2 minutes ago, WifWaf said:

This is why in my noncommercial contracts I seek incorporation of offer elements to the maximum extent practicable.

Both I and Professor Nash have warned against that practice.

In government competitive contract awards the "meeting of the minds" is purely a matter of form. In many if not most cases competitive awards are made without discussions. The minds have never met. They have signed up to who knows what and then argue about it during performance.

Now, you have told me what your definition of price "flows from", but you haven't told me your definition.

4 hours ago, Vern Edwards said:

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

I had clarified that I was using "know" as in "know for a fact." I asked ChatGPT if one could know anything about the future as a matter of fact. Here's the response:

Excellent question — and very precise.

If we interpret “as a matter of fact” to mean in the same sense we know existing or past facts — as something that is unambiguously true, independently of belief or prediction — then the answer is no, we cannot presently know any future fact.

Here’s why, step by step:

---

1. Facts are truth-bearers about reality

A fact is a state of affairs that actually obtains in the world.
When we say, “It is a fact that the sun rose this morning,” the statement corresponds to something that has occurred.

Future-tense statements, however — “The sun will rise tomorrow” — describe what has not yet occurred.
Until the event exists in reality, there is no fact yet for the statement to correspond to.
So even if we have overwhelming evidence that it will happen, that’s still a prediction, not a fact.

---

2. Truth vs. justification

A belief about the future can be justified (based on evidence or lawlike regularities), but it cannot be verified as true until the future event occurs.
Knowledge, in the factual sense, requires both — justification and truth.
Before the event, you can have rational expectation, but not factual knowledge.

Example:

• On November 10, saying “The sun will rise on November 11” is justified.

• On November 11, after it happens, we can say “It is a fact that the sun rose.”

• But before it happens, the proposition isn’t yet a fact.

---

3. Determinism doesn’t help

Even in a fully deterministic universe (as Newton imagined), we still lack epistemic access to the future fact itself until it’s realized.
We might infer it with perfect accuracy, but what we have is deductive certainty within a model, not an observed fact about the world.

---

4. Probabilistic knowledge is not factual knowledge

Science gives us high-confidence forecasts (e.g., orbital mechanics, weather, atomic decay rates), but these describe probabilities of future states, not facts about them.
Facts are binary (true or false); probabilities are degrees of belief about truths not yet determined.

---

5. The logical asymmetry of time

Past and present facts are accessible; future facts are not, because they don’t yet exist.
That’s why philosophers distinguish between:

• Epistemic possibility (what could be known)

• Ontological status (what exists)

Future facts have no ontological status yet—there is nothing there to be known “as a matter of fact.”

---

Conclusion

As a matter of fact — in the literal, truth-corresponding sense —

We cannot know anything about the future, because future facts do not yet exist to be known.

What we can have are rational expectations, probabilistic forecasts, and law-based inferences that become knowledge once the future arrives and the facts are established.

Thanks for that Don. Good AI response. I also recommend the entry on a priori knowledge in the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.

On 11/10/2025 at 6:51 AM, Vern Edwards said:

Don Mansfield is the Socratic guy. The Athenians would have executed him along with Socrates.

That's pretty good company.

3 minutes ago, Don Mansfield said:

That's pretty good company.

Well, yeah, until they hand you the hemlock cup.

15 hours ago, Matthew Fleharty said:

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.

I think you have to concede that it's possible that evaluating approaches in competitive acquisitions could be helpful in some situations. However, the fact that you, Vern, and I haven't encountered such a situation (or can think of one) should tell us something.

10 minutes ago, Don Mansfield said:

I think you have to concede that it's possible that evaluating approaches in competitive acquisitions could be helpful in some situations.

I think we need to agree on what is meant by "approach".

Early on in acquisition the word approach referred to a conceptual design of a product or system, and programs evaluated design approaches. What do we mean by it now? When you ask offerors to describe their proposed approaches to performing a service contract, what do we want to know?

15 hours ago, Matthew Fleharty said:

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.

The routine practice in R&D contracting, particularly with studies, analysis, some basic and research, and the like is require technical approaches. Program/technical staff as well as contractors expect their use. In fact, FAR 35.007(c) mandates the submission:

(c) Solicitations shall require offerors to describe their technical and management approach, identify technical uncertainties, and make specific proposals for the resolution of any uncertainties. The solicitation should require offerors to include in the proposal any planned subcontracting of scientific or technical work (see 35.009).

