Don Mansfield

If we're talking about the $120 billion spent on consulting contracts (which I interpret as Advisory and Assistance Services), I think ex ante specification of results is somewhat of a fool's errand. In my experience, the Government needs staff and work specification is more ad hoc--not because of poor planning, but because of the nature of the work. I think these contracts are best described as staffing contracts. As such, the Government should research what types of compensation arrangements are typically used in that industry and adapt to the market.

If you present, conference is free.

Yes.

I think they have been successful in getting the Federal Government to pay attention to the Contract Management Standard. DoD based its Contracting Competency Model on the CMS. I believe DAU tests students on the contents of the CMS. The RFO drafters are trying to organize information within parts using the CMS as a model (i.e., Preaward, Award, Postaward). I think it’s just a matter of time for the Federal Government to outsource credentialing of Contracting professionals to NCMA. They also are joining forces with World CC, which will spread their influence globally.

Yes No

In my experience as an instructor, I've often felt like I'm only teaching to the subset of the class that wants to learn and everyone else is just watching.

That would depend on what the contract says, right?

FYI, APA does not apply to the FAR System. The relevant statute is 41 USC 1707.

Are you asking if it's professional in theory or in practice?

I don't think that contracting officers are required to do anything differently post-RFO when it comes to competitive negotiations. The minimum information that they must communicate hasn't changed.

What's the difference between discussions as used in the current FAR and competitive negotiations as used in the RFO?

Yes, but the contracting officer can only verify how the offeror represented itself. The CO has no authority to determine whether the representation is true. Again, if they have reason to doubt the representation, they can protest to the SBA.

I'm seeking answers to the following questions-- What can contracting officers do post-RFO that they were prohibited from doing pre-RFO? What are contracting officers not required to do post-RFO that they were required to do pre-RFO? What are contracting officers required to do post-RFO that they were not required to do pre-RFO? What are contracting officers prohibited from doing post-RFO that they were permitted to do pre-RFO? I'm looking for noteworthy changes. If you can't think of responses for all four, that's fine. I'll take whatever answers you have. Please no AI-generated answers.

There is no requirement for the contracting officer to "verify" a small business representation. If the CO has reason to doubt the representation, they can protest to the SBA.

I don't know if what @formerfed described includes permitting all responsible sources to compete--that's why I said it may not meet the definition.

Ok, so you're saying you don't need "full and open competition" to get a good deal. I agree. I also think what you described is a competitive procedure, even though it may not meet the definition of "full and open competition."

How is that not competition?

Yes. You made this argument convincingly in the past by comparing the size of the workload for each to the size of the workforce for each. There are too many 1102s doing purchasing agent work.

Carl, I posed that question to @Joe Bernier

Do you mean price has to be an evaluation factor or are you referring to the requirement to determine price reasonableness?

Given SAP allows any combination of procedures from 13, 14, 15, 35, and 36, wouldn't that include Brooks Act procedures?

Should eliminate the dollar limitation on SAP?

Because the dollar limitations come from Congress and are implemented by the FAR Council. If the dollar limitations went away, it's possible agencies would still impose use of standard procedures but that would be at their discretion.

Let me rephrase that-- Should Congress and/or the FAR Council mandate standard procedures for contractor selection and contract formation, or should they permit agencies to decide which procedures to use within the guidelines of FAR part 13 (for any dollar value)?

I'm not sure exactly which statutes you are referring to, but any existing statute that does not apply when using SAP would remain inapplicable. That would include CICA and any statute that specifically applies to FAR part 15 source selection.