Vern Edwards

We're talking about government procurement. Sometimes, events impose workflows and ops tempos on us by outside events like, say, pandemics, natural disasters, and wars, in which case contracting officers must act in the real world, not some ideal world. Think of the people working now to procure resupply of the weapons being used by the Department of Defense (War) in our war with Iran. Emotional intelligence is the ability to deal with the real. You gotta come prepared to deal with the work that arrives at your desk, when it arrives and under the circumstances in which it arrives, and with the speed which it requires. That's part of professionalism. Workforce improvement would develop professionals capable of dealing with the real, as well as the ideal.

I asked those two questions because I believe that the RFO and other regulatory reforms will not accomplish much. I think the workforce is at the heart of its problems. I have attached an article published by two distinguished members of the faculty of The George Washington University Law School, Jessica Tillipman and Steven Schooner, "FEATURE COMMENT: Institutional Amnesia And The Neglect Of The Federal Acquisition Workforce." Attached. I suspect that most of you have not read it. Here is a tantalizing quote: Neglect of the workforce? Yes. Especially by the workforce itself. Now to my questions. Professional work requires devotion. There are no regular hours or days off. The difference between professionals and other workers is that professionals merge life and work. They are devoted. A job title does not make one a professional. One is a professional, or not, depending on how one lives and thinks. That does not mean that one must neglect family, forsake other interests and activities, and shun entertainment. (Watch "The Pitt"! Professionals at work!) It means that you are fascinated by what you do and are devoted to it. If you are a contracting officer in an agency or office devoted to the use of space technology to achieve mission objectives and you haven't read a book about space technology, then you are not, in my opinion, a professional space technology contracting officer. You might be good at processing procurement paperwork, but you are not a professional space technology contracting officer. If you are a contracting officer busily involved in source selections but you haven't read a book about decision analysis, you might be good at assembling files, but you are not a professional source selection contracting officer. How can you critique requiring activitys' statements of work if you have not taught yourself to write one and made yourself proficient at doing it? Don't count on DAU or FAI to provide you with professional training. Don't think you are a professional because you attend NCMA conferences. Don't think you are a professional because you call yourself one. You are a professional, or not, depending on how you live your work and prepare yourself to live it. I know that some will be angry with me for saying these things, like one member of the "I Hate Vern" club at reddit 1102. 🤗 But either blame yourself if 1102 work is not what you'd like it to be or work to make it better. FEATURE COMMENT_ Institutional Amnesia And The Neglect Of The Fed (1).pdf

I have been asked for suggestions and I have made some, but I never volunteered any. I just spent about an hour talking with someone in the Pentagon who is working on acquisition reform. Among other things I said that acquisition reform through regulatory reform is hopeless, a fool's errand. That's not to say that elimination of some rules would not be helpful. But the only way to real acquisition reform is through workforce reform. If I were in charge of acquisition workforce reform, CO selection, appointment, and advancement would be intensely competitive. The CO job would be vey different than it is today, more attractive, and higher-paying. There would be many fewer CO appointments, and appointment would require demonstrated mastery of concepts, principles, processes, procedures, methods, and techniques. Most contract specialists would be purchasing agents, and I would bring back procurement clerks. Education and training would be challenging and intense. Those who fail would be told to seek other employment.

@C Culham Ah... AI entries, or AI inspired. Well, if we're going to do that, here's another: I like this one better.

Maybe so.

Well, maybe not years.But here's the thing... The goal of the the RFO is to speed up the procurement process by cutting unnecessary rules and procedures. But if Chiefs of Contracting Offices and COs would think things through and redesign their processes for speed they could dramatically reduce the time from acquisition planing, through solicitation and proposal evaluation. They could do that now, without waiting for the final RFO, and without violating statute or regulation. Consider one of the most famous mottos in the history of American business, IBM's: THINK. According to IBM: "The "Think" motto comes from a quote from our company's founder: 'All the problems of the world could be settled easily if men were only willing to think.'" Don't wait for the RFO. Think now!

