34 minutes ago, Don Mansfield said:

It's the "need to know" that I'm taking exception to. You cannot "know" something about the future.

My mistake.  Agree

16 minutes ago, formerfed said:

My mistake.  Agree

So what can we know that is useful in an offeror's description of how they will perform a contract?

23 minutes ago, Don Mansfield said:

So what can we know that is useful in an offeror's description of how they will perform a contract?

The means they will comply with requirements without details of how. If an offeror has similar experience and solid past performance, we don’t need a step-by-step description of planned performance.

What I find most striking and saddening is that it seems clear that most workforce professionals don't think things through for themselves. They don't ask themselves questions about what the words in the regulations mean.

Take the word price. Look at how it's defined in the current FAR Part 15. Look at how it is defined in the overhauled Part 15. Now ask yourself: What is a price? What do you know about the meaning(s) of the word? Ask yourself whether the word price is suitable for the dollar figure that is written in government contracts.

In order for the acquisition process to be improved, the workforce must first improve itself. We need inquiring minds.

1 hour ago, formerfed said:

The means they will comply with requirements without details of how. If an offeror has similar experience and solid past performance, we don’t need a step-by-step description of planned performance.

Bingo!!!

14 hours ago, Matthew Fleharty said:

Is it necessary or even beneficial to evaluate details of their approach? If so, what's the strongest argument(s) for this assertion?

It may be necessary or beneficial in certain instances in which the agency wants to ascertain that the offeror understands what a technically sound approach is.

I have an active example, but the work is very specific and I’m reluctant to discuss publicly. The most I’ll share here is that past results do not guarantee future success. For this reason, my customer wants to do a close inspection under the hood to understand each offeror’s structure and practices. We reserve the right to incorporate any piece of the approach into the contract. (Personally, I think what my customer wants is probably overkill. But their rationale, if true, makes sense. So I defer to the judgment of the experts here despite personal doubts.)

Even if you can’t think of a specific example, isn’t it simple to imagine such a situation arising?

Can you help me to see why you believe it would never be appropriate to request a technical approach that the government doesn’t intend to incorporate into the contract?

13 hours ago, Vern Edwards said:

What I find most striking and saddening is that it seems clear that most workforce professionals don't think things through for themselves. They don't ask themselves questions about what the words in the regulations mean.

Take the word price. Look at how it's defined in the current FAR Part 15. Look at how it is defined in the overhauled Part 15. Now ask yourself: What is a price? What do you know about the meaning(s) of the word? Ask yourself whether the word price is suitable for the dollar figure that is written in government contracts.

In order for the acquisition process to be improved, the workforce must first improve itself. We need inquiring minds.

Vern did you intend to post this in the other thread about value?

51 minutes ago, FrankJon said:

The most I’ll share here is that past results do not guarantee future success.

Neither do contracts.

I cannot think of any guarantee of success in a complex endeavor.

49 minutes ago, FrankJon said:

Vern did you intend to post this in the other thread about value?

It applies to both threads, whether the subject is value or approach or any other word in the FAR.

What does price mean? And I'm not referring to the FAR definition.

17 hours ago, Vern Edwards said:

Ask yourself whether the word price is suitable for the dollar figure that is written in government contracts.

I contend that the majority of contracts that are firm-fixed-price at a lump sum unit of measure today could move to fixed unit-rate and we would see immediate savings and improvements in quality. But it’s not described or instructed enough in the FAR and not trained outside of construction, so it doesn’t come up in acquisition planning.

I started to say after a quick search price is what a buyer pays for an item and cost is what it takes for the seller to produce the item. Then I saw in Britannica dictionary something different. According to it “Price is generally used to refer to the amount of money that a seller is asking for something, and cost generally refers to the amount of money that buyer will spend rather than the price that a seller is asking for.”

So we can refer to contract amount as the cost government pays for a product or service.

Price seems simple, but it is a very complex idea. It's use in contracts is probably suitable only in the acquisition of commercial products, non-commercial commodity "items of supplyy, and commodified commercial and noncommercial services. It's use in contracts for construction and complex/relational work such as long-term support services and full-scale engineering development is terribly misleading, especially for members of Congress and new 1102s and technical personnel. Its use in acquisition legislation and FAR Subpart 15.4 has created a swamp of accumulated half-baked communication and policy.

To get an idea of the complexity of price read "The Definition of Price" by Frank A. Fetter, The American Economic Review, December 1912, and "What Is a Price" by Irena Asmundson in Back. To Basics, published on line by International Monetary Fund, Finance & Development, December 2013.

Those are only two of many such articles I have found online, downloaded, and read. Note the dates of the two articles.