I’m not saying it’s absolutely needed but it’s the norm and it is expected.

The question is: What do we mean by "approach"?

When we ask offerors to describe their proposed approach to this or that, what do we want them to include in the description?

Here's the definition of approach (noun) from the Chambers Dictionary:

noun

1. A drawing near

2. The stroke by which a player putsor attempts to put the ball ontothe green (also approach stroke, shot, etc; golf)

3. Access (archaic)

4. An avenue or means of access

5. The course or process of bringingan aircraft near to the airport, the stage prior to landing(aeronautics; also adjective)

6. Approximation

7. Attitude towards, way of dealing with

8. (usu in pl) advances towards personal relations

9. (in pl) trenches, etc by which besiegers strive to reach a fortress, or routes into any area of military importance

There are lots of definitions for use with proposals but most have a common theme. It’s the plan explaining how a project gets carried out to meet required objectives.

Edit: one important part of “approach” is inclusion of rational and justification for the chosen means of addressing the problem. Another important part is identification of uncertainties and ways to address those along with mitigation of risks. A plan of activities is usually sought after by program officials as well to better understand feasibility.

3 hours ago, Vern Edwards said:

Now, you have told me what your definition of price "flows from", but you haven't told me your definition.

Price = an estimate of allowable costs + a construct of risks justifying profit. Price is a package presented quid pro quo by an offeror in exchange for an award.

I also remembered this from the Office of Naval Research from when the government was working on the OTR process. If submitting a proposal, ONR requires use of a technical proposal template which includes technical approach templates. Technical approach is just the norm for R&D.

https://www.onr.navy.mil/work-with-us/how-to-apply/submit-contract-proposal

3 hours ago, formerfed said:

Technical approach is just the norm for R&D.

I don’t contest that this is the norm - that said, are our R&D projects generally successful (choose your measure(s))? That’s worth thinking about because, if they’re not, well we all know what they say the definition of insanity is…

Just now, Matthew Fleharty said:

I don’t contest that this is the norm - that said, are our R&D projects generally successful (choose your measure(s))?

I don’t know. But what R&D people insist upon is knowing in evaluation is what each offeror says they will do and how they will accomplish it. I don’t see that changing.

11 hours ago, formerfed said:

[W]hat R&D people insist upon is knowing in evaluation is what each offeror says they will do and how they will accomplish it.

Instead of instructing offerors to "describe your proposed approach", why not instruct them to answer a set of specific questions?

Why shouldn't contracting officer tell technical personnel to develop a list of specific questions they want offerors to answer? Requiring them to develop a list of specific questions would force them to think through what they want to know. The CO could sit with them and edit the questions for clarity and specificity. The questions could then be ordered logically.

Instructing the offerors to answer the same specific questions in the same order would force them to write focused responses. The CO could set a maximum word count for each question, rather than an overall proposal page limit.

Every proposal would thus be structured in the same way, and every offeror's answers would be directly comparable to every other offeror's answers. Offerors could thus be evaluated and compared based on their specific responses, which would be fair and would facilitate efficient evaluation and ranking. It would also make it easier to pinpoint strengths, weaknesses, and deficiencies.

Of course, that approach would require literacy, articulacy, clear thinking, and competence on the part of all involved, so maybe it's too difficult for government work. But it would be innovative. And isn't that the buzzword of the day?

🤔

1 hour ago, Vern Edwards said:

Instead of instructing offerors to "describe your proposed approach", why not instruct them to answer a set of specific questions?

That is an excellent idea. If the government anticipates a wide range of divergent solutions, the questions would need carefully crafted to obtain needed information from all offerors. A benefit is it maximizes chances of getting essential information from technical approaches without having to go back to offerors seeking elaboration, filling in gaps, and covering oversights.

I think it's a good idea, but I don't want to oversell it. We already have too much mindless mimicry in the contracting business.

The main idea is to put more thought into how we do what we do, instead of engaging in so much cutting and pasting.

3 hours ago, Vern Edwards said:

I think it's a good idea, but I don't want to oversell it. We already have too much mindless mimicry in the contracting business.

The main idea is to put more thought into how we do what we do, instead of engaging in so much cutting and pasting.

Makes me wonder how long the idea when used would fall prey to cut and paste itself?

8 hours ago, Vern Edwards said:

Instead of instructing offerors to "describe your proposed approach", why not instruct them to answer a set of specific questions?

