formerfed

I know of one office that tried it and gave up in a short time. Besides of all the work setting it up, companies that didn’t make the cut kept coming back saying they fixed items they were dinged on. Then a few new ones showed up and complained to Congressional reps they weren’t allowed in and were better qualified than some that were. And no, it wasn’t me that tried it 😄

Many offices need several COs to do high volume, routine tasks like signing orders and simple contract modifications. That takes much of the signing workload off the senior experienced COs and these type warrants should have very limited monetary authority. But I agree warrants for high dollar value or unlimited should be “special.” In fact if we ever got significant changes like we are talking about, it’s going to take a rare breed of COs to make it work. OTAs are a prime example. The concept is important to make the acquisition responsive to today’s defense needs. But it also is

I meant that jokingly. I should have used a smiley emoji

Stay tuned? For how long? 😂 This was part of the 2017 NDAA from December 2016 I think. So 4.5 years later the DFARS council can’t incorporate something by now?

You mean specification and not SOW

I personally don’t see most of the current 1102 workforce doing things much differently even with more flexibility. Look at all the GSA Schedule buys that follow FAR 15 procedures. Or advertising proposed GSA Schedule actions on eBuy so all of the hundreds of contract holders can participate even though rules say you need need to solicit enough to reasonably ensure three responses. Then there are people doing commercial buys using RFPs when FAR 13 is allowed. Even some potentially fruitful things like IDIQ contracts get screwed up because of misuse and abuse. So now there’s fair opportuni

This is from the Patent and Trademark Office. It’s an alternative to full and open competition where the CO and program office decide on participants based on personal knowledge of the marketplace

Joel, negotiate to obtain the most favorable deal you can. The current rules on things like communicating weaknesses in total, establishing a competitive range, and having a common cutoff date for concluding discussions don’t make sound business sense. Take a look at this first decision as an example http://wifcon.com/pd15306d3.htm

@Vern Edwards Excellent ideas. Decisions like this on competition and what’s best for the government should be entrusted to Contracting Officers with input from program managers and legal advisors. Another thing, when discussions are held in a competitive environment, common sense rules should prevail to obtain the best deal for the government and not the arcane procedures we have now.

A big part of reform is simplifying things. That includes eliminating unnecessary documentation. If the rule is full and open competition, no need for justification unless you are taking an exception. If someone is restricting competition, CICA or otherwise, the rational needs explained. Contracting people aren’t good about explaining in file documentation why certain actions are taken. Thus the reason for forms like JOAFC and D&Fs.

Isn’t that somewhat contradictory to the logic of not requiring D&Fs when the rational is self-evident?

Sure. Providing all the information the government reasonably has available usually works. But sometimes saying $1 million is all we have is a prudent choice. I know of an agency studying climate change on coastal flooding. They wanted a contractor to do the analysis. The agency felt a Government estimate would be misleading because they knew academia and some nonprofits already had models for this. But they also knew some experts they were interested in weren’t associated with tools like that and would do the work relying upon their expertise and experience. They wanted the most they c

I only see need for divulging estimates when there’s nothing else to let offerors know limits or boundaries. Recurring or one time services can be easy - just include the government LOE. Or show historical cost data. Or disclose workload data. But if none of that exists, what’s the alternative?

Good article and definately pertinent and approximate when I started in this field. But the role and responsibilities have changed over time. When this article was written, COs pretty much have sole responsibility for contract award. Outside of major systems and R&D, most contracts were awarded solely on price based on offeror compliance with specifications and/or statements of work. Sealed bidding was the required method of award unless an exception for negotiation applied. Contractors and government worked at arms length and collaboration wasn’t as common. Now COs often as view

I meant companies doing work at an agency and not necessarily incumbents. They get to better understand the agency culture, working environment, perspectives, details of mission needs, funding, etc. They are able to posture themselves to win over outside companies.