Jump to content

Don Mansfield

Members

  • Joined

  • Last visited

View Profile Find content

Blog Entries posted by Don Mansfield

  2. Don Mansfield
    Myth-Information:

    When discussing the evaluation of competitive proposals with my students, I make a point of asking the following two questions (in order):
    1. Are agencies required to evaluate proposals?
    2. Are agencies required to rate proposals?
    Usually, students respond affirmatively to question #1 and are able to support their answers by citing FAR 15.305(a), which states "An agency shall evaluate competitive proposals and then assess their relative qualities solely on the factors and subfactors specified in the solicitation." However, confusion sets in when I follow with question #2 and students read the very next sentence of FAR 15.305(a), which states "Evaluations may be conducted using any rating method or combination of methods, including color or adjectival ratings, numerical weights, and ordinal rankings." Clearly, the language regarding use of a rating method in conjunction with an evaluation is permissive, not mandatory.
    "What's the difference?", "Why wouldn't you rate proposals?", "How do you decide who is the better value if you don't rate the proposals?" are typical student responses. These are all good questions.
    Evaluation v. Rating
    A good way to understand the difference between evaluation and rating is to look at a typical article in Consumer Reports (CR). Here?s an example of a summary evaluation of a new car?s ?Driving Experience? (model name omitted):

    ?Driving Experience? was one evaluation factor under the heading ?Road Test.? CR also evaluated ?Reliability?, ?Safety?, and ?Owner Satisfaction?, to name a few. According to the Web site, there were over 50 different tests and evaluations performed on the car. Presumably, this produced a mountain of data. However, the typical car buyer does not have the time to peruse the data, nor do they fully understand it. As such, CR established a 100-point scale and a set of predetermined criteria to translate test and evaluation results into scores on the scale. In addition, they partitioned the scale into quintiles and assigned an adjective to each (Poor, Fair, Good, Very Good, and Excellent). Using this rating method, the car described above received a score of 74 and an adjectival rating of ?Very Good.? In this case, CR used a combination of rating methods (numerical scoring and adjectival rating) to translate complex evaluation results into an easily consumable format for its readers.
    But Teach, Why Wouldn?t you Rate Proposals?
    First, it's not required. Besides that, the results of the evaluation may not be particularly complex. For example, let?s say I used price and performance risk as my evaluation factors in a source selection. Performance risk had two subfactors?past performance and experience. In the solicitation, I instructed offerors to submit a one-page write-up and customer point of contact for each of their relevant contracts. The evaluation of performance risk consisted of an assessment of the write-ups as well as interviews with the customer points of contact to validate the offeror?s claimed experience as well as to ascertain how well the offeror performed. The evaluators then wrote an evaluation of each offeror?s performance risk, documenting the relative strengths and weaknesses of each. Why would it be necessary to translate this information into a rating? How would this aid my decision-making? I?m not going to be faced with volumes of information.
    Another reason I would avoid the use of ratings is when I was dealing with evaluators that didn?t understand them. In my experience, when ratings are used, ratings are all you get. I can recall receiving technical evaluations that had nothing more than the word ?Excellent? (when I used adjectival ratings) or ?95? (when I used a numerical rating). I wanted an evaluation and I got a rating.
    How do you decide who is the better value if you don't rate the proposals?
    The answer is the same way that you would if you did rate proposals?by performing a comparative assessment of proposals against all source selection criteria in the solicitation. A source selection authority (SSA) relies on ratings to make their source selection decision at their peril. See, for example, Si-Nor, Inc., B-282064, 25 May 1999, where the source selection authority based her decision to award to a higher-priced offeror on the fact that the offeror had a higher past performance rating. One of the reasons the protest was sustained was because the SSA did not describe the benefits associated with the additional costs, as required by FAR 15.308. ?Because they had a higher rating? will typically fail to meet this requirement.
    So we shouldn?t use ratings?
    Not necessarily. The point is that you have discretion to use or not use ratings. Most people don?t know why they use ratings other than the fact that it?s traditional where they work. The decision to use (or not use) ratings should result from thoughtful deliberation, not a successful copy and paste from your office mate?s old source selection plan. A wise man once said ?Tradition is the hobgoblin of mediocre minds.?
  3. Don Mansfield
    The myth about communication being 93% nonverbal probably didn't start in the contracting field, but we are partly responsible for its spread. This is especially true when it comes to the subject of contract negotiation. The course manual for CON 100 used to state that communication was 90% nonverbal as a matter of fact. A speaker at a recent conference that I attended used a figure of 93% in a presentation on contract negotiation. The current Contract Pricing Reference Guides contain a variation of this claim in a chapter titled "Nonverbal Communication" (Volume V, Chapter 5):

