Jump to content

Magic Wand


BrettK

Recommended Posts

11 hours ago, Self Employed said:

I don't think it's controversial to suggest that technology will continue to automate the career field, or suggest that system advances could vastly reduce workload and eliminate additional bloat in our O&M budget. Folks will need to embrace it or go the way of the dodo.

Have you considered that systems can debase professional knowledge and standards? Consider your example of CLS - those who only utilize it rarely if ever have to crack open the FAR to read, understand, and apply solicitation/clause prescriptions. One day those individuals who have only used CLS will be in charge of writing future solicitation/clause prescriptions - how effective will they be when their only experience is answering "simplified" questions from CLS?

Those placing too much of their faith in technology as their savior will be the flightless birds, not those who make the effort to develop their professional competency.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 121
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

@Matthew FlehartyI will refer to big Technology and little technology. By Technology I mean the application of science and engineering to practical purposes. By technology I mean specific applications of it, like CLS.

I think Technology can be very useful to the workforce in its performance of mundane tasks like building the clause set for a specific contract. That is a tedious and time-consuming task that requires little professional know-how, but broad familiarity with the FAR. That's why OPM's position classification standard assigns that duty to GS-1106 procurement clerks. The apparent problem with technology like CLS is that the government has not been highly competent at choosing and managing contractors to develop technology applications for administrative work.

AI, machine learning, robotic process implementation, natural language processing, etc., seem to have great promise in application to mundane administrative tasks. See the current issue of Contract Management magazine. But only time will tell how effectively the government can develop and use it for those purposes. I have tried some such technologies, like dictation in MS Word, and I have spent as much time as I have saved correcting errors. I have breached my Technology Annoyance Threshold (TAT) so many times that I have come close to throwing some of my  "devices" into a septic tank. But that's largely due to my incompetence.

The thing about technology is that its effective use requires know-how and proficiency. Which is probably why I have to hand my phone to one of my grandsons to figure out how to do or undo something. When it comes to learning such stuff, my mind is elsewhere. I'm just not interested.

No one is (yet) talking about the application of Technology to developing the custom content of solicitations and contracts: requirements documents, CLINs, special clauses, proposal preparation instructions, and evaluation factors. That's the interesting work. The good stuff. The fun stuff. The work 1102s should be doing. The stuff that requires career-long study and skills development. But management has chosen to burden them with the mundane tasks, and has given them too many poorly-designed "tools" for those purposes. But even if the tools get better, first-rate 1102s should not be using them. It would be like sending an F-22 to take out a balloon.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not going to answer that in a forum like this, @Vern Edwards!  What I will say is, once I truly placed monotheistic undertones on everything I did - just as the Founding Fathers did - studies no longer felt like work to me.  My continuing education on my own time is filling in the gaps that my secular education failed to fill, and it just makes everything else - from CLIN crafting to business acumen - seem so much easier, you know?  Maybe you don't.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 hours ago, Vern Edwards said:

"Playing at semantics" is the last refuge of a question-evader without an argument. If a rule does not implement a statute, the agency that promulgated it can change it at will, without congressional authorization.

What, specifically, am I supposed to see in 44 USC Public Printing and Documents, Ch. 15, Federal Register and Code of Federal Regulations?

Self Employed, you are dodging my questions. Spending any more time on you in this thread would only let you bask in the sun for a while longer.

We're done. Talk to 

.

 

I was unaware that the purpose of this thread was to flesh out your next article.

So long as the rule is in the CFR, it must be obeyed -- no matter how silly, statute or not. You asked who is responsible for a myriad number of problems and I provided an answer that you did not like. Whether Congress or its creation, the Federal Register -- someone will have to do something to eliminate the rule.

As for articulating your viewpoint or you agreeing with mine, I can't help you there.

If the gesticulating is done, all the better.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 hours ago, Matthew Fleharty said:

Have you considered that systems can debase professional knowledge and standards? Consider your example of CLS - those who only utilize it rarely if ever have to crack open the FAR to read, understand, and apply solicitation/clause prescriptions. One day those individuals who have only used CLS will be in charge of writing future solicitation/clause prescriptions - how effective will they be when their only experience is answering "simplified" questions from CLS?

Those placing too much of their faith in technology as their savior will be the flightless birds, not those who make the effort to develop their professional competency.

I have -- and acting with the knowledge that professional standards have recently been lowered -- I have also considered that those in charge do not value it. I am sure there is a litany of policy examples and considerations for anyone responsible for writing their own H Clause, for example -- who have never considered or researched the subject until absolutely necessary.

