Wifcon guests, including Ralph Nash, Jim Nagle, Don Mansfield, and Vern Edwards, discuss the White House's executive order on "Restoring Common Sense to Federal Procurement."

Thanks for doing this, gentlemen! Your podcast format is exactly what busy people need.

After listening to this one, I have a question: For lack of a Proposed Rule public comment period, can WIFCON.com Forum serve to post topics and allow comment on each significant deviation to FAR?

Great podcast, thanks!

Great podcast!

The podcast was excellent and the varying views by the presenters were very informative. Thank you all for doing this. I know this takes a lot of time preparing and setting it up.

Overall I’m more convinced than ever not much will happen. The public comments period gives all the various opponents time to mobilize to kill things. Congressional reps will likely be overwhelmed with disagreeing feedback. I can even imagine opposition from portions of industry. Companies that do lots of government business don’t want things made easier for new firms to enter the space. Then there is organized labor, environmentalist groups, small businesses and associated groups, law firms and even lobbyists that are relatively satisfied with the status quo. To them major change is filled with unknowns.

Already we’re seeing time extensions for things to happen. I think this will drag on until those pushing changes will just give up. But I hope aim wrong.

Now on Spotify.

Regarding Vern's comments and overall tone of his discussion: God bless this man and the comic relief for this podcast. He argues the project is futile (Mission: Impossible), but will be fun to watch. He likes to laugh at your badly written notices and solicitations on SAM, specifically YOU, the CO reading this forum instead of doing your job. Also, he would like to re-design DAU because they rely on CBT's ("horrific failures") and virtual classes (I agree, many people are just logging-in but not learning).

Bottom Line: I want to be a better CO just to reduce the chance Vern e-mails me one day to mock a really crummy Service RFI he finds on SAM.

Go to Sam.gov and find solicitation (RFQ) 140G0325Q0004, dated 04/10/2025, issued by the U.S. Geological Survey, Sacramento, California.

https://sam.gov/opp/9a8517df067a4ea4b80633e0b36d437f/view

Download the solicitation. It's for commercial "facility support services". It's short—27 pages including the "performance work statement".

Look at it. Just LOOK at it. (Don't bother looking at the two amendments. They don't' change much.)

Put yourself in the place of commercial companies looking at it.

On a scale of 0 to 10, 10 being best, how would you rate the solicitation's quality, based on your own standards?

What effect would the prospective FAR reform have on this sort of thing?

None?

Make it better?

Make it worse?

Admiral Rickover has a quote that I am fond of (emphasis added): "Organizations don't get things done. Plans and programs don't get things done. Only people get things done. Organizations, plans, and programs either help or hinder people."

FAR reform will not fix our acquisition system because our system relies on people to make decisions. People will still need to read, interpret, and apply the FAR - whether they make sound decisions or bad decisions is based on their knowledge and abilities, little of which has to do with what is or is not in the FAR. A better written FAR could help them, while a poorly written FAR could hinder them, but it's the people that policymakers and leadership have lost sight of. We are not setting our people up for success. None of the people in the government acquisition workforce receive quality education on contracting as a standard practice. None of the people in the government acquisition workforce have access to best in class materials like the Cibinic and Nash Report or Briefing Papers. What our people get instead are Defense Acquisition University (DAU), a littany of computer based trainings (CBT), and on the job training (OJT) that, in most cases, is little more than showing them what was done last time and expecting them to do the same....oh, and calls for AI, "innovation," and buying commercial as if they are panaceas...

If we have a well educated acquisition workforce, I believe they could overcome even the most convoluted FAR (and any other organizations, plans, or programs that might serve as hinderances). Conversely, if we have an uneducated acquisition workforce, I believe we could have the best written FAR and that workforce would still find ways to break it.

On 5/3/2025 at 10:40 AM, Vern Edwards said:

Go to Sam.gov and find solicitation (RFQ) 140G0325Q0004, dated 04/10/2025, issued by the U.S. Geological Survey, Sacramento, California.

https://sam.gov/opp/9a8517df067a4ea4b80633e0b36d437f/view

Download the solicitation. It's for commercial "facility support services". It's short—27 pages including the "performance work statement".

Look at it. Just LOOK at it. (Don't bother looking at the two amendments. They don't' change much.)

Put yourself in the place of commercial companies looking at it.

On a scale of 0 to 10, 10 being best, how would you rate the solicitation's quality, based on your own standards?

What effect would the prospective FAR reform have on this sort of thing?

None?

Make it better?

Make it worse?