    Whenever this claim is made, it's almost always accompanied by a statement that it is supported by "research", but what "research"?
    Well, there actually was a research study done in 1967 that found that 93% of communication was nonverbal...under very specific conditions. The following excerpt from The Virtual Handshake explains just what the study found:

    Mehrabian's exact words appear in a description of his book "Silent Messages" -- A Wealth of Information About Nonverbal Communication (Body Language):

    For a thorough debunking of this myth, see Contributions of Different Modalities to "Content".
    Nonverbal communication is important in a contract negotiation. Eye-rolling usually communicates disagreement. A long sigh usually communicates frustration. Busting out laughing at the other party's counteroffer can be an effective way of communicating your intent to consider it. However, unless the parties intend to discuss their emotions in lieu of contract terms, they shouldn't go in to the negotiation thinking that 93% of the message they are sending is nonverbal. If they do, they'll find themselves focusing too much on the form of the negotiation instead of the substance.
    As contracting professionals, we all need to do our part to stop the spread of this common communication myth.
  4. Don Mansfield
    In a earlier blog entry, I posted a draft version of the provision at FAR 52.212-1 tailored for simplified acquisition procedures and requested comments. First, I'd like to thank everyone who provided comments. I believe the final version (below) is an improvement over the draft. Second, Carl Culham suggested that I include instructions on how to incorporate a tailored version of FAR 52.212-1 into a solicitation. I thought that was a good idea, so I will include instructions in this entry. Third, Vern Edwards tailored FAR 52.212-1 for SAP using plain language. His version is clear and easy to read, which may cause some of your lawyers and policy folks to balk at using it. If that's the case, you may want to refer them to plainlanguage.gov so they can familiarize themselves with the Federal Government's policy on the use of plain language to communicate with the public. Vern's plain language version is also posted below.
    Incorporating a Tailored Version of FAR 52.212-1
    FAR 12.302(d) contains the following guidance regarding tailoring:

    According to the format prescribed at FAR 12.303(e)(2), the addendum to FAR 52.212-1 should be located with the solicitation provisions. The addendum should be clearly identified as such (e.g., "Addendum to FAR 52.212-1"). Carl Culham suggested, and I agree, that there should also be some kind of lead in statement that indicates that the version of FAR 52.212-1 in the addendum supersedes the version of FAR 52.212-1 contained in the FAR (e.g., "FAR 52.212-1 is replaced in its entirety by this addendum"). If using the streamlined solicitation for commercial items discussed at FAR 12.603, then you must include a statement that the provision at 52.212-1, Instructions to Offerors -- Commercial, applies to the acquisition and a statement regarding any addenda to the provision. The addendum should then be included in full text.
    FAR 52.212-1 Tailored for SAP
    Here's the final version of the provision at FAR 52.212-1 tailored for SAP:





    FAR 52.212-1 Tailored for SAP (Plain Language Version)
    Here's Vern's plain language version of FAR 52.212-1 tailored for SAP:


    I hope some of you will try these provisions. If you do, let us know how it goes.
  6. Don Mansfield
    To answer the title question--most likely yes, for DoD. A recent DFARS final rule, Procurement of Commercial Items (DFARS Case 2016-D006), added the following definition at DFARS 202.101:
    Since small business concerns are exempt from CAS, most small business concerns would fall within the definition. This has significant consequences because the final rule also added the following at DFARS 212.102(a)(iii):
    So, DoD contracting officers can use FAR part 12 procedures to buy both commercial and noncommercial items from most small business concerns. I admit that I did not appreciate the scope of this rule when I first read it. I would have expected more dancing in the streets by both small business concerns and DoD contracting officers. Maybe there was and I missed it.
  7. Don Mansfield
    I was recently perusing some of the recent final rules issued by the FAR Council when I came across a statement that I found interesting. In responding to a comment concerning the applicability of TINA to task and delivery orders, the FAR Councils stated that TINA applicability is to be determined when negotiating a basic IDIQ contract, as well as when negotiating subsequent orders under the contract. A description of the comment that they received read as follows:

