Matt_mcginn

What a great article. Vern hit it out of the park again. I have to agree with WifWaf too: "...supervisory responsibilities and interoffice politics be the focus of the rest of your career." The interoffice politics types are really good at it - they've honed their tactics and have been trained in bureaucracy.

Hear! Hear! for those of us still trying, these wise words are still as applicable in 2022 as they were in the early 2000’s. Vern, you are a scholar and a gentleman and we appreciate YOU very much. Sincerely.

@Vern EdwardsThis has been true in my experience. We're coming up on 30 years since those "reforms" and the successive Administrations' policies implemented during the wars that followed 9/11. The credibility of the role of the contracting officer is very low among my colleagues because they know there is no importance or respect of the role, since all they need is a rubber stamp to "get the contractor on board". We are so desperate now that we've eliminated all standards to be eligible for the career (which many have argued is necessary and forward-thinking) and the current situation has revealed our real challenge (the one you've been writing about for two decades) - the old-timers have been getting out and we have no strategy to bring in the best and brightest when the work is not suited to their talents or skills. Moreover, we have no strategy to keep them since the training approach needs to fundamentally change. You and your company are to be saluted for your efforts and the important work you have been doing to elevate the level and type of training! It is self-evident that the interest in the role of the contracting officer continues to decline while deficit spending and budget levels continues to soar.

@Vern Edwards That is definitely true - politicians are not leaders and are not sincere. Sadly, the bureaucracy happily contributes to choking the process as well, and every year there is more and more evidence that our country is happy to underwrite the waste, fraud, and abuse inherent in the zero-sum accounting game. Maybe its just apathy or having many more important things in our lives like filling up the gas tank, taking care of our kids, helping our parents. The focus is only on obligating the ever-increasing dollars. $30T is no small matter and it would be good for every American to understand how we get inflation through Monetary Policy and Fiscal Policy. And no, we we're not going to fix Hwy 14 because our Rep (and Senators) didn't not get it slipped in under "Community Project Funding" aka the new earmarks. Before they voted on the new trillion dollar bill they (and their staffs couldn't even read it). #politics BILLS-117sres20is.pdf (congress.gov)

Vern, Absolutely not! Montmartre deserves to have a cool 70 year old like yourself hanging out all night long listening' to jazz...no curfew!!! Enjoy Paris - it's one of my favorite cities. Cheers.

Vern, I'd like to work with your friend. If you say good, Really good, then it is someone I want to know. I have met few Federal servants who are "relatively young SES" and chosen to be executive director of anything...let alone everything.

Vern, I know you're very busy, but did you have a chance to review DFARS 215.300 and the DoD Source Selection Procedures? Page 10, paragraph 2.2 of the DoD Source Selection Procedures manual states, "An SSP is required for all best–value, negotiated, competitive acquisitions under FAR Part 15. The SSA shall approve the SSP before the final solicitation is issued." Also, Chris M. wrote on 19 July, "FAR Part 12 buys, as a whole, are not exempt from the guidance, so if you are not using FAR Subpart 12.6, and the buy is greater than SAT, then you need to follow the guide and prepare a SSP." /bt/ The basis of DoD's source selection procedures' requirement for an SSP is when you conduct a "best value, negotiated, competitive acquisitions under FAR Part 15". An example of agency policy/procedure covering this can be viewed at http://www.409csb.ar...9-12.pdf. Look at the reference cited for the requirement to have an SSP: "DoD Source Selection Procedures, 2.2 and AFARS 5115.303© " Also, it mentions that the preparer is the Program Office/Requiring Activity and legal and MOD (policy) will review it. The lawyers have never written an SSP and the policy people may not recognize why the SSP was included in the package. Still, the Army has the lawyers review it and provide a recommendation to the PARC. The KO and Contract Specialist spent very little time on the SSP and didn't review it too closely, so the lawyers have a field day with spelling, formatting comments. It is unfortunate, because the 51C (E6/E7) or GS-1102 specialist shouldn't be the target of the blame. Cody's question is difficult to address on this forum, but I suspect Cody is asking since there is nobody at Cody's agency who knows how to answer his/her question. What agency you work for and what the policies are in that agency, is the basis of whether a source selection plan is required or not. DFARS 215.300 states, "Contracting officers shall follow the principles and procedures in Director, Defense Procurement and Acquisition Policy memorandum dated March 4, 2011, Department of Defense Source Selection Procedures, when conducting negotiated, competitive acquisitions utilizing FAR part 15 procedures." Therefore, if you work for DoD and are conducting a source selection for an acquisition of a commercial item valued in excess of the simplified acquisition threshold, AND choose to NOT follow the streamlined procedure for evaluation and solicitation in FAR Subpart 12.6, you must have an approved Source Selection plan (emphasis added) apparently. I wonder if the first response given to people like Cody on something like this is, "FAR Part 15 requires a Source Selection Plan". I have heard that said a couple of times in my office. The DoD source selection procedures give some bullets about what to put in a plan, but Army appears to not have a "streamlined template" and I haven't seen a consistent template being used. Maybe TIMBUK2 could direct Cody to the template he/she was referring to in his 17 July answer to Cody's question.