Sometimes we use words freely that we don't really understand, thus deceiving ourselves, and thus hamstringing our policies and instructions.

And then there is cost. But we can talk about that idea another time.

On 11/6/2025 at 8:17 AM, Vern Edwards said:

Neither do contracts.

I cannot think of any guarantee of success in a complex endeavor.

This is correct. What I should have stated instead is that, with respect to my specific acquisition, past results may or may not be strongly correlated to contractor inputs. There may be a high amount of luck involved with past outcomes. For this reason, my customer insists on examining every aspect of an offeror's business before awarding a contract for this particular need.

To sum up my position on this topic, I wholeheartedly agree with the argument that requesting a written technical proposal or "approach" to the work is usually unnecessary and wasteful. But if @Matthew Fleharty is arguing that it's never appropriate to request such information unless the government intends to incorporate it into the contract, I disagree with this. I don't know how one could make such a blanket assertion across the myriad Government requirements that ever have been and ever will be. Moreover, even if this were substantively true, I disagree with the notion of "overruling" a customer who insists on requesting such information. I think such a decision rightfully falls within the "advisory" bucket of a CO's responsibilities, even when the CO is also the SSA.

On 11/6/2025 at 11:49 PM, Vern Edwards said:

Sometimes we use words freely that we don't really understand, thus deceiving ourselves, and thus hamstringing our policies and instructions.

I read a passage in Epictetus' Discourses this weekend in which he praises Plato for insisting that his students come to a common understanding of everyday words. Made me think of your recent posts, Vern. You would've been right at home in the agora....

17 minutes ago, FrankJon said:

You would've been right at home in the agora....

I don't know about that. The thing to know about Socrates was that he was a cunning questioner. If you had spoken and he then asked you a question about what you said, you were in trouble. I'm not skilled enough or patient enough to be cunning. Don Mansfield is the Socratic guy. The Athenians would have executed him along with Socrates.

But here is a book that you might enjoy reading: The Socratic Method: A Practitioner's Handbook, by Ward Farnsworth ⭐️⭐️⭐️⭐️⭐️ A really good book and a pleasant read. Especially good for contract negotiators.

Here's the problem with evaluating proposed "approaches":

The Marine Corps issued RFP M6700425R0009 on July 21 for "Logistics Integration Support". Proposals were due September 19.

The RFP is 65 pages long. It includes seven base-year CLINs. The "performance work statement" is an additional 51 pages. This was a typical FAR Part 15 competitive procurement.

The RFP required a "technical proposal" as follows:

Volume I: Technical – The Technical Proposal shall be specific, detailed, and complete so as to clearly demonstrate to the Government that the Offeror has a thorough comprehension of the solicitation requirements and the capabilities to perform these requirements throughout the performance period. The technical section must be sufficient to show how the Offeror proposes to comply with the Government's requirements and must include a full explanation of the methodology and procedures to be followed. The Offeror must also identify and evaluate any risks associated with the Offeror’s proposed approach and propose mitigation steps to minimize the Government’s risk in accepting the Offeror’s proposed solution. Your submission shall clearly demonstrate the following:

Section 1 – Technical Approach

a. Experience managing the remanufacture, overhaul and repair (ROR): The Offeror shall demonstrate they have a minimum of three years of experience managing the remanufacture, overhaul and repair (ROR) of repairable assemblies from the following four categories (Communications-electronics, Ordnance, Motor transport, and Engineer items). The offeror’s demonstrated experience must be across multiple geographically dispersed locations and on a scale similar to that required in the PWS. A similar scale is defined as a minimum volume of 7,000 repairs per year covering a minimum of 600 items/assemblies. The experience must demonstrate the offeror’s ability to act as a pass-through integrator (Third Party Logistics (3PL) provider) responsible for establishing and maintaining a vendor base capable of executing the ROR in accordance with technical manuals or OEM specifications within specified turnaround times (TAT) and with warranties offered to the customer for repairs.

b. Staffing Plan - The Offeror shall outline how staffing will be resourced and managed. The Offeror’s proposal shall provide an effective approach to coordinating its personnel and subcontractors to deliver the tasks stated in the PWS. The Offeror shall include a detailed description of the staffing approach used to provide high demand personnel, as well as the Offeror’s demonstrated ability to recruit, train, and retain sufficient numbers of personnel with required skill sets required to support the nine LIS SECREP customers located at six different geographic locations adhering to the specific equipment repair needs and security requirements identified in the PWS.

