Magic Wand

[Self Employed]

3 hours ago, Matthew Fleharty said:

Have you used the Clause Logic System (CLS)? There is nothing "AI" or automated about it - CLS merely generates clauses based on answers to questions from users - and even that it does poorly. I saw a report that in a single month, thousands of clauses generated by CLS were deleted because the user determined they did not apply. It clearly cannot teach itself to correct its mistakes.

Further, CLS is not "fast" - it takes considerably more time than mere minutes. I sat with users going through CLS's required question and answer process numerous times. For even a simple commodity contract, if my memory serves me correctly, CLS required over 60 questions that took an experienced user over an hour to answer - I must note, this process would have been faster if users were allowed to use their professional judgment instead and choose clauses outside of CLS.

Fast and easy? CLS is anything but.

CLS is a first step.

I have used it, and most policy shops will credit it for ensuring more required clauses are included than those are left off.

Once there is an appropriate way to input more nuance I do believe it will save time for most CO's moving forward. It's just one example of the powers that be trying to generate a system of sort where the "clerk," portion of acquisition VE speaks of is reduced to a few clicks of a button. 

CLS is also editable. I can add clauses (and having been one of the first users in CON-IT when it was launched am very familiar with the limitations of CLS in CON-IT,) I can manually insert clauses as necessary. I can delete clauses that CLS insists I need that I know I do not.

Yes -- it's not anywhere near perfect, but the approach is not new, only the software. 

 

CON-IT is a completely different product than three years ago, and is still imperfect. I helped correct an issue regarding Basic Ordering Agreements that was a holdover from lazy copypasta code for IDIQ's two weeks ago. However, it gets better every day. I think it's fair to suggest in twenty years there will be something like CLS with much better quality and aspects of AI that will ensure compliance and provide CO flexibility as required. It's already there, just have to work a little bit harder for now.

[Self Employed]

7 hours ago, Vern Edwards said:

Think about the phrase "create a contract."

Self Employed should not have started out with his sentence about "creat[ing] a contract... in minutes." To create means "to bring into being." What Self Employed called "creat[ing] a contract" and "the physical act of cranking out a contract in a contract writing system" are little more than document assembly based on FAR prescriptions.

I don't have a problem with the use of what he calls "artificial intelligence" to do that work. But that is factory floor stuff. It should not be 1102 work in the first place. That is in the procurement clerk job description.

I recommended hiring procurement clerks or technicians to do the grunt work. If all Self Employed is saying is that AI contract writing systems eliminate any need for procurement clerks and technicians to do simple work, then I may have overreacted to "create a contract from start to finish in CON-IT in minutes."

But to the extent that Self Employed may have conflated the complex act of "creating" a contract, as I described it in my last post𑁋the process of contract planning and contract formation𑁋with the simple work of assembling boilerplate and processing documents and transactions electronically, I think he is another victim of poor workforce education. Moreover, the production of some parts of a contract document𑁋such as line items, specifications, statements of work, and special clauses𑁋require considerable thought and creativity, and I am not aware of any contract writing systems that can create them.

You might be able to assemble a contract document in minutes, but you cannot create a government contract in minutes. Self Employed should have chosen his words more carefully.

 

Seems a bit pedantic but we got there!

 

[Self Employed]

17 hours ago, WifWaf said:

Whoosh.

I’m getting a second-hand blood pressure spike here, Vern.  The deconstructionist mindset has infiltrated every aspect of America.

@Self Employed I think he’s saying you should get paid to log hours researching GAO cases, claims court cases, contract formation treatises, and especially the contract administration lessons from Cibinic, Nash, and Nagle.  Would you like a job where half the time that was your duty?  I would.  Because then the other half of my time, working onsite with a contractor to not repeat the history of mistakes I just read about, would be much more natural and very fulfilling.  Every professional knows there’s research and then there’s application.  A mind entrusted with hundreds of millions of dollars in systems contracting needs to practice both.

But unfortunately for us, AFMC doesn't instill that desire in Jump Start.  I was open to it by revering history going into this career field.  I only began to understand its necessity, though, by moving around and maturing, not being too set in my initially formed ways.

 

Porque no los dos?

Value is in the eye of the beholder. Execution is valued over expertise. 1102's can grumble but a program office or customer whose MPCN you may reside on cares only about the execution of their program. Most probably care about schedule more than a creative way to identify and execute requirements. Expedience is valued over artfulness. They can co-exist, but it's very clear from senior leaders and the IT systems they are producing that technology will continue to augment the 1102 workforce for execution purposes. Regarding research I believe the career field is far too vast and subjects too vapid for most to truly retain information in anything other than a just-in-time fashion. Did you enjoy the recent mandatory subcontracting training? Take a look at USAF's Acquisition FB page and the public willingness of 1102's to mock it. Is that a willingness to learn problem, a hiring problem, a training problem - or is it the material?

