All Activity

I'm not an expert in software development and never awarded a software production contract, but Mark Munsell's essay makes sense to me. I do know that software production has long been problematical.

There are many odd appearing actions. But this one is really surprising to me. VA just released a new solicitation for Community Managed Healthcare. The resulting contracts are for 10 years in duration valued at $1 trillion. The solicitation is for commercial items using a combined solicitation/synopsis. There are approximately 40 attachments. https://sam.gov/workspace/contract/opp/7b2734002e4048bfa2ac4cc5b0479930/view The synopsis says “The Government will award a Firm-Fixed Price plus Incentives, Multiyear, Multiple Award, Indefinite Delivery Indefinite Quantity contract resulting from this solicitation to the Offerors whose proposal conforms to the solicitation and represents the best value to the government.” The proposal response time seems very compressed. The synopsis was posted four days ago. Offeror questions are due Jan 6 with a pre proposal conference on Jan 22. Proposals are due March 15. A trillion dollar procurement using a combined solicitation/synopsis with a 90 day proposal due date! Then there’s the contract type of firm-fixed-price plus incentives multiple award IDIQ!

The map is not the territory.

Happy Friday, readers! We know this time of year gets hectic, with all the preparations and lists to check. One thing you don’t have to check is the updates on federal government contracting for the past week. We’ve done that in our Week in Review! Enjoy the latest updates while you do some last-minute shopping and decorating. This week in federal government contracting saw important updates on use of AI, predictions for 2026, and a deadline to submit feedback on the Revolutionary FAR Overhaul. FAR: Federal Management Regulation: Aligning the Federal Management Regulation with the Administration’s Deregulatory Priorities OMB sets procurement guardrails for buying AI tools The Revolutionary FAR Overhaul: What Happens Next? Emily Murphy is here with her insights on how federal acquisition changed in 2025 and what’s coming in 2026 US Department of Labor announces availability of resources to assist contractors with Davis-Bacon Act payroll reporting requirements GAO: Bid Protests Dropped 6% in FY 2025 Industry flags DoD’s lack of standardized software attestation processes FAA head details air traffic control modernization progress, next steps Outgoing GAO chief warns of ‘taking our foot off the gas’ at CISA OPM launches Tech Force to recruit technologists to government Nondisplacement of Qualified Workers under Service Contracts; Rescission of Regulations The post SmallGovCon Week in Review: December 15-19, 2025 first appeared on SmallGovCon - Government Contracts Law Blog.View the full article

Going back in this thread, here’s an interesting comment about tools to track I copied from another forum: Flywheel of Failure: Stop Managing Programs. Start Managi...Mark says it best - government CULTURE "... rewards the perfect management of a failure, rather than the messy iteration of a success." We need to embrace OUTCOMES over process. Battlefield success“And I can tell you, with absolute certainty, that there is almost zero correlation between a program marked "Green" on a PowerPoint slide and a piece of software that actually works for the mission. This is the enduring flywheel of failure facing the Department of Defense (DoD) today. We are culturally addicted to Program Management—the administration of contracts, schedules, and compliance artifacts. But we are starving for Product Management—the relentless pursuit of value, quality, and user satisfaction. We have built a system that rewards the perfect management of a failure, rather than the messy iteration of a success”

Years ago, I was an Army officer who had some COR duties while deployed. As I was responsible for base security, I was the COR for related contracts (3rd country guards, perimeter maintenance, interpreters, fancy security devices, etc.). Our base security contracts were ... satisfactory. The Contracting Office was AF. I visited their base sometimes. You know who had exceptional base security contract performance - fences maintained, barriers and bunkers trash-free, well-disciplined contract guards, the latest fancy devices scanning and detecting threats? The base home to the COs who ran the base security contracts.