Vern - I skimmed through it on my phone while on the train. Not a deep read. My two biggest critiques are the vague request for a “work plan” and the lack of any measurable performance standards. I also didn’t see stated which FAR procedures are being utilized, and question whether the CO understands that part 12 doesn’t stand alone.

Ideally, an agency would choose an HVAC company based on qualifications, experience, past performance, and price alone. And it must include some kind of quality standard.

That said, as someone who reviews a lot of procurement work product, I would honestly be happy if I received this as a first draft for review. It’s short, simple, and (to me) clear in purpose. These are attributes that are so often missing from our supposedly “streamlined” and “simplified” procurements.

What are your primary concerns with it?

On 5/2/2025 at 1:42 PM, WifWaf said:

Thanks for doing this, gentlemen! Your podcast format is exactly what busy people need.

Agree, good work, gentlemen, and thanks for setting this up, Don. My only critique is that it was too brief. I would’ve enjoyed hearing these men continue to quibble, although I guess there’s only so much to say at this point.

On 5/3/2025 at 11:51 AM, Matthew Fleharty said:

None of the people in the government acquisition workforce have access to best in class materials like the Cibinic and Nash Report or Briefing Papers.

Matthew - Have you ever tried sharing relevant N&CR articles with acquisition personnel? Outside of legal personnel, interest is low in the offices I've worked at. Ensuring access to adequate materials is only part of the battle. People aren't going to suddenly choose to work harder if they weren't already inclined to do so. For this to happen, the structure or composition of the workforce must change.

15 minutes ago, FrankJon said:

[A]s someone who reviews a lot of procurement work product, I would honestly be happy if I received this as a first draft for review.

I'm sorry to see you say that.

16 minutes ago, FrankJon said:

What are your primary concerns with it?

I'll withhold my comments for a while.

What's wrong with it, if anything?

If any thing is wrong, would FAR reform prevent it in future solicitations?

On 5/3/2025 at 10:40 AM, Vern Edwards said:

Go to Sam.gov and find solicitation (RFQ) 140G0325Q0004, dated 04/10/2025, issued by the U.S. Geological Survey, Sacramento, California.

https://sam.gov/opp/9a8517df067a4ea4b80633e0b36d437f/view

Download the solicitation. It's for commercial "facility support services". It's short—27 pages including the "performance work statement".

Look at it. Just LOOK at it. (Don't bother looking at the two amendments. They don't' change much.)

Put yourself in the place of commercial companies looking at it.

On a scale of 0 to 10, 10 being best, how would you rate the solicitation's quality, based on your own standards?

What effect would the prospective FAR reform have on this sort of thing?

None?

Make it better?

Make it worse?

It's impossible for a company to bid this as written. The PWS says they need one HVAC mechanic. Full time? On call? Without know that, how would they price that? Also, there is no indication of the number of buildings or square footage that need to be maintained. (Maybe the size of the campus is common knowledge in the area?)

From an acquisition planning perspective, there are several GSA schedules and GWACs that appear to be applicable to HVAC maintenance. It's almost always preferable to use an existing contract, if for no other reason to avoid putting out slop like this. (The whole thing makes more sense if they are just trying to go back to the incumbent though.)

The document itself is missing key information--namely instructions to offerors. What's the page limit on the proposal? I'm not going to check, but I'm pretty sure there are several clauses that are incorporated by reference when they need to be full text and vice versa. I don't understand the distinction between past performance and references, especially since they are discussed in the same paragraph. One pet peeve of mine is repeating information. The POP information is in at least 3 different places. The document is organized poorly. The later two are very fixable by any boss with a heartbeat. Where is the supervision here?

From a strategy perspective, if this isn't a full time job, a BPA with an hourly rate for calls is the more appropriate. I don't even see how this is more than $250K per year. If it's under $250k, I think you could justify soliciting one vendor and making sure the hourly rate is fair and reasonable. Whatever saving you may achieve by competition is probably not enough to offset the work involved in a full and open competition like this.

On 5/3/2025 at 7:40 AM, Vern Edwards said:

On a scale of 0 to 10, 10 being best, how would you rate the solicitation's quality, based on your own standards?

What effect would the prospective FAR reform have on this sort of thing?

None?

Make it better?

Make it worse?

5

None

Quick thoughts - Acquiring a "person" aka "one (1) qualified mechanical equipment specialist" not a service? 52.212-4 not tailored so it really isn't short. The format, even with some discreation regarding what FAR 12.303 says I have to wade through provisions etc. to get to what the work really is.

Bottomline - Its a people problem not a FAR problem.

I question why this can’t be much simpler. Maybe just a list/description of the equipment, perhaps floor plans, required certifications of mechanics, and info about site visits. Then request past performance information and price quotes.

