Moderator

That's OK. When I found that Attorny General opinion in the GAO Library on its 6th floor, I was excited for 2 reasons. First, the decision was interesting. Second, the volumes were first editions but they were annotated by individuals from agencies that preceded GAO. Because of that, they had little value. I tried to share my excitement about the first ediditons with the librarian and I was given the classic doh stare. After a few more dohs, I shrunk back to my little corner of the law library. I had access to all sorts of things including the hard copy legislative histories of procurement laws such as the Competition in Contracting Act (CICA). That's where Lawton Chiles came from. His versions of CICA began in the late 1970s. I did the same for 87-653 at 76 Stat 528. FPASA, 95-507, etc. I cannot remember them all. I had access to the B-files and ordered them from an elderly woman in the procurement law branch. She told me about the A-files that prededed the B-files. She's probably in her 120s now and swallowed up by the cloud. Eventually, Lexis emptied out the law library and I was the last regular researcher that used the place. I don't even know if it exists now. If it does, its shrouded in cobwebs. Anyone want to guess what the U.S.C.C.A.N. is? Don't cheat.

Vern: Did you recommend to their agency that they be quarantined?

Nonense Vern. They need to make time or maybe they need someone to explain in a 10 minute discussion. That's all it takes. Probably the time it takes to drink a six-pack and a family size bag of doritos. If they don't take the time to read or hear about where we've been, they will never spend the time to do what you want. I agree that they should strive to be the best at their jobs. I just want them to be complete. That isn't nonsense.

Vern Don: I can accept that. I didn't read and study those things until 15 years into my career. Now, those who are interested and have the time can look at the citations and learn some good stuff without having to do the research that I did. I know one or two people here will check my citations. I'll probably do it again myself because I want to see it again. Vern: The people who don't know it is there. Come to think of it, I'm going to look at some of those citations again.

Vern: Years ago, I don't know if it was before CICA or after, FSS was using negotiation to buy autos. They were using standards instead of specifications. I never saw them asking anyone for clarifications, discussions, best and finals (used back then), etc. Negotiation worked. I could have challenged their use of negotiation instead of formal advertising/sealed bidding but I decided it might have had a detrimental effect on FSS. I let it slide. In 1842, the U. S. Congress laid out 4 basic procedures for advertising at 5 Stat. 526. They are public notice of the agency need, sealed offers, public opening of bids, and award to the lowest bidder. I'm sure GAO and its predecessors filled in the blanks. They should look there for exceptions or conditions to advertising that permitted something called negotiaion. Then they should go to 1862 and think qui tam. That is what members should strive to learn--everything they can. They should go to 1 Stat 234, 2 Stat 536, (2 Ops. Att'y Gen. 257., 259). 12 Stat 103. Take on ASPA of 1947 and FPASA of 1949. Read the legislative histories. Study the COGP and what it said. (I've posted links to it and GAO reports that Congress required.) Find out why there is an OFPP, why there is a CICA, etc. Find out about the old House Committee on Government Operations and the Senate Committee of Government Affairs. They need to know how PL 87-653 came about and who Carl Vinson, Lawton Chiles, and Jack Brooks were. I've been there, I've done that, decades ago. Who else knows anything about procurement history. I'm sure there are a handful of people here that do and they are the ones that post here. There are a handful that will check my citations to statute and maybe look for that Attorney General opinion. Those that do will say huh and enjoy any new knowlege they gain. I'm sure that Thornberry has no idea of what came before him and that is one reason he spews crap before us. That is the problem, too few people care. It's easier to be an automaton.

I've just posted the first item--Should Sealed Bidding be Abolished? There is a poll to go with it since it is a yes or no response. It can be discussed also. It's a race to 10 votes for either yes or no. If we cannot get 10 votes for a yes or a no, the community gets a Doh? The incentive or disincentive is the fate of Wifcon.com. I really don't care anymore and I won't participate either.

Vern: Thank you for the offer. There will be no other prizes. A free and privately held discussion board is the prize. Members need to understand the importance of the highlighted text and they must decide if they are leaders or followers. This is the site's Thermopylae.

That shows how much I read the NDAAs. I post the sections and try to ignore all the baloney in it.

What about # 7. Wouldn't that cover just about any system produced or in production? BTW, according to the Department of State, our contractors sell $150 billion worth of weapons to foreign contries annually.

I was just wondering how many there were.

That's fine. I will add that. One item at a time to try to maintain control. I think it is easier to start with that. Do you know the names of all federal laws directly affecting contracting. I don't know all of them.

I wanted to see if we can move away from CICA, ASPA, FPASA, FAR, DFARS, etc., etc., contract specialists, and the same old crutches the government has burdened and punished us with. That is the most significant problem facing government contracting, not the people. You can hire people anywhere to fill purchasing jobs. What does it take to order from Amazon? Carl's wondering about contracting clerks, you show Carl that pudding or something is a mil-spec. We have a political fool writing lines of crap trying to define something billions of people do online every day. (In China, Alibaba is much bigger than Amazon.) He really thinks he is helping. He's adding more baloney to existing baloney that his predecessors scooped up. Here it is a simple definition: (1) If you can't buy it from less than 2 online retailers, it is not a commercial product; if you cannot find a service from more than 2 service providers online, it's not a commercial service. Nothing more is needed. I don't think my effort will go anywhere because everything needs to be torn down and renewed with a view of the future. Eventualy it will. What would we do when we got to a replacement for FAR Part 52. Some of it might make sense and it is of some value but who is going to wade though it.

