Matthew Fleharty

A lot to digest, but this is what stuck out most for me initally: In the line out draft of Part 1 they struck out FAR 1.104 Applicability which used to read "The FAR applies to all acquisitions as defined in part 2 of the FAR, except where expressly excluded." As far as I could tell on my initial read through, they did not replace or reword that text anywhere.

@Drew Of all the scenarios you envision, the correct one is missing...a change to the FAR does not suddenly invalidate the clauses on the contract, even when incorporated by reference. Previous versions of the FAR are still available online and, presumably, will be following this rewrite (see the archives section: https://www.acquisition.gov/archives?type=FAR).

Why do you characterize it as "arbitrarily bidding tariffs risk without truly showing impact"? Last I checked, they announced a 90 day pause and that only applies to the "reciprocal tariffs" (the base global tariff of 10% and others on steel in aluminum are still in effect). If the work extends beyond 90 days, there is certainly a non-zero chance those "reciprocal" tariffs come back. If a contractor is taking those into consideration, that does not seem "arbitrary" to me... You should also consider the terms and conditions of the particular contract(s) - some may have clauses that provide for duty-free entry. Further, put yourself in a business owner's shoes - if you were trying to price work for the next year or longer, would you price risk in for the current administration's consistent position that tariffs are good/necessary (and therefore likely)?

I sent you a note in private so I would not ruin the thought exercise for others by sharing my analysis. Happy to hear what you think. Once others have had a chance to ponder/participate I'll post my position here.

Thanks for posting this thought exercise. I do not agree with the Board (I'll send you my homework privately for feedback so I don't ruin the exercise for anyone else who wants to think through it independently). Two thoughts: If the Board was incorrect, it's unfortunate that this decision validates these convoluted schemes in government contracts (at least temporarily). If the government wants to only pay for hours worked, we should use a labor hour contract (variant of T&M), plain and simple. The withholding of information portion of the decision was frightening - we (government) should be intentional about trying to get to the best possible outcome which requires us to be candid about current problems and ones we foresee. This reminded me of my concerns over how professional compensation evaluations often occur where the government creates a guessing game for offeror's to try and submit the right salaries...if we know what the right professional salary floors should be for contracts (which we should if we're going to evaluate them...), why aren't we open and frank with that up front? These "gotcha game" evaluations serve no one's best interest, certainly not the taxpayers'...

I recommend nominating @Vern Edwards 🙃

I do not think it would have much of an affect, if any. Those that take professional pride in their work will do so with or without the cover sheet, those that don't (or feel so encumbered by our bureaucracy they've developed learned helplessness), won't. Regarding learned helplessness, some (though certainly not all) of the insanity of modern solicitations are outside of COs/CAs control, caused by inadequate contracting writing systems generating terrible formatting or the Clause Logic System inserting excessive/inappropriate clauses (I think I've think bent your ear on this once or twice Vern). Moreover, solicitations already require the Contracting Officer's name on them (via the "issued by" and "for information call" blocks). SAM.gov also lists primary and secondary points of contact (usually the CO and the CA) tying names to the solicitation. If the hypothesis is that by tying a name to the solicitation may result in more professional products, we already have that. If the hypothesis is that the way the cover sheet is written may add an additional level of ownership, I'm not so sure.

Do you think we currently have "clarity" in the current system or a "robust, fair, and legally sound acquisition framework that protects taxpayer interests"? Before answering, remember this is the same acquisition system where: the Army took from 2004 until 2017 to award a contract for a new pistol. the KC-46, despite utilizing "commercial contracting" (as the "innovators" would have us believe is a panacea), has delays of a least 7-years and still lacks necessary capabilities the Sentinel program, which started in 2017, has yet to test a missile or build a launch facility almost 8 years later and recently suffered a critical Nunn-McCurdy breach & everyday acquisition practitioners engage in insanity like this (https://www.wifcon.com/articles/The Nash & Cibinic Report-May 2022-Contracting Process Inertia.pdf) - just check the many current solicitations floating around sam.gov and you'll see plenty of them demanding offerors "demonstrate an adequate understanding of the requirements and/or provide convincing rationale" (i.e. essay writing contests) EDIT/UPDATE: I listened to a conversation this week between Jon Stewart and Ezra Klein on his Weekly Show podcast that, while not about contracting directly, was certainly contracting adjacent - they talked about how we (government broadly) became too focused on measuring dollar amounts or compliance and that's distracted us from getting things done. They reference the rural broadband initiative (also referenced in a NYT Op-Ed by Jennifer Pahlka: https://www.nytimes.com/2025/02/07/opinion/democrats-elon-musk-doge.html) where despite a $42B program and being passed under the 2021 Bipartisan Infrastructure Law, it has not connected a single household to date. So while I understand in this environment there are many concerns, the question front of mind for me is whether FAR 2.0 will help us get good things done for the American people.

