FrankJon

Matthew - You seem to think I'm suggesting something that I'm not. I never said that "essay-writing contests" are a good idea. In fact, I strongly agree with your (and Vern's) sentiment on this topic. I provided 4 examples of things we commonly evaluate for that are not necessarily part of the offer, and you lumped them together as part of the "essay-writing" epidemic. But factors like "experience" and "past performance" are the solution to this epidemic, not the problem. And all non-price factors, in one way or another, address "risk." Surely you didn't mean to state that consideration of these aspects during a source selection is "improper." The original question was: I interpreted this post to be soliciting opinions on how to define "value" through the lens of the current and future part 15s. Both the current and future part 15s state that: "The goal of source selection is to select the proposal that represents the best value to the Government." On the other hand, if the question is actually asking how we would define "value" if we were drafting (or re-drafting) part 15 from scratch, perhaps I'd give a different response.

The use of the word proposal was intentional. When we consider value or “best value” we usually consider aspects that go beyond the offer. Past performance, experience, understanding, risk, etc. Do you disagree?

Without researching the question, I would define value as used in part 15 as something like: "The anticipated benefit of a proposal to the Government relative to other competitive proposals based upon an assessment of price and non-price factors."

Just finished watching. A couple of initial thoughts. Regarding the drafters' mandate, the E.O. requires them to remove text, but does not explicitly authorize them to create new policy: (Emphasis added.) The OMB guidance memo echoes this and introduces the concept of the buying guides as a means of sharing optimal processes and techniques. The goal may be "faster acquisitions, greater competition, and better results," but it doesn't appear to me that the drafters were invited to innovate. Regarding the "equal amount of time" proposal revision rule (RFO 15.204-2(d)(2)), the question of how the GAO and courts define "equal" could be interesting. For example, if an agency gives one offeror from 9:00 a.m. Monday to 5:00 p.m. the following Monday to submit revisions, but gives another offeror from 5:00 p.m. Monday to 5:00 p.m. next Monday, are these periods "equal" in length? If not, what would be a permissible deviation in the number of minutes or hours each offeror has? What happens if the CO clicks "send" on an email at exactly the same time for both offerors, but there's a significant difference between when the emails appear in each offeror's inbox? I imagine the RFO might add text to attempt to avoid questions over these scenarios.

At the N&CR Roundtable in 2020 (I believe the last one, possibly 2019) I recall the panel lamenting the fact that IDIQs could easily be used to lock out all or most competition for a period of 10 years. Here, taken to its logical extreme, you could have a contractor that competes for and wins a single-agency, multiple-award IDIQ contract at considerable expense, then immediately upon award competes for and loses a competition for a multiple-award BPA, and then over a 10-year period is locked out of competing for any further work. The only reward for participating in those competitions would be the minimum guarantee. While one might reasonably think the second competition would be highly streamlined, this won't always be the case; agencies and individuals will add complexity. Further, while the RFO requires the CO to consider on-ramps if the BPA ordering period exceeds 5 years, the rule stops there. The CO need not implement on-ramps, and if s/he does implement them, may do so in any fashion s/he likes. While I think most would consider the above scenario to be an "abuse" of this technique, it also strikes me as an inevitable scenario that the RFO writers must have considered but ultimately decided to allow. I've read the comments under this post and still don't see how this technique comports with the spirit or letter of 41 U.S.C. § 4106(c). My belief remains that either the drafters will proactively rewrite this technique to add restrictions, or the GAO or courts will find it to be at odds with statute.

Do you have specific information that supports this? The RFO at 8.104 states: For agency IDIQs to be prohibited (with exceptions), OFPP would need to go beyond GWACs to MACs and/or GSA MAS. Otherwise plenty of acquisitions for services would slip between the cracks. Even then, you're talking about a policy memorandum that could easily be revoked in the future.

Thanks, @Vern Edwards . (Another restless night for you, eh?)

Vern, I’m curious to know your opinion on the following: What, in specific terms, do you consider to be the biggest “missed opportunity” in the part 15 rewrite? (I would guess it’s the continuation of the competitive range requirement.) Do you expect the current version of the rewrite to survive the regulatory process largely intact? (My gut says no. Between the lengthy timeline to finalize a regulation, the number of errors I think I see each time I look at the rewrite, and the generally underwhelming reaction to the rewrite, I expect some big changes. Then again, maybe those considerations would only matter in “normal times.”)

I can't speak on China, but I think the characterization of the US as risk-averse and challenged to do big things is spot-on. Yes, the way most agencies conduct the Federal acquisition process exemplifies this characterization. I haven't been paying a lot of attention to the RFO. I expect it will result in marginal initial efficiency improvements as a result of fewer rules to follow and heightened attention on streamlining, but I think it's a matter of time before bureaucrats revert to their old ways. I highly recommend listening to the March 27, 2025 episode of Jon Stewart's The Weekly Show ("Why We Can't Have Nice Things") in which Jon and Ezra Klein bemoan the inability of the US Government to effect tangible change on a reasonable timetable and the reluctance to empower officials to act. The prime example they reference in the podcast is the creeping rural broadband rollout under Biden's infrastructure bill. It really hit home for me as an 1102. I'd post a link here, but don't want to run afoul of any forum rules.

