Reform

[REA'n Maker]

On 11/12/2024 at 7:08 PM, Vern Edwards said:

You're getting more than just a little off track.

Is he though? My direct supervisor was just deployed to Texas to deal with the "influx of Ukranian refugees" (which no one on the team was aware of), and we're only a component agency of DHS (but not ICE/CBP/USCIS). He's an 1102. We're still waiting for an explanation for what that is all about.

More on-point, if we were able to use the policy and procedures of sub-part 36.6 for work outside the A-E world, that would be the bee's knees. "Expertise-based selection at a fair and reasonable price". 

Edit: just saw Vern's item#24. Great minds yada yada 🤣

[General.Zhukov]

Final thought -

Find and learn from other comparable governments that have better - more 'streamlined' - acquisition systems.  

Comparable - larger US states (CA, TX, FL, NY) other comparably large nations with roughly similar legal/procurement system (EU, Canada, Australia, NZ, UK, maybe Japan).  

 

 

 

 

[sackanator]

Quote

On 11/7/2024 at 5:46 AM, Vern Edwards said:

I have been asked for ideas about what can be done to improve and streamline contracting without the need for new legislation.

Any suggestions?

 

“We are very grateful to the thousands of Americans who have expressed interest in helping us at DOGE. We don’t need more part-time idea generators. We need super high-IQ small-government revolutionaries willing to work 80+ hours per week on unglamorous cost-cutting,” 

[sackanator]

To clarify, I am not injecting politics.  It just seems for some of the folks that are experienced and invested to the degree that they understand the foundation and building blocks of the issues it would seem a great potential to influence change.  I feels like acquisitions is highly overlooked by the political arena as far as the inefficiencies caused to our spending and time resources.  I would also suggest that any change to agency regulation supplement go through the 1.102-2(b)(1) "common sense rule" before it can be enacted, particularly when it comes to SAP or commercial buys, especially by third tier agencies such as the Army.   

[formerfed]

7 hours ago, REA'n Maker said:

More on-point, if we were able to use the policy and procedures of sub-part 36.6 for work outside the A-E world, that would be the bee's knees. "Expertise-based selection at a fair and reasonable price". 

Edit: just saw Vern's item#24. Great minds yada yada 🤣

I was at the Patent and Trademarks Office years ago.  We received waivers for much of the FAR.  One of our proposed changes was use of FAR 36.6 type procedures to acquire professional services.  Senior management backed off due to heavy opposition from small business advocates and organizations wanting to reduce waste and spending throughout the government.  We never got a chance to talk to those people because once it turned political with Congress involved, it died.  I’m not optimistic things would be any different now.

[Vern Edwards]

@formerfed I will communicate with you privately tomorrow via Wifcon messages on this page.

[formerfed]

1 hour ago, Vern Edwards said:

@formerfed I will communicate with you privately tomorrow via Wifcon messages on this page.

I’m here

[C Culham]

Subpart 36.6 procedures for professional and other services, included in a total rewrite of the FAR that is fast tracked to occur in 6 months.  Strike while the iron is hot.

And what the heck I would volunteer to help do it if  just my expenses were covered.  An opportunity to leave a helpful and hopefully long lasting legacy in my old age.

[joel hoffman]

5 hours ago, C Culham said:

Subpart 36.6 procedures for professional and other services, included in a total rewrite of the FAR that is fast tracked to occur in 6 months.  Strike while the iron is hot.

 

The concept of expanding the use of qualification based selection with a negotiated reasonable price** will be in direct opposition to Vivek Ramaswamy‘s and Elon Musk’s mission to drastically reduce government spending. IMO, it won’t survive DOGE.

IMO, any new initiatives that don’t decrease the cost of government operations will have little chance of implementation in the near term.

I also predict that eliminating IFB’s will be a non-starter. IFB’s are common practice in state and local construction contracting as well as other types of contracting, such as equipment materials and supplies.

** Two of the primary justifications for Qualifications Based Selection of Architect-Engineers without Price competition is to assure that the selected firm is highly qualified to design a project and will not tend to cut corners to save design costs. Life safety issues are of paramount importance in A-E contracting. 

[Vern Edwards]

10 hours ago, joel hoffman said:

The concept of expanding the use of qualification based selection with a negotiated reasonable price** will be in direct opposition to Vivek Ramaswamy‘s and Elon Musk’s mission to drastically reduce government spending. IMO, it won’t survive DOGE.