    The Councils' response was as follows:

    (See FAR Case 2008-012, Clarification of Submission of Cost or Pricing Data on Non-Commercial Modifications of Commercial Items (75 FR 13414)).
    My initial reaction was "Good, they got it right." However, I was not satisfied with the complete lack of explanation other than that this information was "commonly understood." "It is commonly understood?" is the equivalent to saying "Well, everybody knows?", which is not an answer that I would accept from a student nor is it one that the public should be accepting from the FAR Councils. Further, the FAR Councils' use of "commonly understood" raises the question: Commonly understood by whom? Based on my experience, "commonly debated" would be a more apt description.
    Task and Delivery Orders are "Contracts"
    By stating that TINA applicability determinations must be made at the task and delivery order level, the FAR Councils have, perhaps unwittingly, admitted that task and delivery orders are "contracts" as defined at FAR 2.101. Consider the requirements for obtaining cost or pricing data at FAR 15.403-4(a)(1):

    If TINA applies to task and delivery orders, then task and delivery orders must fall into one of the three enumerated categories. A task or delivery order issued by the Government is certainly not a subcontract, so (ii) is out. A task or delivery order under a contract is not a "written change in the terms of a contract", so they do not meet the definition of "contract modification", thereby eliminating (iii). Thus, task and delivery orders must be "contracts."
    However, one cannot reasonably describe this information as "commonly understood" either. Consider the following statements made in FEATURE COMMENT: Contesting Task And Delivery Order Awards At The COFC--Policy Implications Of A Choice Federal Courts May Soon Have To Make (51 NO. 20 Gov't Contractor ? 174). In discussing the automatic stay provisions of CICA, the author writes:

    The author, seemingly indecisive, also writes:

    This author is not alone. In FEATURE COMMENT: Acquisition Reform Revisited--Section 843 Protests Against Task And Delivery Order Awards At GAO (50 NO. 9 Gov't Contractor ? 75) the authors put forth the following argument:

    I agree with the first author's assessment of the potential controversy that would ensue if the FAR Councils were to redefine "contract" to include task and delivery orders. If the FAR Councils were to propose such a rule, I would estimate that they would receive no less than 100 public comments.
    Where's the Cost or Pricing Data Clause for Task and Delivery Orders?
    If it's "commonly understood" that TINA applies to task and delivery orders, why isn't there a standard FAR clause for use in task and delivery order contracts that compels the submission of cost or pricing with a task or delivery order proposal when applicable? There's a standard FAR provision at FAR 52.215-20, Requirements for Cost or Pricing Data or Information Other Than Cost or Pricing Data (Oct 1997), that can be used to compel offerors to submit cost or pricing data when submitting offers for a basic IDIQ contract. There's also a standard FAR clause at FAR 52.215-21, Requirements for Cost or Pricing Data or Information Other Than Cost or Pricing Data?Modifications (Oct 1997), that compels submission of cost or pricing data when pricing contract modifications (if applicable). Where is "Requirements for Cost or Pricing Data or Information Other Than Cost or Pricing Data?Task and Delivery Orders"? Why not have offerors agree to submit cost or pricing data (if applicable) with subsequent task and delivery order proposals?
    TINA Yes, CAS No
    The Councils' response in the publication of this rule reminded me of an earlier response pertaining to the applicability of CAS to task and delivery orders accompanying a final rule on CAS (70 FR 11743-01). In that response, the Councils reached the opposite conclusion. The exchange was as follows:

