4 hours ago, formerfed said:

All this means is someone with all these

Sorry I wasn't clear. The agency I worked for had it all but would not support it's use beyond the requisition and contract writing aspect. By support investing in training, etc. for vibrant use.

9 minutes ago, Vern Edwards said:

Wow

Easier to buy administrative systems for what many view as the routine effort to do acquisition. I think viewed as less expensive than hiring and retaining a broad spectrum acquisition staff (1105, 1106, 1101, 1102) as well. But that is an old tune!

I wonder if it's more fun to learn PRISM than it was to learn contract negotiation. Oh, well. AI will take over what's left of 1102 work.

What's bothering me about this thread is that you're not talking about contracting. You're talking bout bookkeeping.

I'm coming to the realization that contracting is a dead field and a dead topic.

33 minutes ago, Vern Edwards said:

So that's what 1102s are spending their time learning today. Automated bookkeeping.

Some of this stuff is really beneficial and saves time and frustration. For example a contract specialist needs a funding requisition. They can quickly check to see status and where it’s at in the approval process. If it’s urgent they can speed it up. Or a contractor wants to know status of an invoice. The contract specialist can quickly track the invoice down and spot reasons for possible delay. Another example one can see how much money remains on a contract in real time.

A manager can look at how many expiring contracts come up for renewals. What actions are exceeding PALT.

I know 1102s spend too much time with automation and blindly follow what contract writing systems produce without detailed verification. This also leads them to not knowing over time what clauses say and mean. They just go with what the system produces. Unfortunately it will get worse, especially with AI capabilities getting better and better.

Edit: Vern, I was writing this response and didn’t see your latest post. I agree.

3 hours ago, C Culham said:

I wonder if it's more fun to learn PRISM than it was to learn contract negotiation. Oh, well. AI will take over what's left of 1102 work.

@Moderator I actually donot disagree with this quote. However I don't think I penned it. I could be mistaken. If there is a way to give due credit to the author or correct my memory I would appreciate it.

Thanks!

8 hours ago, C Culham said:

@Moderator I actually donot disagree with this quote. However I don't think I penned it. I could be mistaken. If there is a way to give due credit to the author or correct my memory I would appreciate it.

Thanks!

@C Culham Carl, I wrote that. I think. I don't know how the mix-up happened. ?????

11 hours ago, Vern Edwards said:

What's bothering me about this thread is that you're not talking about contracting. You're talking bout bookkeeping.

I'm coming to the realization that contracting is a dead field and a dead topic.

I started as an 1102 a little under a decade ago and ever since I started, I would contend it has always been more about bookkeeping than doing actual contract specialist work. Why is it contracting's responsibility to track you down for a complete package when it's you that needs it and not me? Why do I need to send the customer a notification that their contract option exercise date is 120 days away? Why isn't the COR tracking contract ceiling? My command loves the phrase "customer service" and so we do it all for the "customer." Maybe a program office works different but coming from a non-program office, I view my role as nothing more than a paper pusher who will soon be phased out by AI before too long. Even with an unlimited warrant I still have to pass through five levels of review/approval before I can award something. What's the purpose of my warrant if I need five higher level reviews? If you don't trust my judgement at that level don't give me the warrant beyond whatever threshold you do trust me at.

As stated before I am a consultant supporting the sponsor in the IC community and they use PRISM. I had an account to pull reports and review contracts and from what I can see is that it is a terrible system on par with PD2. This agency is in the works of acquiring a new contract writing system...they want their own versus using what other 3 letter agencies are using. because why? because who really cares about being a good steward of tax payer dollars? i digress.

35 minutes ago, OverThinking said:

I started as an 1102 a little under a decade ago and ever since I started, I would contend it has always been more about bookkeeping than doing actual contract specialist work. Why is it contracting's responsibility to track you down for a complete package when it's you that needs it and not me? Why do I need to send the customer a notification that their contract option exercise date is 120 days away? Why isn't the COR tracking contract ceiling? My command loves the phrase "customer service" and so we do it all for the "customer." Maybe a program office works different but coming from a non-program office, I view my role as nothing more than a paper pusher who will soon be phased out by AI before too long. Even with an unlimited warrant I still have to pass through five levels of review/approval before I can award something. What's the purpose of my warrant if I need five higher level reviews? If you don't trust my judgement at that level don't give me the warrant beyond whatever threshold you do trust me at.

I have said this before to folks, "Nobody knows who contracting is, but when they do, it is always our fault."

35 minutes ago, dave2025 said:

This agency is in the works of acquiring a new contract writing system...they want their own versus using what other 3 letter agencies are using. because why?

I have to laugh about "contract writing systems" (CWS). No one writes a government contract. They assemble it.

Of course, someone has to write some of the parts, like the product specification, the service statement of work, the deliverable data descriptions, and special clauses. Does the contract writing system decide what those should say and them write them?

I'm really asking. Does the CWS think up what must be produced or done and then write the documents that describe them? Or is "contract writing" just the selection of FAR and agency supplement standard contract clauses? What about non-standard clauses? Does the CWS think up what they should say and then write the clauses?

