http://www.acq.osd.mil/dpap/policy/policyv...935-10-DPAP.pdf

From Shay Assad's memorandum:

"FAR Subpart 9.303, Determining North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) Codes and Size Standards, instructs contracting officers that they must determine the appropriate NAICS code and related small business size standard and include them in solicitations above the micro-purchase threshold."

First, FAR 9.303 is not a subpart. It is a section. Second, 9.3 covers First Article Testing and Approval, not NAICS code determinations.

It's obvious that the drafter meant FAR 19.303, but these kinds of errors have no place in an instructional memorandum and betray a sloppiness present throughout Defense Acquisition.

What can be done to ensure that the Defense Acquisition community recruits and retains the best, particularly in the DPAP office? If they need to recruit nationally for talent, and permit every single worker to telecommute, it would be better than what they are doing to develop and locate talent right now.

http://www.acq.osd.mil/dpap/policy/policyv...935-10-DPAP.pdf

What can be done to ensure that the Defense Acquisition community recruits and retains the best, particularly in the DPAP office? If they need to recruit nationally for talent, and permit every single worker to telecommute, it would be better than what they are doing to develop and locate talent right now.

That's quite a conclusion to draw from a sloppy memo. Also, why do you think DPAP, in particular, should recruit and retain the best in the Defense Acquisition community? Wouldn't you want the best to be negotiating and administering contracts, or running a contracting office? Granted, dissemination of policy is important. However, I don't think it's as important as doing actual contracting work. A competent policy staff is sufficient--they need not be "the best."

That's quite a conclusion to draw from a sloppy memo. Also, why do you think DPAP, in particular, should recruit and retain the best in the Defense Acquisition community? Wouldn't you want the best to be negotiating and administering contracts, or running a contracting office? Granted, dissemination of policy is important. However, I don't think it's as important as doing actual contracting work. A competent policy staff is sufficient--they need not be "the best."

Don,

I agree that it's a bit harsh to bash DPAP for what is essentially a typo. On the other hand, those Memos go through several levels of review, and it would be nice to think that somebody would have noticed the typo during one of the reviews.

To your point that "a competent policy staff is sufficient," I need to disagree somewhat. DPAP is, for better or worse, the home of acquisition "thought leadership" at DOD. The Directorate navigates and, quite literally, directs the DOD acquisition workforce in the eternal quest for efficiency and effectiveness. I don't think anybody is served by having merely competent people at the helm of the ship. Personally, I've been disappointed with a number ofpolicy decisions over the past few years, as I feel they betrayed a lack of deep knowledge coupled with experience. My "favorite" example is the FAR Part 30 rewrite, but other examples could be named. You might even have a few of your own.

My point is that we need the best and brightest at all levels, but especially at the policy-setting level.

H2H

I just wonder how many of the workforce even reads this memo. It's two full pages in length and the point it makes could be said in a couple sentences. The workforce of today is used to communicating with short, concise messages that are delivered electronically.

I agree with here_2_help that the best minds in DOD acquisition should be at DPAP. Unfortunately, they are not.

(The best minds are not necessarily the best negotiators or office managers, and I would be surprised if they want to be supervisors.)

I agree with here_2_help that the best minds in DOD acquisition should be at DPAP. Unfortunately, they are not.

(The best minds are not necessarily the best negotiators or office managers, and I would be surprised if they want to be supervisors.)

I think the best minds in DoD acquisition would be quite bored preparing memoranda to remind COs how to correctly code their contract action reports.

It would not be preparing the memoranda that would interest them, it would be developing the policies that go into the memoranda. What should the be the new policy about using fixed-price contracts instead of cost-reimbursement and time-and-materials contracts? How should it be articulated to the field? What should be the new policy about using award-fee incentives?

Right now we do not get well-thought-out, nuanced policies. We get blanket, across-the-board pronouncements. A little intellectual go-power up there might go a long way.

It is comical that DPAP has now changed the memorandum to reflect 19.303 and backdated the memorandum, but failed to recognize that FAR 19.303 is not a FAR subpart either and left that mistake in the memo.

If you envision the people at the DPAP office working with the following music playing in the background, it really helps:

If you think about it, try to imagine it in your mind's eye while the music is playing. That's pretty funny.