 

You are correct in that someone will pay for the lack of training/and knowledge, but from the direction the career field is moving that is a price that is willing to be paid for execution.

 

 

[Vern Edwards]

8 minutes ago, Self Employed said:

Execution is valued over expertise.

Yes, until execution leads to failure mode.

[Self Employed]

20 minutes ago, Vern Edwards said:

Yes, until execution leads to failure mode. Then the people in charge look for experts.

Then who is to blame?  

This is how we end up with blanket service training requirements on subcontracting. 500+ slides and a 20 question quiz on a subject most 1102's may never touch in their career. A true failure -- a CO or PM might move from one office to another, or receive a verbal or written admonishment -- there is no true accountability. Bad press might welcome congressional oversight but even that fades. The blame is peanut-butter spread, someone receives a bullet for creating a new MyTraining module, no one questions JA/policy/clearance authorities and life moves on.

There is no incentive for Joe-Buyer/CO to design creative ordering procedures of a multiple award IDIQ that will lead to expedited ordering, there is only the looming threat/shadow of PALT tracking of the original requirement.

I truly do enjoy reading these forums (and have learned quite a bit, especially from yourself,) to help gain an understanding on an acquisition problem. I would like to believe my fellow 1102's enjoy parsing the intent of Congress when they add a new regulation, enjoy having 3-4 monitors up parsing different GAO cases to understand certain problems better. However, the reality is that with the expectation the workforce focus firmly towards execution our philosopher acqui-kings are similarly a thinning breed. Our senior leaders have either made the decision to willingly bake those failures into the cost of acquisition (see: reduced requirements for 1102's in new certification program,) or have by default through inaction made that inevitability a fait accompli.

I feel as if I can yell at clouds or focus on the magic wands that seem achievable and even desired by senior leadership.

[WifWaf]

I haven't been on base for many years, but when I was, I never knew I was actually being neglected by my managers, because I was a people-pleaser.  Have a look through this thread when you have time to read all of it:

For now, I have no more than a general couple of words to contribute to the above discussion (hoping you're willing to receive it).  Deconstruction of the past is not the way the American Experiment in individual self-governance will continue.  If you submit to anything in life, let it only be in line with your highest calling.  Think very hard about what that highest calling is for federal employees.  You likely made it on your first day on the job, in Bldg. 2, like I did.

We are called to the Constitution before even we are called to the Executive Branch and its blasted OPM position description that fails to classify the 1102 as a professional!  That means it's self-study in off-duty hours, for me.

[Vern Edwards]

24 minutes ago, Self Employed said:

Then who is to blame?  

There are two categories of culprits.

The first are the managers who don't train and prepare their workforce. The second are the COs who don't understand the true nature of their work.

[Matthew Fleharty]

1 hour ago, Self Employed said:

CLS is a first step.

I have used it, and most policy shops will credit it for ensuring more required clauses are included than those are left off.

Once there is an appropriate way to input more nuance I do believe it will save time for most CO's moving forward. It's just one example of the powers that be trying to generate a system of sort where the "clerk," portion of acquisition VE speaks of is reduced to a few clicks of a button. 

CLS is also editable. I can add clauses (and having been one of the first users in CON-IT when it was launched am very familiar with the limitations of CLS in CON-IT,) I can manually insert clauses as necessary. I can delete clauses that CLS insists I need that I know I do not.

Yes -- it's not anywhere near perfect, but the approach is not new, only the software. 

 

CON-IT is a completely different product than three years ago, and is still imperfect. I helped correct an issue regarding Basic Ordering Agreements that was a holdover from lazy copypasta code for IDIQ's two weeks ago. However, it gets better every day. I think it's fair to suggest in twenty years there will be something like CLS with much better quality and aspects of AI that will ensure compliance and provide CO flexibility as required. It's already there, just have to work a little bit harder for now.

A first step towards what? AI clause generation? CLS has been around since I entered the career field in 2009 and is not much better now than it was then.

It's interesting watching your comments pivot - previously you mentioned you could write a contract in mere minutes, but when I explained that CLS alone takes almost an hour, you merely claim that eventually "it will save time for most CO's moving forward." I think that is wishful thinking (especially because there is no explanation of how that will happen - what is this "more appropriate way to input more nuance"?).

