Good point, Vern. That’s a subject I hadn’t thought of. I’m pretty familiar with the majority of FAR exempt agencies. On the whole, I don’t think they do a better job with acquisitions than many FAR based agencies. They still struggle with the same issues as their FAR counterparts.

Just now, C Culham said:

Is it much ado about nothing or will it be of substance, time will only tell.

What would be "of substance"?

2 minutes ago, Vern Edwards said:

What would be "of substance"?

How about a reform where new journeymen and under get a prescriptive FAR, and upper journeymen and above get a permissive FAR?

How about a government contracts education (not FAI training) curriculum is established as the gateway from new to upper journeymen, and the position classification is set to a professional standard allotting 20% of each tour of duty to research? That’s a whole day each week of reading contract formation, administration, and legal concepts in books, periodicals, and case law.

2 hours ago, Vern Edwards said:

INVEST IN PEOPLE! Invest wisely, and demand high-yield returns.

Ever since FASA/FARA were passed in the 1990's, there supposedly has been a preference for the acquisition of commercial products/services using commercial procedures. However, that preference has not been exercised as much as it could have been because contracting officers don't know how business is conducted in the commercial world. As part of the investment Vern is advocating, I suggest that the government institute an exchange program with industry where government personnel spend a period of time such as two years in industry with companies like Proctor and Gamble to learn how they do contracting.

16 minutes ago, Retreadfed said:

As part of the investment Vern is advocating, I suggest that the government institute an exchange program with industry where government personnel spend a period of time such as two years in industry with companies like Proctor and Gamble to learn how they do contracting.

That’s a great idea.

Deleted.

1 hour ago, Retreadfed said:

As part of the investment Vern is advocating, I suggest that the government institute an exchange program with industry where government personnel spend a period of time such as two years in industry with companies like Proctor and Gamble to learn how they do contracting.

This has been tried on and off for decades. Despite expectations, it never seemed to produce major benefits.

Here’s the statutory authority for DoD

LII / Legal Information Institute

10 U.S. Code § 1599g - Public-private talent exchange

This email came in from DAU this morning:

Sent on behalf of the Office of Federal Procurement Policy

 

The Revolutionary FAR Overhaul (RFO) initiative launched the most significant rewrite of the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) in over 40 years. This effort will eliminate outdated rules, simplify the regulatory framework, and create a faster, more agile, mission-focused acquisition system. The goal is to help the workforce deliver faster, with greater value and better results for the American people.

As directed by the Executive Order Restoring Common Sense to Federal Procurement, and OMB’s management guidance, Overhauling the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR), the Office of Federal Procurement Policy (OFPP), in close partnership with the Federal Acquisition Regulatory Council (FAR Council), is leading this full-scale rewrite of the FAR. The FAR will retain only the provisions required by statute or essential to efficient, secure, and cost-effective procurement. In addition, agencies must also align agency-specific regulations with the streamlined FAR.

 

At the same time, we will develop non-regulatory buying guides with “how to” strategies that are designed to help the workforce cope with the everyday challenges of delivering capability for the agency as efficiently and effectively as possible. We will seek to meet the workforce where it is – writing specifically for different levels of procurement experience.

 

How It Works

The FAR is being completely rewritten, in plain language, but not all at once. The overhaul will move forward along two coordinated and concurrent tracks.

 

 Track 1 – Rewriting the FAR

• OFPP, in close partnership with the FAR Council, will release rewritten versions of each FAR part at http://www.acquisition.gov/far-overhaul.

• Each rewritten FAR part will reflect only what is essential to sound procurement.

• These rewritten FAR parts will be issued as model class deviation text, available for agencies to adopt until the FAR is formally revised through the rulemaking process.

• Informal feedback may be submitted during this phase. While this is not part of the official public comment process, your input will be considered as appropriate during formal rulemaking.

• Once all FAR parts have been issued as model class deviation text, OFPP and the FAR Council will begin the formal rulemaking process to finalize the streamlined FAR and evaluate informal feedback received.

• Agencies will continue to use their agency issued class deviations until the new FAR is finalized through rulemaking.

