Jamaal Valentine

Not so draft version: https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/2025/03/eliminating-waste-and-saving-taxpayer-dollars-by-consolidating-procurement/

It’s almost certainly done. However, the orders (calls) would need to be synopsized and competed based, in part, on their individual dollar value.

Both statements are accurate. ADA does restrict obligation. An overpayment by itself still wouldn’t meet the definition of an ADA violation. There are other conditions that must be met. Certain overpayments are ADA violations. I’m sure the majority are not.

Quick thoughts for discussion and refining. Create three civilians FARs: 1. Simplified acquisitions 2. Contracting by negotiation 3. Other acquisitions Eliminate and prohibit agency supplements. Create three defense FARs: 1. Simplified acquisitions 2. Contracting by negotiation 3. Other acquisitions Eliminate and prohibit agency supplements. Finally, “in order to ensure that maximum efficiency is obtained, rules, regulations, and policies should be promulgated only when their benefits clearly exceed the costs of their development, implementation, administration, and enforcement.” Here, a cost-benefit analysis must be made publicly available for review and comment for any action under the Administrative Procedures Act. *I don’t care what they get called — purchasing, contracting, and acquisitions would work as three labels too

Great advice, Don!

There are Executive Orders targeting illegal DEI and DEIA policies. DEIA adds an ‘accessibility’ element to DEI.

Are you referencing this? See also

I think the situation in the original post is odd, but hey. All of that aside, what if the multiple-award BPAs were competitively awarded? Would the orders need to be competed? Now, what if order #1 was competed at the BPA or order level? What’s to protest? When would the protest need to be filed? *Logan LLC., B-294974.6, December 1, 2006 (There is no requirement for further competition among BPA holders under competitively awarded BPAs.)

First thing I noticed is that the thresholds were not increased by the same percentage. But, more importantly, what are the arguments for even higher thresholds? Hopefully they receive a fair amount of meaningful comments that will result in less expensive and streamlined acquisitions. I’m surprised the acquisition community isn’t trained on leaving good comments and active participation.

Field a requirements development/definition tool that standardizes the format and structure regarding the description of agency needs. The tool would produce a digital document that feeds into contract writing systems and e-files; or could be printed. This would eliminate non-standard formats and Word documents. Variation often means waste and noncompliance. With all of the software and systems out there, there is no reason requiring activities can’t have an automated tool that guides them through requirements development (think Turbo Tax). I’m thinking Contract Lifecycle Management (CLM) software not DAU’s ARRT Roadmap/Tool, which operated in Excel and was too hard for most users. In my experience, requirements development makes up a lot of the lead time. First, the requiring activity takes months or years to produce a requirement of varying quality. Next, once the requirement is published to industry, the industrial base copious amounts of time and money interpreting it. Often, this results in a back-and-forth with government or misaligned acquisition outcomes. A mandatory requirements definition tool would increase compliance, efficiency, automation, business intelligence/data reporting, transparency, etc. Together, this streamlines and improves several areas in government contracting formation and administration.

Thank you. You are a good friend. Prayers and comfort for all, especially Bob. Please let me (us) know if there is anything else we can/should do.

@Don Mansfield Yes!

The Section 809 Panel made 98 recommendations. How many didn’t require legislation? https://dair.nps.edu/handle/123456789/14 Are there any that can be implemented now? Here’s a list the Panel gave us to start — Recommended Actions You Can Take Now

The more they do it, the better they will get. Or at least they should.

This!

Voice of the Customer (VOC) is a technique that can help identify and eliminate waste. FAR part 1 emphasizes customer satisfaction and lays out that the Federal Acquisition System will satisfy the consumer in enumerated ways. What regulations and policies (not laws) would the customer get rid of or not pay for? The answer will probably be unrealistic so let’s categorize the waste into two categories, one of which we can easily fix. 1. Type I Waste: Non-value-added activity, necessary for customer (necessary for operations) 2. Type II Waste: Non-value-added activity, unnecessary for the customer Now, what Type II waste is in the system? These are those things in our process that do not add value to the customer. Or as it was explained to me at the Fisher College of Business: anything the customer is not directly willing to pay for. What could we stop doing—today—that would go unnoticed by the customer? A key challenge is identifying the often competing interests of the governments various customers if we broaden the term customer (e.g., Congress, PM, end-user, taxpayers).

For what it’s worth, I don’t believe anyone thinks that comment was directed at you or any other forum participant. Maybe read it again.

Ensure agencies abide by and enforce — FAR 1.102-2(b): Minimize administrative operating costs. (1) In order to ensure that maximum efficiency is obtained, rules, regulations, and policies should be promulgated only when their benefits clearly exceed the costs of their development, implementation, administration, and enforcement. This applies to internal administrative processes, including reviews, and to rules and procedures applied to the contractor community. FAR 1.102-5(b): The authority to make decisions and the accountability for the decisions made will be delegated to the lowest level within the System, consistent with law.

Yes, two actually. A Manual of Style for Contract Drafting, 5th Edition by Kenneth A. Adams (2023) ISBN: 9781639052516 (“MSCD”) Contract Redlining Etiquette: How to leverage the power of redlines for faster and smarter contract negotiations by Nada Alnajafi (2022) ISBN: 057830273X (“CRE”)

CAC card *while fun, I doubt either have the same levels of costly disputes

LAW 522, Contract Drafting (McGeorge School of Law)

We recently covered doublets, triplets, and synonym-strings in class. The basic takeaway was (1) drafters would be better off using a single word instead of a synonym string; and (2) drafters use synonym strings to try and cover the possibilities of interpretations of unclear writing. Using a single word is definitely clearer when a drafter only includes the synonym out of tradition or an emphasis out of an abundance of caution. How much time and money has the phrase ‘terms and conditions’ cost the taxpayer?

Contracting means purchasing, renting, leasing, or otherwise obtaining supplies or services from nonfederal sources. Contracting includes description (but not determination) of supplies and services required, selection and solicitation of sources, preparation and award of contracts, and all phases of contract administration. FAR 2.101. To Vern’s point, I think of three groups within an agency: (1) the requiring activity (source of bona fide need); (2) the comptroller (source of funding authority); and (3) contracting officer (source of contracting authority). You must have all three - need, money, authority to contract. This depends on the context. For example, agency can be used to reference a specific executive agency rather than the broader government. Consider the GAO protest system. Parties may protest a federal agency’s procurement action. The term agency is more specific. The Congress, the courts, agencies, and the public use GAO decisions for various reasons. Note that ‘the public’ is broader than a ‘contractor’ or a ‘seller.’ All three are within the public, but a contractor could be distinguished as having a contract and a seller is merely competing for a contract. Again, I think the phrasing is made relevant by the greater context.

Happy New Year! This season is usually a time for review and cleanup. Here’s a poll under that theme.