    Thus, a determination of CAS applicability is made only when placing the basic IDIQ contract. If an IDIQ contract is subject to CAS, all orders under the contract are subject to CAS. If an IDIQ contract is not subject to CAS, none of the orders under the contract are subject to CAS.
    So, according to the FAR Councils, a contracting officer must determine applicability of TINA when awarding a basic IDIQ contract and issuing any subsequent orders, but need only determine the applicability of CAS once?when awarding a basic IDIQ contract.
    This raises another yet another question?how is a CO supposed to know this? Consider the rules for determining CAS applicability at 48 CFR 9903.201-1:

    By asserting that CAS determinations are not made at the task or delivery order level, the FAR Councils must be using a definition of "contract" that is different than what appears at FAR 2.101. What definition are they using and why does that definition exclude task and delivery orders? I don't get it.
    Recommendation
    If the FAR Councils believe that task and delivery orders are "contracts" as defined at FAR 2.101, then they can clear up a considerable amount of confusion by including these types of orders in that definition. If they do that, why not add a standard FAR clause compelling submission of cost or pricing data (when applicable) with task or delivery order proposals? While they're at it, how about an explicit statement in the FAR stating that TINA applicability determinations are made at the task and delivery order level and another statement that CAS applicability determinations are not? Probably too much to ask.
  8. Don Mansfield

    Describing Contract Type: Watch What You Say

    contract types · Don Mansfield · 09/01/2022 12:45 PM

    Consider the following exchange between two people:
    Obviously, Speaker 2's answer is not responsive to Speaker 1's question. Speaker 1 wanted to know about a particular aspect of Speaker 2's car:  its origin. Speaker 2 described a different aspect of his car:  its color. While Speaker 2's statement about the color of his car may be true, it doesn't tell us anything about the origin of his car.
    Easy enough, right? Ok, let's try another one. Consider the following exchange between two contract specialists:
    Is Contract Specialist 2's answer responsive to Contract Specialist 1's question? No, the answer is no more responsive to the question than Speaker 2's answer was to the question of whether his car was foreign or domestic. Why? In this exchange, Contract Specialist 1 wanted to know about a particular aspect of Contract X:  ts compensation arrangement. Contract Specialist 2 described a different aspect of Contract X:  its delivery arrangement. While Contract Specialist 2's statement about the delivery arrangement of Contract X may be true, it doesn't tell us anything about the compensation arrangement of Contract X.
    Make sense? If so, see if you can spot anything wrong with the following passage of an article on contract types that recently appeared in the December 2010 issue of Contract Management (see Government Contract Types: The U.S. Government?s Use of Different Contract Vehicles to Acquire Goods, Services, and Construction by Brian A. Darst and Mark K. Roberts):
    Do you see anything wrong?  Notice that the first two "families" are categorized by compensation arrangement. However, the third family contains a mix of terms used to describe compensation arrangement (T&M/LH), delivery arrangement (indefinite delivery), the extent of contractor commitment (level-of-effort), and a unique term used to describe a contract that is not definitive (letter contract). The way this passage is written implies that an indefinite delivery contract, a level-of-effort contract, and a letter contract are necessarily different (belong to a different "family") from a fixed-price or cost reimbursement contract. However, an indefinite delivery contract or a level-of-effort contract will have a compensation arrangement. The compensation arrangement can be fixed-price, cost-reimbursement, T&M/LH, or some combination thereof. A letter contract may or may not have a compensation arrangement when it is issued. You could conceivably have a letter contract that had a cost-reimbursement compensation arrangement, an indefinite delivery arrangement, and that provided for level-of-effort orders. As such, the authors? categorization of contract types makes as much sense as categorizing cars into three families?foreign, domestic, and red.
    Incentive Contracts? Not What You Think They Are
    Consider the following simplified description of a compensation arrangement:
    Does the preceding describe an incentive contract? Many would say yes, because the arrangement provides for an incentive--specifically, a performance incentive. However, that would be incorrect. Just because a contract contains an incentive does not mean that it is an incentive contract. FAR 16.202-1 contains the following statements in a description of firm-fixed-price contracts (similar statements pertaining to fixed-price contracts with economic price adjustment can be found at FAR 16.203-1.
    [bold added].
    Further, FAR 16.402-1(a) states:
    Thus, it's not enough for a contract to contain an incentive to be an incentive contract. It must contain a cost incentive (or constraint).
    In the aforementioned Contract Management article, an endnote references FAR 37.601(3) and misinterprets this paragraph as--encouraging the use of incentive-type contracts where appropriate.  Here's what FAR 37.601(3) actually says:
    The authors have made the mistake of assuming that a contract that contained a performance incentive was necessarily an incentive contract. In fact, when acquiring services FAR 37.102(a)(2) states the following order of precedence:
    As shown above, a firm-fixed-price contract would take precedence over an incentive contract.
    A Genuine Misunderstanding
    In a discussion of additional contract types and agreements, the Contract Management article contained the following statement (which caused me to stop reading and start writing):
    Huh? T&M/LH is a type of indefinite delivery contract? I'll let you readers ponder that one.
    The article concludes with a plug for the authors-two-day course in, you guessed it, types of contracts. I will pass.
  13. Don Mansfield
    DoD implemented a Clause Control Policy in 2015 that would require the same degree of transparency in the development and use of "local clauses" by the military departments and defense agencies as FAR and DFARS clauses (see PGI Case 2015-P003 and attached). Specifically, local clauses would be subject to publication for comment in the Federal Register and codified in the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR). However, not a single local clause has been incorporated in the CFR since the new policy was implemented. At the same time, there seems to be a lot more requirements in statements of work that don't have anything to do with describing work, but read a lot like a FAR or DFARS clause. Some of it is even prescribed in agency supplements to the DFARS. What's going on here?
    The Acquivores discuss https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fK6GKDEqAhM&ab_channel=DonAcquisition
    2015-P003 DFARS PGI Text LILO.doc
  15. Don Mansfield