deleted

An interesting point in this discussion: based on the fact that the people "administering" the construction contract do not even know what the Payments clause says, each contractor is treated differently in performance due to arbitrary and capricious decisions made by those in charge (organizationally). Moreover, the same people in charge don't really care to know what the Payment clause authorizes in terms of payments. It amazes me that incompetent contract staff supporting the incompetent engineering staff (usually engineers are the ones "in charge" on construction contracts that I have been involved with), persist in making up new terms and conditions concerning the payment of work items. I understand they are trying to use it as a negotiation position, but they don't have the authority to do so. Vern, how did you handle situations in which the payments submitted by Contractors included costs that should not be paid for? Depending on the Agency rules, technical representatives usually approve percentage complete work and based on those agreements, an invoice is provided to the Contracting Officer for certification. It takes a savvy KO who sets time aside to review the invoiced work items and walks the job site regularly to determine if the amounts are accurate.

"There is a way for contracting personnel to escape their second-class citizenship, but it is a long, arduous professional journey. Most contracting people simply won't (or maybe can't) go that route." I think this is a profound statement. I have only met a few contracts people in the Federal Gov't who are capable AND willing to go the route Vern is describing. Moreover, I have not met one 1102 in a Supervisory position who comes close to implementing some of the practices Vern recommends for starting the journey to make our craft credible as a professional part of the acquisition team. That is a problem! Escaping second-class citizenship is helped by having support from contracts leadership (maybe Chiefs or Supervisory Contract Specialists) who are competent and aggressive in pursuing a professional relationship with other departments. In my view, this does not exist...and the technical departments prefer it that way. When weak supervisors give in consistently on basic policy and procedures, technical representatives smell blood in the water and start to completely disregard contracting officer authority. I am friends with the construction engineers and designers I work with, so I can get them to level with me (we fight/argue a lot): They say, "Matt, it is really hard to change. We have dealt with so many contracts people who went from having a High School diploma and being a GS-5, to overnight being promoted to GS-11 or GS-12 and still only having a High School diploma. Why should I have to 'get permission' from a person who doesn't even have a clue what is being built out in the field? No, I'd rather get the lawyers to tell me whether or not I am breaking the law since the lawyers have the real training to back up their advice."

Joel and Don, Thank you. Very interesting! Best regards, Matt

Joel, Ok - so the last statement of my previous post accurately describes the way ACOE's operates. That is interesting - I would be very interested to learn more about the ACOE's development plan. Do they take Engineers and then train them in CON classes to Level 1, 2 and 3? In NAVFAC all ACO and warrant authority is with an individual occupying an 1102 or a CEC officer billet. Warrant authority being within Acquisition then, civilian engineers are appointed as Contracting Officer's Authorized Representatives (COAR) and that authority is delegated by the CCO. This means having the authority to negotiate agreements on in-scope changes up to a certain threshold (capped at $100k) and processing the changes in the End To End procurement systems (eContracts, FIS and SPS). With regard to your question about final design, NAVFAC accepts the final design and incoporates it into the contract to formally establish the agreed upon design and aims to not allow the contractor to re-think what they've designed as they get to the end of the project. Many disputes were occuring when the contractor would argue after design that they had made an error which exceeded the RFP and tried to "strip out" that work. Under the NAVFAC incorporation of final design clause, the contractor is not relieved from errors or ommissions and maintains the risk to deliver the project in accordance with an order of precedence clause in the contract. Notwithstanding this NAVFAC procedure, there are constant contract administration battles that start after award and continue well after BOD. I am sure you have fought many of the same battles to ensure the Government's interests are upheld.