c. Management Plan - The Offeror’s proposal shall provide a management plan detailing their ability to deliver the services which meet the requirements of the PWS. The Offeror shall include a detailed description of the management plan approach to managing, teaming, staffing, communication, coordinating, resolving problems, and ensuring flexibility appropriate to the magnitude and complexity of repair work required by each LIS SECREP customer at each geographic location as detailed in the PWS.

d. Key Personnel - The Offeror shall provide the resume for all key personnel as identified in Section 4.5.5 of the PWS, which demonstrates the experience, skills, and qualifications that are necessary to perform the requirements in the PWS. The Offeror shall submit a current Letter of Intent (LOI) with all resumes of Key Personnel that are not currently employed by the Offeror or proposed subcontractor. The LOI must be signed by the individual key personnel AND the Offeror or proposed subcontractor. Personnel resumes and LOIs will not count against the page limit. Key personnel are critical to the successful performance of this contract. Personnel resumes shall be limited to two (2) pages and shall include, at a minimum, the following information: • Years of experience and education relevant to the definition of each key personnel as defined in PWS 4.5.5. If a degree is held, include the degree(s) received from and dates of attendance at accredited college(s) or university(ies). • Training • Unique or special qualifications • Tenure with the firm

e. Quality Control Plan - Offerors shall describe their approach towards providing quality control and quality assurance, including how they will ensure successful accomplishment of task order requirements and delivery of all contract/task order deliverables at a high-quality level and what steps they will take to resolve quality issues / unsatisfactory deliverables.

Section 2 – CO/CO IT Tracking System - Demonstrate that the contractor-owned, contractor-operated (CO/CO) IT tracking system meets the requirements of paragraph 5.13 of the PWS.

Section 3 – Experience Repairing & Handling CCI - Demonstrate experience repairing and handling unclassified controlled cryptographic items (CCI) per Section 5.14 of the PWS.

Section 4 – Draft Transition Plan - Explain the Offeror’s transition plan to phase into the role of the LIS SECREP integrator without a break in service in accordance with the solicitation requirements. The Offeror shall provide a Draft Transition Plan – Phase In in accordance with the PWS Section 4.9. Note: In addition, the Offeror shall explain how they plan to meet the Form DD254 requirement of a position with the required capability to obtain and maintain at least a Secret Security Clearance Eligibility to be granted access to IT-Level II sensitive information per DoDM 5200.01 and SECNAVINST 5510.30 C and have a “SECRET” level Facility Clearance Level (FCL) on Day 1 Ready of contract performance.

Section 5 – Mission Readiness - In order to ensure mission readiness, the Marine Corps (MC) customer(s) has to make a readiness decision i.e., NSN repair using organic services, NSN repair using the LIS SECREP process, or procure a replacement NSN. The decision is primarily driven by the length of time it will take to get an item back in serviceable condition in support of the warfighter. KTAT is a critical element to aiding the MC customers’ decision(s) regarding the execution of the mission and equipping the warfighter. Vendor/subcontractor capacity limitations could potentially have a negative impact on a KTAT. Therefore, it is critical to the success of the SECREP LIS repair process, that the proposed TAT/KTAT reflect capacity limitations or constraints of the ROR vendor/subcontractor.

a. Explain how the Offeror will ensure compliance with Contractual Turnaround Times (KTAT)s in the event there are vendor/subcontractor capacity limitations that compromise KTAT.

b. The Offeror shall provide a completed KTAT workbook in the attachment (solicitation Attachment J-10). The individual KTAT for each NSN shall be proposed by the Offeror in the KTAT workbook based on the number of days between when the contractor accepts an item for ROR and when the Government accepts an item back from ROR in accordance with PWS Sections 2.2 and 5.4. The KTAT workbook does not count towards the page limit for this volume.

The RFP limited the technical proposals to 100 pages. 🤣

That is a rather typical proposal preparation instruction, written by a clueless person or group of government personnel.

I don't know about you, but to me this kind of "approach" thing is absurd. There would be no chance for prospective offerors to sit down one-on-one with the Government team to go through the PWS and other terms in order ensure mutual understanding. Only the incumbent would know enough to provide well-developed responses in the time available for proposal preparation. It is highly unlikely that any of the proposals other than the incumbent's would represent a knowledgable "approach".

Anyway, that is why I think that kind of "competition" is ridiculous. The CO who put that RFP on the street either didn't care or didn't know better. I would not have let my team mates do that to themselves.

As CO, I would work with them to develop a sensible way to go about the job..

BTW, if what they really want is to get the incumbent back, then the only evaluation factors they would need are experience, past performance, and price. No need for a "technical approach." The same is true if they didn't want the incumbent back.

I could say more, explain more, but I've said all I'm going to say on this topic. My many writings over the years cover the ground more completely.

