Vern Edwards

I have long been an advocate of experience as an evaluation factor in source selection. So I was surprised to read the following in the newest edition of NEW PHILOSOPHER, Issue 50, 2026, which is devoted to wisdom, under the heading The Myth of Experience: The article mentions a book written in 2020 entitled, The Myth of Experience: Why We Learn the Wrong Lessons, and Ways Correct Them, by Soyer and Hogarth. According to a blurb at Amazon: Interesting? Make sense when you think about it?

I agree with Joelwhen it comes to direct costs. So try this: Instead of instructing prospective offerors for a construction MATOC to propose unit prices for construction tasks, instruct them to propose a fixed project profit rate and and a fixed indirect cost rate. Then, when conducting a fair opportunity project competition, ask only for proposed direct costs. 0001 Project Fixed Rates 0001AA Fixed Project Price Profit Rate 0001AB Fixed Project Price Indirect Cost Rate Will that satisfy CICA? I don't know. So try it and see. Innovate! Isn't that what they keep teilling you to do? What have you got to lose? You might be a successful pioneer. And remember, you can always tell the GAO to get lost if it sustains a protest. There has never been a better time to do it.

The E.O. is what I call "political performative reform". It will produce nothing but wasted time and paper. That is not to say it isn't a reaction to a real problem. It says only that it will not solve the problem. Most acquisition reform, like the RFO, has been performative reform. The last great era of performative reform was the Clinton-Gore "Reinventing Government" campaign of the 1990s. It gave us "performance-based contracting" among other things. Some of you may have been around long enough to remember it.

"Support services" tasks in a lot of territory. The term describes a wide variety of requirements, including both constant and occasional. It includes blue collar and white collar work. I'd be careful about generalizations.

@formerfed @Don Mansfield Congress and executive branch procurement policy-makers have never been good at rigorously thinking things through. Their ideas (which are mostly just notions) about competition, contract, contract type and price date back to the 19th century, are not grounded in present realities, are half-baked, or are fundamentally unsound . Consider, for example, their notions about the effect of "full and open competition' and "contract type" on what the government ultimately pays under contracts that are complex and dynamic relations rather than simple transactions. When contracting for complex and dynamic requirements there can be no such thing as a "firm-fixed" price, and "full and open" competition produces only useless busy-work, needless delay, and costly litigation. Congress, the policy-makers, and much of the workforce are remarkably incurious and unwilling to question and reconsider their most cherished and deeply-held beliefs, and thus again and again prescribe and carry out policies and procedures that are poorly suited to the needs and objectives of the present day. There is no near-term solution to that problem, if any. It is inherent in the politics, structure, and operation of our federal government.

Ah, the fixed-price mania. Again. Well, if you've been in contracting long enough you've been through this before. I remember going through it at least twice, and the people in the business before me had been through it at least once. The fixed-price mania has led to some noteworthy catastrophes in weapons development. The issue now is services. The popularity of the T&M contract, the worst of all, is likely due to poor requirements analysis and specification. The cost-reimbursement contract is not quite as bad.

When the RFO is complete we will have to wait to see (1) what acquisition practitioners (COs and industry reps) really do, and how the protest tribunals resolve complaint from protesters. Every change in regulations create unknowns The overhaulers have taken a Madison Avenue approach to selling their product. Only time will tell. This is coming from someone who has lived through many acquisition "reforms".

Here's the transcript: Transcrip of George Mason University Discussion of RFO.pdf Note the emphasis on process speed. The regulation is not the primary factor in process speed. The primary factor in process speed is the manner is which processes are executed. Execution depends on workforce knowledge and skill.

@formerfed I agree, which is why I question the value of World Congresses. But the best way to get experience is to get experience. The only way to get experience and expertise in parachuting is to jump out of an airplane. Conquer your fear.

@Jamaal Valentine In my 50+ years of experience, most senior acquisition leaders tend to serve up generalities and platitudes when addressing a formal audience.

Regular annual NCMA membership is $170/year. What do you get for that? Contract Management magazine? A chance to attend a "World Congress" for an additional amount? A chance to attend monthly meetings? A chance to take a test and put CPCM after your name? Think of the books you could buy with $170.00. Contracting officers have to understand, write, decide, price and manage contracts, and understand others who do. So... A Manual of Style for Contract Drafting, 5th ed. (2024), by Kenneth A. Abrams. 668 pages. $132.00. Garner's Guideline for Drafting & Editing Contracts (2019), by Bryan Garner. 559 pages. $83.00. Garner's Dictionary of Legal Usage, 3d ed. (2011), by Bryan Garner. 1,022 pages. $81.00. Decision Analysis for Management Judgement, 6th ed. (2026), by Goodwin & Wright. 496 pages. $41.00. Contracting and Contract Law in the Age of Artificial Intelligence (2022), by Ebers et al. , eds. $58.95 (paperback). Project Planning, Scheduling, and Control, 6th ed. (2022), by James Lewis, 528 pages. $41.73. Cost Estimation: Methods and Tools , 2d ed, (2026), by Mislick and Nussbaum, 400 pages. $125.00. I could go on... Those would be useful to starting and maintaining a career. But, then, I'm an NCMA member. I'm just not sure why.

@ContractLaw7415 Me too. Butter on the popcorn?

Me too. Butter on the popcorn?

