Vern Edwards

All: I have been informed that the legal process of transfer will take a little while. It must be done through Bob's estate, and it will take time for the family to establish that. I know that's complicated, because I had to settle my brother's estate. Moreover, Bob's estate is in Pennsylvania and the family lives elsewhere. There must also be due diligence regarding intellectual property on the site (articles, blogs, etc.) and a technical review of the operation and placement of the site. These have just begun. I don't know much about those processes. Maybe the site can run without those features until matters of copyright are resolved. It seems that acquiring an existing website that has been operating more than 20 years is rather complicated. I'll try to find out if updates of the home page can begin in the interim. This Forum will continue, but there may be some new rules or procedures. I don't know. So be patient. But it's coming.

I'm not sure what message you are trying to convey. I don't know if there will be retrospective updates.

NEWS: Wilcon will continue under the name Bob Antonio's Wifcon. Arrangements have been made, but the legal process will take a little time. There will be a few changes to the site, but nothing major. Updates to the home page should resume soon.

What's wrong with reading books or chapters in books and conducing small discussion groups? That's how they do it at Oxford. I presume your staff are grownups. Do they need games? I got the following from Google AI: Doesn't work for the lazy or terminally afraid, I'm sorry to say. How about a game that would work like Monopoly? You roll the dice and hop around the board. For every landing place there is a set of topical questions from which a question must be drawn. E.G., "What's the proper measure of an equitable adjustment?" Answer the question correctly and you get a hotel. The ultimate winner gets a day of administrative leave. Answer wrongly and you have to go backwards and work overtime. Answer wrong again and you have to write everyone's synopses for a month. Actually, that sounds like it could be good for a fun lunch hour. The Contracting Game®

Will do.

Bob's family is still considering what to do about Wifcon's future. Stand by.

Go to: https://www.dau.edu/sites/default/files/Migrated/ToolAttachments/icm_guide.pdf That should take you to DOD's 134-page Indirect Cost Management Guide: Navigating the Sea of Overhead, 3d ed., 2001. It is a free pdf download.

Dear Wifconers, I have spoken with Bob's family. He died yesterday, November 24, of gall bladder cancer. He had been diagnosed as Stage 4 on November 14. The family has made no decision about continuing the site and have said they need time to think things over. I will let you know of any developments. Vern

Dear Wifconers, It is my sad duty to inform you that Bob Antonio has died. I was notified by the Kennett Township police just moments ago. I have no details. The police spoke with his family, who were at his house, and asked them to call me. If I learn anything more I will let you know. I do not know whether Bob made an arrangement for the continuity of Wifcon.com, but I doubt it. So this may be goodbye for now. Vern

In an ambush there are two kinds of people: those who duck and wonder who the shooters are and those who fire at the noise.

Don't need AI. It's not smart enough. We have received some terrific ideas from other sources, people who really know the business, inside and out𑁋people with both deep knowledge and hands-on practical experience at several organizational levels. A team of experienced writers is working hard on preparing them in presentation form. I don't know if anything will come of them. Maybe nothing. We'll see over the course of the next year.

All, I have been trying to reach Bob for two weeks, but have gotten no answer. I have finally located him in a hospital in Pennsylvania, where he is a patient. I have his room number and phone number, but have not yet been able to talk to him. II think he has been there for at least a week, maybe longer. I do not know his condition. If and when I'm able to speak with him or otherwise learn of his condition, I will let you all know, with his permission, of course. Keep him in your thoughts. Vern

@joel hoffman Okay. You have made that assertion several times now. You're making it on principle. I get it, but disagree. I disagree because we spend a fortune every year on lengthy "best value" proposal-based competitions for services that too often take a year or more to conduct because we solicit and assemble teams to evaluate non-promissory proposals that are little more than sales pitches ("Describe your proposed approach..." "Demonstrate your understanding...). We routinely declare price to be the least important evaluation factor, make fantasy findings of strengths and weaknesses that we say we have found in what is too often just bullshit, award contracts to strangers without ever having met or discussed anything with them, and then spend millions each year fighting and suffering delays due to protests about our evaluations and our fantasy findings of illusory "value." It wouldn't be so bad if we dropped the requirement for written proposals and evaluated oral presentations, instead, but we're too poorly trained, hidebound, and stupid to do that. And you think that's less costly and more economical than qualifications-based competition and one-on-one price negotiation with a tentative selectee and with competitors waiting in the wings? Well, I reject your opinion. If we are ever able to make the change from proposal-based to qualifications-based competition for services a la the A-E method, you can complain to your congressional representatives.