Why shouldn't contracting officer tell technical personnel to develop a list of specific questions they want offerors to answer? Requiring them to develop a list of specific questions would force them to think through what they want to know. The CO could sit with them and edit the questions for clarity and specificity. The questions could then be ordered logically.

Instructing the offerors to answer the same specific questions in the same order would force them to write focused responses. The CO could set a maximum word count for each question, rather than an overall proposal page limit.

Every proposal would thus be structured in the same way, and every offeror's answers would be directly comparable to every other offeror's answers. Offerors could thus be evaluated and compared based on their specific responses, which would be fair and would facilitate efficient evaluation and ranking. It would also make it easier to pinpoint strengths, weaknesses, and deficiencies.

Of course, that approach would require literacy, articulacy, clear thinking, and competence on the part of all involved, so maybe it's too difficult for government work. But it would be innovative. And isn't that the buzzword of the day?

🤔

ARPA-H and DARPA have experimented asking offerors to answer the Heilmeier questions. I haven't been around either organization enough to know if has been successful.

1 hour ago, KeithB18 said:

ARPA-H and DARPA have experimented asking offerors to answer the Heilmeier questions. I haven't been around either organization enough to know if has been successful.

The Heilmeier "catechism" is used to evaluate proposals to fund research projects. I don't know if it's been used in FAR Part 15 competitive negotiations ("source selections"). I doubt it.

For those who don't know about it, here are some links"

https://www.darpa.mil/about/heilmeier-catechism

https://www.depts.ttu.edu/research/ordc/Resources/heilmeier-catechism.php

https://userpages.cs.umbc.edu/finin/home/heilmeyerCatechism.html

https://userpages.cs.umbc.edu/finin/home/heilmeyerCatechism.html

On 11/11/2025 at 7:16 AM, Vern Edwards said:

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!"

To be sure, the message and messenger matter. However, status quo bias in this area is stronger than you think. It's important to realize that, until January 2025, most customers at most agencies became accustomed to a carousel of 1102s coming and going. Most of these 1102s were unqualified and unwilling to learn. Each gave different advice and established different rules for the customers to follow, some of which was right and much of which was wrong.

Beyond this, it's part of human DNA to continue wanting to do what has "worked" to avoid embarrassing or costly errors. Humans are also fixated on results over processes, easily confusing a strong outcome for a strong process.

In this context, it's not hard to understand a customer's insistence on requesting written technical proposals, just as s/he's always done. As a manager and CO, once I encounter resistance, I do my best to find a middle ground. If I can help teach my employees and customers do acquisition a little bit better than they did before, I count that as a win.

2 hours ago, FrankJon said:

However, status quo bias in this area is stronger than you think.

No, it's not stronger than I think.

On 11/11/2025 at 3:38 PM, WifWaf said:

Price = an estimate of allowable costs + a construct of risks justifying profit. Price is a package presented quid pro quo by an offeror in exchange for an award.

Would anyone like to challenge me on this? Allow me to show my work. I am looking to sharpen it up.

We know a cost is allowable only when the cost complies with all of the following requirements:

(1) Reasonableness.

(2) Allocability.

(3) Standards promulgated by the CAS Board, if applicable, otherwise, generally accepted accounting principles and practices appropriate to the circumstances.

(4) Terms of the contract.

(5) Any limitations set forth in FAR Subpart 31.2.

We know the negotiation of a contract type and a price are related and should be considered together with the issues of risk and uncertainty to the contractor and the Government. FAR 15.405(b).

At time of award, then, these five factors determining allowability plus all issues of risk and uncertainty known to be possible (by at least one party) produce a price. The "something for something" nature of a quid pro quo exchange that occurs, therefore, is only sustained so long as both parties' "somethings" do not substantially change in any of the five points. Likewise, so long as they do not change in any risk not inherently assumed by contract type. When one changes substantially, the affected party may be equitably adjusted with a new price, or else the price may no longer be fair and reasonable.

Think of the example of a cost accounting change. Here allocability has changed, therefore the government explores the magnitude of it and makes a materiality determination and seeks recovery of a cost impact. That’s also FAR 52.230-6 terms of the contract.

1 hour ago, Vern Edwards said:

No, it's not stronger than I think.

❤️ 😂

17 hours ago, Vern Edwards said:

No, it's not stronger than I think.

In my opinion this --

On 11/11/2025 at 7:16 AM, Vern Edwards said:

As often as not, if properly advised, their reactions will be, "Can we really do that? That would be great!"

--is an overly optimistic expectation for most agencies in most scenarios.