RFO 15.204, Establishing a competitive range, paragraph (a), states: Emphasis added. Why "group"? While in English usage it is technically possible to have a "group" of one, to the average reader the word suggests two or more. The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, 5th ed., defines group as follows: In other words, to the average reader a group consists of more than one thing. But 10 U.S.C. 3703 states: Nothing in the statutes indicates that the competitive range necessarily includes more than one offeror. And we know from several GAO protest decisions that under the right circumstances a CO may establish a competitive range of one. See, e.g., S2 Analytical Solutions, LLC, B- 422281.3 (Comp.Gen.), 2024 CPD P 312, 2024 WL 5212720, Dec. 20, 2024: There are many situations in which negotiations with only one clearly superior offeror is more efficient than negotiating with more than one, which can be complicated and time-consuming. So why couldn't an agency state in its RFP: After evaluation of proposals we will establish a competitive range consisting of one or more offerors with which to negotiate to final agreement on terms and award the contract on the basis of negotiated value. So... Instead of saying, "A competitive range is "the group" of evaluated proposals... " Wouldn't it be better if the RFO said, "A competitive range consists of one or more of the evaluated proposals..."? What do you think?

Thanks, Don.

The government may delete or amend a CPARS evaluation. See the CPARS manual.

@Don Mansfield Why is it important? Whom does it influence?

Do you think the National Contract Management Association (NCMA) is an important and influential organization today? Do you think NCMA's CPCM (certified professional contract manager) is worthwhile?

Here is a helpful site for RFO information: https://www.wiley.law/decoding-the-far-overhaul

I have spent much of my professional life conducting training courses, both in person and online. (I hate online, but that's the thing these days, and we're probably never going back.) Training is only as good as the people taking it. In another thread I partially quoted the late great poet/scholar Ezra Pound (an admittedly controversial person) from his book, A B C of Reading (1934), which is about teaching how to read literature. Here is a more complete quote: Emphasis added. I have taught government contracting courses for many years, and I have learned this much—that unless people come to class ardently wanting to learn the subject they will not learn much if anything. I have found that when students are assigned to take a class by their boss, most (not all) turn out to be passive learners, and passive learners learn very little. There has to be more than just a requirement attend. There has to be a desire. I have found that in a class of 25, maybe five are ardent learners. All learning is a struggle (I was a high-school dropout), and many are not up to it. It's not that they lack brains, it's that they lack commitment. The clamor for "group exercises" is often little more than a desire to avoid personal struggle. Get teachers to be honest with you, and most will say the same. "Active" learners can learn from a bad ("boring" "fumbling") teacher, but good teachers waste time on passive "learners." Bosses must prepare their people to learn. Last year, as a personal favor, I taught an in-person course to Air Force and DLA personnel in Oklahoma City. Their commander had taken the course from me years before and wanted his people to have the same experience. He personally prepped them in advance by telling them what to expect what he expected of them. They were actively, even aggressively, engaged throughout, and seemed to be having great fun. I did. It's sheer pleasure to teach people who really want to learn. It's why you teach. Well, okay. But if you have to encourage would-be professionals to participate and discuss matters bearing on their profession you are probably on a failed mission. BTW, over the years I have found that military enlisted personnel are the most aggressive at wanting to learn. They are always a pleasure to teach. Maybe its the "mission" thing.

Me, too. But... The reality is that COs are not as fully "in charge" as we may like to think they are. What we read in Kropp Holdings is a description of an organizational failure at every level. I'll provide another such example in the coming dayes. An even bigger organizational failure. My point is this: While almost any regulatory reform is welcome, it will not fix what is wrong with acquisition today. Only (1) professional knowledge and (2) professional practice can do that. And I believe that the only way to get those are through personal commitment to the thoughtful application of professional knowledge, which is the product of personal effort and struggle. That's my whole point. You're not a professional just because you show up for work. Friday does not put an end to your struggle to learn and to know. There is a book entitled, A B C of Reading (1934) by the late Ezra Pound (a controversial person). In it he wrote:

I would put the blame higher up. This is a major malfunction. The agency issued the solicitation for this procurement on June 22, 2021, as a commercial item acquisition. And it's still not over. Is the next stop the Federal Circuit? And this is not the only such case. I have another by a civilian agency.

While we're still talking about professionalism, read the bid protest decision of the Court of Federal Claims in the matter of Kropp Holdings, Inc., May 28, 2025, attached. The judge opens his decision with the following: The Court held for the protester and ordered as follows: Kropp Holdings, LLC.pdf The Court just denied a request for reconsideration. See Kropp Holdings, Inc., March 5, 2026. Also attached. Kropp.pdf Two questions: Ultimately, who is paying the price for all this madness? Who is to blame?

RFNIU stands for Rent-Free Non-interference Use.

That is meaningless in the context of my two questions. Just because you have a job that is considered professional for payment purposes does not mean that you are, in fact, professional in the way you work. I'm sorry that you are confused. It's regrettable. I focus on COs because they are the apex of 1102-dom. The statement I made that you quote is still my view. I think my meaning was clear in context. In any case, I don't intend to explain it further. You either get it or you don't. Do you have any further response to the two questions? What is the distinction between professional and other work? What personal characteristics distinguish professionals from other workers? You have already addressed them. Do you have anything more to say? Or do you want to challenge or otherwise comment on any of the assertions I made in my Thursday at 07:36 AM post, or anyone else's assertions?