.  Thay don’t take the time and effort to do the best they can feeling that reviews will catch errors and that reviews will cause them to redo lots of work anyway...

So now I’m thinking use of names might not have a large impact on quality except for the few conscientious ones.

So you agree with Matthew.

Well, I'm in no position to refute that. But if that's true, then I think it is because those "senior acquisition folks" have not provided proper leadership, inspiration, indoctrination, education, training, and supervision to their contract specialists and contracting officers, and that those "folks" should be relieved of the authority to make contracting officer appointments and fired.

20 hours ago, Vern Edwards said:

So you agree with Matthew.

Well, I'm in no position to refute that. But if that's true, then I think it is because those "senior acquisition folks" have not provided proper leadership, inspiration, indoctrination, education, training, and supervision to their contract specialists and contracting officers, and that those "folks" should be relieved of the authority to make contracting officer appointments and fired.

I do agree with Matthew except I don’t think contract writing systems are that much of a problem. Nobody should be accepting their output as a final document. Rather they should be viewed as a tool providing an initial draft.

Senior acquisition officials aren’t providing leadership, inspiration, education, training and supervision as you say. It takes a long time for them to make major improvements but there are short term steps that aren’t done often. One is tie results from reviews into employee performance appraisals and not with token weight. Another is showcasing “star” employees and providing recognition throughout the agency for exceptional performance. This lets everyone know if they want to succeed and advance, this is the new standard.

So standards should be based on the performance of "star" employees?

Standards could include number of review comments including legal. Others might include achieving a level of client satisfaction and meeting time criteria such as PALT.

Recognition of “star” employees could be for significant accomplishments in award, administering contracts, providing client support, tailoring actions to achieve some goal, etc. This lets coworkers see what’s expected by management.

I would set standards for knowledge of and ability to explain key acquisition concepts, principles, rules, processes, procedures, methods and techniques.

• standards for contract planning and design,

• standards the quality of files and documents in terms of organization, readability, and usability,

• standards for communication effectiveness,

• standards for the quality of arguments and presentations,

• standards for in-house and contractual relationship management

• standards for time and schedule management

• and more...

As a supervisor I would consider my job to b to turn apprentices into skilled journeymen, some of which would go on to pursue mastery.

I like those, Vern. All that is very beneficial to both employees and supervisors.

I became frustrated in my last two government jobs 20and 30 years ago, Both agencies have the same union representing employees and the union insisted that no subjective measures can be used. HR agreed.

I love the idea of instilling authorship and responsibility for that authorship!

Far too many want to hide behind anonymity. Personal pride and personal responsibility might actually lead to better quality work product. It might even result in a lower volume of less than essential requirements.

BTW - the "M" is for Mike. My quasi-anonymity is now partially resolved.