If you got an aggressive email from the SBA earlier this month requesting an awful lot of documentation and information in relation to your 8(a) Business Development Program participation—you far from alone. SBA actually sent this December 5th email to about 4300 current and past 8(a) Program participants. And if you too found yourself reading and rereading SBA’s specific requests trying to determine exactly what the SBA is looking for—but to no avail—you are again far from alone. Now, we at SmallGovCon don’ t have all the answers or any insider knowledge. But we offer you these five tips for surviving the 8(a) audit—based on our vast experience with the fundamentals of legal language interpretation and our expertise with the 8(a) Program regulations and standard operating procedures. This unfortunate holiday season surprise (as you can read about in our initial blog on this most recent 8(a) audit) really seems to be just another link in the chain of challenges faced by 8(a) Program Participants of late. These 8(a) challenges date (at least) all the way back to the Federal Court Decision in Ultima. They’ve continued through numerous direct 8(a) and general DEI attacks from the current administration (resulting in a substantial dip in small disadvantaged business goaling and many 8(a) contract terminations already). And they’ve most recently presented through SBA’s announcement of a 15-year lookback audit of all 8(a) contracts by the SBA OIG and DoJ. So, was the December 5th email truly a surprise? For those keeping up with recent 8(a) events, likely not. But SBA apparently felt the need to keep things exciting here, nonetheless. From what we’ve been seeing, there are two main aspects of this audit that have reasonably surprised, well, almost everyone, it seems. First, the timing of this 8(a) audit compounded by the very short deadline for compliance (i.e., allowing only a month–and a month including two federal holidays–for contractors to gather and submit all requested documents and information). And second, the level of ambiguity and/or lack of clarity in essentially all 13 of SBA’s requests for the 8(a) audit. So, those two main issues will be the focus of these five tips. TIP ONE: If you got SBA’s December 5th 8(a) audit request email–no matter where you are at in your 8(a) Program Term or even in your process of 8(a) Program withdrawal, termination, or early or standard graduation–comply! So, we have yet to hear of any 8(a) Program applicants–awaiting SBA’s application decision–receiving the 8(a) audit email request.1 But we have heard numerous reports of graduated/graduating, terminated or proposed for termination, and withdrawn/withdrawing 8(a) Program firms receiving the request. And as such, we’ve had a lot of questions as to whether or not the firm is still required to comply with the request. The answer, unfortunately, is yes. SBA’s rule at 13 C.F.R. § 124.603 says the following: If requested by the SBA, former Participants must provide such information as SBA may request concerning the former Participant’s continued business operations, contracts, and financial condition for a period of three years following the date on which the concern leaves the 8(a) BD program (either through the expiration of the firm’s program term, graduation, or termination). Failure to provide such information when requested will constitute a violation of the regulations set forth in this part, and may result in the nonexercise of options on or termination of contracts awarded through the 8(a) BD program, debarment, or other legal recourse. As you can see, this rule clearly requires any former 8(a) participant that has left the program (for whatever reason) within the last three years to comply with the 8(a) audit requests. It even includes some terrifyingly broad assertions of possible consequences for anyone thinking, “well, I have no 8(a) Program participation or 8(a) contracts or options left to lose.” So, if you got the email, comply with it. TIP TWO: Submit each and every document you believe in good faith is responsive to SBA’s requests–and withhold nothing. One thing we say across the board for all 8(a) Program rules and procedures, and all 8(a) Program applicants, participants, and even former participants, is full disclosure is always best. When there is even a question as to an 8(a) applicant’s or firm’s duty to notify SBA of something, we always suggest erring on the side of caution and fully disclosing the information in question. And naturally, there is no exception here. We will talk more in the subsequent tips about ways to handle documents that are unavailable or delayed and ways to handle different interpretations of the SBA’s requests. But for this crucial tip number two, I want to refer you back to and reiterate the language in 13 C.F.R. § 124.603, which states: Failure to provide such information when requested will constitute a violation of the regulations set forth in this part, and may result in the nonexercise of options on or termination of contracts awarded through the 8(a) BD program, debarment, or other legal recourse. This part of the rule does not say “failure to provide such information without a valid excuse . . .”