@dave2025

I’m assisting with the drafting an RFP for software development and sustainment. I am wondering of a novel approach to implement "T-Shirt sizing" into the RFP so vendors can bid accurately, and we can manage the contract effectively post-award.

See this:

https://asana.com/resources/t-shirt-sizing

@dave2025 What books and articles have you read about the use of T-shirt sizing in Agile project or supply chain management? That's what you're asking about, right?

13 hours ago, formerfed said:

That’s my understanding but I assumed CLIN 1003 is an option within option period one which the government has a unilateral decision to exercise at some point.

Could be. Who knows?

I have found this thread to be very confusing.

On 6/8/2026 at 6:58 AM, FrankJon said:

OPTION PERIOD ONE

1001: Administrative support services (Mandatory)

1002: Logistical support services (Mandatory)

1003: Additional support services (Optional)

I don't understand the parenthetical CLIN annotations — (Mandatory) and (Optional).

Maybe CLIN 1003 is an option to buy an additional service during "option period one" other than administrative support services and logistical support services.

So the Government has the right to (1) exercise the option to extend administrative and (2) logistical service, with which the contractor must comply, and (3) the opportunity to seek an additional kind of service during Option Period One , which the contractor may refuse.

Maybe other readers understood that and I've just been slow on the pickup.

18 hours ago, Motorcity said:

Shall we fear the future, or embrace it? Maybe a little bit of both?

Embrace it! For the ambitious, this is the opportunity of a career lifetime.

Chances like this don't come often.

Some book recommendations:

The Essentials of AI for Beginners: A Step-By-Step Guide To Grasp AI Concepts, Stay Current With Future Trends, and Uncover Practical Applications (2024) (149 pp) by Caroline Hylands. Includes glossary and references.

The AI Workshop The Complete Beginner's Guide To AI Prompts: An A-Z Guide To AI Prompt Engineering for Life, Work, and Business. No Coding Required.2025) (169 pp) by Milo Foster.

Lastly, a very handy 6-page laminated reference sheet, ChatGPT Uses & Prompt, by Frank Blackwell (2024).

All are. available at Amazon.

The most useful thing I have learned thus far is to think in terms of having a conversation with AI, not just asking a question, one-and-done.

More reading recommendations to come as I work through them.

👍

BTW, for all:

What DOGE taught us about AI and federal workers

Nextgov.com

Also:

And:

And:

The Transformative Power of AI in USG Procurement

https://udayton.edu/law/government-contracting/articles/transforming-government-procurement-ai.php

And:

Skills and Training for AI-Driven Environments

To fully leverage the benefits of AI, USG contracting professionals must hone existing skills and develop new skills. Contracting professionals must ensure they have a strong understanding of the underlying regulations to avoid allowing a dependency on AI tools to reduce inherent contracting knowledge. In terms of new skills, technical proficiency in AI and data analytics tools is essential. Professionals need to understand how to use AI-driven platforms for vendor evaluation, contract management, and risk assessment. Moreover, a solid understanding of ethical AI use and compliance will be crucial as AI adoption increases. Continuous learning and adaptability will be key as AI technologies evolve, allowing contracting professionals to remain competitive in an AI-driven procurement landscape.

1 hour ago, Voyager said:

So why not think and discuss the mastery of negotiation more in this thread? Wifcon as a whole, if it were more secure, could have one big forum for discussing negotiations, but it doesn't; instead, it has a "contract award process" forum.

@Voyager This thread isn't about mastery of negotiation. Why don't you start one? Why haven't you done it already?

In the very first post in this thread I asked:

On 5/20/2026 at 7:34 AM, Vern Edwards said:

How to live long and prosper. Any ideas?

I haven't seen one yet. My own ideas are to (1) develop a deep understanding and appreciation of AI, (2) keep up with developments, and (3) become skilled at using it effectively. I've already provided one book title. Here's another: The AI Prompt Playbook: Master AI Prompt Engineering with 140 Ready-to-Use Templates for ChatGPT, Claude, Gemini & Copilot (2026), by James Caldwell. There's also the 2025-2026 GHATGPT Anthology by Ryan Lee, and a host of others.