Joel, I just read your reply from over a month ago. There was no insinuation written in my post - I reject your grouchiness too. :-) I was asking the question because I really do not know what is happening currently at construction offices. In my office (Navy), no submittals are received by the ACO, with the exception of preconstruction admin (Bonds, Insurance). Wrt D-B, the Final Design is approved/accepted, signed by the Resident Engineer and then forwarded to the ACO for modification incorporating the design into the contract. A good friend of mine, in an Airforce construction office, says that the ACO receives ALL submittals, farms them out to the respective technical rep. with a buck slip, and then monitors to return within the prescribed time. Go figure. Recognize too that in D-B many submittals are Gov't surveillance only. I agree with you that PE's and Registered Architects are skilled and very capable in the contruction contract administration arena. I have met a lot of engineers who have business sense and a good handle on case law and precedent, and they make the decisions when it comes to every real contractual action on a project. In fact, many in my organization have snatched the responsibilities defined under the acquisition system definition of "Contracting Officer". For example, the UFGS have the term scattered throughout and it seems to lose its meaning. This has led to some confusion, in my opinion, about what position "Contracting Officer" holds in the organization. I am sure Vern Edwards has a clear idea about this issue, and possibly others on this forum, but they are not in positions of power that set policy and organizational structure. I see contracting taking a back seat way too much. On the other hand, there are many 1102's I have come across who are perfectly happy to not have to deal with the contractor; negotiate, bargain, make fast business decisions, push the contracting processes. Instead, an 8-5 gig with little hassle or debate throughout the day is their preferred course. So, from what you stated, you are an Engineer, with Level III DAWIA in contracting, and a former Division Level Chief of Construction? I understand the ACOE is set up in this way across the enterprise - ACO usually means an engineer who is cross-trained and fully certified to execute Contracting Officer duties in accordance with appointment from the contracting authority.

Polling the construction KO's out there. 1) Do contracting officers in the agencies you work in, always receive the submittals, obtain Technical Gov't Rep. review and then approve/return to the contractor? In the USACE's Contract Administration guide found at: http://www.hnd.usace.army.mil/chemde/cap/chp9.pdf the Resident Engineer, as the COR, signs all transmittal sheets. What if the contract specifies the contracting officer as the Government's approval authority? 2) Are there certain submittals which follow the contracting officer approval process above, but others that do not? For instance, construction submittals (i.e. safety plan, slump test, lab results) which are obviously reviewed by the technical team? 3) How do contracting officers out there handle the situation of variances? UFGS 01 33 describes these and the basis is the contractor submitting substitutions for specific types of materials required by the contract. If submittals are not approved by the contracting officer, it seems there might be a situation where a variance is constructively approved, without contracting officer involvement whatsoever. Interested to hear how contruction KO's have handled this and set things up on new contracts at the Pre-Con.

Joel, I want to make sure I understand what you mean by variable costs (costs which vary based upon amount of work) in the case of a D-B contractor who has not mobilized on site (the reason is due to the delay cause). It seems the only costs that should be contemplated for providing relief is: Daily FOOH - fixed portions (as per your post): salary of staff, equipment, vehicles, etc. Design costs: salary of A-E subcontractor & other misc. costs HOOH % rate on the total Also included in settlement is time extension - not necessarily all of the days of the delay period. Given that you have experience negotiating and settling modifications for the above, can you provide advice of "what to look out for" or other helpful information to make sure a fair adjustment is made? I've determined that the precedent for Eichleay has not been met. Therefore, it seems to me a negotiation of what fixed costs are allocable for the daily field office cost and other misc. costs associated with field staff, design staff. Is there ever a situation where HOOH as a % is not added onto the total of actual costs?