C Culham

@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!

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. 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.

Equal experience some years ago when PRISM was activated for the agency I worked for. I always felt the fatal flaw was not Funding Requirement, it was the fact that PRISM was adopted for agency use by the financial side of the house with minimal input for acquisition. At that time by my research and experience PRISM was (is?) limited only by what parts the agency wanted to implement. The experience was during training on it use where we were told something like "Oh we are not using that element of PRISM." Reasoning - more costly to do so.

I am already done with this view. Watched a report from a national outlet who proclaimed the audit was with regard to the "8(a) loan program" of SBA. Others get it I realize but all the same I think general interest and knowledge equals the small impact of the program on Federal acquisition. A link follows of an example of sort. It is from 2018. And I would offer without further research that such an analysis has undoubtedly been performed since the inception of the Program yet the Program still survives. https://dair.nps.edu/bitstream/123456789/1602/1/SYM-AM-18-087.pdf So maybe as a business development program questionable in creating firms that are sustainable. But then again I have the experience of knowing a person whose business was a part of the program and whose business no longer exists but the individual was successful otherwise. Maybe the measure is one akin to a college degree. A business development program that gives support in developing knowledge, skills and abilities and all, after a businesses demise, is applied otherwise. Like a person that got a degree in accounting and wanted to be a CPA and is now a successful cattle rancher. With the next question being - Is the 8(a) Program investment good anyways? As I already noted rhetorical questions when it comes to the current chaos.

I would suggest adding in a little research too. In the world of government sometimes someone has already created the tool. Quick research on my part dug up this up (link below). No promotion on my part by offering it up and it might not be what you are looking for. Just a tickler to suggest there might be something out there already. AtlassianAtlassian Government Teams | AtlassianJira, Confluence, and Trello help agencies plan and collaborate at scale. Explore secure and scaleable cloud and data center products, backed by certificat

As I inferred in a previous post 8(a) is not a huge part of the Federal acquisition landscape. What is laughable is that in the current climate questions as posed by Don and Vern are not what is being asked. It is my view 8(a) is a target for two reasons. Misplaced relationship to DEI and the matter of fraud. To the former it would seem that the Equal Opportunity Executive Order and the Civil Rights Act which both have a relationship to the history of the current use of Section 8(a) of the Small Business Act have not bit the dust so why 8(a)? Suggests strongly that my previous reference to a political witch hunt is right on. To the latter regarding fraud as opined in this thread it is an issue that is not just limited to the 8(a) Program. From my view any reference as to why 8(a) needs the fraud microscope is a red herring. So to is the spin as to how comprehensive the "audit" is going to be because in truth the information is already available to SBA. How do I know? Because when I was with the Program we could at any time ask an 8(a) participant for the information on the basis of an eligibility review We would even do so when there was question to that eligibility. And as noted when there was adequate funding and staffing of 8(a) Program offices on site visits on an annual basis were also done where such information was reviewed. Regulation, policy and Program participant agreement made it so and other than reduced funding and oversight the same regulation, policy and participant agreement apply today. In truth I am more pessimistic than FrankJon. Reasonable questions as posed by Don and Vern and reasonable thinking that created and has had 8(a) as a viable program that answered those questions long ago have nothing to do with what is going on. Politics, spin and grandstanding does. Change Ha! Sadly and wrongly the beginnings of the effort to do away with the Program all together.

By the way it is "Joni" not John.

What I do not get, and never will, is it occurs because an agency CO allows it which is contrary to Partnership agreement(s) and regulation that implements the limitation on subcontracting. Head hunting the program rather than the agencies that abuse it. And I would add that competing would not solve the limitation issue as it is widely abused on the competitive side as well. Yep, it is a political witch hunt in my view. Damage to the industrial base will be minimal but all the same it will be damage. And the politicans will gain favor with those that provide support. Anecotally - Nobody in this day and age understands that it is not a DEI program in the context of the discussion today. By experience there was a firm in the Portland District during my years that was owned by a white that grew up on a tribal reservation and provided proof he was "subjected to racial or ethnic prejudice or cultural bias within American society because of their identities as members of groups and without regard to their individual qualities." 13 CFR 124.103 Yet there is this https://www.sba.gov/sites/default/files/2023-09/Ultima%20Guidance%20to%20Agencies%20-%208.18%20Final%20-%20508.pdf Bottomline the Program has been poorly administered within the context of statute and regulation due to the lack of funding of SBA to adequately do so. Congress has done the perfect job of setting the Program up for failure!