In the podcast, Vern pitched his recurring them of "mastery" -- a truly worthy goal for all of us. After 40 years of being in this environment, my sense is that less than one percent of all acquisition professionals want to aspire to mastery ... and less than one-tenth of that amount will ever reach it. The rest will wait to be told what to do.

Re: the solicitation

It's been a long time since I had to respond to a solicitation, but this one seems ... off-kilter. I would rate it a 4 out of 10. It's clear. It's clear that this one would not be something I would respond to.

The synopsis says they "require[] a Facilities Maintenance Services person" but the PWS details somebody who does a heckuva lot more than just maintenance services.

The right person needs to be able to operate a brand-specific building maintenance system, install new and replacement HVAC and process equipment, have the ability to read and interpret technical drawings, schematics, and manuals (of an unknown nature), must possess an EPA certification in HVAC plus an HVAC technical certification from an accredited institution (which I assume would be a community college but it's not specified). Plus maintain accountability of government-furnished materials. That's just the "required stuff".

In addition, it would be desirable (which may be several unstated evaluation factors) to: have experience with Powers Process Control Language (whatever that is), have a certification in building automation programming, have a BACnet Operator certification, have an electrical certification, and have experience with control system integration.

All that screams far more than simply a "Facilities Maintenance Services person". It makes me think they are looking for a pseudo-employee to basically take-over the entire HVAC system. If I were considering responding to this, I would pass. I would assume they tailored the requirements to the individual they already want to hire contract with. I would guess they know someone who recently departed that exact same position; either through retirement or other means.

I wouldn't waste my time or funds trying to win this opportunity.

On 5/3/2025 at 11:51 AM, Matthew Fleharty said:

None of the people in the government acquisition workforce receive quality education on contracting as a standard practice.

3 hours ago, FrankJon said:

For this to happen, the structure or composition of the workforce must change.

14 minutes ago, here_2_help said:

mastery ... and less than one-tenth of that amount will ever reach it. The rest will wait to be told what to do.

The cause of this problem is clear to me. Due to a faulty hiring standard, we are not able to properly perform research in our jobs.

In the 1102 Position Classification Standard from the 1980's, there was a comment and response that doomed the field from the start. It is shown in the quote box below. The result is, currently, young bucks like Bender up above are technically correct to whip the career field, and say, "Get to work making crappy RFQs!" - because the OPM standard says we are not paid to research as professionals do to improve. Bender, who for our purposes I will assume is a new hire, is desirous of a workforce that is all application, no research. The masters here, though, are currently those who 1) Were educated in-person on research books like Formation of Government Contracts, 2) Are fully capable of researching concepts in books like Administration of Government Contracts on their own, and 3) Otherwise research N&CR and case law during lunch and after work. But 1) is nonexistent in the career field, and 2) and 3) are unpaid research that is simply not scalable.

How can we, in this opportune time of change, demand correction of this standard's interpretation of the law?

Position Classification Standard for Contracting Series, GS-1102

* * * *

CONTRACTING SERIES - EXPLANATORY MEMORANDUM

* * *

ISSUES RAISED

* * *

SERIES DEFINITION

* * *

Issue: Four noteworthy issues surfaced:

* * *

(3) Whether or not the Contracting Series should be designated as "professional" in the same sense that the attorney or engineering series are held to be professional. Certain formal education requirements were proposed by procurement representatives, with the primary goal being to increase proficiency of contracting personnel in the Federal service.

* * *

(3) [O]PM applies the term "professional" to occupations which, among other important characteristics, require study in a prescribed curriculum as virtually the only way to prepare for the work. We did not find this to be the case for any of the specialties within the coverage of the GS-1102 series. Our review of the qualifications of numerous employees showed that, as in the case of other administrative occupations such as budget analysis or information technology management specialist, experience and on-the-job training provide a basis for fully satisfactory performance of the duties and responsibilities assigned.

The governing statute is very specific concerning establishment of minimum educational requirements for occupations in the Federal service:

"The Office of Personnel Management or other examining agency may not prescribe a minimum educational requirement for an examination for the competitive service except when the Office decides that the duties of a scientific, technical, or professional position cannot be performed by an individual who does not have a prescribed minimum education." (5 U.S.C. 3308)

Clearly, this provision of the law is designed to preclude, as a general rule, OPM's establishment of minimum educational requirements. It constitutes a prohibition on minimum educational requirements which can be overcome only with convincing evidence that only persons with specified education can perform the work, which is not the case in this occupation. As for increasing the level of proficiency among contracting personnel in the Federal service, the various reforms emanating from the efforts of the Office of Federal Procurement Policy, the Federal Acquisition Institute, and agency efforts to improve the intake, career development, training, and advancement of contracting staffs are important positive steps.

