Vern Edwards

The biggest problem with the FAR is that it implements laws that reflect 19th Century government ideas. After the “revolution” it will still implement laws that reflect 19th Century government ideas.

Experts? Talking?

You’re not.

I haven't thought much about it. I've been waiting to see what agencies actually do with AI. I do worry that AI will lead many humans to do less thinking than they do now. Too bad if it does, because thinking is a pleasure.

Agree. But we need to explore the concept of "professional development". You'll notice that Lt. Col. Fleharty made a distinction between education and training. The distinction is important. I would say that education is the process of gaining knowledge and training is the process of learning how to apply knowledge in practice. Education without training is suboptimal. Training without education is useless, even dangerous. Education is something apprentices (interns, trainees) can do for themselves to a great extent, mainly through reading, helpfully with the guidance of a sponsor. I say that an apprentice seeking mastery must read, off duty, 200 - 300 pages of quality material each week. That's not an especially heavy load. You must read to learn key concepts and principles before you start learning government rules. Consider the concept of contract. There is a legal definition and there are practical descriptions and explanations. The legal definition is important, but you won't learn a lot about the practical realities of contracts by reading the Restatement, Second, of Contracts. But you can explore deeply into the concept of contracts by reading "The Many Futures of Contracts," a famous, important, and highly influential 50-page essay by Ian R. Macneil. It was published in the Southern California Law Review in 1974. Look for it online or see if you can get it at a local law library. While you're at it, also look for "A Primer of Contract Planning," also by Macneil, also published in the Southern California Law Review, in 1975. Those two essays alone would put an apprentice far ahead of their peers in terms of a deeper understanding of the nature and challenges of contracting. But they are not easy reads. You won't be assigned those readings by your government DAU or FAI instructors, because most of them don't know about them. Again, the legal definition is important, but it won't teach you much about the kinds of things that a CO needs to know. It won't help you design, plan, create, and sustain effective contracts. And those two essays are less than half of the pages that I think an apprentice must read each week. But I'm talking to the real prospective pros out there. The ones who seek mastery. Apprentices will either read those essays or they won't. But if anyone were a contracting apprentice under my supervision they'd either read them, master them, and asl for more, and thus become ready to set out on the road to advancement, or they'd be available for reassignment. I just attended a U.S. Space Force retirement ceremony for a woman who had started out 40 years ago as a GS-02 clerk typist, went to college, went on to became an Air Force Copper Cap trainee, and ended up as a member of the Senior Executive Service and the Executive Director of the U.S. Space Systems Command, with generals and staff in attendance, a wall full of awards for excellence (maybe two walls), and a large crowd of military and civilian personnel there to say goodbye to a respected and beloved boss. I flew down to attend by invitation with other former (now ancient) space cowboys. Now, THAT is a career.

Whoa! Nietzsche! 😯

Uh... I think you may have it backwards. Ever hear of the the concept of entropy? The second law of thermodynamics? Disorder, randomness, and uncertainty? 😀

According to Acquisition.govL @formerfed The FAR Council isn't going to review anything, because, with the exception of the acting OFPP Administrator, they don't know enough about it to review it. At best some unknown(s) on their staffs are going to review it. Maybe. All the overhaulers are going to accomplish in the short term is to cast the system into chaos while people try to figure out how to do things under the stripped down (Oops! I meant streamlined) FAR. They're going to replace some parts with some used and ready to fail parts. I've been around long enough to remember the chaos after previous "reforms". So have you, formerfed. But this will be good for laughs.

I have to laugh at the interest in the early work of the FAR overhaulers. So far they've taken about a month to publish revisions of low-hanging fruit like Parts 1, 10, and 34. Let's see what they do with Part 7, Subparts 9.4 and 9.5, Part 12, Parts 15, 19, 22, 25, 27, 32, 42, 44, and 45, and, of course, Subpart 52.2. There's a long and winding road ahead. And who are the people working on this? What are they qualifications? How are they organized? What is their process? Who are their consultants? It is said that acquisition personnel are professionals. Well, would any true profession𑁋such as engineering, law, or medicine𑁋go along with unknowns working on something as important as, say, a new edition of the Restatement of Contracts?

