Matthew Fleharty

40 minutes ago, PepeTheFrog said:

PepeTheFrog knows your position about deception in negotiation, but quoting or using Henry Kissinger to strengthen your side is not a sound strategy.

Is that so?

On ‎5‎/‎29‎/‎2018 at 5:50 PM, PepeTheFrog said:

Do you think Henry "Realpolitik" Kissinger used deception in negotiation?

4 hours ago, MV2009 said:

So instead of focusing on the utopia state, let’s focus on reality and what to do to identify deception when it occurs.

People who think that the reality is that the other side (government or industry) is out to deceive you are not doing themselves or our profession any favors because it drives overly adversarial behavior.  I’m not advocating naivety, but the default view that the other side is routinely using such tactics is destructive and will influence/bias your own behavior during negotiations (and not for the better).

I don’t subscribe to the notion that deception is necessary. One common example that some on this forum have claimed is deception is this: starting at a lower position than what you’re willing to settle at and when challenged apparently those negotiators know of nothing to say other than “I can’t go any higher” or “my boss won’t let me go any higher” (omg! Deception!). Well, how about a different statement: “Based on the information I have at the moment, I do not believe a higher (or lower) price is warranted.” That’s not even toeing an extremmely broad line of deception that some have offered and it accomplishes the same purpose. Just think and communicate properly.

Deceit is nothing more than a tactic - an unnecessary and dangerous one at that.

49 minutes ago, MV2009 said:

failing to acknowledge that deception routinely occurs in sole source negotiations would make me wonder about the individual’s ability to negotiate a good deal. Firms do it rountinely.

Is that so? Can you support your assertion/opinion with something more than either conjecture or anecdotes?

Page 213 of the book from Kissinger:

”What the negotiator has to have, there has to be a channel in which the two sides can tell each other, at a minimum, what their thinking is, because you spend a lot of time in high office on the intentions of other countries.  These other countries tell you accurately what their intentions are, and if you develop enough confidence in that, it facilities that process of decision making.  Of course it’s possible that they fool you and it’s possible that they tell you something, but they can do it only once, and then they’ve destroyed the channel.”

Doesn’t sound like Kissinger considers deception a fundamental part of negotiation...

1 hour ago, bremen said:

I do not want motivated employees, I want disciplined ones.  Motivation is fleeting, ephemeral, and elusive.

I’d want both - I don’t understand how or why motivation and discipline are mutually exclusive.

35 minutes ago, sdvr said:

Late to party here , but wouldn't it be 20% ? This is like a coin flip, the probability doesn't increase or compound as it goes through each appeal. Combining them assumes the results are connected.

This is exactly why I showed the long form explanation...see above.

33 minutes ago, Tony Bones said:

That said, I really wish I had the chance to negotiate with a Vern Edwards back in the day... it is so easy to rile him up.

I'm sure you do

Why do you assume Vern is riled up?  I didn't see any ALL CAPS, insults, emojis, or exclamatory punctuation in any of his posts.

Though maybe he used too many periods by properly punctuating his sentences:

https://newrepublic.com/article/115726/period-our-simplest-punctuation-mark-has-become-sign-anger

6 hours ago, here_2_help said:

The prime contractor is responsible for execution risk on the contract. If the subcontractor doesn't perform the warranty work, who does the government hold accountable? Not the subcontractor ...

When costs are incurred, they are recorded into allowable and unallowable categories. The contractor uses profit on allowable work to pay for its unallowable costs. When you deny the contractor profit on its costs then you are not allowing the contractor to cover its unallowable costs. I'm not in favor of such a situation.

I thought that if subcontractors do not perform the warranty work (or work generally), prime contractors have some sort of recourse to hold the subcontractor(s) accountable...

Why wouldn’t it just be a case of “accountability” rolling downhill?

I’m not persuaded either.

🙄

I’m not a contractor and I agree with @here_2_help‘s remarks on the value of advance notice.  I don’t think advance notices merely constitute another administrative to-do: such notices have real value for contractors (and their employees) so they can plan for either continued performance or new work.

Here's a hypothesis: the Government may assume that travel costs for contractors should be no different than travel costs for the Government.  Since Government employees don't typically see the G&A behind their personal travel costs (they merely see the direct travel costs: airfare, rental car, hotel, per diem, etc.) the use of that as a baseline would result in the disconnect discussed here when trying to determine what travel costs the Government should or should not reimburse.

2 hours ago, lotus said:

What happens to the KO's career if puts his foot down, saying "you guys dawdled around too long, and I'm happy to watch you suffer the consequences"?

I think Don and Vern answered the mail just fine on this one...

Here's a defense related example from today's news (emphasis added below):

Quote

Because Boeing is locked into a fixed-price contract that makes it responsible for paying any costs above the $4.9 billion award value, it has had to use its own funding to pay for improvements to the RVS. Gibbons declined to comment on how much the company is investing on the system.

However, Gibbons and Martin stressed that the Air Force’s original requirement for the system, written almost a decade ago, left much up to interpretation. For instance, the RVS requirement calls for a system with “sufficient visual acuity to be able to perform aerial refueling in all conditions,” a qualitative description that doesn’t lay out exact parameters.

The requirements also included no information on the acceptable number of undetected contacts, Gibbons said.