    The Acquivore Podcast

    Notice · Don Mansfield · 02/04/2021 05:37 AM

    1.000 Scope
    The purpose of this post is to promote The Acquivore Podcast.
    1.001 Definitions
    As used in this post—
    Acquivore means an animal whose mental diet consists chiefly of Federal acquisition. The term includes acquiholics, acquiphiles, acquinauts, acquidemics, and acquimaniacs.
    The Acquivore Podcast means a video podcast dedicated to learning about, discussing, and thinking about Federal acquisition.
    1.002 Applicability
    This post applies to all acquivores.
    1.003 Policy
    Acquivores shall, to the maximum extent practicable, tune in to The Acquivore Podcast to enhance their professional development.
    1.004 Procedures
    (a) Starting February 10, 2021, and continuing every other Wednesday thereafter, the acquivore shall—
    (1) Watch The Acquivore Podcast live from 5:00pm to 7:00pm Pacific Time by going to http://donacquisition.adobeconnect.com/acquivorepodcast;
    (2) Participate in discussions during The Acquivore Podcast; and
    (3) Ask questions during The Acquivore Podcast.
    (b) If an emergency or unanticipated event prevents the acquivore from watching The Acquivore Podcast live, the acquivore shall watch a recording of the podcast on Don Acquisition’s YouTube channel. The acquivore shall also like and subscribe to the channel.
    (c) The acquivore may, at their discretion, earn a certificate for continuous learning points from The Acquivore Podcast, provided they—
    (1) Provide advance notification of intent to earn a certificate, in writing, no later than one calendar day prior to The Acquivore Podcast by sending an e-mail to don_at_donacquisition.com;
    (2) Complete a research assignment; and
    (3) Obtain a grade of 70% or higher on a 10-question multiple-choice quiz based on information in the research assignment.
  16. Don Mansfield
    “How do you do simplified acquisition?” is a common question I hear from acquisition personnel that are more familiar with using FAR part 15 procedures to solicit offers and award contracts. The question presupposes that there is a regulated set of procedures that one must follow—similar to what is prescribed in FAR part 15, agency FAR supplements to FAR part 15, agency guidebooks on source selection, and the decisions of the Government Accountability Office (GAO) and Court of Federal Claims (COFC). Fortunately, that is not the case. Rather, FAR part 13 (Simplified Acquisition Procedures (SAP)) expressly states that certain procedures contained in FAR part 15 (Contracting by Negotiation) do not apply and requires contracting officers to “use innovative approaches, to the maximum extent practicable, in awarding contracts using simplified acquisition procedures.” FAR 13.003(h)(4). An underlying message in FAR part 13 is to not bring your FAR part 15 baggage with you. The following list presents thirteen reasons why SAP is simpler than the competitive negotiation procedures of FAR part 15.
    See complete list.
  17. Don Mansfield
    Scenario: Acme Corporation responds to two different RFPs issued by the Government. RFP 1 is for commercial items and contains the untailored version FAR 52.212-1, Instructions to Offerors--Commercial Items. Acme responds to RFP 1 with Proposal 1. RFP 2 is for noncommercial items and contains FAR 52.215-1, Instructions to Offerors--Competitive Acquisition. Acme responds to RFP 2 with Proposal 2. The deadline for submission of the proposals for both RFPs is June 30. Both of Acme's proposals were submitted on time.
    On July 15, Acme realizes that it made an estimating mistake and has priced the proposals lower than they should have. Acme asks the contracting officer for each RFP if they can submit a revised proposal, since award has not yet been made. Both contracting officers refuse Acme's request. Acme then asks to withdraw both proposals.
  18. Don Mansfield
    A former student of mine is part of a team conducting a survey to gauge interest in a Mentoring program for Acquisition. If you work in federal acquisition and work for a federal agency (including DoD), please take a few minutes to complete the survey. The more junior you are, the better. From the team:
     