2 hours ago, Voyager said:

The (uniquely human) competitive spirit that drives me to seek the best deal reasonably and graciously to both parties is what will drive me to that mastery.

Well, good! So, how will you use AI to help you achieve mastery in negotiation? Have you thought about that? Any imaginative ideas?

Survivors and victors use the tools available to them to adapt, improvise, and overcome when facing a challenge, and by all accounts, AI is a powerful tool. Have you bought the book I mentioned earlier in this thread?

I asked AI: "Can you use AI to improve your negotiation skills?" Here is what it said:

Yes, AI can significantly improve your negotiation skills. It is an excellent tool for preparation, strategy testing, and skill building. While AI cannot build trust or read tension in a room like a human can, it acts as a powerful backstage coach. It discussed 1. Role Playing and Simulations, 2. Strategy and Counter Argument Preparation, and 3. Real-time Deal Modeling.

It referred me to the following Harvard University Law School Program on Negotiation daily blog link about how AI is Transforming Negotiation--"From Agent to Advisor: How AI Is Transforming Negotiation."

PON - Program on Negotiation at Harvard Law School

But you knew about that, right? You came here to tell the rest of us. Right? Not just to complain about my fatalism. Right?

See... If I were still working for the government I would be one of the 1102s who will live long and prosper. So would people like Don Mansfield and Matthew Fleharty and some others here.

My fatalism is grounded in the realization that not everyone will be up to the challenge.

Tell us about Harvard's program when you get a chance. Start a thread. Heck, start a business.

1 hour ago, LifeLongLearner said:

[A] former OpenAI researcher did some back-of-the-envelope math and estimated it took less than 32 hours and $1,000 in tokens, a bargain for a result of this caliber.

The story, "A Famous Math Problem Stumped Humans for 80 Years. AI Just Cracked It," was in the May 29 issue of the WSJ. According to the story:

Not long ago, the most advanced AI models couldn’t do basic math. By last year, they were performing at gold-medal levels at the International Mathematical Olympiad. Now they are solving classic problems in combinatorial geometry using algebraic number theory. In no time at all, artificial intelligence has gone from stupid to frighteningly smart. 

It is well-documented that it can take an agency a year or longer to award a simple contract, even without a bid protest.

AI is going to take over most of the daily work of GS-1102s, and it is becoming faster, more capable, and more reliable with each passing day. AI will even be able to negotiate. Statutes and regulations will be revised accordingly. The age in which people wrote essays about "the role of the contracting officer" ended at least a decade ago. Even before now, that "role" had become greatly diminished from what it was when I started out.

The 1102 career-field is going to be radically changed within the next few years. Far fewer of them will be needed. Why pay humans to cut and paste? There will be fewer opportunities for advancement, and many executives will be very glad to have fewer pain-in-the-neck humans to train and manage. PALT and bid protests will be greatly reduced, along with agency personnel costs. The same will be true of all paperwork jobs. (Lawyers are very worried.) Faux "contracting officers'"will remain for a while to provide token human review and oversight, but only those who are masters and who figure out how to use AI effectively will survive and prosper, and even they may not for long. My work, too, will go away, and so will this website.

It's too bad, because I had a lot of great fun doing, teaching, and writing about contracting. But Capitalism is all about creative destruction. It's always looking to eliminate workers. That's been one of the keys to its continued success. And the Silicon Valley capitalists are the most relentless strivers in history in that regard. They're even cutting workers in their own companies. Why hire human coders when AI can write great code?

So for GS-1102s, while it's not dark yet, it's getting there. (Dylan). Faster than they may realize. I would not be shocked if this presidential administration were to issue an OMB directive or even an executive order to that effect before it leaves office. In fact, I will be astonished if they don't.

