Vern Edwards

Both I and Professor Nash have warned against that practice. In government competitive contract awards the "meeting of the minds" is purely a matter of form. In many if not most cases competitive awards are made without discussions. The minds have never met. They have signed up to who knows what and then argue about it during performance. Now, you have told me what your definition of price "flows from", but you haven't told me your definition.

Sure. But first, tell me your definition of price. Are you saying physics is not a matter of the mind? Really? Euclid and Newton are products of the mind. Have you the Elements? Pure logic. (Not physics.) Have you tried to read Newton's Principia? Do you own a copy? Have you studied the force diagrams? One of the greatest products of the mind in human history. Anyway, my comment was addressed to Don, who will get it. Really, WifWaf, stick to procurement. Now, how do you define price?

Euclid, Newton, and any number of mathematicians and astronomers might disagree with that assertion.

Well, rather than telling them "no," we should explain why what they want to do would be wasteful of their time and resources and then suggest something different, perhaps like oral presentations and Q&A sessions instead of written "technical proposals". Most of a CO's clients want to conduct source selections the way they were taught to conduct them by contracting personnel. They need to be counseled, untaught, shown better ways, and persuaded rather than be ordered around. As often as not, if properly advised, their reactions will be, "Can we really do that? That would be great!"

Here's the problem with evaluating proposed "approaches": The Marine Corps issued RFP M6700425R0009 on July 21 for "Logistics Integration Support". Proposals were due September 19. The RFP is 65 pages long. It includes seven base-year CLINs. The "performance work statement" is an additional 51 pages. This was a typical FAR Part 15 competitive procurement. The RFP required a "technical proposal" as follows: The RFP limited the technical proposals to 100 pages. 🤣 That is a rather typical proposal preparation instruction, written by a clueless person or group of government personnel. I don't know about you, but to me this kind of "approach" thing is absurd. There would be no chance for prospective offerors to sit down one-on-one with the Government team to go through the PWS and other terms in order ensure mutual understanding. Only the incumbent would know enough to provide well-developed responses in the time available for proposal preparation. It is highly unlikely that any of the proposals other than the incumbent's would represent a knowledgable "approach". Anyway, that is why I think that kind of "competition" is ridiculous. The CO who put that RFP on the street either didn't care or didn't know better. I would not have let my team mates do that to themselves. As CO, I would work with them to develop a sensible way to go about the job.. BTW, if what they really want is to get the incumbent back, then the only evaluation factors they would need are experience, past performance, and price. No need for a "technical approach." The same is true if they didn't want the incumbent back. I could say more, explain more, but I've said all I'm going to say on this topic. My many writings over the years cover the ground more completely.

I don't know about that. The thing to know about Socrates was that he was a cunning questioner. If you had spoken and he then asked you a question about what you said, you were in trouble. I'm not skilled enough or patient enough to be cunning. Don Mansfield is the Socratic guy. The Athenians would have executed him along with Socrates. But here is a book that you might enjoy reading: The Socratic Method: A Practitioner's Handbook, by Ward Farnsworth ⭐️⭐️⭐️⭐️⭐️ A really good book and a pleasant read. Especially good for contract negotiators.

Emphasis added. See: Madhu, et al., "Work Curiosity As An Indicator of Employee Innovation", Journal of Emerging Technologies and Innovative Research (2018) https://www.jetir.org/papers/JETIR1810A45.pdf Quote: "Success starts in the mind."

Here is what the GSA Vendor Support Center website, https://vsc.gsa.gov/drupal/node/162, says about Industrial Operations Analysts: Emphasis added. What your IOA told you may be right or wrong, but it does not appear that IOAs are authorized to formally interpret contract terms. Check with the GSA contracting officer and make a record of your question and the COs answer. If possible (probably not) ask for the answer in writing. I know that sounds very formal, but it is the only way to eliminate risk.

Price seems simple, but it is a very complex idea. It's use in contracts is probably suitable only in the acquisition of commercial products, non-commercial commodity "items of supplyy, and commodified commercial and noncommercial services. It's use in contracts for construction and complex/relational work such as long-term support services and full-scale engineering development is terribly misleading, especially for members of Congress and new 1102s and technical personnel. Its use in acquisition legislation and FAR Subpart 15.4 has created a swamp of accumulated half-baked communication and policy. To get an idea of the complexity of price read "The Definition of Price" by Frank A. Fetter, The American Economic Review, December 1912, and "What Is a Price" by Irena Asmundson in Back. To Basics, published on line by International Monetary Fund, Finance & Development, December 2013. Those are only two of many such articles I have found online, downloaded, and read. Note the dates of the two articles. Sometimes we use words freely that we don't really understand, thus deceiving ourselves, and thus hamstringing our policies and instructions. And then there is cost. But we can talk about that idea another time.

It applies to both threads, whether the subject is value or approach or any other word in the FAR. What does price mean? And I'm not referring to the FAR definition.

Neither do contracts. I cannot think of any guarantee of success in a complex endeavor.

What I find most striking and saddening is that it seems clear that most workforce professionals don't think things through for themselves. They don't ask themselves questions about what the words in the regulations mean. Take the word price. Look at how it's defined in the current FAR Part 15. Look at how it is defined in the overhauled Part 15. Now ask yourself: What is a price? What do you know about the meaning(s) of the word? Ask yourself whether the word price is suitable for the dollar figure that is written in government contracts. In order for the acquisition process to be improved, the workforce must first improve itself. We need inquiring minds.

This may well be the goofiest discussion of contracting I have ever read. 😂

In other words: process, procedure, method, technique. I think the answer to your question depends on what we're buying. If we're buying a product (an item of supply), they might have a well-developed standard manufacturing process, which means we can know. I think we can know in the case of standard services.

I presume you mean how well they will perform. Since you used the word "know," I have no choice but to agree.

A penny or a peppercorn would be value under FAR Part 15? Consideration is an ancient legal concept that has little if anything to do with value as that term is used in FAR..

Of course they do. Most don't think things through. In the month after my article, The Nash & Cibinic Report included a postscript that reported the following responses:

The term "technical proposal" is empty of meaning until we know what is "technical" and what "proposal" means. You asked for a show of hands about a concept that was needed to be clarified and fleshed out.

I wrote the attached in 1994 as a guest article for The Nash & Cibinic Report. STREAMLINING SOURCE SELECTION BY IMPROVING THE QUALITY OF EVALUATION FACTORS.pdf The commentary that follows was written by Professor Nash.

Start by saying what you mean by "approach" and "understanding". What are those things?

That's the question. If you were assigned to overhaul FAR Part 15 and were told to write a definition of value (not "best value", just value), what would you write? What is value?

This is off topic. The topic is your definition of value.

How would you define value in FAR Part 15, as in "best value"?

An offer (a promise or set of promises) and information (e.g., about the offeror and the composition of its price). The go together in a package called a proposal.

I presume so. I really don't understand the requirement. Have they issued a draft SOW?