PP. 130-132. Emphasis added.

3 hours ago, formerfed said:

I question why this can’t be much simpler. Maybe just a list/description of the equipment, perhaps floor plans, required certifications of mechanics, and info about site visits. Then request past performance information and price quotes.

Was the preparation of a separate solicitation document consistent with combined synopsis/solicitation?

17 minutes ago, Vern Edwards said:

Was the preparation of a separate solicitation document consistent with combined synopsis/solicitation?

That was the first thing that jumped out at me. It’s either one or the other but not both.

@formerfed

Did you notice that:

• the SAM.gov notice was entitled, "FACILITIES SUPPORT SERVICES",

• the body of the notice described the buy as "Facilities Maintenance Services",

• the SF18 block 11 entry said: "Facilities Maintenance Services, HVAC, Building Control Systems",

• CLIN 01000 description said: "Facilities Support Services,"

• the PWS Introduction and Background section said: "one (1) qualified mechanical equipment specialist to provide maintenance and operational support for Heating Ventilation and Air Conditioning (VAC), industrial process equipment, and building control systems[.]"

• the PWS Scope section said: "The contractor shall provide maintenance and technical support services for the AVAC system, industrial equipment, and building control systems... This includes troubleshooting, repairing, and maintaining various mechanical, electrical, and control systems. The contractor will also be responsible for performing preventive maintenance and system upgrades."

The PWS does not contain separate task statements for each function..

32 minutes ago, Vern Edwards said:

@formerfed

Did you notice that:

(Edited out the issues for brevity)

The PWS does not contain separate task statements for each function..

To me the contract specialist/contracting officer had no idea what they are buying. A good question for them to ask the responsible PM/facility manager is “what do you need in layman’s terms?” Then together they craft some straightforward language.

I honestly don’t know why a PWS is needed. It appears this is a requirement to keep Heating Ventilation and Air Conditioning (VAC), industrial process equipment, and building control systems operational. All that’s required from my simple perspective is listing the equipment, provide details on its location and operational requirement, inform offerors they must perform preventative and required operational maintenance, and cover repairs as needed.

Either a combined synopsis/solicitation with perhaps links to the above documents and instructions to submit information on experience, references, and pricing or a response to separate RFQ with the same information is all that’s needed.

Here_to_help brings up some interesting points but that’s for the PM/facility manager to qualify.

3 hours ago, formerfed said:

To me the contract specialist/contracting officer had no idea what they are buying.

From another view. A solicitation to fill a position that has been vacated by Trump edict that the agency hopes only the ex-employee responds to?

On 5/5/2025 at 9:58 AM, WifWaf said:

Bender, who for our purposes I will assume is a new hire, is desirous of a workforce that is all application, no research. The masters here, though, are currently those who 1) Were educated in-person on research books like Formation of Government Contracts, 2) Are fully capable of researching concepts in books like Administration of Government Contracts on their own, and 3) Otherwise research N&CR and case law during lunch and after work. But 1) is nonexistent in the career field, and 2) and 3) are unpaid research that is simply not scalable.

I generally agree, but do want to briefly defend myself and my experience in the Air Force. Our office has multiple copies of the N&C Reference, Formation, and Administration books, and I attempt to read a section from them about monthly. I also challenge my colleagues to do the same, however, it is like pushing rope; most of my peers are simply uninterested.

1. Being educated in person with regular (at least weekly), reading and evaluation of the N&C books is a great experience that some people have received. My training certainly involved an experienced and motivated CO who trained me to the AF's standards, but not beyond that. An apprenticeship in the DoD that includes anything more than brief mention of the existence of any of these books, or the N&C Report, or Briefing Papers, is not realistic a expectation for most.

2. I suspect someone who has access to and is capable of researching the N&C books independently is already moderately experienced and somewhat comfortable with these topics.

3. I struggle to imagine someone in my generation or younger who would have a desire to read contracting case law in their spare time who wouldn't be also pursuing something more lucrative or advanced, like a law degree and law career.

Related, from the WIFCON podcast:

Vern: "they must be trained initially by having a fundamentally good education, followed by an apprenticeship, achieving journeyman status, and some of them will go on to be masters, and those people should become contracting officers"

I recognize that I am not going to achieve mastery for at least a decade (if someone does it faster, they are probably smarter than me). I'm proactively attempting to improve myself in this field, but I am, in part, a product of my environment, as well as my own failings (i.e., laziness).

Edited May 6May 6 by Bender Bending Rodriguez
Clarity