  19. Don Mansfield
    I invite you to participate in a plain language writing contest. To participate, re-write the passage below in plain language and post your entry in the comments section below. Here is the passage:
    You may submit more than one entry. I will score your entry for readability using the Dale-Chall Readability Formula. 
    Your entry must communicate the essential information in the passage to be acceptable. The acceptable entry with the lowest adjusted readability score will be the winner. I will send the author of the winning entry a copy of The Write Way: The S.P.E.L.L. Guide to Real-Life Writing by Richard Lederer and Richard Dowis.
    I will also give an award for the most humorous entry. I will send the author of the most humorous entry a copy of The Play of Words: Fun & Games for Language Lovers by Richard Lederer.
    The deadline for receipt of entries is December 27 at 4:30 pm Pacific Standard Time. If an emergency or unanticipated event interrupts normal Wifcon processes so that entries cannot be received on the Web site designated for receipt of entries by the exact time specified in the invitation, and urgent requirements preclude amendment of the invitation, the time specified for receipt of entries will be deemed to be extended to the same time of day specified in the invitation on the first work day on which normal Wifcon processes resume.
    Enjoy.
  20. Don Mansfield
    Assume you are soliciting quotes for an item of supply. Suppliers A, B, and C each sell the item for about $100/unit. However, the probability of late delivery is different for each supplier. Supplier A has a 31% chance of delivering late, Supplier B has a 21% chance of delivering late, and Supplier C has a 4% chance of delivering late. There’s a 100% chance that all suppliers will deliver no later than one week after the delivery date and any damages due to late delivery will be negligible.
    Your solicitation requests that vendors quote both a unit price and a per-unit delivery incentive. The supplier can only earn the delivery incentive if delivery is on time. Otherwise, the Government only pays the unit price.
    Supplier A quotes a per-unit price of $71 and a $41/unit delivery incentive.
    Supplier B quotes a per-unit price of $65 and a $41/unit delivery incentive.
    Supplier C quotes a per-unit price of $59 and a $41/unit delivery incentive.
    Considering only the total amount the Government would expect to pay, which quote do you think is best?
  21. Don Mansfield
    I've chosen the winners of the Plain Language writing contest. The following entry from @Jamaal Valentine was the acceptable entry with the best readability score:
    The most humorous entry came from @apsofacto:
    There were some others I really liked that didn't win. If we slightly change @bentley78's entry, we get:
    Thank you all for participating!
  22. Don Mansfield
    Assume that you are pricing a firm-fixed-price contract using cost analysis. The prospective contractor has included a contingency of $100,000 in its cost proposal of the type described at FAR 31.205-7(c)(1):
    There is a 90% chance that this contingency will occur. If it occurs, there's a 100% chance it will cost $100,000.
    The prospective contractor can take Precaution A, which will cost $50,000. If the contingency occurs, Precaution A would reduce the chance of the contingency costing $100,000 to 30% (there would be a 70% chance the contingency would cost $0).
    The prospective contractor can take Precaution B, which will cost $75,000.  If the contingency occurs, Precaution B would reduce the chance of the contingency costing $100,000 to 10% (there would be a 90% chance the contingency would cost $0).
    The prospective contractor is free to take Precaution A, Precaution B, or do nothing. 
    What amount for this contingency would you allow in the contract price?
    You may ask for more facts if you'd like or ask to make an assumption. Do not fight the hypothetical. Enjoy.
  23. Don Mansfield
    It's been almost 10 months since the FAR Council issued the last Federal Acquisition Circular (FAC). The streak of inactivity will be broken on November 6 when FAC 2005-96 will be published. The FAC contains a single rule that removes the Fair Pay and Safe Workplaces Rule. But that's not what makes the rule so remarkable. Item 16 of the FAC makes changes to the provision at FAR 52.204-8 as follows:
     