If you doubt any of this, read Co-Intelligence: Living and Working with AI (2024), by Ethan Mollick, a professor at the Wharton School, University of Pennsylvania. If you want to extend you time a while, learn to write good AI prompts. Lots of books out there about how to do that.

Don Mansfield tried to convince me of all this several years ago while we were riding to Politics & Prose Bookstore in a D.C. taxi, but I wouldn't hear it. I am now convinced.

It's a done deal. There will be no appeal. I nostalgically wish I were wrong, but I'm not.

@Motorcity What do you think people should do who are early-career or mid-career?

11 minutes ago, FrankJon said:

I'd be interested to know whether new 1102s are able to comprehend NewFAR better than OldFAR.

No. Not to comprehend in depth.

Not only new 1102s, but many contracting officers, as well.

Regulations (and government contracts based on them) are a species of legal writing that one must have proper education to properly interpret and fully understand. The government does not give its 1102s that kind of education. They must seek it on their own by reading books and cases. Even then, they may need the help of well-trained attorneys. But regulatory interpretation can be learned.

See, e.g., Inside Regulatory Interpretation by Christopher J. Walker, attached. And see Administrative Law, 7th ed., by Funk and Seamon, 7B, Interpretation of Rules.

Inside Regulatory Interpretation.pdf

Here is how the American Institute of Architects (AIA) describes the Guaranteed Maximum Price contract:

What is a Guaranteed Maximum Price (GMP) Contract?

A Guaranteed Maximum Price (GMP) contract is a construction contract in which the contractor agrees to complete the project for a set price, with the maximum price being the agreed-upon cap. The owner is only required to pay up to this cap, regardless of how much the project actually costs the contractor. This creates a defined cost for the owner but also puts the onus of any cost overruns on the contractor.

Now, what else might we call that arrangement?

Learn - ACD Operations

In the attached article from The Nash & Cibinic Report, published in 2018, I said:

Over the course of the last 20 years, Government agencies and their contractors have developed contractual instruments that do not fit neatly into the standard, traditional categories described in the FAR.

For centuries, contracting parties have fought over who must pay for what? What we call "contract types" are the products of those conflicts.

CONTRACT TYPES There Are More Things In Heaven And Earth Judge Than Are Dreamt Of In The FAR.pdf

4 hours ago, joel hoffman said:

General Zhukov said: “RFO :This update [to FAR Part 16] represents a deliberate shift from a restrictive to a permissive framework, empowering contracting officers to use novel and innovative contract structures ..."

Don't give the RFO so much credit. The old FAR wasn't that restrictive. Contracting officers have long been able to come up with novel contractual arrangements.

• Think of the award fee incentive, which the Navy invented in 1962, long before it was expressly authorized in the ASPR. The Navy also invented the FPI(F) incentive arrangement.

• Think of the award fee contract with rollover.

• Think of the CPIF contract with negative fee.

• Think of the award term incentive.

• Think of task order contracts, which I used for R&D in an Air Force weapon system program office long before the Federal Acquisition Streamlining Act (FASA).

Almost all contract types other than FFP and CPFF were field experiments before they were officially recognized.

Acquisition practitioners should study the history of their field. For a wide-ranging history of experiment and development in contract types and pricing during and after World War II see Miller, Pricing of Military Procurements, Yale University Press, 1949. (Out of print, but available in some university libraires and at the Library of Congress. I bought a used copy years ago.) If you really want to understand today's policies and the recent Executive Order, read Government War Contracts by J. Franklin Crowell, Oxford University Press (1920), about what happened during WWI. (Out of print, but available used at Amazon.com.)

If all you know about government contract types is what you've read in FAR Part 16, then your education has been limited and underfed. The literature about them is massive. For those who would like to be in charge of policy one day, you gotta read more or you'll just produce more stupid policies.

"Full and open" competition? One of the costliest policies ever imposed in terms of both lead time and litigation. And I have not seen any evidence that it reduces costs and improves quality.