One of her quotes sums up how many problems occur in the acquisition community: That reminded me of a speech I read that Vern gave at SMC about Contracting as an Intellectual Pursuit - when done right it is. When done wrong (i.e. uninquisitively through the all too prevalent copy-paste approach), we get problems. Thanks for sharing the article Guardian.

This highlights a fundamental problem in government acquisitions - that discussions with offerors is seen by many as a way for an acquisition to go wrong, rather than as a way to get an acquisition right. How many of us would buy a home or a car or acquire anything meaningful without negotiations (aka in government acquisition speak, discussions)? If you do a professional job and do it right, don’t fear discussions - embrace them.

@Specialist123 "Contractor slipped something into"... One problem I see in this profession is a lack of reciprocity. If an offeror missed a part of our lengthy, often convoluted RFPs we wouldn't say that we "slipped a requirement in" - we'd say the contractor failed to read the whole RFP and respond properly. RFPs are always imperfect so when an offeror responded with a caveat, it's framed as trying to pull a fast one instead of detailing what they're either able or willing to do?! Why isn't the government equally responsible for reading every word that comes back in a proposal? This is a global communications contract and it seems like the government and the contractor didn't even talk about what was requested and what was proposed to ensure both parties were on the same page. That is no way to do business.

We should not conflate advances in AI broadly (or in other domains) with advances in AI specifically related to government contracting - AI advancements requires effort and investment. Effort and investments usually follow the market - Industry is aware of the opportunity costs of their efforts and capital...what's the business case for pursuing AI in the government contracting field when there are likely considerably more lucrative opportunities available? I think the market for a government contracting AI solution is quite small (we can barely scrounge together the pocket change out of the DoD budget to pay for CON-IT). And even if we do find the money, I have used enough government specific software to know that, unfortunately, we often don't end up with great solutions (and we certainly do not sustain them well). All that said, I would love to be proven wrong by demonstrated capabilities, but most of what I've seen relative to AI applications to government contracting is either hope or hype.

The former is possible, I would not resort to the latter.

@Jamaal Valentine The search for any universal truth is beyond my expertise and contexts differ from situation to situation. Professionals need to be comfortable thinking through a situation for themselves and responding accordingly. What you're asking me for is a "cut and paste" approach and that doesn't exist. What I did in one situation likely won't work in other situations. Assess the environment, think things through, and do your best. You may think that's a dodge - I think that's reality. I will provide one example from my experiences to illustrate: when I had the opportunity to lead a contracting squadron, we went beyond the required DAU curriculum and CLPs. One way we did this was we brought the FAR Bootcamp and Source Selection Bootcamp there so both our less experienced and more experienced individuals could experience some robust professional development. Even though many of them probably didn't appreciate the challenge while they were in the midst of it, after it was over and they realized how much they learned they were (mostly) grateful for the opportunity. There was no requirement for those Bootcamps - but I personally felt an obligation to take care of our team and I felt that included their professional development. Would I take that same approach next time I have the opportunity to command? Maybe or maybe not - if the people in the next squadron have already been through the Bootcamps merely recycling that action would not be the right thing to do. I'll have to assess the situation, think about it, and make the best decision I can when I get there. You and others will have to do the same with the situations you face - best of luck.

@Jamaal Valentine I think you’re taking my words out of context (it’s telling that you only quoted half of my statement in that post) - I’m not arguing that individuals disobey rules and regulations. My comments were in response to what seemed like a notion that one should simply throw in the towel on encouraging professional development because officials have reduced the certification standards. Recommend you go back and read the entire conversation so you have the complete context.

To anyone reading this, that does not mean you have to follow blindly - if what senior officials want or value is wrong, don’t just give it to them - be bold enough to still do the right thing. Set higher professional standards at your level and lead those around you - I know from experience that many are eager for leadership that cares about them and will strive for more.

