Vern Edwards

I'm not the originator, but... The heart of the original question is this: Should Congress and/or agency policy makers prescribe standard procedures for contractor selection and contract formation, or should they permit individual agency contracting offices to use whatever procedures they like? That's an IQ test.

Don loves asking provocative questions. It's part of his Socratic method. 😁 The stated purposes of SAP in the current FAR 13.002 are as follows: The "procedures" are in FAR Subpart 13.1. FAR 13.106 describes the procedures for "soliciting competition, evaluation of quotations or offers, award and documentation." Read carefully, it does not describe procedures, i.e., step-by-step instructions of how to do something.. That being the case, I don't think allowing the use of SAP for all acquisitions would achieve any of the stated SAP purposes. What is would achieve is governmentwide procedural inconsistency, uncertainty, confusion, and hesitation. Don will undoubtedly say that it would open acquisition up to innovation. As I said: inconsistency, confusion, hesitation... and litigation. If the mass of contracting officers and contract specialists were professionally well-educated and trained, it might be okay. But they aren't. They never have been, really. And they never will be. Because the government won't take measures to ensure that they are. And please, don't mention DAU and FAI.

I assume that "BOE" means basis of estimate. That being the case, I don't understand the question. The government does not "award" a basis of estimate. Do you mean a CPFF estimated cost? Are you asking whether your actual salaries could be one of the bases for negotiation a CPFF estimated cost? If so, the answer is yes. I have no idea whether it is unreasonable. You apparently think it is. How would any of us know?

More that I have time to list.

I agree that the option must be applied without a change in scope. I think that the option may be used as applicable to extend the contract beyond the five-year limit of FAR 17.204(e). For general background about 52.217-8, see the attached. OPTION TO EXTEND SERVICES A Broad Clause.pdf

That's because you're reading the statutes. Don't do that. Read the applicable regulation --- FAR or RFO FAR class deviation. Whichever applies in your case.

@General.Zhukov So, what do you think of what's been said? Any of it seem reasonable?

@General.Zhukov So... Georgy, have you answered your own question? Should the moderator close the thread?

I would not complain or make speeches. I would review and prioritize all requirements based on inputs from the requiring activities (our clients). I would rank and prioritize them in terms of complexity, difficulty, and need. I would assign each to "surviving" staff on the basis of know-how and capability, with agreement on target completion date(s). I would take on especially difficult assignments myself, when necessary, and provide hands-on aasistance as needed. (What can I do to help you?) I would authorize overtime if and as needed. I would notify requiring activities and my boss of the target completion date(s) of each of their requests. I would visit each assignee's desk first thing on every working morning in order of assignment priority and ask for a status report. I would intervene when an assignment seems to have gotten bogged down. I would advise each client daily on the status of their request(s). I would bring lunches into the office at my own expense, hand out "on-the-spot" awards as often as appropriate and possible, and urge clients to write letters of appreciation to the staff. Those are all things I actually did as a USAF contracting office director. My bosses were a 3-star, three O-6s, and an SES. I did not complain or make excuses, but I did tell people when I thought they were being unreasonable. That general approach worked for me. If it worked for me it can work for anyone.

The same thing that all tough people do in such circumstances — the best that you can. Or you can quit.

@FrankJon There is no such distinct category of information as "responsibility-type data." There is information about a company. Some of it may be used determine responsibility or to evaluate past performance and experience. Let's assume you are conducting an important and non-routine procurement for some long-term onsite service. To start, there is more to past performance than customer opinions obtained at arms length. There are sales and profitability data, which can suggest how well the company is run and the demand for its services. And you can ask the offeror ask for a list of current customers to which the offeror is providing same or similar service at the scale as you require, select two or three, and instruct the offeror to ask those customers to let visit and speak face-to-face with customer managers receiving the service. Why sit in your office reading stuff when you can go to the source? You can check court records for litigation with customers, which might tell you something. You can check for press reports. You can check any number of other business databases.

A thorough investigation of past performance should include a lot more than calling strangers and asking for opinions. There is a world of organized business information out there if know how to find it, get access to it, and analyze it properly. Selecting a contractor for a big, important job is like a merger or acquisition. The investigation should be a kind of due diligence. Where are all you MBAs?

