@FrankJon

Well, yeah, that statement was probably overly optimistic. 😂 😏 😞

On 11/11/2025 at 12:38 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.

Although I could quibble with some of tht wording ("a construct of risks justifying profit"), and some people might quibble with price being an estimate, I think that even a so-called "firm-fixed price" is often nothing more than an estimate of what the government will have to pay for goods and services, e.g., construction and system full-scale development.

Price is a very complicated idea to which the current FAR Subpart 15.4 and the overhauled Subpart 15.4 do not do justice.

Great discussion in this thread and I agree 100% that in most, and I mean almost all, cases something like approach shouldn't be looked at. It's funny how reading a thread will open up old memories. A long time ago we needed to have some trees removed at a remote location at an outpost, none of us even knew it existed. We brought a three companies up at different times to look at the area. Of course in casual conversation we asked about the job. The first two said they would bring a truck in and cut then down. Pretty simple and how we would expect it to be done. The third company said they would do the same but they would use ground protection mats. None of us, including the requirement owner, had any idea what ground protection mats were. The company let us know rainy season was about to start and without those mats any truck would leave 2-3 foot ruts throughout the back. This was just some measly purchase order but that company let us know something we had no clue about.

Again, I don't think approach should be used, but I can't say it should "never" be used.

In the holiday spirit I will use a part of The Santa Clause (now that's a contract!)

1. Neil: "What about Santa's reindeer? Have you ever seen a reindeer fly?"

2. Charlie: "Yes."

3. Neil: "Well, I haven't."

4. Charlie: "Have you ever seen a million dollars?"

5. Neil: "No."

6. Charlie: "Just because you can't see something, doesn't mean it doesn't exist."

@Scrutor

What you have described is a failure of requirements analysis and market research. Asking for a proposed approach should not be a substitute for competent requirements analysis. But I think you already know that.

1 hour ago, Vern Edwards said:

@Scrutor

What you have described is a failure of requirements analysis and market research.

Bingo - there is a difference between wanting to understand various approaches during market research and evaluating approaches (which are usually not promises) during source selection.

@Scrutor Had your story occurred during a source selection (not some measly purchase order) and the one offeror wrote that as their approach, received the contract because the evaluators liked what they read, and then started to perform without using the ground protection mats (let's say because using the mats would have cost more money and a dollar saved is a dollar earned for the company), what then?

7 hours ago, Matthew Fleharty said:

@Scrutor Had your story occurred during a source selection (not some measly purchase order) and the one offeror wrote that as their approach, received the contract because the evaluators liked what they read, and then started to perform without using the ground protection mats (let's say because using the mats would have cost more money and a dollar saved is a dollar earned for the company), what then?

Matt, it would all depend if the language the contractor used was promissory in nature, and then if said promissory language was written into the contract. In general I highly doubt it would be written like that, so in general the gov would be SOL. I have very, and I mean very, little faith that most contracting people understand and can identify promises in a proposal even though they think that can. It's why right now at some work center a KO is explaining to a clueless requirement owner why the contractor only has ten people working when their proposal said fifteen.

Vern mentioned requirement analysis and market research. Those are key pieces. The lack of doing both is a major contributor to contract failure. So many acquisitions are based upon the government not focusing on the specific need and not understanding what industry can best provide.

One of my favorite questions to ask industry leaders when performing market research is “if you were in our position (the government), how would you proceed in satisfying the need?”

On 11/12/2025 at 7:51 AM, 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?

🤔

Just so we're on the same page, while this method has its benefits, the offerors' responses would still come within Matthew's definitions of "approach" and "understanding," would they not?

On 11/5/2025 at 10:37 AM, Matthew Fleharty said:

In this context, "approach" means "information in a proposal describing how a contractor may do something." I'll not that in most cases this information is not an offer/promise.

In this context, for "understanding" I like the framework of Bloom's Taxonomy so understanding means "ability to demonstrate comprehension of something by explaining ideas or concepts."

20 hours ago, Matthew Fleharty said:

Bingo - there is a difference between wanting to understand various approaches during market research and evaluating approaches (which are usually not promises) during source selection.

And a difference of opinion on who has responsibility for the market research and evaluation of approaches. Whether that responsibility be implied, imperative or even elective. Long gone is the era of adequate resources that allow for a contracting professional to be actively involved in the acquisition process cradle to grave.

Just now, FrankJon said:

Just so we're on the same page, while this method has its benefits, the offerors' responses would still come within Matthew's definitions of "approach" and "understanding," would they not?

Assuming that question was addressed to me, my answer is that it would depend on the questions.

In many markets, the government cannot obtain robust market research from outside. Even when it does obtain it from outside the market, its result is program people describing requirements with which they have little recent experience. When requirements writers do not have great experience doing the work, they ask for approaches and understandings, so that they can make their evaluation decisions more binary (strength or weakness).

If you must gain research by actually entering the market, you might try this newly described FAR Part 15 source selection approach.

15.103-4 Phased acquisition.

(a) Phased acquisitions break down complex or high-risk acquisitions into distinct parts for contract award. Instead of a single and comprehensive proposal and evaluation process, phased acquisitions are structured to make separate awards at distinct phases of the acquisition. This approach can reduce source selection timeframes and promote flexibility by permitting adjustments to the requirement between phases.

(b) When using a phased approach, the RFP must—

(1) Establish the phases for the acquisition; and

(2) Describe the process that will be used to evaluate proposals and any criteria offerors must meet to progress to the next phase in the RFP.

1 hour ago, WifWaf said:

In many markets, the government cannot obtain robust market research from outside. Even when it does obtain it from outside the market, its result is program people describing requirements with which they have little recent experience. When requirements writers do not have great experience doing the work, they ask for approaches and understandings, so that they can make their evaluation decisions more binary (strength or weakness).

• A much better market research approach in my opinion consists of these steps:

• Work with program officials to define requirements succinctly at a high functional level

• Research to identify those organizations that perform this function well - can be commercial sources known not interested in proposing and other government agencies as well

• Hold one on one discussions to identify how they perform the work; what are best practices; what makes for top performers; who are their customers; what are lessons learned; and how would they proceed next if they were in your government shoes

• Put together a draft and circulate for theirs and others sources input

You end up with a brief statement of requirements without all the unusual inefficiencies, meaningless steps, individual personal preferences, and waste. Do this at the very beginning and in parallel with other activities and it doesn’t slow down anything. In fact, it likely saves overall time.

2 hours ago, WifWaf said:

When requirements writers do not have great experience doing the work, they ask for approaches and understandings, so that they can make their evaluation decisions more binary (strength or weakness).

@WifWaf Are they competent to evaluate "approaches" if they don't have experience? If they don't have experience, how would they know what to ask about an "approach"? How would they know which "approach" is better?

They may just be asking for "approaches" because the contracting officer has not shown them another, more effective, more efficient way to evaluate offerors and their offers.

This is where COs must use professional knowledge to take a leadership role.

I think we have exhausted this topic.

Read this:

ESSAY-WRITING CONTESTS How Did We Get Here.pdf