Why? The price criticism runs rampant regarding GSA FSS. So why not pick on them too? Those that do criticize are in my belief are arm chair quarterbacks. The tale of the specific procurement tells the story. During my 15 years in the 8(a) Program the fair market price standard was upheld and practiced. Any complaint about an award at other than fair market price today that is verifiable lands squarely on the back of the agency CO!

Something one should remember that they have had access to all along to ensure entry into and eligibility to stay in the Program. 13 CFR 124.112 and 13 CFR 124.203. here is the real life example of the just the application process - https://oes.gsa.gov/results/increasing-8a-applications/#:~:text=The%208(a)%20program%20application,of%20submitted%20applications%20are%20incomplete.

Oversight! Todays atmosphere does not provide it adequately. Again read the Partnership Agreement for your specific agency and evaluate for yourself it the agency is doing what it is called to do. One could argue back and forth. Here is an example of my argument "for" that I have alluded to before in Forum. The company no longer exists so the Program hope of a successful long standing company not accomplished. Yet, as a procurement toolbox alternative imagine 3000 gallons of military jet fuel spilled on a tarmac. A company engaged through 8(a) to remove, the tarmac and 30,000 cubic yards of subsurface material, incinerate the fuel away and replace and repave. All the while meeting state environmental requirements. Letter contract, work done to 100% quality while definitization occurs. Took one week with no adminstrative blah, blah, blah to use some other exception to full and open. No apologies for repeating myself. Oversight! It is only way. folks only look at the contractual side not the statutory intent repeated in the regulation - "The purpose of the 8(a) BD program is to assist eligible small disadvantaged business concerns compete in the American economy through business development." 13 CFR 124.1 It is akin to Ability One, folks only want to argue the one side not the good it does and there is lots of it whether in real time contracts or a company that I know that has lasted 30 years in one form or another. Yes, as one part of building and keeping our industrial base. A quote from the document I provided a link to above - "The origin of the 8(a) program can be found in Public Law 77-603, June 11, 1942, which created the Smaller War Plants Corporation..." Anecdotal example - Genova Technologies started in 1993 and still around. Sorry but not sorry - Like I did back when, during and after the experience of working for the Program for 15 years, and will to the end of my time make the argument that the Program when viewed fully is worthwhile.

Mr. Hairston's 35 year history with the SBA I am sure helped compile this testimony. It does not directly answer your questions but you might find it interesting all the same. https://docs.house.gov/meetings/SM/SM23/20220302/114449/HHRG-117-SM23-Wstate-KHairstonD-20220302.pdf