That may be why Leanne Caret, the head of Boeing’s defense business, said the company’s most significant lesson learned during the course of the program is that all parties need to make sure they’re on the same page in regard to requirements.

“How do you define the spec appropriately? How do you make certain from a verification and a validation perspective that the intent as well as the exactness of it is there?” she told reporters May 3.

20 minutes ago, lotus said:

Can an agency let a contract run to near its expiration, then use that it is near its expiration as justification of "unusual and compelling urgency" to award a bridge contract to the incumbent?

See FAR 6.301(c)(1): 

“Contracting without providing for full and open competition shall not be justified on the basis of (1) A lack of advance planning by the requiring activity...”

11 minutes ago, sdvr said:

Does that mean 80% of protests go to Corrective Action?  

No, just as agencies can take corrective action, protesters may withdraw their protest(s).

I think @Vern Edwards' thoughts are spot on.  The only item I'll add to his list of arguments to explore is that the effectiveness of sealed bidding and competitive proposals contracting is undermined by a shrinking defense industrial base (see below): 

@PepeTheFrog 

This: "There are other, effective ways to negotiate beyond relying on or using deception."

&

This: "...deception is a fundamental part of negotiation."

are mutually exclusive statements.

If you can explain how they are not mutually exclusive, please do so, but "sloppy, sloppy, sloppy" is not an argument.

2 hours ago, PepeTheFrog said:

True, but that doesn't falsify that deception is a fundamental part of negotiation.

Yes it does.  See definition of "fundamental"

Quote

forming or serving as an essential component of a system or structure; central

If one does not need to use or rely on deception to be an effective negotiator (which you just agreed was "true"), it follows that deception is not essential and therefore, not a "fundamental part of negotiation."

43 minutes ago, PepeTheFrog said:

That's like saying competition and violence shouldn't happen. Or that hierarchy should be abolished. 

No it’s literally not - stop drawing false equivalences, it’s bad form.

47 minutes ago, PepeTheFrog said:

You're implying that all tactics that involve deception will destroy your credibility and integrity (and that you will get caught every time). Putting aside getting caught, not all forms of deception rise to the level of the synonyms you listed like fraud or treachery. Fraud or treachery will likely destroy your credibility and integrity. Successful bluffing will not have any effect. Unsuccessful bluffing might reduce it. Guile will not likely destroy it; your opponent might respect you more for it. Lying may or may not reduce or destroy it. It depends on the lie and whether you get caught. 

PepeTheFrog thinks many of you have an emotional reaction to the word and concept of deception. Deal with it. Face reality. 

PepeTheFrog would say that some of you are living in a world that doesn't exist, or that you are playing by rules that nobody else follows. But PepeTheFrog doesn't believe some of you are being honest and fully transparent....instead, you're being deceptive about your potential for and comfort in using deception. Or maybe you're just deceiving yourself. 

“Putting aside getting caught...”?!?!?! Who is living in their own world now Pepe?! You cannot just wish away a strong argument against your position because it’s convenient for your point. You’ve ignored the fact that (a) inevitably deceptive practices will be caught if repeated over time and, further (b) trained and prepared negotators know how to identify deception.

There are other, effective ways to negotiate beyond relying on or using deception - period.

@PepeTheFrog I don't recall anyone here saying that deception doesn't happen, but there are plenty saying it shouldn't.  

39 minutes ago, bob7947 said:

What about # 7.  Wouldn't that cover just about any system produced or in production?

BTW, according to the Departmenr of State, our contractors sell $150 billion worth of weapons to foreign contries annually.

Section 847 of the 2018 NDAA already included a “to multiple foreign governments” criterion for commercial items.

In addition to C-130Js, I think satellites might fit the definition.  I know some defense contractors use the same satellite bus (and facilities and presumably workforce...though they only need one of the three under the (4) definition) for commercial satellites and DoD satellites - the only difference between the two satellites/“products” are the specifications.

Thanks for sharing your thoughts @Retreadfed

I’m going to save my pointed questions until others have had a chance to chime in to avoid leading anyone.

34 minutes ago, bob7947 said:

Mathew:

My original thought was that.  I can call the forum starting from scratch.  After that, we could add one thing at a time and we could eventually complete the process.  If we take Vern's suggestion, we could hash out CICA and when that dies out, we could move on to the next area of discussion.  When we are done with our components or building blocks, we might have a thorough look at the acqusition process.  I can move things around to fit our structure and needs.

For example:

The forum might be called:  Federal Contracting, Starting from Scratch.  Our first area would be CICA, as Vern suggested.  Once that is discussed to our heart's content, we could move on to the next block and build on our structure.  That way we could stay focused on one thing at a time.

Under CICA, we could discuss Vern's bullets one at a time.

Sounds good to me, though maybe we shouldn’t call it CICA if we’re starting from scratch - let’s call it “Contractor Selection” or something to that effect.  Two additional topic areas could be: (1) Ethics & (2) Public Policy (after all this is the federal contracting process).

I like the “from scratch” idea, if only because those who choose to discuss the topic can focus on principles, policies, and procedures of a new contracting process and the merits of such ideas rather than the “well X idea still conflicts with Y regulation/statute” conversations.  

As for where to start, the beginning of course:  “Begin at the beginning," the King said, very gravely, "and go on till you come to the end: then stop.” - Lewis Carroll -