Let me play devil's advocate:

What can a CO really know about a contractor's experience and past performance other than what they personally witnessed?

(Do COs get factual information about past performance or just expressions of opinion?)

What can a CO really know about the reliability of third party reports and ratings?

I'm just asking for purposes of discussion. I'm not arguing against policy.

19 hours ago, joel hoffman said:

Thanks, Mike. Looks like GSA is using a form of FPI with Successive Targets for GMP construction or design-build construction projects. Ha Ha to the naysayers!

Why "Ha Ha"? What did the naysayers say?

This thread began as discussion of the recent E.O. calling for approval of any contract other than fixed-price.

GSA can try all the methods of construction contracting it can think of, but they won't solve the problems of cost (and schedule) overruns on construction projects. Although that won't stop them from claiming success in that regard.

Government construction contracting is both the most competitive kind of government contracting and the most litigious, and it always will be. The problems are inherent in the nature of the work and in the nature of the owner-designer-constructor relationships. Conflict and litigation or its threat are common in all construction project markets worldwide. There is a HUGE literature about it.

There are no miracle cures.

Anyway, "price" ⸺ as used in connection with government contracts other than those for simple purchase transactions ⸺ is a mythical conception.

GSA has been aware of the CMc (Construction Manager as Constructor) method, aka Construction Manager at Risk, since at least 1997, and they used it before they published "guidance" on its use in the GAS FAR Supplement. See the 105th Congress congressional hearing held in 1998. See: New Washington Convention Center : hearing before the Subcommittee on the District of Columbia of the Committee on Government Reform and Oversight, House of Representatives, One Hundred Fifth Congress, second session, July 15, 1998:

GSA recommended that the WCCA pursue an "at risk" construction manager as constructor (CMc) contract. Experience has shown that this method of contracting helps to minimize adversarial relationships between the parties, thus reducing claims and change orders.

The hearing is available at Google Books. Here is the GSA's testimony:

78.pdf

6 hours ago, opsyscons said:

I would love an example of these flexibilities that didn’t exist before and actually improve the quality of our acquisitions?

Discretion via rules and "flexibilities" (overhaul-speak) cannot improve the quality of acquisitions. Only the workforce can improve the quality of acquisitions.

Discretion is only as effective as the persons exercising it.

I think anyone who cares about their future with (under?) AI should read Co-Intelligence: Living and Working with AI, (2024) 224pp, including notes, by Professor Ethan Mollick, Professor of Management at the Wharton School, University of Pennsylvania.

He has studied AI, used it in his classes, and is an enthusiast. He explains it, relates some of its history, describes how it works, and shows how it can be used. He focuses on practical applications. The book is short and not excessively technical. You don't have to be able to code.

I think the book is essential reading for anyone who cares about their future at work.

You might consider looking into Prof. Mollick's blog: One Useful Thing ⸺

https://www.oneusefulthing.org/

Look out for yourself.

15 hours ago, formerfed said:

Can AI prepare solicitation's, receive and evaluate responses, perhaps negotiate, and make selection decisions with minimal human input along the way.

I think the answer is yes, if not now, then in the near future. It takes intelligence (whatever that is) to do those things, and that's what AI is supposed to have. And it's fast.

Computer... Prepare a statement of work and a solicitation for a firm-fixed-unit-price task order contract for commercial launch services to both near-Earth and synchronous, equatorial and polar orbits, for one year plus four one-year options and with a minimum quantity of five launches from either KSC or Vandenberg SFB.

🖖

AI would mean many fewer personnel management tasks. No one should kid themself, there are plenty of managers who would be happy to have fewer people to manage.

But if intelligence is variable, and I think it is, then my question is whether there is a qualitative difference between human intelligence and machine intelligence. If so, which is best?

15 hours ago, formerfed said:

I don’t know, but imagine agencies, in reality, will still want contracting experts to be involved just to perform the truly specialized roles.

What is an expert in the field of contracting? Why can't AI be expert?