1 hour ago, OverThinking said:

I started as an 1102 a little under a decade ago...

By that time contracting was already a ruined career field. It became ruined because the contracting profession was not solving problems. I and others have been documenting and writing about the process of deterioration for more than 30 years. I have written about 300 articles about it in various publications, mainly in The Nash & Cibinic Report, buy also here.

The contracting profession can blame itself for many (not all) of their problems. Mainly, for lack of leadership.

Today, contracting has a chance to recover. The smart thinkers and hard chargers have the chance of a lifetime to seize the day. The rest will continue to be clerks.

You know how I can tell the difference? The clerks ask what's the difference between the old FAR and the overhauled FAR. The smart thinkers don't care about the difference; they don't plan to think about the old FAR; they are already thinking about what they can come up with to do better work and do it faster under the new FAR.

The clerks will wait for the "buying guides" from on high... and new software.

1 hour ago, dave2025 said:

I have said this before to folks, "Nobody knows who contracting is, but when they do, it is always our fault."

Great expectations are the paving stones to power over the process.

I love great expectations. I love the looks on their faces when you produce. And the phone calls you get from happy higher ups.

If the people I supported didn't have great expectations, I'd suggest some.

I once had a boss (a colonel who became a major general) who would give me really hard tasks. If I looked at him blankly he would say, "Consider it an opportunity to excel."

I took him seriously.

8 minutes ago, Vern Edwards said:

Great expectations are the paving stones to power over the process.

I love great expectations. I love the looks on their faces when you produce.

If the people I supported didn't have great expectations, I'd suggest some.

Excellent thoughts! This seems like a great theme for an article or class. Very motivational.

On 12/15/2025 at 3:00 PM, formerfed said:

orkflow processing, contract management/administration support, vendor management, FPDS input, and financial integration. The financial portion is very important to some agencies because it allows seamless interface with accounting and financial systems.

All this means is someone with all these components can initiate and track requisi

On 12/16/2025 at 9:14 AM, Vern Edwards said:

By that time contracting was already a ruined career field. It became ruined because the contracting profession was not solving problems. I and others have been documenting and writing about the process of deterioration for more than 30 years. I have written about 300 articles about it in various publications, mainly in The Nash & Cibinic Report, buy also here.

The contracting profession can blame itself for many (not all) of their problems. Mainly, for lack of leadership.

Today, contracting has a chance to recover. The smart thinkers and hard chargers have the chance of a lifetime to seize the day. The rest will continue to be clerks.

You know how I can tell the difference? The clerks ask what's the difference between the old FAR and the overhauled FAR. The smart thinkers don't care about the difference; they don't plan to think about the old FAR; they are already thinking about what they can come up with to do better work and do it faster under the new FAR.

The clerks will wait for the "buying guides" from on high... and new software.

There is still a heavy emphasis, at least at my agency, on 1102s being "business advisors" that handle many aspects, including things that are normally done by supporting offices. I think program offices have grown quite comfortable with having CO's pick up all these extra duties. The amount of meetings and "planning" that goes into maintaining and even understanding these complex procurement systems is massive. We spend far more time studying and debating means and methods than we do with the fundamentals.

On 12/15/2025 at 6:47 PM, Vern Edwards said:

What's bothering me about this thread is that you're not talking about contracting. You're talking bout bookkeeping.

I'm coming to the realization that contracting is a dead field and a dead topic.

Contracting is less important today than it was then. As time goes on, we will no longer have "Contracting Squadrons" or "Contracting Agencies" the Contracting Officer will be absorbed under the requirement organization. Each requirement organization will have a Contracting person at their disposal, maybe they'll even change the name of the Contracting officer to a resource advisor, the FAR will be updated so that contracting officers are not the only ones that can obligate the government.

3 hours ago, MatrixDealMaker said:

Contracting is less important today than it was then.

No, it's not. It's just not as much fun as it used to be, largely due to the contracting workforce itself

3 hours ago, MatrixDealMaker said:

As time goes on, we will no longer have "Contracting Squadrons" or "Contracting Agencies" the Contracting Officer will be absorbed under the requirement organization. Each requirement organization will have a Contracting person at their disposal....

I hope so. For your sake(s).

Government contracting is the work of planning, designing, entering into, and managing (administering) contracts for the procurement of materials, products, and services that government agencies need in order to fulfill the duties assigned to them by Congress and the President, all in accordance with statute, regulation, and sound business practice.

Government contracting is a specialty largely because of the myriad statutes and regulations that govern contracting processes and procedures and the expectations of the American public. It will always be a specialty. It's not going away. It takes know-how in several action domains, and the quality of professional life for contracting officers is largely a function of their knowledge, competence, and energy. And that's where the profession has failed itself.

The last thing I would want to do is work in a "contracting squadron" or "contracting agency" or staff. I would want to work for, report to, and be evaluated by the man or woman who ultimately needs the product or service. The "owner" of the requirement. My motto, on a plaque behind my office wall or cubicle partition:

Just tell me what you want, when and where you want it, and how much money you've got or can get.