 

Track 2 – Developing Buying Guides (Concurrently with Track 1)

• Acquisition professionals with proven expertise in streamlining procurement will work with governmentwide category managers and acquisition innovation advocates to develop practical, non-regulatory buying guides.

• These guides will offer clear, manageable pathways to acquisition solutions tailored to different types of buys and levels of procurement experience.

• Buying guide content will be released over time at http://www.acquisition.gov/far-overhaul and will be updated as best practices evolve.

• Acquisition teams will also be encouraged to test model deviations and buying guide content, and the feedback will help improve both tracks of work.

 

What’s Available & What you Can Do Now

1.      RFO Initiative Page on Acquisition.gov

Visit http://www.acquisition.gov/far-overhaul for the latest guidance, news, and updates, including opportunities for acquisition teams to test model class deviations and buying guide content.

2.      Model Deviation Guidance

Review rewritten versions of FAR Parts 1 and 34. These reflect a streamlined version of the FAR part that your agency has been asked to adopt within 30 days by issuing a class deviation.

3.      Give Feedback

Use the informal feedback form at http://www.acquisition.gov/far-overhaul to share your feedback on (a) model class deviations, which will be considered during the formal rulemaking process and (b) buying guide content. 

4.      Stay Engaged

Bookmark the RFO initiative page (http://www.acquisition.gov/far-overhaul) and check back regularly for updates, including new model deviation guidance, buying guide materials, and deviations issued by agencies.

"Revolutionary"!

Bureaucrats from Madison Avenue.

1 hour ago, jtolli2 said:

The FAR will retain only the provisions required by statute or essential to efficient, secure, and cost-effective procurement.

Well, if Part 1 is representative of this premise, it pretty well eliminated any overarching principles.

EDIT: I generally agree with Vern’s assessment.

Edited May 7May 7 by joel hoffman

I agree with Vern.

To me, there are not enough knowledgeable COs for specialists to shadow and receive quality on-the-job training nor enough knowledgeable people in general who can train the workforce. And often times the qualified/knowledgeable folks simply don't have enough time to spend on training the workforce.

It would be great if we can bring onboard a seasoned veteran or someone who reached the mastery-level in contracting (perhaps someone like Vern) to each Program Executive Offices, solely dedicated to on-the-job teaching and developing. And perhaps in this process, we can axe a lot of the ineffective training personnel and offices as well as DAU.

2 hours ago, Retreadfed said:

As part of the investment Vern is advocating, I suggest that the government institute an exchange program with industry where government personnel spend a period of time such as two years in industry with companies like Proctor and Gamble to learn how they do contracting.

That's an interesting idea that has been around for a long time. But it simply is not practical. Industries vary in their purchasing methods, and companies vary within industries. Moreover, buying in the private sector and buying in the public sector are different because the public sector pursues broader goals.

Moreover, letting good prospects work in industry for two years may result in the loss of some of them. Maybe the best of them.

Lastly, even if we assume that the time with industry would be beneficial, how many would have to go through the program for the government at large to enjoy any widespread benefit?

5 minutes ago, Vern Edwards said:

Moreover, buying in the private sector and buying in the public sector are different because the public sector pursues broader goals.

Did they really leave any broader goals or any goals in the draft Part 1 rewrite? That’s a rhetorical question…

4 hours ago, Vern Edwards said:

What would be "of substance"?

Substance would be regulatory, statutory, and human capital management changes done together. Currently all are archaic. And I am not talking about anything related to "systems" or whatever one might call it, systems is just my simple terminology.

Just to prick the surface.

Statutory - Rid Federal contracting of Davis Bacon and Service Contract Act at the most or at the least increase the thresholds. As already noted FAR part 12 becomes prominant for everything, including construction. Intent on the latter is to raise the SAT not for economic adjustment but for reality. I live in an unsophisticated area where my neighbor is building a house for $500K and the contract for it is much less than what the FAR demands.