The program should not be terminated. While refinement and revision are always looming the biggest change should be the refunding of SBA 8(a) offices to provide oversight. What has happened in my opinion was defunding which is now coming back to bite the Program in the backside. Hopla long timing coming that could have been prevented. My opinion is based on the following experience, admittedly dated, but all the same experience that I suspect many do not understand. First, there are creditable and well meaning entities in the Program which support that the Program is a success and has success stories. As it goes there will be many naysayers so I will leave to all to do their own research on success versus crooks in the Program. And I can say crooks because in my 15 years as a SBA CO for the program I encountered one glaring one along with a few others. For the glaring one it was a case where the entity defrauded Federal and state govenment out of hundreds of thousands of dollars in funds due in workmans comp premiums and the US Attorney would not even sniff the case as they felt they had bigger fish to fry. I will note the owner fled to Mexico but in my detailed research extradition was viable and on the table. Successes! Interestingly the other day I was driving around my little corner of the world and on the side of a dump truck was the logo of a firm that was in the Program when I was with SBA ( think like 30 plus years ago). I called a very good friend here that was also participating in the construction project (State contract for new curbing on State highways) and asked about the firm. Yep not a rogue truck being used by someone else but still a company in business. Undoubtedly probably not the same as I knew them but a name that has lasted all the same. AI and internet searches will provide many more successes. To funding and oversight. First two references are important that folks need to read and understand. 13 CFR 124 and sections like .112 and .203 and agency Partnership Agreements found at the link I have provided below. My 15 years of experience was in the Portland District Office of SB. There were 4 employess in the 8(a) Program office. Myself as CO and 3 "Business Development Specialists" overseeing 40 to 50 contractors in Oregon and Southwest Washington. This was before the full change over to the current Partnership world previously mentioned where much of the 8(a) contract stuff was completely turned over to an agency that goes to 8(a) eligibility issues such as lower tier subcontracting. I was fully immersed in efforts of pricing, contract award and modification and had oversight of agency administration of the contracts to ensure matters of elibility, along with with the full gaunlet of Federal contracting requirements, insuring all was being done in accord with the FAR, the Small Business Act as implemented especially by 13 CFR 124. The Business Develpment Specialists were fully immersed with the firms business activities, doing onsite visits that included review of their accounting records on a rotational basis, working with the firms to find opportunities Program specific and otherwise along with daily efforts in counseling firms business managment principles and techniques such as GAAP and a lot lot more. So yes keep the Program along with an increase in funding of SBA to oversee. This would include elimination of the Partnership Agreements which I believe are not even remotely being adhered to anyway by either the SBA or the Agency with regard to their responsibility of meeting statutory and regulatory intent. The "tool in the tool box" for a unique way to contract is as important to promoting small business development of those that are socially and economically disadvantaged. https://www.sba.gov/document/support--sba-and-agencies-partnership-agreements

Government perspecitve or contractor perspective. It might just be that the OP asked the question from the contractor perspective and the thread has turned to the government perspective. And to nit pick a little more "COR/PM" seems to be more appropriate.

Interesting that at today's cabinet meeting Russell Vought, Director of the Office of Management and Budget, spoke of the FAR update. The 30,000 foot view I guess. See this (below) link and move ahead to 49:35 to hear Vought's comments.

The RFO is neither "revolutionary" nor a thorough removal, renovation, and remake but an insistance and furtherance of that which has strangled Federal acquisition with bureaucratic regulation and policy. I dare say that the lynch pin of "common sense" as expressed in the EO has not prevailed.

Thank you Vern... But does this not stray from the topic.... Yet I actually got to witness the mystical through the eyes of my grand children in a ride on the Polar Express after a read of the book, a view of the film and on a train of the same name! Not so monumental in the eyes of some but oh the joy! It helped me keep my mind in the world of "I believe!" in all kinds of ways. May we all!

It was, thank you. The impact I wonder about is with regard to claim litigation, especially post contract completion when the contract was written in the mish mash. I have vague memory of such instances where extra effort was needed to determine what rule applied when with regard to changes to the FAR. So minimal but all the same a confusion. As you note jumping from regulation to regulation and I will add practitioner guides! In many of Mr. Edwards writings page count is noted about the FARs growth. So is page count now FAR, RFO, practioner guide and when all said and done RFO and practioner guide? I do appreciate pointing out the guide. An approach that makes sense to me. Of note and again I may have missed it but what of applicable FAR supplements? One would think that "all at once" the applicable supplement would have to go through rewrite as well? But then again I might be overthinking. Then I am back to wondering if the powers to be are thinking at all?