🤣

Have you considered that systems can debase professional knowledge and standards? Consider your example of CLS - those who only utilize it rarely if ever have to crack open the FAR to read, understand, and apply solicitation/clause prescriptions. One day those individuals who have only used CLS will be in charge of writing future solicitation/clause prescriptions - how effective will they be when their only experience is answering "simplified" questions from CLS? Those placing too much of their faith in technology as their savior will be the flightless birds, not those who make the effort to develop their professional competency.

@WifWaf I agree - we should find joy in learning Let’s not kid ourselves either - sometimes learning is difficult. But we shouldn’t shy away from learning when it is tough - in fact, that’s probably a sign we should embrace it because that’s likely the type of learning we need to do to grow.

A first step towards what? AI clause generation? CLS has been around since I entered the career field in 2009 and is not much better now than it was then. It's interesting watching your comments pivot - previously you mentioned you could write a contract in mere minutes, but when I explained that CLS alone takes almost an hour, you merely claim that eventually "it will save time for most CO's moving forward." I think that is wishful thinking (especially because there is no explanation of how that will happen - what is this "more appropriate way to input more nuance"?). It's a shame to think that the systems will save us - they won't - the path to professionalism in this career field is through self-study and hard work. No contract writing system can substitute for professional competence. Admiral Rickover once said "Organizations don't get things done. Plans and programs don't get things done. Only people get things done. Organizations, plans, and programs either help or hinder people." I have seen good, hardworking professionals overcoming bad plans, programs, and systems - what I have not seen are individuals who are the opposite do well even with good plans, programs, and systems. You can focus on magic wands if you like - but I think our profession would be better off if we spent more resources on mentoring and educating people.

Have you used the Clause Logic System (CLS)? There is nothing "AI" or automated about it - CLS merely generates clauses based on answers to questions from users - and even that it does poorly. I saw a report that in a single month, thousands of clauses generated by CLS were deleted because the user determined they did not apply. It clearly cannot teach itself to correct its mistakes. Further, CLS is not "fast" - it takes considerably more time than mere minutes. I sat with users going through CLS's required question and answer process numerous times. For even a simple commodity contract, if my memory serves me correctly, CLS required over 60 questions that took an experienced user over an hour to answer - I must note, this process would have been faster if users were allowed to use their professional judgment instead and choose clauses outside of CLS. Fast and easy? CLS is anything but.

The desire for data and statistics too often gets in the way of sound thinking/reasoning. I'm reminded of one of my favorite quotes from Admiral Rickover (emphasis added): "Organizations don't get things done. Plans and programs don't get things done. Only people get things done. Organizations, plans, and programs either help or hinder people." To add further context to the last sentence of Adm Rickover's quote, I have seen situations where good people can overcome bad organizations, plans, and processes and, conversely, I have seen situations where bad people cannot succeed despite good organizations, plans, and processes.

I do not have the article you requested, but other essential reading on this topic is Vern's Briefing Paper "A Primer on Source Selection Planning: Evaluation Factors and Rating Methods." Fortunately, he has provided it to WIFCON at the following link: https://wifcon.com/articles/BP17-8_wbox.pdf Since you don't cite the Nash & Cibinic Report article you were reading, if it wasn't "Retreating from Reform: We have Met the Enemy, and He is Us!" I would recommend it as well for an example of what not to do, also available on WIFCON here: https://www.wifcon.com/articles/The Nash & Cibinic Report (June 2022).pdf Frankly, anything Vern writes and generously provides freely to WIFCON is worth the time to read and consider. Browse through the articles at the following link to find more: https://wifcon.com/analysis.htm

Such a system depends on getting the requisite data to feed into the AI for the recommendation/decision. Do you think government contractors - particularly the traditional defense contractors (e.g. Boeing, Lockheed, Raytheon, NG, etc.) - would be willing to provide the requisite data for such a system to work (accurately)? Or do you think the government already has the requisite data and we're just not using it because we don't have the right AI technology to feed it through?

To me, the examples you provide are not routine, but require professional judgment appropriate to the specific acquisition situation. For example, whether something is or is not a FAR compliance issue is often not binary or clear - it requires reading and thinking through the issue(s). For an example of how difficult what you propose to accomplish with computers/algorithms/magic wands, see the woefully inadequate and inaccurate DoD Clause Logic System.