It's a shame to think that the systems will save us - they won't - the path to professionalism in this career field is through self-study and hard work. No contract writing system can substitute for professional competence. Admiral Rickover once said "Organizations don't get things done. Plans and programs don't get things done. Only people get things done. Organizations, plans, and programs either help or hinder people." I have seen good, hardworking professionals overcoming bad plans, programs, and systems - what I have not seen are individuals who are the opposite do well even with good plans, programs, and systems. You can focus on magic wands if you like - but I think our profession would be better off if we spent more resources on mentoring and educating people.

[WifWaf]

32 minutes ago, Matthew Fleharty said:

the path to professionalism in this career field is through self-study and hard work.

It's funny you separate those two, Matthew, because you know what I'm finding after enough serious commitment?  Self-study (research) isn't hard work anymore.  Hard work is in the application of the research.

[Matthew Fleharty]

@WifWaf I agree - we should find joy in learning  

Let’s not kid ourselves either - sometimes learning is difficult. But we shouldn’t shy away from learning when it is tough - in fact, that’s probably a sign we should embrace it because that’s likely the type of learning we need to do to grow.

[Self Employed]

4 hours ago, Matthew Fleharty said:

A first step towards what? AI clause generation? CLS has been around since I entered the career field in 2009 and is not much better now than it was then.

It's interesting watching your comments pivot - previously you mentioned you could write a contract in mere minutes, but when I explained that CLS alone takes almost an hour, you merely claim that eventually "it will save time for most CO's moving forward." I think that is wishful thinking (especially because there is no explanation of how that will happen - what is this "more appropriate way to input more nuance"?).

It's a shame to think that the systems will save us - they won't - the path to professionalism in this career field is through self-study and hard work. No contract writing system can substitute for professional competence. Admiral Rickover once said "Organizations don't get things done. Plans and programs don't get things done. Only people get things done. Organizations, plans, and programs either help or hinder people." I have seen good, hardworking professionals overcoming bad plans, programs, and systems - what I have not seen are individuals who are the opposite do well even with good plans, programs, and systems. You can focus on magic wands if you like - but I think our profession would be better off if we spent more resources on mentoring and educating people.

 

If you have already generated your solicitation with CLS you needn't re-create the wheel. You simply utilize the clauses issued with the solicitation, or take the twenty seconds to modify them within the contract writing system post-solicitation. I don't know why you're trying to play "gotcha." Creating an award in CON-IT takes minutes with any limited amount of experience and competence. There is no reason to think that CLS or even WAWF can't be augmented by artificial intelligence to better understand a given requirement and increasingly accurately assign clauses and/or invoicing -- eliminating even more clerical work.

 

People are already being replaced in warfare, work will be no different.

Embrace the golden age when our abilities are augmented instead of outright replaced -- cherish this time for the career field for we too will become a horse and go the way of the procurement technician some day.

After all, Clausewitz could say anything he wished -- it wouldn't save him from an AGM 129A/JASSM today.

[Self Employed]

3 hours ago, Vern Edwards said:

There are two categories of culprits.

The first are the managers who don't train and prepare their workforce. The second are the COs who don't understand the true nature of their work.

 

If the former degrade certification standards and de-emphasizes the knowledge you speak of, and the latter perform to expectations set for them -- perhaps the problem may not exist at all and the system is working as intended.

[Vern Edwards]

13 minutes ago, Self Employed said:

If the former degrade certification standards and de-emphasizes the knowledge you speak of, and the latter perform to expectations set for them -- perhaps the problem may not exist at all and the system is working as intended.

Who would intend it to work that way?

Would it be an intentional result or the result of incompetence?

The twenty-year disagreement over the proper interpretation of FAR 52.215-1(c)(3)(ii)(A)(2), the failure of the FAR councils to edit the rule for clarity, and the failure of COs to include prophylactic instructions in their RFPs is costing government and industry a lot of money and acquisition delays. Do you think it's intentional? On whose part?

[Self Employed]

15 minutes ago, Vern Edwards said:

Intended by whom?

Congress sets the rules save for NAF. I believe our acquisition standards are codified in CFR 41 U.S.C. 433 (except for DoD), are they not? I have a heavy DoD bias, so it is also wonderous to see how corporate lobbying is doing every year in the annual NDAA. If you design the system and tailor the rules of the game for both USG/KTR, perhaps they are most responsible for the system and how it functions.

 

[Vern Edwards]

If in responding to you I ask you a question and you don't answer or say you don't know, then I won't respond to your posts anymore.

Are you suggesting that Congress is to blame?

Is the rule at FAR 52.215-1(c)(3)(ii)(A)(2) statutory?

Could AI fix the problem?

[Self Employed]

15 minutes ago, Vern Edwards said:

If in responding to you I ask you a question and you don't answer or say you don't know, then I won't respond to your posts anymore.

