Vern Edwards Posted November 7, 2024 Report Share Posted November 7, 2024 I have been asked for ideas about what can be done to improve and streamline contracting without the need for new legislation. Any suggestions? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
formerfed Posted November 7, 2024 Report Share Posted November 7, 2024 For whatever reasons, the 1102 workforce wants to copy ideas instead of tailoring plans and acquisition documents specific to individual needs. So how about a database of best practices, lessons learned, and new ideas? A central point to review, rate, and provide instructive comments like OFPP could ensure consistency and acceptability using pre-established criteria. Even those people that don’t blindly copy will benefit from seeing practices from others. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
C Culham Posted November 8, 2024 Report Share Posted November 8, 2024 Improve - It would seem that the complications of contracting are the result of, for the most part, legislation. Absent legislation to remove the legislation it would seem that Executive Order could be a fix but it is route full of potholes. Streamline - Same thought as above. It would not be the end all fix but another possibility is throw some money at the problem to fill all the exisiting 1102 vacancies. One would think more bodies to process the never ending and long list of contracting needs for the Federal government might get a little faster but not sure its a streamline. As I write this I am reminded of the old "shovel ready" American Recovery and Reinvestment Act but as it goes it was legislation. Conclusion - I do not think a fix of improving and streamlining can be accomplished without positive legislation that removes the impediments in place. Such as - Preference of multi-award IDIQs, legislation that causes agency's to go nuts to accomplish or avoid with things like competitive BPA's. The massaging of Commerical Products and Services contracting to the point it has frustrated its intent which I thought was to be more like the marketplace where I personally can buy something faster and get satisfactory results. Especially think construction. It is a tall order you have been asked to think about, very tall! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jamaal Valentine Posted November 8, 2024 Report Share Posted November 8, 2024 Ensure agencies abide by and enforce — FAR 1.102-2(b): Minimize administrative operating costs. (1) In order to ensure that maximum efficiency is obtained, rules, regulations, and policies should be promulgated only when their benefits clearly exceed the costs of their development, implementation, administration, and enforcement. This applies to internal administrative processes, including reviews, and to rules and procedures applied to the contractor community. FAR 1.102-5(b): The authority to make decisions and the accountability for the decisions made will be delegated to the lowest level within the System, consistent with law. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vern Edwards Posted November 8, 2024 Author Report Share Posted November 8, 2024 Thanks, Carl. Thanks, Jamaal. I am receiving inputs from other sources, as well. When and if I am permitted to do so I will share the suggestions that I receive from others, unattributed. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Voyager Posted November 8, 2024 Report Share Posted November 8, 2024 I think accountability is the answer. How about this idea. The DFARS PGI doesn't take rulemaking action to revise. Neither do DOD Instructions and certainly Defense Pricing and Contracting (DPC) memos don't. Yet when you read them, the working-level organization that is tasked to do the actual work is not mentioned under a "Responsibilities" section or anywhere else. The Director, DPC sends the memo to the highest level in the bureaucracy, and this creates a chain of events to delegate the action. One break in that lengthy chain, and the action loses its potency. Accountability is obfuscated by this exact mistake. Why don't these managers simply coordinate ahead of PGI, DODI, or memo issuance to exactly which low-level manager the upper managers will assign the action, and then name that person in the PGI, DODI, or memo? Can you imagine the excitement and effort that would draw out of that low-level manager? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vern Edwards Posted November 8, 2024 Author Report Share Posted November 8, 2024 Thanks, Voyager. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
formerfed Posted November 8, 2024 Report Share Posted November 8, 2024 Issue policy requiring discussions be conducted as the general rule, especially when selections are based up technical/price tradeoffs. Too much is being left on the table with both price and non-price issues by not discussing. Exceptions should be documented and approved at levels about the contracting officer. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