Somehow, some way -- the world keeps spinning.

I make no commentary on whether it is a good or bad thing, only that it is.

One can exclaim that to be a cop out, but frankly -- what I think about it doesn't matter. For it is not a matter of opinion, but a reality that those in charge of determining professional standards find acceptable.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 hours ago, Matthew Fleharty said:

Have you considered that systems can debase professional knowledge and standards?

 

8 minutes ago, Self Employed said:

I have -- and acting with the knowledge that professional standards have recently been lowered -- I have also considered that those in charge do not value it. 

@Self EmployedThat's a comment with which I agree completely, on the basis of their deeds, not their words.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Vern Edwards said:

No one is (yet) talking about the application of Technology to developing the custom content of solicitations and contracts: requirements documents, CLINs, special clauses, proposal preparation instructions, and evaluation factors. That's the interesting work. The good stuff. The fun stuff. The work 1102s should be doing. The stuff that requires career-long study and skills development. But management has chosen to burden them with the mundane tasks, and has given them too many poorly-designed "tools" for those purposes. But even if the tools get better, first-rate 1102s should not be using them. It would be like sending an F-22 to take out a balloon.

I did hear at least one agency doing something like this.  The thinking is categorize things like requirements documents, CLINs, special clauses, proposal preparation instructions, and evaluation factors by commodities from all over the government.  The examples would be reviewed by a panel of knowledgeable 1102s who rate and only include the best.  Then when a new acquisition begins, a system can provide suggestions from prior efforts.  When I heard details, it sounded promising until I realized it would takes years to develop something meaningful.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Self Employed said:

I have -- and acting with the knowledge that professional standards have recently been lowered -- I have also considered that those in charge do not value it.

To anyone reading this, that does not mean you have to follow blindly - if what senior officials want or value is wrong, don’t just give it to them - be bold enough to still do the right thing. Set higher professional standards at your level and lead those around you - I know from experience that many are eager for leadership that cares about them and will strive for more.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Vern Edwards said:

@formerfed

What you described is nothing but high-tech cut-and-paste! 

What agency is that? Please tell us, unless you signed a nondisclosure agreement. Please! I want to know more!

Vern,

I can’t remember for certain and don’t want to be wrong in identifying.  I quickly searched and couldn’t find the article that caught my attention.  I’ll ask around tomorrow

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 2/14/2023 at 5:55 PM, Matthew Fleharty said:

To anyone reading this, that does not mean you have to follow blindly - if what senior officials want or value is wrong, don’t just give it to them - be bold enough to still do the right thing.

One problem seems to be getting agreement on what is right and what is wrong? Is there a universal truth, concept or principle you would offer? A balancing test?

Some sources suggest there are more than 3,000 statutes that affect government contracting. Is it right to have acquisitions gridlock unless the contracting officer ensures that all requirements of law, executive orders, regulations, and all other applicable procedures, including clearances and approvals, have been met? I presume you would say ‘no.’

Now, the FAR states that the Federal Acquisition System will “[s]atisfy the customer in terms of cost, quality, and timeliness of the delivered product or service.” Here, “the principal customers for the product or service provided by the System are the users and line managers, acting on behalf of the American taxpayer.” Moreover, “[t]he System must be responsive and adaptive to customer needs, concerns, and feedback.” So, is it right to sacrifice ‘compliance’ for ‘timeliness?’

Finally, is it wrong to promulgate rules, regulations, and policies (including administrative processes and reviews) if their benefits do not clearly exceed the costs of their development, implementation, administration, and enforcement? Would it be wrong for contracting professionals to follow such rules?

I think a significant problem in government contracting is getting agencies and activities to agree upon what is right and wrong. There are competing interests and myriad opinions regarding right and wrong in virtually every acquisition. Just follow any agency requirement from idea to outcome for examples. Thus, telling people to do the right thing should include an explanation of what the right thing is. Most people are already trying to do the right thing, but they are being told they’re wrong (by reviewers, approvers, decision-makers, GAO, COFC, ASBCA, etc.).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Quote

I think a significant problem in government contracting is getting agencies and activities to agree upon what is right and wrong. There are competing interests and myriad opinions regarding right and wrong in virtually every acquisition. Just follow any agency requirement from idea to outcome for examples. Thus, telling people to do the right thing should include an explanation of what the right thing is. Most people are already trying to do the right thing, but they are being told they’re wrong (by reviewers, approvers, decision-makers, GAO, COFC, ASBCA, etc.).