Regulatory - Keep the FAR and kick the proposed guide books idea to curb. Yes pare FAR down as best can be accomplished but 40 years ago it was the right idea. Heck even consider what happend 40 years ago, kick the FAR name to the curb and rewrite it as anything but the FAR. Maybe make OTA's the prototype to follow.

Human Capital - Why should I have mastery when in the end someone else is telling me I do not care what you think just get it done. Investing in people and making their counsel and advice of high importance make them feel worthwhile and will generate mastery.

Not doable at the surface is what you and almost everyone will say. Too simple of examples, whatever! In this world anything is possible and there are lots of things that can be done that are of substance. Yet, and again, I simply reach back to the EO that started this and the number of "shalls" in it that won't be met. In the end it is being done because of politics and not with an ideal in hand to make it a substantive change to how the Federal government does business. As this rolls down hill my expressed hope in previous posts is fading quickly.

SAT is due to be raised, and is one of the many changes proposed by Sen. Wicker:

https://www.congress.gov/bill/118th-congress/senate-bill/5618/text

For those in DOD, and FMS, there is also this:

https://www.congress.gov/bill/119th-congress/house-bill/3138?s=1&r=1

Mostly for DOD --

Wicker's bill is frankly what several of the EO's AI garbage output ate (some of the sections are nearly word for word some of Trump's EO titles,) so I'd expect the FoRGED Act to be the implementing arm of any regulation that is tweaked via the revolution. The congressional thresholds Warren addresses were one of several tenets of the FMS streamlining EO. Still waiting on any word of DSAMM revision(s).

I wish they stuck with FAR 2.0. Federal Acquisition Regulations Two (FART) had a nice ring to it.

With both the senate and now the house proposing separate bills referred to their respective armed services committees (Wickers before all the nonsense began, notably,) it is abundantly clear that the administration and ruling party frankly have no idea what they're doing and there is no plan. Only chaos.

Between DRP programs leaving offices simply unable to execute their workloads, draconian workplace policies, anticipated benefit cuts, unprecedented and intentional political pressure -- it's hard to take Vern's ribbing of the workforce as having any real meaning at this point. Read the room. We're beyond doing more with less, we are currently doing less with less. Yet it's the same ol' so far -- "We've tried nothing and we're all out of ideas." No one has time to train younger folks when the asks are becoming greater and bandwith even less to complete it. I have buyer/CO'd nearly half of my substantial workload out of necessity/trainees leaving the government because who the hell wants a job where your boss' boss is playing mind games and calling you worthless on T.V. every other week? I watched nearly an entire division dissolve in thin air with DRP. All with lasting impacts to requirements and cost impacts to the U.S. taxpayer who no doubt will bear it.

None of this is good for the United States, the Department of Defense, Acquisition in the government at large, U.S. citizens, and certainly not Contracting Officers.

3 hours ago, Self Employed said:

None of this is good for the United States, the Department of Defense, Acquisition in the government at large, U.S. citizens, and certainly not Contracting Officers.

@Self Employed 1102s are not the only workers facing challenges today. Ask doctors and nurses. Ask air traffic controllers. Ask school teachers. It's the condition of present-day America, brought on by us, our political system, and our politically-appointed-every-four-years "leaders."

Our government is teetering, even as we drift towards war. It was teetering even before the present administration arrived. As a pro, all you can do is hang in there and keep on keeping on. We gotta shore it up.

A pro has gotta be a pro at all times and under all circumstances. That's what my sergeant told me in November 1966, after we'd been patrolling and sleeping outside in the rain for a month in a place they told us was called Bồng Son. We were tired, filthy, and fed up. I started crying one night due to sheer weariness, misery, and despair, and he said that I was only making myself wetter.

I laughed. So did the other guys.

Hang in there.

Bloomberg Government has published a review of the early work of the FAR Reform team. They trash it.

Unfortunately, I can't provide a link to Bloomberg because it's only available to paid subscribers and extensive quotes would violate copyright. But I can provide a few clips:

Suggested deletions from the Federal Acquisition Regulation will make executive branch agencies more vulnerable to financial and litigation risk when purchasing goods and services from the private sector, according to several lawyers.