I don't think it is essentially a "sole source" price negotiation. It is negotiation with a chosen party, with others in the wings if the chosen party won't be reasonable and tries to drive too hard a bargain. A good contracting officer would have leverage, which they wouldn't have with a true sole source. And I don't know of any rule prohibiting the CO from asking one or more of the other parties for quotes while negotiating with the chosen party.

FAR 36.606, Negotiations, paragraph (f): @joel hoffman Do you know of any studies or reports that say the government is paying unreasonable prices for A-E work because of the lack of price competition in the selection process?

Well, maybe something will happen about CO appointments, which have been far too liberal, and which can be addressed in an executive order. And head-to-head price competition may not be a good idea in the acquisition of custom services when work statements are vague, as they almost always are for such services. With the current system, no competitor really knows at the time of contract formation what service will be required and what it will cost, unless there is an incumbent, and even they may not be sure about the future in a recompete. That's one reason why hourly labor rate pricing has become so popular. In any case, price is almost always the least important evaluation factor.

@joel hoffmanReally? How could qualifications-based selection a la FAR 36.6 possibly be more costly than requiring competitors in service procurements to write "technical" or "management" proposals, or both, describing their "proposed approach" to providing a service described in a 25 or 100 page "performance work statement"𑁋written by someone who has no clue𑁋in order to demonstrate their "understanding" of the requirement and the "soundness" of their "approach" without merely repeating the words of the PWS, then assembling an evaluation team to read those dissertations, perhaps partially written by AI, and write "strength", "weakness", and "deficiency" reports, and then make tradeoffs among fantasies. And price is almost always the least important evaluation factor. And all that is often done without conducting discussions!!!!! Without talking!!!!! Business conducted between strangers, without face-to-face communication until after the contract is signed!!! Based on obscure statements of requirements and obscure "approaches" to fulfilling them. The FAR Part 15 source selection process, developed in the late 1940s and early 1950s for weapon acquisitions, is, as too often conducted, so STUPID, so time-consuming and costly, that it sometimes seems like a subversive Russian, Chinese, North Korean, or Iranian plot. Let's see what costly, time-consuming stupid thing we can get U.S. government contracting officers to do next. We've tried to get COs to dispense with written "technical" and "management" proposals for services acquisitions and to replace them with oral presentations. We even got that into the FAR. And do you know what some of them do now? They ask for both!!!! It's nothing but fodder for the bid protest industry and usually produces no verifiable "best value". Explain to me how A-E selection would be more costly than what's routinely being done "now𑁋being done not because it's required by law or regulation, which say nothing about such "proposals", but because too much of the workforce is clueless and incompetent and just cutting and pasting from what has gone before, a method developed for military aircraft design competitions that has long been known to produce dubious results. Explain it to me, Joel. Better yet, write to Musk and explain it. And safety issues, among others, are just as important in many services procurements as they are in A-E work. Think about aircraft services in support of wildfire fighting or space launch support services. Do you think there are no safety issues in those kinds of procurements? I'm not worried about the "Department of Government Efficiency". If Trump and Musk are opposed to anything they're opposed to stupid, costly, time-consuming methods of contractor selection and contract formation being used by clueless, unimaginative "teams" of civil servants and military personnel and that sometimes take years to complete from conception to award only to be challenged and delayed or derailed (JEDI) by a protest to the GAO followed by a second bite at the apple at the COFC, and even a third to the Federal Circuit. And think of the MATOC competitions in which dozens of firms, even hundreds, get to evaluate themselves and then file protests. The government calls it the "source selection process", and conducts it like a lawyer enrichment process. I can't say what's going to happen. Maybe nothing. There are a lot of fish to fry and only a short time in which to fry them, and acquisition is not at the top of the priority list. But they're heating the oil, and if even part of what is being considered happens some of the clueless fish in our business had better start swimming toward other work. The next two years might be interesting. Shockingly so to some. But it's been interesting before, and stupidity always puts up a fierce fight.