16 minutes ago, Vern Edwards said:

Volume I: Technical – The Technical Proposal shall be specific, detailed, and complete so as to clearly demonstrate to the Government that the Offeror has a thorough comprehension of the solicitation requirements and the capabilities to perform these requirements throughout the performance period

From FAR provision 52.215-1 that is included in the solicitation -

The first page of the proposal must show (emphasis added)–

(i) The solicitation number;

(ii) The name, address, and telephone and facsimile numbers of the offeror (and electronic address if available);

(iii) A statement specifying the extent of agreement with all terms, conditions, and provisions included in the solicitation and agreement to furnish any or all items upon which prices are offered at the price set opposite each item;

Thanks everyone who has contributed to the discussion. I’m working on an article that critiques the common practice of requesting approaches so I’ll have a more fulsome response for your thoughts/feedback soon.

While I rarely say always or never, I have not seen/encountered a situation in my professional career that would have benefited from evaluating approaches in competitive acquisitions - quite the contrary, I’ve only seen the practice make situations worse.

11 hours ago, FrankJon said:

Moreover, even if this were substantively true, I disagree with the notion of "overruling" a customer who insists on requesting such information. I think such a decision rightfully falls within the "advisory" bucket of a CO's responsibilities, even when the CO is also the SSA.

I strongly disagree with this position - if most acquisition “professionals” lack competency, most customers are even more ill informed about how to properly structure a competitive acquisition’s decision making process. In almost all cases, they’re insistent on doing something because that’s what they did last time which certainly doesn’t make it right.

Vern once told me (or wrote) contracting officers don’t have “customers” we have “clients” and unlike the adage “the customer is always right,” part of doing professional work is being able to tell a client “no.”

10 hours ago, Matthew Fleharty said:

Vern once told me (or wrote) contracting officers don’t have “customers” we have “clients” and unlike the adage “the customer is always right,” part of doing professional work is being able to tell a client “no.”

Well, rather than telling them "no," we should explain why what they want to do would be wasteful of their time and resources and then suggest something different, perhaps like oral presentations and Q&A sessions instead of written "technical proposals".

Most of a CO's clients want to conduct source selections the way they were taught to conduct them by contracting personnel. They need to be counseled, untaught, shown better ways, and persuaded rather than be ordered around. As often as not, if properly advised, their reactions will be, "Can we really do that? That would be great!"

On 11/5/2025 at 1:39 PM, Don Mansfield said:

You cannot "know" something about the future.

Euclid, Newton, and any number of mathematicians and astronomers might disagree with that assertion.

2 hours ago, Vern Edwards said:

Well, rather than telling them "no," we should explain why what they want to do would be wasteful of their time and resources and then suggest something different, perhaps like oral presentations and Q&A sessions instead of written "technical proposals".

Most of a CO's clients want to conduct source selections the way they were taught to conduct them by contracting personnel. They need to be counseled, untaught, shown better ways, and persuaded rather than be ordered around. As often as not, if properly advised, their reactions will be, "Can we really do that? That would be great!"

Agreed

2 hours ago, Vern Edwards said:

Euclid, Newton, and any number of mathematicians and astronomers might disagree with that assertion.

That’s disingenuous to the discussion. We were talking about holding a human decision maker to his promises, not holding an atom to its law. We are on matters of the mind, not matter in physics.

On 11/6/2025 at 11:49 PM, Vern Edwards said:

Its use in acquisition legislation and FAR Subpart 15.4 has created a swamp of accumulated half-baked communication and policy.

Can you expand on this statement?

1 hour ago, WifWaf said:

Can you expand on this statement?

Sure. But first, tell me your definition of price.

1 hour ago, WifWaf said:

We are on matters of the mind, not matter in physics.

Are you saying physics is not a matter of the mind? Really? Euclid and Newton are products of the mind. Have you the Elements? Pure logic. (Not physics.) Have you tried to read Newton's Principia? Do you own a copy? Have you studied the force diagrams? One of the greatest products of the mind in human history.

Anyway, my comment was addressed to Don, who will get it. Really, WifWaf, stick to procurement.

Now, how do you define price?

26 minutes ago, Vern Edwards said:

stick to procurement.

To that I will. Because:

1 hour ago, WifWaf said:

We were talking about holding a human decision maker to his promises

From practice alone, my working definition of price flows mainly from the “meeting of the minds” necessary element of a contract in contract law. This is why in my noncommercial contracts I seek incorporation of offer elements to the maximum extent practicable. In addition, I dissuade COs from making a PCO-to-ACO handoff, as the foreknowledge and any verbal agreements are lost in transition.

Can we keep it practical like this?