On 2/22/2018 at 9:42 AM, Vern Edwards said:

Let's brainstorm, so no critiques.

@Vern Edwards Perhaps I read too far into your post last night.

Perhaps you did. I didn't say that you broke any rules.

Not sure if this counts as "changing the regs", but how about an organizationally agnostic team  whose only job is solicitation and source selection?  I would envision a multi-functional  "Source Selection Division" in a procurement organization, whose span of responsibility begins with a defined set of requirements and ends at award. 

From my experience, much time and effort is spent resolving differing interpretations, understandings, roles, and responsibilities amongst the team members. Having a validated process and associated expertise firmly in place at the start of the SS process would greatly increase efficiency, and might also help foster objectivity and consistency. 

18 hours ago, REA'n Maker said:

How about an organizationally agnostic team  whose only job is solicitation and source selection?

I absolutely agree. You would not hire a general practitioner to perform cardiac surgery, and you should not assign ordinary contracting folk to conduct source selections. Source selection is a specialty. It's a complex undertaking with a lot at stake. It requires special knowledge and training. It is not a job for general practitioners. It's like sending deck hands to do a SEAL team's job.

I know the arguments against that proposition. I have heard them ever since I first recommended the establishment of specialized source selection offices and personnel. I still do not think those arguments are sound.

(But what does "agnostic" mean in this context?)

Edited April 18, 20186 yr by Vern Edwards

On 4/17/2018 at 7:29 PM, Vern Edwards said:

But what does "agnostic" mean in this context?

In this context, "not owing fealty to any specific program or organizational unit", i.e., independent professionals who are focused on the mission.