Topics like this have been discussed for many years. See the attached 1996 (!) article from The Nash & Cibinic Report, "Selecting the Evaluation Factors in Best Value Procurement." It was written by Professor Nash. What is sad is that the government does not provide its contracting personnel with either (1) the education nor (2) the training that they need to do their jobs well. What is encouraging is that some people seek ways to get the education they need on their own. My greatest fear is that the government will drive such people out of its employ. SELECTING THE EVALUATION FACTORS IN BEST VALUE PROCUREMENT.pdf

See the attached OFPP Policy Letter of April 15, 1994, Use of Past Performance Information in the Source Selection Process, 59 FR 18168-02. (Serious "professionals" study both the current rules and their history.) Anyone who cannot understand, without regulatory "guidance", the distinction and relationship between (1) experience and (2) past performance — the distinction between (1) what a company has done and (2) how well they have done it — should seek work in another field of endeavor. Use of Past Performance Information in the Source Selection Process.pdf

The answer to your question is no. I believe you have misinterpreted the regulation. It is neither saying nor suggesting that experience and past performance are the same. It is saying that when evaluating a commercial offeror's past performance, consider it's past performance in its work (its experience) as a subcontractor. That work, too, is relevant past performance.

I was an early advocate of past performance as an evalution factor, urged that past performance and price were enough to select a contractor in many acquisitions, and wrote the language used in an RFP for a service that stated past performance and price as the only criteria. The GAO denied a protest against that source selection decision. That prompted the OFPP to issue a policy letter urging the use of past performance as an evaluation factor. That was not a new idea. But the evaluation of past performance should entail a thorough investigation of a company, not the stupid (Yes! Stupid!) procedure of asking for references and seeking the references' unsubstantiated assertions and opinions. There is no idea, no matter how promising, that some government contracting personnel won't underthink, underuse, overuse, misuse and compromise.

It does to me. I value some persons' opinions more than others based on what I know about them. I don't seek or accept opinions from just anyone. Do you?

Past performance. Is it how a company performed in fact or how it performed in opinion? Are the star ratings that appear at Amazon for products factual. Are the based on common criteria?

The work of contracting officers is to make administrative and business arrangements in furtherance of program objectives. They must effectuate the pursuit and achievement of those objectives. In doing that they must be effectuators—yes, that’s a word— people who make things happen. In order to be value-added effectuators in the new world of AI, CO's must be thinkers. In order to be thinkers, they must learn to ask good questions, evaluate answers, and then act. Think of the OODA Loop. In the near future, anyone who has not studied thinking and questioning, and who has not worked on their thinking and questioning skills, is going to be reduced to the status of an AI clerk. Here’s a meaningful (and fun) thought exercise that I found in a book: How would you describe a spoon to a Martian? Don't sneer. It's the kind of question asked during interviews of persons applying for admission to Oxford and Cambridge. The interviewers don't care about the interviewee's answer, they care about the interviewee's thought processes. Jeff Bezos once asked a job applicate to estimate tne number of panes of glass in Seattle. CNBCJeff Bezos hired this Amazon applicant ‘on the spot’—here...In 2002, after several rounds of job interviews at Amazon, Ann Hiatt was hired on the spot by Jeff Bezos. She shares the two questions he asked and her answers.What do such questions have to do with contracting? Everything, in a fast-movie world of accelerated innovation and process improvement employers (and program managers) want people who can think. Most of the RFPs I see at SAM—line item structures, statements of work, evaluation factors, and proposal preparation instructions—are not the products of good thinking by skilled effectuators.

See also RFO 15.407(a), Price negotiation, which states in part: And see RFO 33.205-5, Contracting officer's authority [to settle claims and disputes]:

What I have seen over the course of years is the diminishment of the contracting officer. Once upon a time you could find studies and articles with titles such as: The Contracting Officer: His Authority to Act and His Duty to Act Independently (1966) The Judicial Role of the Contracting Officer in U.S. Government Contracting (1972) A Follow-On Study of the Authority Relationships of Contract Officers in a Project/Program Management Environment (1976) A Handbook for Entry-Level System Buyers: The Role-Relationship of the Contracting Officer and Program Manager and the System Program Office Interfaces (1985) Measuring Satisfaction in the Program Manager - Procuring Contracting Officer Relationship (1997) Identification of Critical Roles of Program Managers and Contracting Officers (2001) I haven't seen any such studies lately. The change began during the late 1990s. The "business advisor" thing never passed the reality check. Then, in 2010, we saw this in the Public Contracts Law Journal: "The Incredible Shrinking Contracting Officer." What happened? Why the loss of status?

Attached is the original announcement of the program. The start was postponed due to the shutdown. Advanced Study Seminar.pdf

What is needed is a good professional education about acquisition concepts, principles, rules, processes, procedures, methods, and techniques. I am conducting an advanced study seminar on the role of contracts in Department of War major systems acquisitions. There are ten participants, who applied for the program. No one was involuntarily assigned. The program is very challenging. Altogether, the participants will read about 500 pages of materials in five weeks, discuss the readings, and write short papers about them. I have attached a copy of the first reading assignment, to give you an idea about the program. Sample Reading Assignment.pdf

It's impossible to comment intelligently and make suggestions without seeing the draft proposal preparation instructions and evaluation factors. Sorry.

@joel hoffman I've said how I would handle it, and nothing you've said has changed my mind.