***

“These changes risk inconsistent application, weaker early-warning capabilities for cost and schedule overruns, and less transparency for industry and auditors alike.”

***

“If these go final, or something similar, we will see a number of problems, protests, other lawsuits and actions, and likely some investigations and civil and criminal fraud cases come to light...

18 minutes ago, Vern Edwards said:

Bloomberg Government has published a review of the early work of the FAR Reform team. They trash it.

I for one am glad to hear they hated it. To me that means it is headed in the right direction. The FAR grew out of control because of contractor influence lobbying the President, Congress, Agency Heads, etc. I think of how many "mandatory" things a KO must do to solicit and award now. It's been made so that there is little need for critical thinking. Sure, one KO may solicit and award differently from a different KO in their office. So what? Not all requirements are the same. Even if it's for the same item, each acquisition has its' own unique things to it.

Maybe this change will have the opposite effect on protests. So long as the KO uses sound reasoning, it will be more difficult to protest.

1 hour ago, Vern Edwards said:

litigation risk

A grad school professor of mine, a former Under Secretary of Defense for ATL, once made the point about how he was skeptical of the advice his lawyers gave him about mitigating litigation risk for acquisitions. He gave us two legal reviews to read and analyze. One was '"the problem with federal acquisitions is that there aren't enough protests, and the solution is more protests (aka, more work for lawyers)." The second article was "the problem with federal acquisitions is that there are too many protests, and the solution is more legal review (aka, more work for lawyers)."

Basically, legal has their own incentives, which are not your incentives, so consider their advice accordingly.

1 hour ago, Vern Edwards said:

Bloomberg Government has published a review of the early work of the FAR Reform team. They trash it.

Well they were not around in 1984 so one can not consider what their historical view was when the FAR was published, but I wonder.

And my wondering caused me to do some simple research that made me further wonder.....

180 days to wade through history to do something sweeping today? Just a tickle of what one might look at. https://guides.loc.gov/federal-government-contracting/understand-past

And this discussion from 2014 popped up....https://www.wifcon.com/discussion/index.php?/forums/topic/2848-shrinking-the-far/

180 to propose? How long to finalize and amend?

“Suggested deletions from the Federal Acquisition Regulation will make executive branch agencies more vulnerable to financial and litigation risk when purchasing goods and services from the private sector, according to several lawyers.”

On the other hand, a simpler and more straight-forward regulation might reduce risks.

Opposition from lawyers, small businesses, organized labor, environmentalists, base of traditional contractors, consultants, etc., is expected. In short, those whose livelihood is dependent on the status quo will be unhappy.

1 hour ago, OverThinking said:

The FAR grew out of control because of contractor influence lobbying the President, Congress, Agency Heads, etc.

That is historically incorrect.

Contractor lobbyists s pushed for some policies and opposed others. The growth in FAR is the result of many factors, especially socio-economic policy and congressional displeasure with contract costs. The influence of the GAO cannot be overstated.

Do you want to know what streamlining and reform do for us? Consider the history of FAR 16.505, Ordering [under IDIQ contracts].

The original FAR 16.505 (1984) was 134 words in length.

The first FAR 16.505 implementing the Federal Acquisition Streamlining Act of 1994 (FASA) was 984 words in length.

After the FAR councils' implementation of the Federal Acquisition Streamlining Act (FASA) and the Federal Acquisition Reform Act of 1996 (FARA), and further congressional legislative reactions to GAO reports of agencies' conduct of MATOC/MADOC procurements, FAR 16.505 today is 3,592 words in length.

That's how regulations grow. Legislation plants them and agencies fertilize them.

23 hours ago, Vern Edwards said:

The influence of the GAO cannot be overstated.

That has been my thought watching this unfold. The goal of streamlining and cutting extraneous language from the FAR is all well and good until that first GAO opinion comes out sustaining the protest for lack of documentation or some procedural defect.

Fear of a sustained protest (with the accompanying reimbursement of protest costs) is one of the bigger reasons why I've seen COs choose to make procurements more complicated than they need to be.

The head of GAO is replaced/up for appointment in December. They are all still working remote unscathed.