General.Zhukov Posted November 8, 2024 Report Share Posted November 8, 2024 For perspective on what "contracting" means - in HHS (my Dept) you have Type 1 Procurement the median contract obligation was $42,190 156/24,00 contracts obligated over $10M 75% of all contracts used FAR 13 or 16.5 (FAR 14 is a rounding error, at 28/24,000) And then you also have Type 2 Contracting NIH awarded 9 $Billion multiple-award IDIQs for Non-Commercial Research and Development, and admins some gigantic GWACs. My OPDIV overhauled how it buys IT software and hardware, and the contracting volume has shrunk by a lot - maybe 30%? An HHS OPDIV, if FPDS is to be believed, received 198 offers in response to a FAR 15 RFP. I think these need to be treated differently. Type 1 is about systems, process, and workflow. Type 2 is about the human beings (COs) doing the work. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vern Edwards Posted November 8, 2024 Author Report Share Posted November 8, 2024 @General.Zhukov 1 hour ago, General.Zhukov said: I think these need to be treated differently. How so? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vern Edwards Posted November 8, 2024 Author Report Share Posted November 8, 2024 @formerfed Thanks! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
General.Zhukov Posted November 11, 2024 Report Share Posted November 11, 2024 On 11/8/2024 at 5:53 PM, Vern Edwards said: @General.Zhukov How so? For Type 1) Simple - This is high-volume with repetitive relatively standard procedures, a lot of which isn't legislative, so even small process improvements can be made and may have a large impact. The humans doing the work are less important. - An agency-wide exemption to the elements of a written acquisition plan (FAR 7.105) which are useless for your agency, well that will save a tiny bit of time and effort. But, if, like HHS, you have >5,000 written acquisition plans per year, the cumulative impact is significant. - Go find your most important vendors, ask them what 'streamlining' means for them, and maybe act on that? - Go find your most important customers/ end-users/stakeholders, do the same. For Type 2 - there is only one way to do this, which we have known forever, and essentially applies to any profession. It's all about the humans. You need intelligent and experienced professionals who have the authority to make important decisions, and the wisdom to make the right decisions. If you have an high-impact acquisition that you want to streamline, go recruit/poach/borrow the best CO you can find, and give them that job (and the ability to do that job). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vern Edwards Posted November 11, 2024 Author Report Share Posted November 11, 2024 @General.ZhukovThanks, Georgi. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jamaal Valentine Posted November 12, 2024 Report Share Posted November 12, 2024 21 hours ago, General.Zhukov said: - Go find your most important customers/ end-users/stakeholders, do the same. Voice of the Customer (VOC) is a technique that can help identify and eliminate waste. FAR part 1 emphasizes customer satisfaction and lays out that the Federal Acquisition System will satisfy the consumer in enumerated ways. What regulations and policies (not laws) would the customer get rid of or not pay for? The answer will probably be unrealistic so let’s categorize the waste into two categories, one of which we can easily fix. 1. Type I Waste: Non-value-added activity, necessary for customer (necessary for operations) 2. Type II Waste: Non-value-added activity, unnecessary for the customer Now, what Type II waste is in the system? These are those things in our process that do not add value to the customer. Or as it was explained to me at the Fisher College of Business: anything the customer is not directly willing to pay for. What could we stop doing—today—that would go unnoticed by the customer? A key challenge is identifying the often competing interests of the governments various customers if we broaden the term customer (e.g., Congress, PM, end-user, taxpayers). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vern Edwards Posted November 12, 2024 Author Report Share Posted November 12, 2024 @Jamaal Valentine Thanks, Jamal. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
formerfed Posted November 12, 2024 Report Share Posted November 12, 2024 On 11/8/2024 at 9:52 AM, Jamaal Valentine said: Ensure agencies abide by and enforce — FAR 1.102-2(b): Minimize administrative operating costs. (1) In order to ensure that maximum efficiency is obtained, rules, regulations, and policies should be promulgated only when their benefits clearly exceed the costs of their development, implementation, administration, and enforcement. This applies to internal administrative processes, including reviews, and to rules and procedures applied to the contractor community. FAR 1.102-5(b): The authority to make decisions and the accountability for the decisions made will be delegated to the lowest level within the System, consistent with law. 22 hours ago, General.Zhukov said: For Type 2 - there is only one way to do this, which we have known forever, and essentially applies to any profession. It's all about