I'm asking the following two questions: The ultimate answer to the title question depends on the answers to those.

Don is quite right. According to the Attorney General's Manual on the Administrative Procedure Act (1947), page 28, the act exempts: Although the AG's Manual is quite old, it is still cited by the Federal Courts. See, e.g., Massachusetts v. National Institutes of Health, et. al., 770 F.Supp. 3d 277, 312, United States District Court, D. Massachusetts.

When I started in contracting in 1974, GS-1102s were classified as administrative personnel, not professional. As I recall, NCMA and others carried on a years-long campaign of to get 1102 personnel to classified as professionals. I, along with many of my 1102 co-workers, did not think it was all that important. But many 1102s were very passionate about it. On February 2, 1982, while I was assigned to the headquarters of the Air Force Systems Command, the Senate Committee on Governmental Affairs, Subcommittee on Federal Expenditures, Research, and Rules, 97th Congress, Second Session, conducted a hearing about "the Federal procurement work force." Here is a quote from the opening statement by Senator John C. Danforth, the subcommittee chair: Testimony, written statements, and letters were submitted by the OFPP Administrator, a government contracting firm, the Aerospace Industries Association, other industry representatives, a prominent law firm, and NCMA,. I have attached the hearing record (74 pages). OPM finally classified 1102s as professionals as of January 1, 2000. Two questions for discussion: What is the distinction between professional and other work? What personal characteristics distinguish professionals from other workers? Free speech is welcome, but PLEASE answer both questions before making other remarks. Senate Hearing-Federal Procurement Workforce.pdf

That's the Jamal I know. 👍

Oh, come on, Jamal. The warfighter couldn't care less. Neither could the taxpayer. The RFO isn't rocket science. I'm surprised that this is coming from you. Are you having operational problems because of the RFO? Care to be specific? Maybe someone can help.

@C Culham Your argument does not make sense. A D&F is just a determination with specific content and format. It's not especially associated with CICA. The concept has been around since at least the late 19th century. It's just a kind of syllogism, a structured argument, which all sound determinations should be. I think it's a helpful change, especially if a determination might be challenged. A D&F makes the argument clear to lawyers who might have to judge it. But I know better than to pursue this further with you. So thanks for your response to my question. I'm moving on.

@C Culham Do you believe that requiring a D&F to support a single source procurement under Part 13 somehow brings CICA and full and open competition into the simplified acquisition process?

Here are the open FAR and DFARS cases as of 2/27/2026. Note current status. Open FAR Cases 2:27:2026.pdfOpen DFARS Cases 2:27:2026.pdf Here is the overhaul Executive Order. Restoring Common Sense to Federal Procurement – The White House.pdf Here is the OMB overhaul guidance. M-25-26-Overhauling-the-Federal-Acquisition-Regulation-002 (1).pdf Nine-tenths of the acquisition workforce will not read the proposed rules or the final rules. They would wait to be told what to do by the local policy folks. I remember when the FAR was published. Same thing.

Only they know? Nonsense. A lot of people know. The overhaulers tried to do what the president told them to do—complete an edit of the 2,000+ page FAR within 180 days after issuance of the executive order. The couldn't do it. None of the policy bureaucracy could have done it. But I think they did their best. Their mistake was making a big deal out of it. Ballyhoo is the style of all acquisition reformers. I've been around a long time, 50+ years, and like other old timers I've lived through many acquisition "reforms". Every acquisition reform has ultimately been fruitless in terms of significant acquisition improvement. But in its time every one was declared the greatest thing since sliced bread. Don has studied the RFO deeply, and the point of his questions was to try to show that the RFO did not really change much of substance. Like previous acquisition reforms it's mostly noise, "a disturbance, especially a random and persistent disturbance, that obscures or reduces the clarity of a signal." Bottom line: The RFO will only increase the confusion of the hoi polloi. But it's the career opportunity of a lifetime for the smart set, the ones who know how to fill a vacuum. For those seeking career advancement, not just a steady job, look around, size up the situation, decide what's needed, and seize the day. OODA!