All of you who think your work is harder now than it was when I was working are wrong. What's different is attitude, determination, and level of commitment. You think buying military space systems during the Cold War was leisurely and easy? If so, it's because you don't know the history of your profession.

You'll have a golden opportunity next year to seize the day. Take it!

Find a way or make one. That's the fun part. But it takes study and hard work.

11 hours ago, Vern Edwards said:

Find a way or make one. That's the fun part. But it takes study and hard work.

I love this.

Also, thank you for the 300 plus articles written and the time you have devoted to this site. There are still a few of us out there who and are curious creatures seeking knowledge, growth, and opportunities outside of our comfort zone. I once had someone tell me experience comes from time, and you gain that experience by either having lived through it, or you can hijack that time and read about someone else's experience.

15 hours ago, Vern Edwards said:

You'll have a golden opportunity next year to seize the day. Take it!

Find a way or make one. That's the fun part. But it takes study and hard work.

So true. The RFO provides a means for someone to shine. While others sit back and wait for additional guidance, detailed policy memorandums, examples to copy, and see that’s it fine to proceed, a few will see the opportunity to be a pioneer. They will just jump in and use RFO now. Those will be looked at as taking bold actions and not timid. They will be in demand. Others will be eager to listen to or read what they have to say.

I know already what the typical reactions to this will be - “wish I could but I can’t do that where I work.” If you are motivated, you’ll just be able to do it.

I saw this in another site on a completely different topic. But it’s relevant here.

“While your organization debates strategies, policies, governance, and pilot plans….you could be operating in expert mode.”

58 minutes ago, formerfed said:

While others sit back and wait for additional guidance, detailed policy memorandums, examples to copy, and see that’s it fine to proceed, a few will see the opportunity to be a pioneer.

There it is!

Don't ask what's different between what the old FAR said and what the new FAR says! It kills me when people ask that. It doesn't matter! Forget the old FAR! What matters is what the new FAR says.

Don't wait for guidance! Just:

1. read the new FAR,

2. decide what you think it allows/requires you to do,

3. talk it over with colleagues you respect for their knowledge, competence, and willingness to think new thoughts,

4. think it through, plot a course, and develop a supporting argument for the staff naysayers (write it out for preparation and presentation), then

5. Go for it.

They want innovation, so innovate! Keep doing it! Don't let fear of criticism enter into your way of thinking. You don't have to win your first battle or every battle, but you must learn after each battle.

Be a leader. Consider every battle to be an opportunity to excel.

21 hours ago, Vern Edwards said:

he last thing I would want to do is work in a "contracting squadron" or "contracting agency" or staff. I would want to work for, report to, and be evaluated by the man or woman who ultimately needs the product or service.

Years ago, I was an Army officer who had some COR duties while deployed. As I was responsible for base security, I was the COR for related contracts (3rd country guards, perimeter maintenance, interpreters, fancy security devices, etc.). Our base security contracts were ... satisfactory. The Contracting Office was AF. I visited their base sometimes. You know who had exceptional base security contract performance - fences maintained, barriers and bunkers trash-free, well-disciplined contract guards, the latest fancy devices scanning and detecting threats? The base home to the COs who ran the base security contracts.

Going back in this thread, here’s an interesting comment about tools to track I copied from another forum:

Flywheel of Failure: Stop Managing Programs. Start Managi...

Mark says it best - government CULTURE "... rewards the perfect management of a failure, rather than the messy iteration of a success." We need to embrace OUTCOMES over process. Battlefield success

“And I can tell you, with absolute certainty, that there is almost zero correlation between a program marked "Green" on a PowerPoint slide and a piece of software that actually works for the mission.

This is the enduring flywheel of failure facing the Department of Defense (DoD) today. We are culturally addicted to Program Management—the administration of contracts, schedules, and compliance artifacts. But we are starving for Product Management—the relentless pursuit of value, quality, and user satisfaction.

We have built a system that rewards the perfect management of a failure, rather than the messy iteration of a success”

2 hours ago, formerfed said:

Going back in this thread, here’s an interesting comment about tools to track I copied from another forum:

Flywheel of Failure: Stop Managing Programs. Start Managi...

Mark says it best - government CULTURE "... rewards the perfect management of a failure, rather than the messy iteration of a success." We need to embrace OUTCOMES over process. Battlefield success

“And I can tell you, with absolute certainty, that there is almost zero correlation between a program marked "Green" on a PowerPoint slide and a piece of software that actually works for the mission.

This is the enduring flywheel of failure facing the Department of Defense (DoD) today. We are culturally addicted to Program Management—the administration of contracts, schedules, and compliance artifacts. But we are starving for Product Management—the relentless pursuit of value, quality, and user satisfaction.

We have built a system that rewards the perfect management of a failure, rather than the messy iteration of a success”

The map is not the territory.

I'm not an expert in software development and never awarded a software production contract, but Mark Munsell's essay makes sense to me. I do know that software production has long been problematical.

We track it in excel. We track it in teams. We track it in a useless center wide database that is only flagged for compliance once a year and is never looked at. We track it in biweekly meetings. We track it in KTfileshare.

Let me count the ways we waste our time.