I will add the two discussions under the New Forum under Government Contracting Personnel. However, we must remember this is a New Beginning. The terms contracting officers and contract specialists are placeholder terms until you decide whether you will keep those terms in the new process. Don't state they should know how to deal with GAO and COFC protests because, at this point, you have not decided if there is such a thing as a protest. Neither do we have government contract law or regulation to deal with at this time. We have no fair and reasonable price, we have no cost realism. Think like that. We are dealing with contracts so we all should have a general idea of what a contract is. What we are trying to do is figure out what the government's contracting agent should know and be able to do. You will have to decide what we will call the agents in the end. You are now up the creek with only your imagination to lean on. Don't get bogged down in the current terminology we use because it doesn't exist anymore. It's a new beginning. I may or may not write a summary of the completed discussion when we decide we have hashed it out. At that time, you may suggest editing my summary or whatever. Other than that and some nudging when we stray aside from the concepts, I will not participate in the discussion. I have my own ideas but I want your ideas. Your ideas means the groups' ideas not any one member's ideas. Let's see if there is any imagination or innovation in our contracting membership. I hope you make an effort.

Under personnel there are 2 potential topics. Duties Qualifications.

Let me know what you want to do.

Far: Don't get your hopes up. We don't have any suggestions for discussion.

I have started the Forum and the first Category. It is at the bottom of this page. You cannot post anything yet. Vern stated that Contracting Personnel was the most significant problem. It seems that 2 others agree with him. I will post the topics that can be discussed under the Category of Government Contracting Personnel when someone posts one here and others agree to it. After that, I will collect potential topics here and list them in a poll for possible inclusion to the new forum under Government Contracting Personnel. The topics with the most votes will be added as the second topic, etc. We will do this one topic at a time until you tell me to add another. Add any ideas here. Let's see if anyone is willing to contribute.

The Forum would be: Federal Contracting: A New Start (forum) Contracting Personnel (category--holds discussions) Discussion Issue -- (topic--in which discussions are held) (this would be the initial sole issue in which a discussion is held. Other topics can be added as needed. If a post strays from the first issue, it will be hidden until we find a place for it. I think I can set it up in a manner similar to that. The term Contracting will be used because it is the name of this site. Other than that, I should be able to move things around to fit our needs. It too can be defined later. If it is agreed that Personnel is the problem, come up with a discussion issue I can add.

If we are going to improve professional knowledge I can add that to the sole beginning topic. Let's not discuss it here.

AI, we can do that. Gort would deal with all protests and enforce all rules.

H-2-H European Community? Don: Nah. Although, 1792 was the first contracting law I could find.

Jamaal: Back in the 1980s, I had to analyze the purchasing system of a private company. I ended up looking at PEPCO. It's now an Excelon company but that doesn't make a difference. They buy quite a bit of items from a lot of companies. They had a purchasing manual and a purchasing organization. Back then, I was interested in their small business efforts. They were qualifying small businesses and searching for small businesses to participate as suppliers. They did what the federal government did with only a purchasing manual. Of course, they weren't burdened by a House Armed Services Committee and a Senate Armed Services Committee or a U. S. Congress, for that matter. Now those jerks and their local counterparts will have an effect on an industry purchasing manual in some way but it is still manageable. That is not the case for the U. S. Government. Every committee in Congress oversees some federal agency.. With few exceptions, these committees' jurisdiction covered only one or a few agencies. However, they can wreak havoc over a single agency's procurement system. Look at the various VA and DHS bills now. The Armed Services Committees' unintended goal is to make federal contracting impossible. Look at that crap of Thornberry's that Mathew posted. Yesterday, both Vern and I concluded it was crap at about the same time and offered simplicity. Vern's ideas were elegant and mine were crude but they both tried to get down to something simple. That is what is needed. Maybe the solution for federal contracting is for Congress to declare a 5-year moratorium on contracting legislation. During that period, OMB could hire a group of intelligent, untainted, university students to develop a purchasing manual for the federal government. The rest of us, who have been involved with this mess for any amount of time, may never be able to see past the sand dues and clearly view federal contracting's promised land.

Thornberry's idea is stupid, complex, and an example of legislative contortionism. What is he going to have a commercial item referee to figure out what is what. Look at this one. If we get rid of the crap before "(A), it seems like an item bought by more than one government is commercial. Since when do multiple governments' purchases determine what is commercial. Maybe we can start here: A commercial product is one that is available from amazon.com or a similar online retailer. A commercial service is one that is availailable from the yellow pages. Any contract specialist can determine what is a commercial item with a few clicks of the mouse.

Jamaal: That has to be decided. Most of what we know is current law and regulation. If we eliminate sealed bidding, we get rid of Part 14 in the FAR and in any supplement. We could probably elimiante 1/2 of an attorney-year in GAO's bid protest unit too. That is up to anyone that wants me to set up a discussion forum for the remake.

Mathew: My original thought was that. I can call the forum starting from scratch. After that, we could add one thing at a time and we could eventually complete the process. If we take Vern's suggestion, we could hash out CICA and when that dies out, we could move on to the next area of discussion. When we are done with our components or building blocks, we might have a thorough look at the acqusition process. I can move things around to fit our structure and needs. For example: The forum might be called: Federal Contracting, Starting from Scratch. Our first area would be CICA, as Vern suggested. Once that is discussed to our heart's content, we could move on to the next block and build on our structure. That way we could stay focused on one thing at a time. Under CICA, we could discuss Vern's bullets one at a time.