Vern Edwards

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.

If that's all you've got to say, why post it? Everyvbody knows that in America, a juristocracy. Lawyers ultimately decide all such disputes.

Why not? Should an American company refuse to sell its products or services for use as components of weapons that the agency tasked to defend America needs? Should Ford motor company have refused to manufacture tanks during WWII? Should the companies that made the components of the atomic bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki have refused to do so? Should the government employees working to develop weapon systems refuse to work on such programs? If there's a line, where do you draw it? I'm asking, not announcing an opinion.

The AI company Anthropic will not agree to let DOD use its AI product for lethal purposes. It's been making headlines. Can Anthropic refuse? Can the Defense Production Act of 1950 be used to force them to sell their product to DOD for lethal purposes? Should an American take the position that Anthropic has?

@Don Mansfield Thanks for sharing what you don't think. 😄

Excellent question! The current FAR says discussions are negotiations. But the RFP drops "discussions" and speaks only of negotiation. I recently published an article and said that most 1102s have little real negotiating experience and that competitive negotiations involve very little if any bargaining. I said that I wonder what COs will do differently. Only time will tell.

I'm wonder what is the point of the OP's four questions. Aren't the answers available at the RFO section of Acquisition.gov? Don't the practitioner albums provide the answers?

@joel hoffman Why do you think it's great?

When conducting a source selection under FAR Part 15, they no longer need to evaluate professional employee compensation When conducting a source selection under FAR Part 15, they must negotiate (bargain, engage in give-and-take) with all offerors in the competitive range, rather than merely conduct discussions. The word "discussions" has been dropped.

Here's the abstract. Duh. Typical economics "paper" by "scholars" desperate to publish something. (This one had three authors. Adam Smith wrote his great treatise all by himself.) Anyone doing government contracting for a couple of decades or so could have told us that. There are at least a dozen Congressional hearings that document that effect. That's why FAR 3.501 has warned against buy-ins for 50 years.

So the change in the method of contracting (from sealed bidding to competitive negotiation) produced the change in attitude, which you consider an improvement in quality, though at a higher price. Couldn't sole-souring or competition limited to selected prospective sources have produced a similar outcome without the administrative cost of full and open competition?

I don't think competition guarantees that the government pays lowers prices. Moreover, price competition encourages tactics such as buying-in (low-balling). I think CICA is based on a category mistake. It assumes that all government contracts are transactions in which the contract price is one and done at the time of contract award, like buying a COSTCO hotdog. But the biggest and most complex government projects and programs are relations in which specifications are not definitive, requirements and the conditions of performance are subject to change, and prices are subject to adjustment after contract award, sometimes several times. Few such contracts are completed at the award price, and post-award price adjustments are made on a sole source basis. Competitors know that and engage in tactics such as buying-in ("low-balling") in order to get the award and then "get well" through changes. One of the most competitive government contract markets is construction. Most construction contracts are awarded by sealed bidding. Yet only about 8.5 percent of construction contracts are completed at the award price due to changes, claims, and litigation. Construction contracts the most commonly litigated of all government contracts. As for quality-- it is well known that contracts awarded after full and open competition for weapon and software system development are frequently plagued with quality issues that take years to resolve after award of a development/production contract. Quality in weapons development is the product of ongoing rivalry, not competitive bidding. Full and open competition𑁋allowing all prospectively responsible firms to compete𑁋is time-consuming and expensive and, based on the foregoing, wasteful. A thoughtful Congress would reconsider the "full and open competition" standard and get rid of the Part 15 source selection process, in which price is a mandatory contractor selection factor. The A-E selection process would be far better than the FAR Part 15 process for relational R&D, system development, complex support services, and large scale construction acquisitions. Separate the steps of contractor selection and contract formation. Price should not be a factor in contractor selection for such projects and programs. It should be negotiated after contractor selection, during contract formation, i.e., offer, and acceptance.

Thanks for clarifying.

Don's question is too complicated. Let's edit it. Should Congress and the FAR Council repeal all statutes and regulations that mandate procedures for competitively awarding contracts and let contracting officers decide how best to do it?

Should the government return to making a distinction between GS-1102 contracting officers and GS-1105 purchasing agents? Purchasing agents would handle small-dollar transactional buys𑁋such as purchases of simple product buyes, simple services, and small-scale construction Contracting officers would handle large-dollar long-term relational buys𑁋such as product and software development and production and other complex services, and large-scale construction. Wouldn't that simplify and reduce the costs of training and make purchasing agent jobs open to those without 4-year college degrees?

It is doctrine and widely believed that competitive bidding (sealed bidding and competitive negotiation) reduces costs and increases quality. But is it true?

During the 1960s through the 1980s, researchers produced many studies, reports, and articles about "the role of the contracting officer" and about the relative responsibility and authority of contracting officers and program managers. See, e.g., the attached. You don't see many such articles today. Why do you think that is? Is the matter settled? What is the role of the contracting officer? IDENTIFICATION OF CRITICAL ROLES OF PROGRAM MANAGERS AND CONTRACTING OFFICERS.pdf The Contracting Officer_ His Authority to Act and His Duty to Act.pdf The Role and Environment of the Contracting Officer.pdfThe Future Role of the Contracting Officer.pdf

Thanks for explaining. I've stated my opinion. I'll step out now. Perhaps others will respond.

See the Harvard Business Review, Feb 9, 2926: "AI Doesn’t Reduce Work—It Intensifies It" by Aruna Ranganathan and Xinggi Maggie Ye: Harvard Business ReviewAI Doesn’t Reduce Work—It Intensifies ItOne of the promises of AI is that it can reduce workloads so employees can focus more on higher-value and more engaging tasks. But according to new research, AI tools don’t reduce work, they consisten

Dr. Peter Venkman: This city is headed for a disaster of biblical proportions. Mayor: What do you mean, “biblical”? Dr Ray Stantz: What he means is Old Testament, Mr. Mayor, real wrath of God type stuff. Dr. Peter Venkman: Exactly. Dr Ray Stantz: Fire and brimstone coming down from the skies! Rivers and seas boiling! Dr. Egon Spengler: Forty years of darkness! Earthquakes, volcanoes… Winston Zeddemore: The dead rising from the grave! Dr. Peter Venkman: Human sacrifice, dogs and cats living together… mass hysteria! Mayor: All right, all right! I get the point!

@Don Mansfield Why did you leave out "Congress and/or agency policy makers" and substituter "the FAR Council"? For instance, the FAR Council did not issue the DOD source selection procedures, which are dumb. DOD policy makers did.

Read this: War on the RocksThe Greatest Threat to Acquisition Transformation Is FearThe Department of Defense’s acquisition and sustainment culture is pathologically risk-averse. The greatest threat to acquisition transformation is not