@joel hoffmanReally? How could qualifications-based selection a la FAR 36.6 possibly be more costly than requiring competitors in service procurements to write "technical" or "management" proposals, or both, describing their "proposed approach" to providing a service described in a 25 or 100 page "performance work statement"𑁋written by someone who has no clue𑁋in order to demonstrate their "understanding" of the requirement and the "soundness" of their "approach" without merely repeating the words of the PWS, then assembling an evaluation team to read those dissertations, perhaps partially written by AI, and write "strength", "weakness", and "deficiency" reports, and then make tradeoffs among fantasies. And price is almost always the least important evaluation factor.

And all that is often done without conducting discussions!!!!! Without talking!!!!!  Business conducted between strangers, without face-to-face communication until after the contract is signed!!! Based on obscure statements of requirements and obscure "approaches" to fulfilling them.

The FAR Part 15 source selection process, developed in the late 1940s and early 1950s for weapon acquisitions, is, as too often conducted, so STUPID, so time-consuming and costly, that it sometimes seems like a subversive Russian, Chinese, North Korean, or Iranian plot. Let's see what costly, time-consuming stupid thing we can get U.S. government contracting officers to do next.

We've tried to get COs to dispense with written "technical" and "management" proposals for services acquisitions and to replace them with oral presentations. We even got that into the FAR. And do you know what some of them do now? They ask for both!!!!

It's nothing but fodder for the bid protest industry and usually produces no verifiable "best value".

Explain to me how A-E selection would be more costly than what's routinely being done "now𑁋being done not because it's required by law or regulation, which say nothing about such "proposals", but because too much of the workforce is clueless and incompetent and just cutting and pasting from what has gone before, a method developed for military aircraft design competitions that has long been known to produce dubious results.

Explain it to me, Joel. Better yet, write to Musk and explain it. 

And safety issues, among others, are just as important in many services procurements as they are in A-E work. Think about aircraft services in support of wildfire fighting or space launch support services. Do you think there are no safety issues in those kinds of procurements?

I'm not worried about the "Department of Government Efficiency". If Trump and Musk are opposed to anything they're opposed to stupid, costly, time-consuming methods of contractor selection and contract formation being used by clueless, unimaginative "teams" of civil servants and military personnel and that sometimes take years to complete from conception to award only to be challenged and delayed or derailed (JEDI) by a protest to the GAO followed by a second bite at the apple at the COFC, and even a third to the Federal Circuit. And think of the MATOC competitions in which dozens of firms, even hundreds, get to evaluate themselves and then file protests.

The government calls it the "source selection process", and conducts it like a lawyer enrichment process.

I can't say what's going to happen. Maybe nothing. There are a lot of fish to fry and only a short time in which to fry them, and acquisition is not at the top of the priority list. But they're heating the oil, and if even part of what is being considered happens some of the clueless fish in our business had better start swimming toward other work. The next two years might be interesting. Shockingly so to some.

But it's been interesting before, and stupidity always puts up a fierce fight.

[C Culham]

1 hour ago, Vern Edwards said:

There are a lot of fish

As I keep reading I think back to examples found in WIFCON.   Example - pointing back to this quote from another thread -  "but this was best value trade off and with nothing in CPARS/FAPIIS, past performance eval was based on PPQs received in response to the RFQ."  Mind you this comment was with regard to a procurement under the SAT for landscape maintenance.    My gut tells me if a process like FAR 36.6 was demanded for these types of services at this value time would be saved.  Think!  A version of FAR 36.602-5.

[joel hoffman]

I am referring to Quality Based Selection with no price competition, then negotiate the price. The contract prices will very likely be higher without competition. I have little faith that the government contracting force will be effective at evaluating , negotiating and bargaining prices on large scale application of QBS.

Edit: It’s evident to me from participating in this forum that many if not most contracting personnel primarily rely on price analysis, comparing prices through competition…

 

Edited November 16, 2024 by joel hoffman

[Vern Edwards]

23 minutes ago, joel hoffman said:

I am referring to Quality Based Selection with no price competition, then negotiate the price. The contract prices will very likely be higher without competition. I have little faith that the government contracting force will be effective at bargaining prices on large scale application of QBS. .  

Well, maybe something will happen about CO appointments, which have been far too liberal, and which can be addressed in an executive order.