       Notice something strange? See that link to a YouTube Video? That's really there. It's in both the html and pdf versions of the FAC. It is officially contained in the FAR. What is the video? I won't spoil it for you--click and find out.
  24. Don Mansfield
    I always thought that the FAR Matrix was a good idea that was poorly executed. To begin with, it's notorious for containing errors. Second, most of the entries in the "Principle Type and/or Purpose of Contract" columns are "A", Required when applicable, which means you have to look up the prescription anyway. Lastly, the matrix isn't going to tell you if your agency deviates from the FAR prescription, which DoD does a lot. As such, I created a matrix that I think overcomes these problems.
    A few things about the matrix:
    It contains every provision and clause in the FAR, DFARS, and in DoD Class Deviation memoranda. It doesn't have any "Principle Type and/or Purpose of Contract" columns except for a Commercial Items column. It contains the actual prescription of the provision or clause. For readability, I removed the number and title of the provision or clause in the block and just wrote "use this provision..." or "use this clause..." The identifying information for the provision or clause is already contained in the row. For DoD, it contains additional instructions for the use of FAR clauses that is contained in the DFARS or in a class deviation. This information appears in bold. If you work for a civilian agency, just ignore what's in bold. In the "IBR" column (Incorporation by Reference), there are no "N" entries for "no", with the exception of the provisions and clauses prescribed at FAR 52.107. This may cause some people to freak out, so I'll explain. FAR 52.102(c) states: Thus, if the FAR Matrix contained a "Y" in the IBR column, my matrix will also contain a "Y". If the FAR Matrix contained an "N" in the IBR column, or the provision or clause came from the DFARS or a DoD class deviation, then my matrix will contain a "Y*". The key at the top of the matrix contains an explanation for the "Y*" entry. If you're wondering how to incorporate a provision or clause that contains fill-in material or something the offeror must complete, see FAR 52.102(a) and FAR 52.104(d).
    You can see the matrix on the DAU Acquisition Community Connection. I'm open to suggestions for making it better. Also, I would like to think that it doesn't contain any errors. However, if you spot one please let me know. As an incentive, I will add your agency's provisions and clauses (the ones in Title 48 of the CFR) to the matrix if you point out a mistake.
     
  25. Don Mansfield
    It’s time we rethink our approach to the training problem. Our traditional approach is to dictate a blueprint of training classes that must be followed in order to obtain prescribed levels of certification. To put it in acquisition terms, we’ve been using a design specification. What if we were to use a performance specification instead? What might that look like? Before answering these questions, we should identify what it is we are trying to achieve with training.

    The purpose of training is to make the trainee proficient in performing one or more defined learning objectives by means of specialized instruction and practice. A learning objective consists of three parts—an action, a condition, and a standard. For example, someone new to federal contracting will likely receive training to select FAR provisions and clauses (action) given a set of facts about an acquisition and access to the FAR (condition) (the implied standard would be “correctly”). It follows that if an individual already behaves in the prescribed way under the prescribed conditions to the prescribed standard, then training would be unnecessary for that individual—they’ve already attained the learning objective.

