KeithB18

Fixing our career field's formal training system is a noble and needed goal. It will take a lot of resources and time with not-guaranteed positive results. I have done my best to take the approach that training starts at home. I've taken our junior specialists through a couple of the exercises Vern has posted on his blog and instituted a monthly 1 hour training session that covers practical, agency level issues. Sometimes ad-hoc opportunities come up: Last week I came across a contract from another agency that was a pile of garbage. I had our two junior specialists circle everything they thought was odd or wrong. I did the same and we came together and discussed what we came up with. It was, I think, a positive experience. We've done other exercises on Part 16, Part 6, and Part 5. We don't have to wait for DAU or FAI to train our people. Maybe it would be worthwhile for me to write down the ad-hoc stuff I've done. If I get to it this week, I'll post it here or where ever the mods want me to post it.

No. 8.4 gives contracting officers an appropriate amount of flexibility and discretion. Unfortunately, too many 1102s don't want that--they want to be told what to do step by step allowing for neither flexibility nor discretion.

A couple of thoughts: Do churches/priests/preachers surf FBO.gov routinely? The contract specialist may do well to reach out to a few local churches are point them in the right direction. If this were to come across my desk, I'd probably attempt to establish a Part 13 BPA with a local Catholic church.

I guess I'm in the minority here...Contractors are owed what the FAR requires COs to give them. The sections on debriefings are specific and allow for the debriefing to be done "orally or in writing, or by any another method acceptable to the contracting officer." Contractors will fully leverage their protest and claim abilities; I don't know why I wouldn't fully leverage my ability to conduct a debriefing in the method acceptable to me. Controlling the information is important during a debriefing. If a program person or a member of the SSEB makes a minor mistake or misspeaks, the unsuccessful offeror could get the impression that the source selection was wrongly decided. The way to prevent that sort of error is to put it in writing and answer reasonable questions in response to the written debriefing. I don't think that's being protest adverse, just prudent. As far as meeting vendors face to face in other situations--If you have lots of extra time on your hands and like to listen to marketing pitches, sure go ahead. That doesn't, however, describe my situation.

The vast majority of the inquiries I get are of this nature. The phone calls that I get are mostly asking questions about procurements that were put on the agency's procurement forecast. I generally do not get into any details about those procurements during the acquisition planning period. I suspect a lot of the phone calls I get are from firms that are selling information. When they ask questions about a specific solicitation, I do my best to answer reasonable questions in a reasonable manner via solicitation amendment.

My suspicion is that the COs don't know what it is and/or don't know how to do it, so they simply refuse it.

I'm glad you mentioned that because I took our two most junior people through it about five months ago. One took to it; the other did not.

I covered the findings this FY, but it may be worth covering them again. Thanks all, this has been helpful.

My small (13 person) contracting shop at a civilian Department of Transportation agency does a monthly internal training session. We have a range of grades, GS-09 through GS-14, that attend. We've been sort of scheduling topics on an ad hoc basis but for FY15, I'd like to take a more structured approach. Some pertinent facts: We have 40 minutes per month. The two GS-14s are generally responsible for either presenting or assigning a presenter. We'd like to have the more junior grades involved more. Some sample topics we've covered over the past year: Changes clauses, FAR part 8, GSA E-Buy, lessons learned on a recent large solicitation, the difference between sole source, limited sources and exception to fair opportunity and acquisition planning requirements. So, I guess what I'm asking for is two fold: What topics can be covered appropriately in that time? Is there a logical order you suggest that those topics be covered? (We buy 75% commercial items ans 25% research and development)

Set a date and stick to the date. Don't be afraid to not answer every question. You want to ensure the process is fair to all, but you also want to make sure you don't inadvertently answer a question in a way that contradicts your solicitation. I don't think you need your legal department's support to enforce the deadline. I would think that counsel would have an opportunity to review the solicitation prior to its release--if they had a problem with the mechanism for questions, they should have raised it at that point.

Either one. They both [care] and know more than I do. I'd be happy to learn from them. Edited by owner, wifcon.com

If it is really a commercial service, you should be able to use time and materials/labor hours to cover the less defined part.

That's how I did it.

Interesting. Doesn't it make it right that the incumbent may win. Was it fairly won? Actually competitive? Was the price fair and reasonable? I don't have answers to thought but I would be interesting to see what GAO said about the Education Department's approach. And I'd be interested because if GAO agreed with the Education Department, what would be stopping my civilian agency from writing an agency supplement that would seem to defy or distort the federal regulation? I don't even know if that's hyperbole.

You can read the EDAR citation here: http://farsite.hill.af.mil/VFEDARA.HTM The only guidance for second phase selection is, "(3) Selection for participating in second phase. The contracting officer must select the offerors that are eligible to participate in the second phase of the process. The contracting officer must limit the number of the selected offerors to the number of sources that the contracting officer determines is appropriate and in the best interests of the Federal government." It doesn't specifically waive the requirement for a debriefing as it doesn't mention debriefings at all. It does say that, "(1) The contracting officer must conduct the second phase of the source selection consistent with FAR 15.2 and 15.3, except as provided by 3405.207." It seems to imply that FAR 15.2/3 are waived for phase one, but it doesn't say it specifically. Could be that DOE has consistently interpreted it to mean that part 15 doesn't apply to phase I. That's not how I'd intepret it from where I sit--please keep us updated if you decide to protest.

Too true. The push to outsource as much as possible on top of the consistent crises of the 21st century and yeah, I sometimes feel like an HR pro.

I did my first 8 years in DOD and have done the last 4 in civilian agencies. I've found the civilian agencies less bureaucratic but they contain less contracting expertise. The DOD was the opposite. Of course, everyone's mileage will vary. There are good pockets and bad pockets in every agency. (Try to make your agency one of those good pockets!)