That's an exaggeration. It might be truer to say that nobody thinks about procurement/contracting very much until something goes wrong. However, I think congressional interest in procurement/contracting is much less intense today than it was in the past. During the 1950s through the mid-1990s, congressional interest in procurement/contracting was fairly intense. During those years Congress regularly conducted lengthy hearings and published voluminous investigations of various issues in procurement/contracting, especially defense contracting, and especially about competition and contract pricing. But after the "reform" legislation of the 1990s congressional interest seems to have waned. Since the mid-1990s intense partisanship has led to congressional malfunction, which continues in the present day. Today's Congress is not as interested in routine government functions as it was in the past. It's members now fight over issues of what should be the function, focus, size and political orientation and goals of government. But procurement/contracting is still of concern to some. I think a systematic study of mentions of "procurement" and "contracting" in the Congressional Record over time would support my beliefs.

Army, Navy, or Air Force? There's lots of information online about various PEO organizations. Organization depends largely on what kind of service you're buying. See, e.g.: https://www.slideserve.com/brennan-stephenson/january-10-2008 See chart 11. See also: https://www.google.com/search?q=army+peo+organization+chart&sca_esv=36354fdb691823cb&rlz=1C5CHFA_enUS809US809&sxsrf=AHTn8zor0bWrPxZYRq9kgd2VxzRUtBcRnA%3A1747760662287&ei=FrYsaL6nEf2v0PEPp8DJiQk&oq=DOD+PEO+organization&gs_lp=Egxnd3Mtd2l6LXNlcnAiFERPRCBQRU8gb3JnYW5pemF0aW9uKgIIADIKEAAYsAMY1gQYRzIKEAAYsAMY1gQYRzIKEAAYsAMY1gQYRzIKEAAYsAMY1gQYRzIKEAAYsAMY1gQYRzIKEAAYsAMY1gQYRzIKEAAYsAMY1gQYRzIKEAAYsAMY1gQYR0joHVAAWABwAXgAkAEAmAFMoAFMqgEBMbgBAcgBAJgCAaACB5gDAIgGAZAGCJIHATGgB9wEsgcAuAcA&sclient=gws-wiz-serp#imgrc=ge-FZiFPXHV4sM&imgdii=xzPmWcdsnRV6EM

No problem. Can you tell us something about the specific mission?

I presume that by "PEO" you mean a DOD Program Executive Office. What does the "-S" stand for? Specific? If so, what kind of program? Land, sea, air, space?

It's a DLA reference number. It probably refers to a stock item. I found it in a DLA market research document associated with NSN: 5960-01-230-8457, ELECTRON TUBE, MULTIPACTOR. See page 5, CLIN 0003. I think STO stands for Stock Transfer Order. 072 is probably the order number. ZD might be a packaging code. https://imlive.s3.amazonaws.com/Federal%20Government/ID233410793380925340287053475638761336603/CM18310002%20Market%20Research%20LTC%20Questionnaire.pdf

Do you want to know what streamlining and reform do for us? Consider the history of FAR 16.505, Ordering [under IDIQ contracts]. The original FAR 16.505 (1984) was 134 words in length. The first FAR 16.505 implementing the Federal Acquisition Streamlining Act of 1994 (FASA) was 984 words in length. After the FAR councils' implementation of the Federal Acquisition Streamlining Act (FASA) and the Federal Acquisition Reform Act of 1996 (FARA), and further congressional legislative reactions to GAO reports of agencies' conduct of MATOC/MADOC procurements, FAR 16.505 today is 3,592 words in length. That's how regulations grow. Legislation plants them and agencies fertilize them.