the humans. You need intelligent and experienced professionals who have the authority to make important decisions, and the wisdom to make the right decisions. If you have an high-impact acquisition that you want to streamline, go recruit/poach/borrow the best CO you can find, and give them that job (and the ability to do that job). We have the FAR. We have supplementing agency regulations. Then we have more detailed policies and procedures at a sub level which often adds delay from bureaucratic review and oversight processes. Much of these exist as knee jerk remedies or band-aid fixes to past contracting blunders. Senior management then implements new reviews, approvals, and controls to avoid repeating the same mistakes in the future. Eliminate needless policies and procedures at the agency/local. Empower contracting officers to make decisions without non value-added reviews and approvals. Hold contracting officers accountable. Reward those with demonstrated exceptional performance. Remove warrants from those with performance issues. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Voyager Posted November 12, 2024 Report Share Posted November 12, 2024 Jamaal, you have identified a key difference between a business's and a government's "Type II Waste". One entity is accountable to shareholders during its mission to please paying/potential customers, while the other is accountable to taxpayers during its mission to safe-harbor citizens. The business may exclude costs that would not benefit the majority of its customers, whereas the government shall not exclude reasonable costs for any of its citizens (e.g., think of the cost to feed prisoners). In its cost of operations, the business may rack and stack people within its pool of customers, e.g., putting high-paying customers first, infrequent customers second, and noncustomers last, as its shareholders demand. The government shall not do this to its citizens, according to the Preamble to the Declaration of Independence and to common decency dating back to Mosaic Law. I think under this logic the taxpayers can and should demand their government eliminate the cost of noncitizens, but as this is not within the realm of my job responsibility, I will leave it here only as the best example of my logic. Another example is any cost that is being justified currently to exert control over the actions of a separate sovereign state, based upon a prediction of what that state's leaders may do in the future. Notice I am giving no example of a cost affecting any of the government's citizenry. That, my friends, is where we can and must craft our trade. What is the similarly unfounded cost in your realm of job responsibility? Everyone should think small of this and allow the logic to scale itself up. Start with your own CO workload and practice applying this logic daily, so that, when you rise in the ranks to a workload that potentially costs the taxpayers a great deal, you can also save them a great deal. Wise, caring prioritization is the single most important skill a government employee can offer taxpayers. At the municipal level, would you justify the cost to heat an outdoor swimming pool in Fairbanks, Alaska? Where in your workload is that swimming pool? Most likely it is in a thoughtless decision not to use strategic sourcing due to "immateriality" of the cost in a proposal. I say stop that! Spend your time on the reduction of small costs now, so that your crafted practice 20 years from now may reduce large costs. And to current upper managers - hire your SESs and other fellow managers based on proven track records in this crafted practice. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vern Edwards Posted November 13, 2024 Author Report Share Posted November 13, 2024 @Voyager 7 hours ago, Voyager said: I think under this logic the taxpayers can and should demand their government eliminate the cost of noncitizens, but as this is not within the realm of my job responsibility, I will leave it here only as the best example of my logic. 🤔 You're getting more than just a little off track. Would you mind very much continuing your musings in a new thread? 🫤 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Voyager Posted November 13, 2024 Report Share Posted November 13, 2024 Sure, Vern, I can drop off here, for you and your people. Before I go, I want to hearten those that may be afraid in these times. The text you quoted of me is indeed not a government’s duty to carry out; it is, however, the duty of the citizenry when their consciences so incline them. For more than a millennium, the Western way has been for the state to administer justice, and the church to administer mercy. Recent decades of taxed mercy have not been motivated out of any desire on the taxpayer’s part to relieve suffering, though, and have instead served to blend these two distinct roles of church and state. Do not fear the loss of this! The American conscience is not leaving us as the state relearns its role - no, I believe rather it is reviving true after decades of derelict sleep. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