I think that requiring contractors to attend a meeting that was far outside of their scope of work and that touched on division strategy created or created the impression of a personal services relationship between those contractors and my agency. Additionally, though I am not as sure of this one, I think that the contractors could have participated in what are considered inherently governmental functions at that meeting--those functions listed at the FAR citation I listed above. Also one note--A-76 was halted in 2009. I mean the legacy of years of outsourcing commercial services.

The following scenario occured in my agency. I would like the community's thoughts on whether the scenario could be considered personal services or inherently governmental (FAR 37.104/7.5). The Senior Executive (Also HCA) of a group of approximately 50 Federal employees held an "All-Call" that included approximatley 25-35 contractors. (Total of ~80 people) There was no distinction on the schedule invitation--everyone was listed as "mandatory." The meeting discussed the group's vision statement, mission statement, and annual goals. Additionally, ideas for ways to further the mission/vision were solicited. It lasted two hours and included vocal opinions from multiple contractors and Feds. I came away from the meeting thinking that we had stepped over the personal services line by creating an "employer--employee relationship" with the contractor staff. I also think that including them in that meeting may have performed inherently governmental functions (7.503© (5), (6) & (16)). Some other pertinent facts: - The contractors perform on site with equipment furnished by the government. - Other agencies may use civil service personnel for similar services. - Services, via option, last beyond 1 year. (many of the contractors have been onsite for many years) - Government directly or indirectly exercises supervision of the contractors. I made my position clear to the Executive in question but there is still some disagreement on the issue. So what say you? With the stated facts, was the meeting the type of thing that pushes it into the personal services category? For further discussion, the requirements of the A-76 circular and the prohibition of personal services contracting seems to create a tightrope for contracting professionals to walk. (Contract out as many commercial services as possible but make sure you don't create employee-employer relationships!) What's your view on that?

I've had decent success asking questions similar to this. One of my favorites is to name as many exceptions to full and open competition as they can. Not that anyone has ever done a -7 Public Interest exception, but I think it helps you know if the person knows the FAR. If the person couldn't give you a well thought out and long answer to the question jwomack posted above, it is probably a person you don't want on your staff.

Cosign here. I don't post often, but Vern and many other people's analysis here is essential reading for me. I strongly recommend to the specialists that I work with that they read this site. Put me in the category of not minding the basic questions because I think the people that post here have shown some interest in being a pro at contracting. I think that's half the battle.

I've seen the same phenomenon at a couple of places I've worked. The contracting policy analysts, in some cases, have no experience in operational or programmatic contracting. I've asked the question on numerous occasions, but how in the world can you develop, write, or enforce contracting policy if you've never "done" contracting? (or the corollary, how can you do policy if you haven't awarded a contract in 10+ years?) There's policy and there's reality. As an operational CO, I try to make them the same thing, but when policy is being developed outside of the reality, it becomes frustrating. Policy people have an important role. But to disconnect the policy role from the operational side of things is a mistake, IMO.

Situation: I have a purchase request for commercial services. My client would like to use a single source (large business), decentralized BPA to obtain the services. Approximate value of the purchase is $220K. I asked for a quote based on BPA pricing last week (say the 12th of June) and received the quote early this week. I have not gotten to creating the call order yet, because of other, higher priority items. Issue: The quote is for exactly the amount of the government estimate, down to the penny. Additionally, I was forwarded an email from the BPA holder sent to a program person asking if the program person could check on the call order award. That email was dated today. The email strongly suggested that the program office and the contractor have been discussing the project regularly. The technical evaluation is extremely weak (one sentence). Discussion: I try not to be naive about such things; I know that program office personnel and contractors talk regularly. But for me, this one seems too much to ignore. I only agreed to utilize the BPA for expediency's sake--the services can be obtained from any responsible financial analysis firm; i.e. there is no reason to go to a large business. I also strongly suspect that the contractor wrote the statement of work and communicated regularly with the program office about the proposed budget, though I can't prove any of that. Proposed Solution: I would like to cancel my request for call order proposal with this large business and release it via GSA e-Buy to small business vendors in the same field. I'd require the program office to develop evaluation criteria and a method for evaluating proposals. The justification for canceling the original request for call order quote would be the inappropriate communication between the contractor and the program office. The drawback is that this would cause significant backlash as the "champion" of this effort is a significant figure in my agency. I've not been afraid in the past to take on such risks, but I've never challenged this particular SES. So what does WIFCON think of my proposed approach? Did I leave out facts that you need for context? Do you see this phenomenon at you agency?

I have been thinking about this too. I believe part of the challenge was figuring out what they system actually needed to accomplish. Recall that the law is very long and complex...how do you design a system to implement it when know one knows what the law says/requires? I have, however, read some rumors that HHS used an IDIQ and there is some debate as to whether it got competition. I'm sure it will all come out, and even if HHS contracts folks did nothing wrong, I'm sure they can expect to be second guessed to death. Because, bascially, that's easier than actually dealing with the underlying complexity problems. The response will be, "More CO and COR training."

The "I don't want to go to jail" comment has always irked me as well. You aren't going to go to jail for acting ethically and honestly. I think that's key: If a CO is acting in good faith and interpreting the FAR honestly and to the best of his/her ability, it is nearly impossible for a CO to go to jail. If a COs ethics and honesty break down and the CO starts taking kickbacks, bribes, leaks source selection information to favored vendors, or engages in quid pro quo favors, then sure, that CO is risking criminal penalties. However, I've never heard the "I don't want to go to jail" comment mentioned in that context...a context in which the sentiment would be understandable. (However, my first inclination to hearing talk about bribes or kickbacks would not be "I don't want to go to jail" it would be "I will not entertain such talk because my integrity is too important to me.")