–nor does it provide any safe harbors or options for explaining why something is missing to SBA after the fact. It says, failure to provide the requested information by the requested date will constitute a violation–not “may,” “will.” So, don’t leave anything out in hopes that SBA will understand or take the time to ask you why. And if you must leave something out for a valid reason, pay close attention to tips number four and five before you do so. TIP THREE: Submit everything as soon as physically possible prior to the January 5, 2026 deadline. So, I see no need to reiterate the same regulatory language or threats from the 8(a) audit email here. The deadline is clear in the email; and the regulations clearly require compliance with whatever deadline SBA sets. So, get everything in by that January 5, 2026, deadline at all costs. But in doing so, please don’t forget that at least 4300 or so companies are going to be frantically uploading hundreds if not thousands of documents over the next two and half weeks. Please also consider the fact that they all had just a month to do so–making it quite reasonable to assume that many if not most of them will be submitting all those documents on or incredibly close to that January 5th deadline. As such, I would highly recommend you not rely heavily on SBA’s uploading portal’s (https://certifications.sba.gov) ability to handle these mass logins and uploads without a hiccup or two. If you have your documents ready to go early, get them in. We have yet to hear confirmation from anyone of SBA granting any extensions. And the SBA’s email included the loaded and infinitely broad threat that any contractor failing to provide the requested documentation and information by January 5, 2026, “may lose their eligibility to participate in the 8(a) Program and could face further investigative or remedial actions.” So, our best advice is to assume you cannot and will not be given any extension or deadline leniency. But we also understand that some of the requested documents may not be immediately accessible, despite your best efforts. And if that is the case for you, please pay close attention to Tip Four below. TIP FOUR: Immediately & diligently communicate your need for any extension to your BOS, the 8(a) Program Office, your local SBA Area Office, and anyone SBA or 8(a) that will listen. If you physically cannot meet the deadline for anything for a real and valid reason–or if you will be physically unable to get certain documents or information uploaded by that time–we strongly suggest you don’t wait another minute to put your situation and request into writing and submit it everywhere and to everyone possible. Of course, having a “paper trail” of some kind in this scenario is strongly recommended. But that does not mean we discourage you from picking up the phone and trying to get through to your own 8(a) Business Opportunity Specialist (BOS), the 8(a) Program Office (or any 8(a) Program representatives), your general local SBA Area Office, and/or any of your own contacts within the SBA or the 8(a) Program willing to listen. But–and I cannot stress this part enough–if you are granted some kind of extension over the phone, Zoom, or any other verbal communication means, follow-up in writing! That can be a simple email like, “I just wanted to follow-up via email to thank you and confirm the 10-day extension you granted me today.” But it would be wise to copy as many of the recipients I listed above as possible. Regardless of whether you start with a call and follow-up in writing, or simply start mass emailing those listed above, we would recommend your request include all of the following: (a) your need for an extension; (b) how long you believe that extension will need to be; (c) the specific reason why you need that extension, why you need it for that length of time, and a specific explanation for each and every document you cannot submit on time (I would strongly advise against any generalities here, such as, “Because its Christmas, dude!”–no matter how fair and reasonable that may be); and finally, (d) an offer to provide some kind of substitute document, information, or declaration covering the subject matter of the delayed submission document in the meantime (i.e., “though I am still waiting on that specific financial document, I am happy to provide a signed SBA form or declaration covering those same financial aspects of my company in the meantime.”) Finally, if you have any questions as to whether someone agreeing to grant you an extension has the authority to do so–that touches on specific legal advice territory that I would highly recommend you confirm with a government contracting attorney prior to relying on the extension granted. TIP FIVE: With basically all 13 requests containing ambiguity, unclear or undefined language, or all of the above, go with the safest “interpretation” and explain yourself. While none of the 13 requests from SBA are crystal clear, I will focus on a few of the most common questions here, as well as our general tips on handling all the unclear and ambiguous requests. Many of the requests refer to “fiscal