C Culham Posted November 14, 2024 Report Share Posted November 14, 2024 On and off I continue to think about the original post. Please advise when posts are no longer wanted. Thinking about the FAR how about a focused 6 month goal to rewrite the FAR with intent to remove anything that is not required by statute, EO, and/or case law. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vern Edwards Posted November 14, 2024 Author Report Share Posted November 14, 2024 6 hours ago, C Culham said: Please advise when posts are no longer wanted. The relative scarcity of contributions from Wifcon members has been disappointing. Maybe this website is no longer influential. Maybe the members lack imagination. But I thank all who have contributed. Here are some of the many suggestions received from elsewhere in government and industry: Stiffen CO appointment criteria for COS with authority above the SAT and COs handling major system acquisitions, and elevate CO appointment authority to at least the SES or general and flag officer level. Emphasize demonstrated knowledge, experience, and competence instead of credentials. Eliminate CO appointment boards. Require a CO selection and appointment D&F. Improve the quality of contract opportunity notices at sam.gov. Standardize abbreviations. Standardize solicitation and contract formats across all agencies and all types of procurements, including procurements of commercial products and services and construction. Drop the concept of performance-based contracting and the requirement for performance work statements. Adopt a single, governmentwide standard format for all work statements. Adopt a single style manual (e.g., Chicago Manual of Style) for all acquisition documents. In service procurements, prohibit requests for "narrative" technical and management proposals that describe "proposed approaches" to providing the service. Eliminate the requirement for small business subcontracting plans. Eliminate the requirement for evaluation of professional employee compensation. Allow the use of simplified acquisition procedures for all commercial acquisitions, regardless of dollar value. Eliminate the requirement for evaluation of proposed small business subcontracting. Eliminate the SBA certificate of competency program. Eliminate incorporation of entire CFR sections and parts into FAR solicitation provisions and contract clauses. Provide more training on changes and equitable adjustments. Prohibit the incorporation of agency handbooks and manuals into solicitations and contracts. Clarify the rules for proposal submission and the handling of late proposals. Reform the protest system to prohibit two bites of the apple (from GAO to COFC) and prohibit appeals to the Federal Circuit. Limit the use of multiple award task order contracts and restrict the number of awardees by statute. Eliminate the requirement for "full and open competition." Eliminate the restrictions on the use of LPTA. Limit the requirement for submission of certified cost or pricing data and the application of cost accounting standards to major system acquisitions. Simplify the rules about clarifications, competitive range, discussions, and final proposal revisions so as to encourage better communication during contract formation. Adopt the architect-engineer method of contractor selection for all service procurements in excess of the SAT and all major system acquisitions. Assume commerciality. Instead of requiring a determination that a product or service IS commercial, presume that it is commercial unless the CO determines that it is NOT. Eliminate the combined synopsis-solicitation. Allow price-only competitive negotiation and eliminate sealed bidding. Clarify and simplify the rules about foreign acquisitions. Raise the dollar thresholds of the Service Contract Act, the Davis-Bacon Act, Equal Employment Opportunity (and others) to above the simplified acquisition threshold. Establish more realistic deadlines for proposal submission in source selections. And several more. There were several recommendations to improve and revise definitions. As far as I'm concerned, this thread is closed. I will not monitor it any longer. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
joel hoffman Posted November 15, 2024 Report Share Posted November 15, 2024 On 11/7/2024 at 6:46 AM, Vern Edwards said: what can be done to improve and streamline contracting without the need for new legislation. Hmm, much of your list needs new legislation. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
formerfed Posted November 15, 2024 Report Share Posted November 15, 2024 1 hour ago, joel hoffman said: Hmm, much of your list needs new legislation. Yes, a very large share Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vern Edwards Posted November 15, 2024 Author Report Share Posted November 15, 2024 Some do, some don't. It's what people sent. Thanks. Signing off. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jamaal Valentine Posted November 15, 2024 Report Share Posted November 15, 2024 19 hours ago, C Culham said: rewrite the FAR This! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.