Jamaal Valentine

What is the incentive to fix contracting education? Political, operational, personal, etc. In order to fix something, the decision maker has to decide it’s broken. Who is the decision maker? Each individual can decide for themselves, but fixing federal contracting education as a whole is much bigger. Not only that, the decision maker has to feel that the pain associated with the broken state is greater than the pain of fixing it. There are a few individuals who have done so. Each level’s decision maker (individual, team, office, agency, etc.) must decide that the current state exceeds their pain threshold. Now, what organizations can anyone point to that highlight excellence in contracting education (or training)? There are several colleges and universities that have programs (University of Maryland, Webster, George Washington)? What’s the verdict on those? What’s the scorecard on War Acquisition University, Naval Postgraduate School?

Contracts are largely governed by their terms and conditions. If FAR-based, is it commercial and governed by FAR 52.212-4(c)?

No.

Free labor. No employees or contract needed. Very DOGE. 😎 😉

Thank you, Vern. This was an important refresh for me.

Under the Constitution, the President is the official charged with executing the law (Article II, § 1 and § 3). The Framers knew that the President would need others to carry out the President’s executive power. Here, the President appoints various officials (Heads of Departments/Agencies). In theory, we have regulations because they provide the details of statutory implementation because the laws often contain gaps. At some point, it would be good to discuss why there are gaps in statutes, but I won’t start that discussion here. Someone already mentioned the FAR’s stated purpose so I want to highlight the fact that regulations aren’t the only choice for implementing statutes. Read Elizabeth Magill’s Agency Choice of Policymaking Form, 71 U. Chi. L. Rev. 1383 (2004). Keep in mind, even when regulations are used, the White House can override using the ‘regulatory review’ process. Personally, I think the Congress sees the Executive as the subject matter expert on certain things and leaves it up to the executive departments to craft implementing rules. Congress controls and delegates implementation, in part, through the Administrative Procedure Act (APA). While we have regulations such as the FAR to implement, interpret, or prescribe law, they serve the practical purpose of providing standardization and predictability. In my opinion, what’s missing from regulations is a hard look into the usefulness/effectiveness and cost-benefit analysis. We can reimagine all of this. If the current process doesn’t serve our needs, we should change it.

I like it and think it would increase accountability and help instill pride in workmanship. Also, I’m with Joel. Much like a college paper.

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.