And head-to-head price competition may not be a good idea in the acquisition of custom services when work statements are vague, as they almost always are for such services. With the current system, no competitor really knows at the time of contract formation what service will be required and what it will cost, unless there is an incumbent, and even they may not be sure about the future in a recompete. That's one reason why hourly labor rate pricing has become so popular.

In any case, price is almost always the least important evaluation factor.

[C Culham]

28 minutes ago, joel hoffman said:

I am referring to Quality Based Selection with no price competition, then negotiate the price. The contract prices will very likely be higher without competition. I have little faith that the government contracting force will be effective at evaluating , negotiating and bargaining prices on large scale application of QBS.

I have a little different view that was formed admittedly years ago when I was the CO for the SBA's 8(a) Program for the Portland District.  I am am depending on my recollection as I do not have all the analysis I did but here is the quick view that is in my view factual memory.

For one year I did analysis because of the comments that sole source awards in the 8(a) Program was always more expensive.   I believe it was a tainted view that did not consider all the facts, and those facts by my analysis (and now repeated by recollection) was this....

At award the contracts were approximately 15% more than the IGCE provided by the agency regarding fair market price.

Yet, at contract end the final price was no more than 1% percent higher than the award price.

The analysis included something like 50 contracts.

Armed with the numbers I contacted all the agencies that had the contracts and asked them what the contract price growth was from award to final for all the contracts they awarded, 8(a) or otherwise, or in other words was it more or less than what I found for just 8(a).   I received no response.

My experience in both 8(a) and with the 4 other agencies I worked for during my career suggests strongly that contracts that are awarded without "real" negotiation, and by real I mean sitting across the table and hashing out numbers like I did in the 8(a) Program and otherwise such as the 100's of A-E contracts I negotiated, that price growth is much more. 

Changing the paradigm of doing supposed negotiated trade-off (per FAR part 15) that really just results in a price decision no matter what a solicitation says needs to change.   

[Jamaal Valentine]

1 hour ago, joel hoffman said:

The contract prices will very likely be higher without competition. I have little faith that the government contracting force will be effective at evaluating , negotiating and bargaining prices on large scale application of QBS.

The more they do it, the better they will get. Or at least they should.

[Vern Edwards]

2 hours ago, joel hoffman said:

The contract prices will very likely be higher without competition.

FAR 36.606, Negotiations, paragraph (f):

Quote

(f) If a mutually satisfactory contract cannot be negotiated, the contracting officer shall obtain a written final proposal revision from the firm, and notify the firm that negotiations have been terminated. The contracting officer shall then initiate negotiations with the next firm on the final selection list. This procedure shall be continued until a mutually satisfactory contract has been negotiated. If negotiations fail with all selected firms, the contracting officer shall refer the matter to the selection authority who, after consulting with the contracting officer as to why a contract cannot be negotiated, may direct the evaluation board to recommend additional firms in accordance with 36.602.

@joel hoffman Do you know of any studies or reports that say the government is paying unreasonable prices for A-E work because of the lack of price competition in the selection process?

[joel hoffman]

2 hours ago, Vern Edwards said:

FAR 36.606, Negotiations, paragraph (f):

@joel hoffman Do you know of any studies or reports that say the government is paying unreasonable prices for A-E work because of the lack of price competition in the selection process?

I never said that the government is paying unreasonable prices for A-E work. There are also statutory price constraints applicable to aspects of pricing A/E contracts. 

The suggestion has been made to “[a]dopt the architect-engineer method of contractor selection for all service procurements in excess of the SAT and all major system acquisitions.” This would be a quality based selection process without price competition, then essentially what amounts to a sole source price negotiation.

[Vern Edwards]

1 hour ago, joel hoffman said:

This would be a quality based selection process without price competition, then essentially what amounts to a sole source price negotiation.

I don't think it is essentially a "sole source" price negotiation. It is negotiation with a chosen party, with others in the wings if the chosen party won't be reasonable and tries to drive too hard a bargain. A good contracting officer would have leverage, which they wouldn't have with a true sole source. And I don't know of any rule prohibiting the CO from asking one or more of the other parties for quotes while negotiating with the chosen party.

[joel hoffman]

Unless these suggestion reduce costs and lower the Federal Budget Deficit, IMO the next Administration will not agree to adopt those that don’t. As of September, 2024, the  FY 2024 government  was running a cumulative budget deficit of $1.9 trillion.

For example, see: https://bipartisanpolicy.org/report/deficit-tracker/#:~:text=%24242 billion deficit%2C increasing year,(YOY) by %2421 billion.&text=The government is running a cumulative deficit of %241.5 trillion,adjusted for timing shifts*).