Interesting and valid perspective.  In addition there usually are multiple means to acquire needed supplies and services.  The selected acquisition approach often is chosen for the wrong reasons. More importantly the contracting function isn’t brought into program office planning until it’s usually too late to provide meaningful input and influence the acquisition method.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Jamaal Valentine I think you’re taking my words out of context (it’s telling that you only quoted half of my statement in that post) - I’m not arguing that individuals disobey rules and regulations. My comments were in response to what seemed like a notion that one should simply throw in the towel on encouraging professional development because officials have reduced the certification standards. Recommend you go back and read the entire conversation so you have the complete context.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Matthew Fleharty I don’t think I’m taking your words out of context. I was not suggesting that you were arguing for individuals to disobey anything. Rather you seemed to be asserting that contracting requires professional judgment appropriate to the specific acquisition situation.

Here, you asked Self Employed if they “…considered that systems can debase professional knowledge and standards?” Self Employed stated “I have -- and acting with the knowledge that professional standards have recently been lowered -- I have also considered that those in charge do not value it.”

Now, presumably, the discussion is about professional standards. This presumption aligns with your full quote:

To anyone reading this, that does not mean you have to follow blindly - if what senior officials want or value is wrong, don’t just give it to them - be bold enough to still do the right thing. Set higher professional standards at your level and lead those around you - I know from experience that many are eager for leadership that cares about them and will strive for more.”

The performance standards I listed are interrelated to the professional standards being discussed. So, if you are specifically arguing that people shouldn’t blindly follow the professional standards senior officials want or value and should be bold enough to do the right thing my questions remain - what is right and what is wrong? Is there a universal truth, concept or principle you would offer? A balancing test?

I know you have great experiences and solid ideas about professional standards. Your call to action is bold, but what do you mean in stating that individuals should still do the right thing if what senior officials want or value is wrong mean? Can you give an example of senior officials wanting or valuing the wrong professional standards?

 The only question I really care for you to answer is this: what does being bold enough to still do the right thing mean, to you, in context? That will identify how readers can support your call to action.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Jamaal Valentine The search for any universal truth is beyond my expertise and contexts differ from situation to situation. Professionals need to be comfortable thinking through a situation for themselves and responding accordingly. What you're asking me for is a "cut and paste" approach and that doesn't exist. What I did in one situation likely won't work in other situations. Assess the environment, think things through, and do your best. You may think that's a dodge - I think that's reality.

I will provide one example from my experiences to illustrate: when I had the opportunity to lead a contracting squadron, we went beyond the required DAU curriculum and CLPs. One way we did this was we brought the FAR Bootcamp and Source Selection Bootcamp there so both our less experienced and more experienced individuals could experience some robust professional development. Even though many of them probably didn't appreciate the challenge while they were in the midst of it, after it was over and they realized how much they learned they were (mostly) grateful for the opportunity. There was no requirement for those Bootcamps - but I personally felt an obligation to take care of our team and I felt that included their professional development. Would I take that same approach next time I have the opportunity to command? Maybe or maybe not - if the people in the next squadron have already been through the Bootcamps merely recycling that action would not be the right thing to do. I'll have to assess the situation, think about it, and make the best decision I can when I get there. You and others will have to do the same with the situations you face - best of luck.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Matthew Fleharty you seem to have misunderstood or intentionally mischaracterized my request about concepts and principles. It seems you think, or want people to believe, those things are simply cut and paste approaches. That’s interesting since the courses you mentioned seek to impart principles and we both know the creator’s thoughts on ‘cut and paste’ approaches.

Nonetheless, your response is not a dodge. In fact, it’s a sound concept, which is something I asked about. I’m not sure that it is as bold as your call to action, but I get it. (On balance, give senior officials what they value and want, but don’t be limited by it.)


~Cheers

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"Like" button.  Now see Ex 18:13-26.

I cannot imagine how hard it must be to use reason to mandate contract training for hundreds of thousands of acquisition professionals.  Sure, mandate anti-human trafficking training, but subcontract training?  Subcontracts for what?  This is not a new lesson: that people should judge matters in a hierarchical structure, lest they wear themselves out and be poor judges.  Let the harder problems trickle up to the better judges.  Let the limited warrants be given out in a manner tailored to your office's purchases, reasoned by dollar value and complexity.  Let the training be done by the supervisors, and the training those supervisors cannot do be done by the office Policy Chiefs.

Don't try to be Pharaoh.  And don't start all over deconstructing the ways of Moses.

What I am describing is certainly "hard work" for supervisors.  A.I. can and should free up our judgment so it can do the hard work of reasoning.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...