formerfed

In my last government job, we asked each employee to submit a list of contracting topics or subjects they didn’t fully understand or just wanted more training on. We complied the results and identified 16 topics. An outside trainer came in every two weeks to cover each topic. Most were a two hour duration but a few went three or even four hours if needed. What made it successful is employees decided what training they want rather than training being dictated to them.

There is no better advice anywhere. Leverage the impact of AI instead of dreading or downplaying the significance to our field. But those who are prepared won’t lose.

But a contracting office does. If they don’t have it, that’s a sign management doesn’t care.

He’s absolutely right. What’s needed for contracting is a brief rulebook containing statutory and other requirements to follow. Then empower the workforce to carry out the contracting functions with minimal oversight. At the same time, hold those employees accountable. Reward those that succeed in achieving core objectives and showcase their examples as means for career advancement. On the other hand, provide severe consequences for poor performance that fails to produce. It’s important to recognize that detailed regulations, procedures, and processes exist because of blunders. It’s time to accept that, throw away bureaucratic rules, and empower people to produce results. The cream will rise to the surface, so to speak, and what settles in the bottom get reassigned somewhere else.

I know. AI needs Vern’s input to become better. But in looking for an answer to Vern’s question earlier, here’s the complete response from Claude.

I asked AI about the UCF placement. It said UCF instructs on the process of preparing solicitations and contracts and belongs in part 15 as well as 14. Part 4 addresses administrative matters. That’s similar to what three different AI tools said. I guess that answer is reasonable. In reality, I just bet the RFO group didn’t think about it.

The chaos likely results from contract writing systems not being up to date with RFO. Few people now can prepare a solicitation or contract without technological help. They just don’t know where to go for guidance, cut and paste, or just copying so they wing it.

This brings back memories of my intern days with the Army. The program I worked on competed ammunition contracts among mobilization base producers. The most favorable price proposal received awards for greater quantities than the others. One company submitted a really low price offer. When questioned, they planned on introducing new machinery and testing equipment for efficiencies. However, the result was their new production process didn’t work, they fell way behind in deliveries, and we ended up terminating for default. The subsequent reprocurement action with charging for excess procurement costs ended up bankrupting the contractor. The contractor appealed to the ASBCA but ended up losing.

@Retreadfed Not answering for Vern but here are a couple examples of performance restrictions. I’m aware of this from a lengthy discussion years ago about why a long specification was needed for chocolate chip cookies. I think the question is do these limitations make for non-commercial services? https://www.med.navy.mil/Portals/62/Documents/NMFSC/NMOTC/SWMI/OPMED/TSFC_IDC_Symposium_May2013.pptx?ver=nOsuhF50OF0LwxC3lCOcIQ%3D%3D

Here’s the clincher in determining non-commercial -“…outcomes to be achieved and under standard commercial terms and conditions…”

Vern, I think you attached the wrong decision.

From what I’ve seen in either leading or providing support to teams reviewing the contracting functions at perhaps 20 offices, the problem you describe at USACE is widespread. But I need to qualify this statement by saying the 20 or so reviews were done at requests of senior agency personnel (SPE, CAO, CFO, Assistant Secretary, etc.) who likely suspected problems and needed verification that issues indeed exists. In any event, multiple interviews with program offices disclosed several issues - contracting personnel didn’t provide much guidance in preparing source selection plans or assistance with evaluations, contracting personnel tried to avoid discussions, and contracting personnel said to hold off making changes to technical issues until after contract award to the successful offeror. In addition, program office staff were requested to conduct price analysis instead of the contract specialist using program knowledge of the marketplace.

So true.

@Mike Twardoski I ran across this article by Steve Kelman. While it doesn’t address your issue of whether we are set up for success this time, it provides good insight of what transpired over the last three decades. https://www.publicspendforum.net/blogs/steven-kelman/2017/12/06/reinventing-government-public-procurement/