You suggest Congress is to blame. Is the rule at FAR 52.215-1(c)(3)(ii)(A)(2) statutory?

Perhaps if you hadn't modified your post from what I quoted to its current form while responding it would've been answered it in its entirety.

 

The rule is codified in Title 48, Chapter 1, Subchapter H, Part 52. It has been modified several times for various reasons.

see: [62 FR 51259, Sept. 30, 1997; 64 FR 51841, Sept. 24, 1999, as amended at 64 FR 72433, 72451, Dec. 27, 1999; 66 FR 2135, Jan. 10, 2001; 68 FR 69258, Dec. 11, 2003; 82 FR 4715, Jan. 13, 2017; 86 FR 61034, Nov. 4, 2021]

 

I see no reason why Congress could not settle the question you pose, given it has the capacity to do so. If a system enables an entity to set and modify the rules, and it refuses to do so -- perhaps the entity responsible for the system and its changes should be assigned blame, no?

 

The FAR council is created via Auth of Title 41, Ch 7, Section 421. 

 

Congress.

 

 

[Vern Edwards]

3 minutes ago, Self Employed said:

Perhaps if you hadn't modified your post from what I quoted to its current form while responding it would've answered it in its entirety.

Sorry. I always edit my posts for clarity. I usually don't become engaged in active and ongoing back and forth. I apologize.

You don't need to provide me with the codification of the rule. I have written about it many times, and I will have a new article out about it next month.

The rule is not statutory. Do you want Congress to make it so?

Do you think Congress understands the issues? 

Do you?

[Self Employed]

1 minute ago, Vern Edwards said:

Sorry. I always edit my posts for clarity. I usually don't become engaged in active and ongoing back and forth. I apologize.

You don't need to provide me with the codification of the rule. I have written about it many times, and I will have a new article out about it next month.

The rule is not statutory. Do you want Congress to make it so?

Do you think Congress understands the issues? 

Do you?

I do the same. That's the fun of internet forums, after all.

I think we're at a philosophical point of inflection regarding whether it needs to understand the issue to be responsible for its action or lack there of.

[Vern Edwards]

Just now, Self Employed said:

I think we're at a philosophical point of whether it needs to understand the issue to be responsible.

Huh?
You want to try that sentence again?

[Self Employed]

3 minutes ago, Vern Edwards said:

Huh?
You want to try that sentence again?

If I have to wait 10 minutes to respond until you've edited your posts completely, perhaps you can allow me one minute.

[Vern Edwards]

Roger. Wilco.

[Self Employed]

How do you find that the rule is not statutory if it is contained within the CFR? (Assuming clause is applicable, and so forth.)

[Vern Edwards]

16 minutes ago, Self Employed said:

How do you find that the rule is not statutory if it is contained within the CFR? (Assuming clause is applicable, and so forth.)

Wow. I'm a little shocked by that question.

Statutes (laws) enacted by Congress are in the United States Code.

The Code of Federal Regulations contains "rules" promulgated by agencies.

Many rules implement statute, but many do not. While many rules have "the force and effect of law," many do not. You can usually tell when a rule implements statute, because the FAR cites the statute that is being implemented. See, for instance, FAR 19.502-4(a):

Quote

 

(a) In accordance with section 1331 of the Small Business Jobs Act of 2010 ( 15 U.S.C. 644(r)(1)), contracting officers may, at their discretion, set aside a portion or portions of a multiple-award contract, except for construction, for any of the small business concerns identified at 19.000(a)(3) when—

           (1) Market research indicates that a total set-aside is not appropriate (see 19.502-2);

           (2) The requirement can be divided into distinct portions;

           (3) The acquisition is not subject to simplified acquisition procedures;

           (4) Two or more responsible small business concerns are reasonably expected to submit an offer on the set-aside portion or portions of the acquisition that are competitive in terms of fair market prices, quality, and delivery; and

           (5) The specific program eligibility requirements identified in this part apply.

 

The late proposal "rule" in 48 CFR 15.208 and 52.215-1 does not implement statute. It is the product of policy, not congressional enactment.

That's how I find the rule to not be statutory.

[Self Employed]

If the "rules," or regulations of the CFR are as legally binding as any statute (which they are,) we're playing at semantics, no? You could say it's not Congress' responsibility, it's the federal register office. I could say Congress passed the federal register act. You could say that was in the 1930s. 

We have officially drifted infinitely far from the intent of the OP's question. I do yield and readily admit that I do not posses as much knowledge on the subject we have deviated to, which seems to be completely beside the point of the topic.

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.

[Vern Edwards]

"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 ✋

.