formerfed

Yes. Many agency policies say files can be sent to storage immediately after closeout. When that happens, the transmittal information to NARS must indicate when the files can be destroyed.

That’s the chief reason from my perspective. I’ll the risk aversion setting people work in contributes. Trying something new and different is a challenge many don’t want to take on. Copying/pasting from prior examples is easier to both do as well as obtaining review boards and legal approval. Then there is the issue of program office managers afraid of not having control. They are used to seeing things like technical approach, management plans, resumes of proposed staff, spending plans, and so on. Those are issue they want to see in proposals and evaluate. They like copy/paste.

Seems to me this LinkedIn post is a way to talk with industry and government experts.

@KevinC the only place I know where that term is used is in the original OMB Circular.

FAA had the authority to start with a clean slate. But the workforce was used to following the FAR. Over time the new FAA system evolved from a fairly streamlined process to what it is today largely because of workforce trial and error. Employees just weren’t comfortable and processes reverted to what everyone was familar with.

Excellent article Matthew. I’ll add my personal perspective. I wholeheartedly agree about proper training and especially for interns/new entrants to the field. Shape them early as well with guidance and assistance. There is a large portion, likely the majority, of career employees that will work out too. Their knowledge and experience will add benefits as well in applying new processes and procedures. But there are some naysayers that can drag the changes down. If they aren’t receptive, let them go because their influence can stymie progress.

Glad to see the variety of methods in the Album, especially one-on-one sessions. This is an extremely powerful tool in understanding the marketplace and crafting a beneficial strategy. In order to market research to achieve its potential, the acquisition workforce needs training and readjustment of its outlook. For a large share, market research is simply issuing an RFI to either support a proposed noncompetitive action or to locate small businesses at insistence of a small business specialist.

I was thinking of Nietzsche when he said “from chaos comes order.”

@Vern Edwards Eventually order happens as chaos diminishes. The reformed process leaves out detail which too many are accustomed to seeing and using as their cookbook. But with time, experience, and examples from the 1102 leaders at each agency actually conducting initial actions, others learn. Yes, I remember the previous chaos. I think I’ve been around even longer than you. Perhaps retrofed is the old timer here and I might be second. I started as an intern with the Army Material Command in August 1970.

I saw online posts from a couple people who I guess are working on the overhaul. Both have solid backgrounds and are knowledgable. Polly Hall has also posted with a title indicating she’s the executive sponsor of at least part of the development. I know her and have the most upmost respect for her expertise and abilities. Regardless of who’s on the team, their work is subject to review by others including the FAR Council. The overall task is monumental. Is the current strategy of just getting something out there quickly, using it immediately, and adjusting as experience is gained and public comment provided after initial implementation wrong? Or is it better to produce something by the very best subject experts over a long period and after receiving, analyzing, and incorporating comments better? I don’t know. But I do know things like this take on a much longer timespan than planned. The first scenario likely will take twice the six month period. The second scenario probably will take several years. Also none of the overhaul will remain static. Changes are a given.

@Don Mansfield Got it. Thanks for clarifying

This is an interesting comparison of FAR part 1 with the replacement deviation version. I know Don did this earlier but it’s easier to post using the GSA site. The new version is roughly 14 pages compared to 45. While some material is new, the replacement wording for the same subject area is succinct. The original demonstrates preparation by committee without involvement of an editor whose job is ensuring conciseness without losing context. I know the strikeout excludes language not required by statue but this still shows how the government loves lots of words.

Gerry Connelly coauthored the Federal Information Technology Acquisition Reform Act (FITARA). Among other things it led to the way Governmentwide Acquisition Contracts (GWACS) are established, appointment of agency CIOs, and requirement for development and approval of business cases before proceeding with new systems. He also was as responsible as anyone for government use of cloud computer and establishment of processes, guides, and training to acquire.

I would contact several PEOs and get their current organization/staffing. You could do an analysis of each matching their roles/commodities against each other, and compare with your new organizations purpose. There’s nothing like talking with those on the ground and getting their experiences and recommendations.

Good yet slightly different view from LinkedIn. I really like her perspective on mission first and time matters. This will be a shocking awaking for those that are hesitant to do things quickly and want to be absolutely sure everything is perfect before proceeding. Mission First, Time Matters: No...Mission First, Time Matters: No More Hiding Behind the RulesLet's be honest: when you hear " Revolutionary FAR Overhaul," (RFO) does your heart sink a little? We've all been promised simpler, faster, better acquisition processes before, only to be met with...