Well for starters, it seems pretty clear that a BPA can't be awarded as a DO/TO. In Harris IT Services Corporation, B-411699; B-411796 (https://www.gao.gov/assets/b-411699.pdf) the GAO pointed out that FAR 16.505(a)(7) requires a DO/TO to have specific elements, including a "quantity" and a "delivery or performance schedule." These same elements remain in the FAR Rewrite at 16.506(b). Neither is consistent with the characteristics of a BPA. Regarding the question of whether competitively awarding a task order against a competitively awarded BPA under a competitively awarded IDIQ meets the statutory requirement at 41 U.S.C. § 4106(c) to provide "all contractors awarded the contracts . . . a fair opportunity to be considered . . . for each task or delivery order" seems like a matter of perspective. But here's what the GAO in Harris thought: (Emphasis added.) Of the FBI's plan to competitively award two DOs for indefinite equipment needs, it called this a "second-tier IDIQ" that would: (Emphasis added.) Either way, I have a feeling we'll be hearing more on this topic soon. (Hey @Don Mansfield - If you're planning the third FAR Overhaul podcast, I think this would be an interesting topic of discussion!)

@formerfed @General.Zhukov @Retreadfed Your responses miss the point of the initial post. @uva383 Your second post shifts the topic from legality to practicality. The question is how this change complies with the statutory requirement for fair opportunity. Subpart 8.4 is irrelevant, as GSA MAS has its own statutory authority that doesn't require fair opportunity. (The term "fair opportunity" is only mentioned under subpart 8.4 with respect to soliciting competition under multiple-award BPAs.) Personally, I think such flexibility would be extremely useful for Government procurement offices; however, I'm skeptical this language will remain as written in the RFO. If it does, and it's challenged, I don't see how it can stand.

“Rethinking the ‘late is late language’” is what really gets me. Nah! Let’s continue operating under conflicting interpretations for just a little while longer!

That’s a great idea.

As I see it, there are 3 prongs to meaningful acquisition reform: People -- As described by Vern. This includes CORs. Rules -- Fewer of them, written more clearly. Structure -- In most agencies, the Federal Acquisition System doesn't work as envisioned. True teamwork across acquisition stakeholders is minimal; in fact, these relationships are often adversarial. In addition, team members often lack authority to make decisions within their areas of expertise, or face so much resistance to making them that they voluntarily relinquish this authority. As the system is currently structured, even the greatest practitioners working under the most enlightened rules would lack means to overcome an agency bureaucracy that is uninterested in supporting the acquisition system.

Matthew - Have you ever tried sharing relevant N&CR articles with acquisition personnel? Outside of legal personnel, interest is low in the offices I've worked at. Ensuring access to adequate materials is only part of the battle. People aren't going to suddenly choose to work harder if they weren't already inclined to do so. For this to happen, the structure or composition of the workforce must change.

Agree, good work, gentlemen, and thanks for setting this up, Don. My only critique is that it was too brief. I would’ve enjoyed hearing these men continue to quibble, although I guess there’s only so much to say at this point.

Vern - I skimmed through it on my phone while on the train. Not a deep read. My two biggest critiques are the vague request for a “work plan” and the lack of any measurable performance standards. I also didn’t see stated which FAR procedures are being utilized, and question whether the CO understands that part 12 doesn’t stand alone. Ideally, an agency would choose an HVAC company based on qualifications, experience, past performance, and price alone. And it must include some kind of quality standard. That said, as someone who reviews a lot of procurement work product, I would honestly be happy if I received this as a first draft for review. It’s short, simple, and (to me) clear in purpose. These are attributes that are so often missing from our supposedly “streamlined” and “simplified” procurements. What are your primary concerns with it?

On the other hand this administration hasn’t shown much interest in following precedent or rules.

Looking forward to the discussion! I notice you posted this at 3 am Pacific time, which leads me to think you may have travelled to DC for it…?

Maybe at the outset the conclusion was true, but I suspect not over the ensuing 40 years. I assume that practitioners are far more risk-averse today than in 1980, and that misinformation is far more prevalent due to an increase of rules for practitioners overlook and misinterpret. In the short-term I expect that it will make life easier for your average paint-by-numbers practitioner. Fewer rules to run afoul of. Fewer review findings. For more capable practitioners there may be potential to move the needle for the better by exploiting efficiencies, although this will depend greatly on how much change one’s leadership will tolerate. Over the medium and long term the number of rules will increase via amendment. Without change to how the workforce is incentivized or disincentivized I don’t foresee an enduring impact.

Oh wow. That is super interesting! Wonder if the Soviets got anything actionable out of that process….

Sounds like this has gone from "not enough cooks" as Vern's source initially described it, to "way too many cooks" now. I'd be shocked if we see FAR 2.0 this calendar year, although I'm sure there will be lots of deviations along the way.

I don't think I agree with this, Vern. It probably depends on what you mean by "thrive" and "struggle." The majority of 1102s today don't "thrive" professionally (i.e., don't have a sound understanding of what they're doing or why), and many are flat-out unqualified for the role. In fact, many either can't or won't open the FAR--ever--outside of the classroom. Despite this, most "get by" (i.e., maintain some level of output and receive passing assessments) through some combination of obedience, work-of-mouth knowledge, intuition, and "common sense" (real or perceived). I suspect even after the re-write the majority of practitioners will continue to operate in this manner. There would need to be some major new incentive or disincentive, or change in how 1102s are selected and trained, for this to change. Fewer rules would only mean that these folks run afoul of the rules less often.

I don’t see how you can say this, Joel. Considering price as the most important factor doesn’t mean you can arbitrarily decide not to consider prices beyond the lowest two. Imagine if the third-highest price were only marginally higher than the second - say a fraction of a percentile - but the agency arbitrarily decided not to consider the technical attributes of the third-highest quote. Wouldn’t that be an unreasonable decision on its face? Maybe my initial assessment of this scheme as “fatally flawed” was hasty. The solicitation doesn’t state what the agency will do, only what it may do. But I do think they could get into trouble here if they’re not careful.

Oh I doubt it very much!