Better way? Such as... ?

@C Culham Currently FAR 13.106-1(b) states: Emphasis added. So a determination is required. RFO FAR 13.101 would say: Emphasis added. RFO FAR subpart 1.5 would say: Most of that is merely descriptive and explanatory. The substantive text is in 1.504, Content. I presume that agencies generally require that such determinations be written and filed in light of the fact that (1) they can be protested (see the attachment) and that (2) the GAO typically rejects after-the-fact justifications. The new D&F requirement and content instructions seem helpful. And I would assume that contracting officers that conduct simplified acquisitions would scan Part 13 to look for changes. Might it open the door to "one source" class determinations? But I could find nothing in the RFO materials that explains the change. Matter of Assessment and Training Solutions Consulting Corporation.pdf

@Jamaal Valentine Most 1102s conduct certain types of acquisitions covered mainly by a few FAR parts, not all 53. Very few know or need to know the entire FAR. The 1102s who know their business will hot have a problem finding or recognizing the changers that affect them. The others, the PWACs, will just ask the pros.

I have never believed in study groups.

@Jamaal Valentine See FAR Subpart 22.11, Professional Employee Compensation, and RFO 22.11. FAR 22.1103 provides as follows: The RFO deleted that requirement, FAR Subpart 22.11 is now RESERVED. Does that satisfy your need for a cite? Need more? See FAR 37.6, Performance-Based Acquisition, Section 37.601(b)(1) and (2) states that solicitations for services "shall include... (1) A performance work statement (PWS)" that "shall include— (2) Measurable performance standards (i.e., in terms of quality, timeliness, quantity, etc., and the method of assessing contractor performance against performance standards. The RFO moves that coverage to 37.102-1(a)(3), which says that performance work statements must include measurable standards only to "the maximum extent practicable." In other words, not always, but only when you can. Does that satisfy your need for a cite? Need more? If so, READ! You don't need "crowd sourcing." You need only one person with a brain and diligence. 1102s are supposed to be the FAR experts, the FAR know-it-alls. It's our job to STUDY and MASTER those parts of the FAR that affect the work we must do for our clients. If we don't do it, who will? And can we really expect to have mastery handed to us? STUDY, STUDY, STUDY. I have preached that to 1102s since I first became a supervisor in the late 1970s. For professionals there are no days off. That's what is supposed to distinguish us from mere clerks. We didn't need an RFO to make procurement faster and better. We needed to know how to do our jobs. But too many of us didn't, don't, and never will. Many of the things that made some of our processes cumbersome and slow weren't mandated by the FAR. They were just the way amateurs did their jobs.

Ask a clear and specific question, and I'll see if I can provide a cite.

Exactly.

@KeithB18 See 7 CFR 789.54, Violations, Penalties, and Remedies: Now, I'll answer your question with two questions: Would a Quaker do what he or she didn't think was right in order to avoid jail and a fine? I don't know, but I doubt it, even if the penalty were death. Would a Silicon Valley executive? Yes, just like the Vietnam War draft, in which there was a lot more at stake than jail and a fine. I carried some of the bodies from the battlefield to the helicopters and attended the funerals. Many were for draftees.

Well, Keith, I can't make you and expert on the Defense Production Act of 1950, but I have attached a Congressional Research Service report on it dated 2023 that provides some information. R43767.13.pdf And you might want to read FAR Subpart 11.6, Priorities and Allocations, especially 11.602(a), which says, among other things: You might also want to read 15 CFR Part 700, which says, among other things:

No. I did not say that. I did not make a statement, or offer a proposition, or express an opinion. In fact, I said: What's the matter? Forgot what a question mark looks like? If you like, I can recommend a book about how not to write a run-on sentence.