While the turkey was getting its glow I spent some time wondering and researching . This simple view came to mind but all the same it makes me wonder. A view of the RFO effort that I have not seen discussed or a discussion that I missed. At Acquisition.gov at the tab "Regulations" there are 32 codified supplements to the FAR noted. At the tab "FAR Overhaul" at "Quick Access to Key RFO Resources" the click on for "Parts and Deviations" brings up the list of of overhauled FAR Parts. Each FAR Part listed notes how many deviations have been issued for each Part and the click on for the deviations notes the Federal entity that issued the deviation. What caught my eye is that the number of deviations issued for each Part varies from 6 to 31. In some cases the deviations issued do not match, so to speak, with the Federal entities that are listed as the 32 that have codified the FAR. And most intriguing is the fact that RFO FAR Part 2 listed in the "Parts and Deviations" shows zero deviations have been issued. From my view the following quick questions occurred to me - Are the listed deviations accurate? By example the corollary of deviations for RFO FAR Part 1 to other Part deviations is confusing. Making of road map of the deviations would appear to be quite challenging. The RFO effort is a simple one? Imagine a contractor thinking about participating in procurements today across several Federal entities some of whom have not deviated, some have deviated but for not all Parts. RFO FAR Part 15 has only 8 deviations issued? Makes one wonder if the concerns that have been expressed in various thread discussions in WIFCON Forum have caught the eye of some Federal entities? The Millennium Challenge Corporation? An entity that became a rabbit hole for me. Interesting! Happy Thanksgiving to All!

Call me foolish by I could imagine that a specific contract could define anything as specific to that contract. With emphasis added what one might think is a Data Accession "List" in one contract might be defined as something else (repository) in another contract. This said has your research lead you to these? https://quicksearch.dla.mil/qsDocDetails.aspx?ident_number=205931#:~:text=The%20Data%20Accession%20List%20(DAL,tier%20issued%20under%20that%20contract. AcqNotesData Accession List (DAL) - AcqNotesThe purpose of the Data Accession List (DAL) is to provide a medium for identifying contractor internal data that has been generated by the contractor in compliance with the work effort described in t

In your research did you find these? https://www.wifcon.com/bona/bonafide8.htm https://www.gao.gov/products/b-333150

@Freyr Sound thinking to me. I still wonder. One would think that per the email (albeit I have not read it) schedule option period ends in 2025, requirement goes through 2030, contractor has an ultimate contract end date for their schedule in 2038, you could just go ahead and award! Crazy to me.

It could be that the OP has moved on, but as it goes I can not. "Simply" seems to apply a laissez-faire approach in my view. I appreciate the OP's inquiry and concern. Why? I believe a Order against a IDIQ (aka GSA FSS) is not subject to the FAR/GSAM but the contract rerms and conditions its self. In giving more thought to the matter my first step would be to review the parent contract in detail and look at all its terms and conditions to determine if awarding an Order with essentially unpriced options is in keeping with the contract. Of note does GSA award the future upriced options based on price (take a look at GSAM Clause 552.217-71) or something else. If not price how is the OP in this case suppose to determine "fair and reasonable price" for award of the Order? One might also raise the matter of the order needing a justification of limited source when going beyond priced options of the GSA FSS? Beyond my concerns I did find this reference on GSA's website. https://www.gsa.gov/buy-through-us/purchasing-programs/multiple-award-schedule/help-with-mas-buying/exercising-options-on-mas-orders#:~:text=Federal%20agency%20buyers%20can%20include%20options%20on,the%20ordering%20period%20of%20the%20MAS%20contract My conclusion - I not sure I would depend solely on a email or even the concept of "we have always done it that way". Slippery slope as to when some one would raise the their hand and say hey wait a minute. Hopefully the thread has given the OP good information to help them move forward in the most appropriate way. And I am not saying the OP cannot consider the contractor but if the OP does they better have more ducks in a row that just an email!

And a difference of opinion on who has responsibility for the market research and evaluation of approaches. Whether that responsibility be implied, imperative or even elective. Long gone is the era of adequate resources that allow for a contracting professional to be actively involved in the acquisition process cradle to grave.

Well I guess an email and "said" trumps a contracts terms and conditions. Sheesch! If me I would add a condition to the order based on the email. I would title it "Do anything you want". Thanks for sharing!