I don’t think that using QBS without direct price competition “for all service procurements in excess of the SAT and all major system acquisitions” will reduce the federal budget.

 

Edited November 18, 2024 by joel hoffman
Deleted reference to safety risks for service contracts vs. those for A-E services.

[C Culham]

The discussoin of QBS took the discussion off track of sorts with regard to "what can be done to improve and streamline contracting without the need for new legislation." 

In the simplist of terms "time is money" raising the question is QBS faster than traditional FAR part 15 procedures even when married with FAR part 12?  Who knows but it was a question I raised to myself and then I thought about PALT.

The basic question raised in the opening post may or may not require extensive research before any one of the tens of ideas is pursued.  In my own research (that took 10 minutes on the internet) I found the following.  I have not read or studied each in detail but in a quick read I thought I would just pass them along.

Regarding PALT I found this -  https://www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/uploads/2021/01/OFPPPALTMemorandum-01-14-2021.pdf - that lead to this "Procurement Integrated Enterprise Environment (PIEE) website" which requires intranet access.   Made me wonder what data it has regarding PALT for QBS (aka A-E) procurements versus FAR part 15 procurements?

And then there was this https://apps.dtic.mil/sti/pdfs/AD1185073.pdf - AN ANALYSIS OF PROCUREMENT ACQUISITION LEAD TIME (PALT) AND ACQUISITION LEAD TIME (ALT) IN THE DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE (DOD).  What caught my eye in quick read was a short discussion of "where the rubber meets the road" that being contract administration in service contracts.  So a suggestion that does not take legislation - Ramp up the world of COR, make COR's  a full time position based on an individuals technical knowledge, continue the certification program for administrative knowledge and as a result do away with co-lateral duty COR's because co-lateral duty COR's is not doing contracting any favors!

Other Info - And I found this -https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/R/R42826 - The Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR): Answers to Frequently Asked Questions   Might be a good first read for those taking on the heavy lifting of improving and streamling without new legislation.  

This has been a very thought provoking discussion thread.

[formerfed]

Quote

 

So a suggestion that does not take legislation- Ramp up the world of COR, make COR's  a full time position based on an individuals technical knowledge, continue the certification program for administrative knowledge and as a result do away with co-lateral duty COR's because co-lateral duty COR's is not doing contracting any favors!

Requiring Program/Project Management training as part of COR certification is very beneficial for many large scale contracts.  It’s also helpful for some acquisitions for 1102s.

I heard a funny response from a senior official about requiring a dedicated COR.  He said he will do that when he gets a dedicated contracting officer for his program.

[Jamaal Valentine]

The Section 809 Panel made 98 recommendations. How many didn’t require legislation? 

https://dair.nps.edu/handle/123456789/14

Are there any that can be implemented now? Here’s a list the Panel gave us to start —

Recommended Actions You Can Take Now

[Don Mansfield]

I'm looking in to that, Jamaal. Wanna help?

[Jamaal Valentine]

@Don Mansfield

Yes!

[Vern Edwards]

On 11/18/2024 at 5:16 AM, joel hoffman said:

I don’t think that using QBS without direct price competition “for all service procurements in excess of the SAT and all major system acquisitions” will reduce the federal budget.

@joel hoffman Okay. You have made that assertion several times now. You're making it on principle. I get it, but disagree.

I disagree because we spend a fortune every year on lengthy "best value" proposal-based competitions for services that too often take a year or more to conduct because we solicit and assemble teams to evaluate non-promissory proposals that are little more than sales pitches ("Describe your proposed approach..." "Demonstrate your understanding...).

We routinely declare price to be the least important evaluation factor, make fantasy findings of strengths and weaknesses that we say we have found in what is too often just bullshit, award contracts to strangers without ever having met or discussed anything with them, and then spend millions each year fighting and suffering delays due to protests about our evaluations and our fantasy findings of illusory "value." It wouldn't be so bad if we dropped the requirement for written proposals and evaluated oral presentations, instead, but we're too poorly trained, hidebound, and stupid to do that. 

And you think that's less costly and more economical than qualifications-based competition and one-on-one price negotiation with a tentative selectee and with competitors waiting in the wings?

Well, I reject your opinion. If we are ever able to make the change from proposal-based to qualifications-based competition for services a la the A-E method, you can complain to your congressional representatives.