year” without defining who’s fiscal year SBA means (the 8(a) firm’s or the government’s) and to “last three full fiscal years” without establishing which date should be used to determine the same. Whose Fiscal Year Are We Talking? For some guidance on whose fiscal year SBA is referring to here, we looked to the 8(a) regulations at 13 C.F.R. § 124.112(d) and (e) (on continued eligibility criteria) and 13 C.F.R. § 124.602(a) through (g) (on annual financial statements). Those regulations nearly always refer to the 8(a) firm’s fiscal year. So, our best guess is that SBA intends for its 8(a) audit request to match its general 8(a) annual financial statement requirements, and thus, means the 8(a) firm’s fiscal year. But we, of course, cannot be sure. As for “the last three full fiscal years,” there are really two reasonable ways to interpret this: (a) 2022, 2023, and 2024–based on the SBA’s 8(a) audit email being dated December 5, 2025; or (b) 2023, 2024, and 2025–based on the required submission deadline being January 5, 2026. But we have generally been leaning toward interpretation (a), suggesting that the date of the letter is the most likely date SBA intended recipients to go off. So, we think SBA is most likely looking for 2022, 2023, and 2024 as the last three full fiscal years for the requests containing that language. But again, we have no way of knowing for sure. One note here, if you do decide to go with interpretation (b) instead, just make sure you do in fact upload your submissions in the new year, in 2026, otherwise, that interpretation seems to become a lot less reasonable. What On Earth Is Request Number Nine Asking For? Finally, the infamous request number nine from SBA’s 8(a) audit email asks for, “Copy [sic] of all 8(a) Contracts on which the firm is currently working for the last three full fiscal years[.]” Oh yeah, oh boy–is what we said too. Unfortunately, not even our standard–typically helpful–cannons of construction can provide any relief from the blatant ambiguity with this one. For example, its a widely accepted cannon of construction that no words intentionally included in a sentence/term/rule/etc. should be interpreted to have no meaning. But there is no way around it here due to the pure contradiction of the language; either you have to assume: (a) “currently” is meaningless (or just the plain ol’ wrong word), or (b) “for the last three full fiscal years” is meaningless or was wrongfully included at the end of the request (or was at least severely misstated). So, it is possible SBA meant something in line with the latter assumption (b) (i.e., that SBA meant to request either: “Copies of all 8(a) Contracts on which the firm is currently working” (period); or maybe “. . . currently working that were awarded over the past three full fiscal years.”). But our best guess here–and what we feel is the safest interpretation, nonetheless–is that SBA’s intent was more likely aligned with assumption (a) above (i.e., intending to request “Copies of all 8(a) Contracts on which the firm is currently or was actively working over the past three full fiscal years.” But indeed, we fully understand that SBA’s actual request doesn’t match any of our reasonable interpretations here. That said, we would recommend providing all the 8(a) contracts (including any modifications, extensions, amendments, etc., thereof or thereto) that the firm was actively performing over the past three full fiscal years. We find this option safest because it may provide SBA with more contracts than it was seeking–but the other options have the more concerning risk of not providing SBA with all the contracts it was seeking. What is “Safest” and What All Should We “Explain”? Well that last one–the doozy that it was–still provides us a nice Segway into what we believe are some of the most important general takeaways for handling the plethora of ambiguities and undefined or unclear terms in SBA’s 8(a) audit requests. Just as we stressed the safer option for responding to SBA request number nine is whatever option potentially gives SBA more but not less than it meant to ask for–generally, the same goes for any of SBA’s 13 requests subject to multiple interpretations. But we also understand that each 8(a) firm is different; which documents may be available, unavailable, delayed, etc., could all impact what is truly the “safest” option for a given 8(a) firm. And with major questions to this end, it is certainly best to seek specific and specialized legal advice with your submissions here. And regardless of how you chose to interpret and respond to any of SBA’s 13 8(a) audit requests, we strongly suggest one thing across the board: explain yourself! In fact, we’d go so far as to say that a cover letter for each submission could be a really good idea. That cover letter, we suggest, should include (at least): A brief explanation of how you interpreted the request at issue; Why your interpretation is reasonable under 8(a) law, the express language used in the request, (if applicable) the guidance and advice of counsel or an SBA/8(a) representative, etc.; Assertions as to how your submission is directly responsive to the request as you interpreted