Evonan

Sorry to hear about your injury as well, hope it heals soon. On the topic of the article I would tend to agree. I 'teach' or 'train' for my agency, specifically in what I perceive as doing my best to train and educate new buyers and younger CO's on various topics and principles. Generally I end each session with the recommendation that the newer buyers should look up and study at least one topic or clause per week, and slowly educate themselves to become well-rounded, I recommend this site as a place to come as well, even if it's as a lurker. Idea being, one topic pe week adds to 52 per year, and stacks over time. Unfortunately very few do this, most want a template that can be filled out, very few can fill out documents with original content and instead scalp from other templates without any thought given or changes made. Not aimed at your friend, but I believe the deficiency is widespread, including several DAU and Management Concepts instructors. Several buyer from my training groups recently had a class with a fellow who will not be named, that started the class by announcing "I have been protested 63 times and have lost more than half of those...." Meaning, I don't believe it's strictly one field, suffering, the appearance is it is multiple fields suffering the same root cause. I would lump project management, COR's, finance, and the like into the same basket with the same problem sets. However, that is only my opinion based on the constraints I'm encountering at my agency. Unfortunately the response has widely been 'better templates with more instruction included.' Main point, I suppose, I would agree with the assessment and it has been my experience as well. However, over the past fie years it has increased substantially I would say.

Thanks for the link, I would have likely missed that article. Edsall seems to remain objective throughout and I would agree it was very well written.

Not sure I fully understand what you're asking honestly. I've used SOO's several times, but not specifically to apply a gating criteria. Can you clarify what you mean by that? In my experience, your proposal instructions and contractor responsibility type items (FAR 9.104, etc. and careful not to call experience and past performance the same thing, especially with SB set-asides....) should be the gating criteria. Again, in general, as not always applicable, a SOO is usually accompanied by a TRD (technical requirements document - titles may differ by agency), possibly a list of RSNs (Required submittal numbers), and I personally request a CSOW (Contractor Statement of Work) in response to a SOO (in general). It should be tailored to your requirement and desired outcome. Generally meaning, a SOO is a statement of 'objectives' or what the government wants as the general outcome and performance IAW some set of standards (TRD - applicable regs, standards, what makes the approach acceptable?). In return you generally get a CSOW that would be considered acceptable or not-acceptable based on the standards you've applied to the posting/requirement. Although, I don't recommend this approach in general, and I've really only used this during high turnover when the program office could not define their requirements very well, or would refuse to do so and some political pressure made the buy a 'hot item.' I might be able to answer a little better if you could define what you mean by a gate criteria, and what you're working on. But also, to the best of my knowledge (could be wrong, going off memory) the only way to 'gate' contractors from becoming the successful awardee before you make the award decision is some form of two-step approach, such as setting a competitive range or short-listing in FAR 36.3 based on your criteria Two-Phase for design-build (generally L&M and whatever required response, TRD, etc.). I don't think a SOO approach would 'gate' much outside of what technical requirements you're using.

Apologies, new to the forums, long time lurker (2009) and just registered last Friday after reading https://www.wifcon.com/discussion/index.php?/blogs/entry/5340-when-the-last-dinosaur-turns-out-the-lights/ from Bob7947. In general I keep to myself and read other's posts. Long time admirer of Wifcon and recognize many responders here. I did a large agency email and sent the link to Bob's blog for ideally more people to register and post. That said... I have mixed feelings on the degree requirements for 1102's. Similar to 'Self-Employed' (quoted), I went through a MA program in Management and Leadership vs. MBA, and also have an ACSC paper that I think I have filed somewhere. Which is funny because I remember thinking the same thing when I finished (If I were ever in charge of combat movements...something very wrong has happened). I do use my MA often surprisingly because it focused on change management and dealing with competing personalities, etc. - Though to criticize, in my program I was in class with people that still couldn't form a coherent thought on paper, lacked any grammatical skill (few vs. less, then-than, there-their-they're). I was a lead trainer for a couple years with the AF for a systems area (aircraft and ICBM stuff), left AF in 2017 for a DOI sub-agency (prefer not to say) and train teams on multiple areas, but generally now specialize in construction. In another post, Vern had stated expanding 1106's responsibilities, again, apologize for the mashup of posts; but I think it is pertinent to this post as well. In our agency we have 1106's (PT's) most of which were recruited as student interns from out of high-school or job fairs. The applicability of that post to this one is many of the 1106's do not have a 4 year degree and have no desire to obtain one. If they want to get above a GS-7 in this agency they generally need to become a grants specialist vs. a contract specialist. We do use the PT positions as stepping stones many time, or to separate the wheat from the chaff so to say. We do let some PT's that don't fit go, and there aren't very many people content with staying a PT anymore. To me this is a shame as some of the PT's I trained that I would have liked to see move into an 1102 position had no degree and no desire to pursue one. Leadership is a bit dated as well as our HR department and the organization is run by essentially engineers. Anyway, to the point, I don't always see a net gain on a college degree for all personnel. Currently I cannot find many people in the organization that can think or problem-solve, thoughtfully utilize a 'template' and revise it accordingly (meaning apply thought to each section and write original content), or take on more complex workload. The college degree doesn't seem to help with that aspect. After years of training, at least I hope, you can start to tell (generally) which people could flourish and which would not. The problem I have run into, especially as of late and higher during 2020 start of COVID, is abysmal retention rates. As I train the 'keepers' they leave for quicker promotions and more TW/remote opportunities. I've been at training long enough that I'm happy when the good ones get promotions and move on, and ready to start over again to hopefully train some of the upcoming generation in the hopes they pass it on as well. Though, lately I have seen a vast overturn and many seasoned people leave. I still stay in touch with my AF network and they are having many of the same issues in hiring and retention. I think removal of the college degree, if implemented correctly, may be the right move. Especially since many universities have no-fail policies and push people through like public schools do (factual? not sure, seemed like it in my experience - team assignments, couldn't read many team member's sections or understand what they were trying to get at). Though, I'm not sure how to implement that, I saw the thought of a test thrown around. When I joined I had to take a test but I was active duty and cross-trained into contracting. To join I had to interview with a superintendent that asked me generalized questions that really was looking to see if I had any problem-solving skills and could speak coherently. But, I do see the concern with a test being deemed 'appropriate' for all people with the cancel culture and fear of upsetting personnel, or having to notify they did not measure up. Long-winded response to say, I personally think, and in my experience believe waiving the requirement may be best started on a case-by-case basis. However, the question is soon becoming who would determine which person is fit? Many supervisors I see and have worked for know very little about contracting. They promoted very quickly and went into management, some without any real experience because they had a degree. I think caution whatever the route should be applied. Though, again, I personally am seeing a very large skill gap currently and it is getting worse.