@formerfed I will communicate with you privately tomorrow via Wifcon messages on this page.

And what would be the basis of your protest? What rule would you say they broke?

Some do, some don't. It's what people sent. Thanks. Signing off.

@GovKor You're in business and you cannot figure out how to determine whether a prospective sub's price is reasonable? Really? You can't think that through?

The relative scarcity of contributions from Wifcon members has been disappointing. Maybe this website is no longer influential. Maybe the members lack imagination. But I thank all who have contributed. Here are some of the many suggestions received from elsewhere in government and industry: Stiffen CO appointment criteria for COS with authority above the SAT and COs handling major system acquisitions, and elevate CO appointment authority to at least the SES or general and flag officer level. Emphasize demonstrated knowledge, experience, and competence instead of credentials. Eliminate CO appointment boards. Require a CO selection and appointment D&F. Improve the quality of contract opportunity notices at sam.gov. Standardize abbreviations. Standardize solicitation and contract formats across all agencies and all types of procurements, including procurements of commercial products and services and construction. Drop the concept of performance-based contracting and the requirement for performance work statements. Adopt a single, governmentwide standard format for all work statements. Adopt a single style manual (e.g., Chicago Manual of Style) for all acquisition documents. In service procurements, prohibit requests for "narrative" technical and management proposals that describe "proposed approaches" to providing the service. Eliminate the requirement for small business subcontracting plans. Eliminate the requirement for evaluation of professional employee compensation. Allow the use of simplified acquisition procedures for all commercial acquisitions, regardless of dollar value. Eliminate the requirement for evaluation of proposed small business subcontracting. Eliminate the SBA certificate of competency program. Eliminate incorporation of entire CFR sections and parts into FAR solicitation provisions and contract clauses. Provide more training on changes and equitable adjustments. Prohibit the incorporation of agency handbooks and manuals into solicitations and contracts. Clarify the rules for proposal submission and the handling of late proposals. Reform the protest system to prohibit two bites of the apple (from GAO to COFC) and prohibit appeals to the Federal Circuit. Limit the use of multiple award task order contracts and restrict the number of awardees by statute. Eliminate the requirement for "full and open competition." Eliminate the restrictions on the use of LPTA. Limit the requirement for submission of certified cost or pricing data and the application of cost accounting standards to major system acquisitions. Simplify the rules about clarifications, competitive range, discussions, and final proposal revisions so as to encourage better communication during contract formation. Adopt the architect-engineer method of contractor selection for all service procurements in excess of the SAT and all major system acquisitions. Assume commerciality. Instead of requiring a determination that a product or service IS commercial, presume that it is commercial unless the CO determines that it is NOT. Eliminate the combined synopsis-solicitation. Allow price-only competitive negotiation and eliminate sealed bidding. Clarify and simplify the rules about foreign acquisitions. Raise the dollar thresholds of the Service Contract Act, the Davis-Bacon Act, Equal Employment Opportunity (and others) to above the simplified acquisition threshold. Establish more realistic deadlines for proposal submission in source selections. And several more. There were several recommendations to improve and revise definitions. As far as I'm concerned, this thread is closed. I will not monitor it any longer.

Voice communication seems to be increasingly uncommon in both private life and business. Email and text seem to be the preferred and prevailing methods. When I call businesses where I live, the people answering don't seem to know how to talk. They sometimes seem shocked that they have received a voice communication instead of an email or a text. They say "Hello" tentatively, with what seems a sense of wonder.

I don't think you should pay without an invoice. Send a letter the highest person in the company by USPS certified mail, return receipt requested, and tell them that you will close out the contract without further payment if you do not receive a proper invoice by a specified date. Then, if they do not respond, document the file and close out the contract.

Are we talking about a lot of money?