What can an expert do that other persons cannot? Think about that. There is an answer (for now).

What percentage of today's non-trainee contracting workforce are experts?

I'm not an advocate of AI, nor am I an opponent. I just don't want to be replaced. I've had fun doing and thinking about contracting.

Then again, I'm old and don't need a job. So I can use the frees time to read and travel to exotic places and see amazing things. But what are the younger folks going to do?

So my question still is: What must today's 1102s do to survive, succeed, and prosper in the age of AI contracting?

What knowledge and skill must 1102s bring to the job that would make them indispensable?

That is the most important career question of the moment.

Or should they just look for other work while there is still time?

@CDS2 @formerfed

Thanks. Now that we know what AI thinks, what do you think?

😏

19 hours ago, Don Mansfield said:

Does anyone think this type of automation is not going to happen in Government contracting?

9 hours ago, C Culham said:

It is happening.

Okay, so, some questions: 

1. What will the job of the GS-1102 be like in an AI world? 

2. Will 1102s use AI to help them do their jobs, or will AI use them? (Don't be hasty with that one.) 

3. Will there be any thinking left for 1102s to do? 

4. If so, what kind of thinking? 

5. If not, will 1102 be a job worth having? 

6. How much thinking, real thinking, are 1102s doing now? 

7. How much 1102 work is really just rote behavior ⸺rote responses to particular sets of facts rather than thinking? (Think about that one. Don't be hasty or angrily reactive. Don't be prideful.) 

8. How many bid protests and contract dispute cases could have been avoided by better thinking on the part of an 1102 called "contracting officer"?

9. What is the surest sign that you are thinking? (That's not an easy question to answer. Heidegger asked that question and wrote an entire book to answer⸺What Is Called Thinking? What did Hannah Arendt say about thinking in The Life of the Mind?) 

10. Why is it that instructors providing "professional" training feel compelled to ask "Any questions?" only to get no responses?

11. How much of the FAR exists (and will continue to exist after the RFO) because some

    1102s have not thought well in the past?

12. If you don't like to write (D&Fs, justifications, memoranda of various kinds⸺e.g., PNMs, statements of work, proposal preparation instructions⸺and prefer to cut-and-paste, is it because you don't like to think?

It seems to me that those are important questions. Questions to think about. A lot. Deeply. And soon. 

How can you make yourself indispensable? 

After reading today's Wall Street Journal and some other publications about the impact AI is having on white collar jobs, I have a question:

Is there anything that a "procurement professional" (NCMA's beloved term) do that cannot be done faster and as well or better by AI?

I've been experimenting, and the news is not good.

The news is grim.

How to live long and prosper. Any ideas?

1 hour ago, FrankJon said:

My question is whether this runs afoul of procurement rules or principles.

Possibly. But the answer depends on the procedural details. The process you described in your opening post strikes me as peculiar, but if fully explained in greater and accurate detail, and if clearly described in the RFP, it might make perfect sense and be okay.

I say let them try it and see what happens. Maybe nothing. Just make sure they can't blame you for an unhappy outcome

3 hours ago, formerfed said:

Wouldn’t it make more sense to just bring on an additional award rather than replacing one?

It makes more sense to me.

The correlation analysis thing makes no sense to me. It comes across as somebody trying to be "innovative".

2 hours ago, FrankJon said:

Vern -

1. What do you think of this source selection procedure? Specifically, utilizing a correlation analysis as a final step.

Well, I don't really understand the procedure. It seems needlessly complicated. Why not just say that you're going to make multiple awards based on the number of "apporaches" proposed and let it go at that. (I assume that the proposed "approaches" are fully specified offers and that they will be incorporated into the respective statements of work upon acceptance.) Just treat each award as a separate source selection decision.

I don't understand the application of correlation analysis in this procurement. Correlation of what to what? Is it a price realism thing? If your team errs in its application or execution of the technique it might end badly.

But, again, I don't really understand what you're planning to do, so don't pay attention to me.