    Under the “design specification” training model that we currently use, there is an implied assumption that an individual cannot attain the requisite learning objectives without following the prescribed blueprint of training classes. Further, there is no method of demonstrating the attainment of the requisite learning objectives prior to the prescribed training classes. As a result, everyone must take the required training classes, regardless of individual necessity. Considering the resources involved in carrying out such a program, this is an expensive proposition.

    While the implied assumption of the “design specification” training model may prove true in some cases, a more reasonable assumption would be that some individuals need to follow the prescribed training blueprint and some do not. Those that do not would include those that have already attained the requisite learning objectives by other means and those that could without following the prescribed training blueprint. Thus, the challenge would be to identify those that don’t need a particular training class before requiring their attendance at the training class.

    What if we borrowed the thinking behind performance-based acquisition and applied it to the training problem (i.e., a “performance specification” training model)? That is, instead of dictating how the workforce is to attain requisite learning objectives, we specify the requisite learning objectives (performance outcomes) and method of assessment, and let the workforce decide how they are going to attain them. Some workforce members may choose a program of self-study, others may study in informal groups, some contracting offices may develop their own ongoing training programs, etc. Still others may choose to follow the existing blueprint of training classes. Regardless of how one attains the requisite learning objectives, all are held to the same standard using the same method of assessment.

    For an illustration of how such a model might look, consider the profession of actuarial science. Beanactuary.org contains the following description:

    Like other top-ranked professions (such as law and medicine), one must pass a set of examinations to achieve professional status as an actuary. Unlike other professions, in actuarial science you’ll have the opportunity to work as an actuary while completing the examination process—employers often allow study time during working hours, pay exam fees, provide internships, and even award raises for each exam passed. Though, to get the best start on a rewarding career, many soon-to-be actuaries begin taking exams while still in college. Of those that do, most achieve associateship in three to five years. All candidates acquire a core set of knowledge from required preliminary exams. The preliminary exams and Validation by Educational Experience requirements are the starting points for an actuarial career.

    To attain an “Associate of the Society of Actuaries” (ASA) designation from the Society of Actuaries, one must pass exams in probability, financial mathematics, models for financial economics, models for life contingencies, and construction and evaluation of actuarial models. In addition, there is one required e-Learning course and a required one-day seminar in professionalism. After attaining the ASA designation, one typically pursues a “Fellow of the Society of Actuaries” (FSA) designation within one of six specialties: corporate finance and enterprise risk management, quantitative finance and investment, individual life and annuities, retirements benefits, group and health, and general insurance. To attain the designation, the FSA candidate must take 3-4 more exams unique to the specialty, complete four e-learning courses, and attend a three-day case-based fellowship admissions course that requires each candidate to deliver an oral presentation on a topic within the field. In case you weren’t keeping track, that’s a total of four days of required attendance in classrooms to achieve the highest designation in the field. In contrast, DoD contract specialists must attend 32 days of classroom training to attain the lowest level of certification.

    What if to attain level 1 certification in contracting, one had to pass exams in, for example: acquisition planning, contracting methods, contract types, socioeconomic programs, and contract administration, and attend a one-day seminar on ethics? After level 1, contract specialists would choose a specialty in which they would pursue Level 2 certification. Specialties would be, for example, major system acquisition, research and development contracting, construction and A/E contracting, service contracting, IT acquisition, acquisition of commercial items, contract administration, etc. To attain Level 2 certification, contract specialists would have to pass a series of exams unique to that specialty. For example, to attain Level 2 certification in service contracting, there would be exams on specification of service requirements, source selection for services, pricing services, and service contract administration. There could also be a Level 2 admissions course where the candidate would have to submit and present a paper on a topic related to their specialty.

    If nothing else, use of the performance specification training model would cost less than the design specification model currently in use. I would go as far as to say that, on the whole, the workforce would be at least as competent as it is now.

    What’s your opinion? We’d like to know.