Jamaal Valentine

Yes. A review of the regular attendees and speakers would support this conclusion (senior acquisition leaders from government and industry). No. At least not for those within the government.

Misplaced faith. I doubt it.

While I agree that “[t]he most capable acquisition professionals exercise discretion and work within the rules to deliver innovative and value-driven outcomes,” I disagree that the least experienced merely follow the rules. First, capability and experience are different. You can have one and not the other - they aren’t two exclusive groups. But more importantly, the least experienced don’t tend to follow the rules. At least not the official rules under law (statutory and case), Executive Orders, regulations, and policies. Instead, the second group follows their instincts and what they’re told or shown. In other words, many—if not most—operate off of rumor, innuendo, and myth-information. This is the problem. Has been and will continue to be until we improve training standards.

My question was about using an exception (and now waiver) to that process. I don’t think you answered.

A profession has professional standards and responsibilities such as specialized training on a complex topic (not necessarily education), ethical standards and codes of conduct including accountability, and continuous learning requirements (formal or informal). Of course entities like OPM and NCMA have their own definitions, but in my mind, the more rigorous standards you require, the more it starts to look like a profession. The interest and ability to adhere to the above. Professionals hold themselves and others accountable to the standards, they demonstrate critical thinking and sound judgement in regulated/complex/vague/ambiguous situations, they share their knowledge to improve and advance the profession. Most importantly, professionals study (broad and deep).

Thank you, @Don Mansfield . I should have asked @formerfed about a waiver under 41 U.S.C. 1707(d).

@Vern Edwards You’re right. I’m not being productive. It is what it is and it’s far from insurmountable. Complaining is contagious and I know better.

Which is better? Was there not good cause for an APA exception? Which would the warfighter prefer? Which would the taxpayer prefer?

For me, better would be waiting until the formal rule-making was complete. Better is not having agencies use FAR and RFO simultaneously. Better is not talking about acquisition bureaucracy and creating a so-called revolution that leaves the man in the arena similarly situated at best or even more burdened ant worst. Why not treat contracting like Other Transactions? Why not do contracting by negotiation like SAP or A-E? You want better? I don’t think there is a shortage of better ways. Now, to be fair, I don’t know objectives or constraints of the people responsible. Maybe this is the best they could do. Only they know.

I agree in part and disagree in part. I agree if we were talking about day-to-day operations. You learn the general content of the FAR Subchapters and master key concepts and principles. From there you tend to revisit a fewer number of parts to get something done. The problem is getting there and this is where I disagree. With little thought, I counted more than 20 parts an ordinary commercial acquisition touches. Everything has changed so we need to read virtually everything. You can’t rely on the old construct because things have been moved. For example, things in 13 are now in 12. My frustration changes nothing and amounts to sport b*%@ching. I’ll roll up my sleeves like everyone else and keep getting after it. That’s not to say there isn’t a better way.

FAR parts 7 and 19 permitted and even discussed dividing procurement requirements into separate solicitations suitable for award to small business concerns. RFO seems to be encouraging more reasons to consider dividing requirements. This makes sense since the general prohibitions were to prevent splitting requirements merely to avoid thresholds. The presumption is that a professional knew what they could and couldn’t do in the past so identify the differences is the point of reading and studying. Why not make that easier? Someone changed it and presumably changed it for a reason. What did they want stopped? What did they want started? Tell us that part. Alternatively, play a game and waste taxpayer dollars forcing more than 400K federal acquisition workforce employees to individually do the same work to figure it out. How much time and money is that costing? What is the mission impact?

Exactly.

While I agree we don’t “need” crowd sourcing, I’m a fan of Ecclesiastes 4:9.

@Vern Edwards Don asked the four questions virtually all practitioners are wondering. I’m open to answers others have curated or crowd sourcing answers to those questions. Carl offered a couple of examples.

I think you’re right. It’s even worse. Under RFO FAR 12.102(a), contracting officers must document the decision that only one source is available and the basis for the decision.