it; and A request that SBA simply let you know if you misread SBA’s intent. And with that, depending on which way you went with your submission, it would be wise to include: (a) a sincere offer to promptly provide any additional information or documentation that may be necessary to meet SBA’s intended request; or (b) an index of your submissions for the request at hand indicating which documents SBA should focus on if you misinterpreted SBA’s intent (i.e., “SBA can focus on Contracts No. 1 and 2, and ignore Contracts Nos. 3-10 if SBA indeed meant only to request 8(a) contracts “currently” being performed by my firm.”) * * * By now, I am sure you can tell, our biggest concern here is with 8(a) firms inadvertently failing to provide the documents SBA intended to request–without an explanation as to why things appear to be “missing.” We are not saying a mismatched interpretation with an explanation is risk free, by any means. But we do note the language of 13 C.F.R. § 124.603 we repeatedly cited and referred to throughout this blog seems most concerned with outright “failure[s] to provide such information when requested[.]” As SBA’s 8(a) audit email asks for everything to be submitted in either PDF or CSV2 format–it is probably safe to say that at least the initial review of the vast amount of information and documentation SBA will receive by January 5 will be fed through some type of A.I. or other advanced data processing system. And potentially, only the legal compliance concerns initially identified in the provided documents and the apparently missing or withheld documents will get “flagged” for deeper SBA review. If that is the case, and of course we have no way of knowing for sure, it would confirm our stance that the most risk likely lies in unexplained missing or non-responsive documents. Essentially, anything that could even look like an intentional failure to provide responsive documentation by the deadline may be subject to punishment–and may not include any opportunity to further explain things to SBA. Questions about this post? Email us. Need legal assistance? Call us at 785-200-8919. Looking for the latest government contracting legal news? Sign up here for our free monthly newsletter, and follow us on LinkedIn, Twitter and Facebook. Based on this, we assume SBA may only be requesting compliance from 8(a) applicants once they have actually entered the 8(a) Program and executed all agreements with SBA to do so. But this is in no way our advice to not respond if you are an 8(a) applicant in receipt of the 8(a) audit email. To the contrary, the safest bet is for anyone who gets the email to comply with it. While the regulations are much clearer on the legal duties for current and past 8(a) participants to comply with the 8(a) audit requests, there are still regulations regarding broader duties for 8(a) applicants to provide additional requested documents to SBA and keep its application documentation current and complete. And we are not comfortable enough to say those regulations would not or could not be applied here to require compliance with the 8(a) audit request. ︎According to Adobe, “CSV files are a simple, widely compatible format for storing and sharing data. They are easy to use across various software tools, making them ideal for organizing and managing structured information. CSV files are primarily used for simple data exchange rather than elaborate presentations.” Accessed on 12/18/2025 at: https://www.adobe.com/acrobat/resources/document-files/what-is-a-csv-file.html ︎ The post Five Tips: For Surviving the End-of-Year 8(a) Audit first appeared on SmallGovCon - Government Contracts Law Blog.View the full article

In just a few days the ball will drop on 2025 and we will officially usher in the new year. It’s always a good time for reflecting on the past year and what lies ahead for the new year. And that same sort of review is important when thinking about federal contract bid protests. With that in mind, we are going to take a look at the GAO’s Bid Protest Annual Report. This report is GAO’s summary of bid protests for the previous fiscal year. It contains some important insights for how GAO bid protest numbers have changed from prior years. But as our readers know, many bid protests are filed at the Court of Federal Claims, so this is only one part of the overall bid protest picture. Here are some key points from this year: The key effectiveness metric, showing numbers of sustains and corrective actions at GAO, was similar to prior years, and exactly the same as 2024, at 52% for the 2025 fiscal year. Total bid protest numbers were down for the second year in a row, coming in at 1688 new cases filed (a 6% decrease from the prior fiscal year). Below, we dive into the GAO numbers while comparing to the data we have on COFC protests. The annual bid protest report is based on GAO’s statutory duty to report to Congress (1) each instance in which a federal agency did not fully implement a recommendation made by GAO (2) if any bid protest decision was “not rendered within 100 days after the date the protest is submitted,” and (3) “include a summary of the most prevalent grounds for sustaining protests.” It also summarizes the general statistics for bid protest decisions. As with 2024, GAO met its 100-day deadline to process a bid protest in all cases. And similarly, there one was decision (ATP Gov, LLC, B-422938, Dec. 12, 2024) where the Department of the Air Force did not follow GAO’s recommendations in connection with a bid protest. That case concerned “whether the Air Force made an award to a firm whose product did not meet the material requirements of the solicitation.” This case was interesting because GAO recommended the agency either reevaluate proposals in line with the solicitation, or amend the solicitation and resolicit. But the agency refused to do either, stating that because there was no automatic stay of performance, the initial awardee had been performing the contract and implementing GAO’s recommendation that would lead to “unspecified costs and unacceptable delays.” GAO Protest Numbers 1688 cases (1617 bid protests with the rest being other filings such as requests for costs), down from 1803 in FY 2024, a decrease of 6%. 380 – Number of cases decided on the merits, rather than through dismissal. 53 – Number of sustained protests (roughly 14%) 14% – Percentage of sustained protests out of those decided on the merits, similar to 3 out of the last 4 years. 52% – Effectiveness rate (percentage sustained or where agency took corrective action). This shows that over half of all GAO bid protests continue to result in a sustain or corrective action. A roughly 50% effectiveness rate has been the norm for the last few years, with FY 2021 being the last time that number fell below 50%. 0.5% – Percentage of cases with hearings—which amounts to 3 cases. This is routine for GAO since hearings are not a common occurrence here. Why Are Cases Sustained? The report summarizes the common reasons for sustaining protests at GAO. These are helpful to know what types of issues are most likely to get traction at GAO, although GAO is not too generous on detail. The three most common grounds (and an example of each) were: Unreasonable technical evaluation, such as “finding the agency’s technical evaluation of the awardee’s proposal unreasonable, in part, where under the management and staffing approach element, the agency credited the awardee as proposing staff for the required 11-month period, but the awardee only proposed staffing for 9 months.” emissary LLC, B-422388.3, July 29, 2025. Unreasonable cost or price evaluation, such as “finding the agency’s cost/price evaluation unreasonable where the awardee’s proposal failed to include its subcontractor’s cost/price information, as required by the solicitation, and the agency improperly attempted to cure the awardee’s proposal by creating the information that the awardee failed to provide by developing a risk-adjusted price using other information in the awardee’s proposal.” KBR Servs., LLC, B-422697, Oct. 4, 2024. Unreasonable rejection of proposal, such as “finding the agency’s decision to reject the protester’s quotation for providing labor categories (LCATs) under special item numbers (SINs) other than the SIN under which the solicitation was issued unreasonable where the solicitation did not expressly limit vendors from quoting LCATs under a specific SIN.” SynergisT JV, LLC, B-422384.2, Mar. 11, 2025. COFC Bid Protest Report The Court of Federal Claims (COFC) last released its annual report for FY 2024. It’s useful to compare the GAO bid protest report to that of the other main bid protest forum, the COFC. That report showed that there were 266 bid protest cases filed at COFC in FY 2024. That is an increase of almost 100 cases (an over 50% increase) from the 169 cases filed in FY 2023, per the 2023 report. There are fewer cases filed at the COFC than at GAO, but the bid protest numbers are rapidly growing at COFC. For instance, the FY 2024 number of 266 is over twice as many bid protests filed at the COFC in FY 2022, which was 123, which explains in part the ongoing trend of lower number of protests being filed at GAO. Unfortunately, the COFC report provides no details on sustain rate, corrective action rate, or reasons for sustaining protests. Other potential explanations for the decreased case load at GAO include (1) enhanced debriefings implemented by DoD that provide more information about why companies lost an award. (2) Fewer federal contractors overall and fewer contracts. As larger companies have consolidated, there are fewer small businesses. And (3) Category management has been pegged by some as resulting in a decrease in overall contracts, as more contracts are pushed to government wide acquisition contracts (or GWACs). This latter trend is likely to continue as the Revolutionary Far Overhaul (with its “required use” contracts) and Executive Orders (Eliminating Waste and Saving Taxpayer Dollars by Consolidating Procurement) call for increased consolidation. We at SmallGovCon can help you decide if a GAO or COFC protest may be right for your company, based on what types of arguments can be successful at GAO versus COFC and the process at each tribunal. It will be interesting to see if GAO protest numbers continue to go down next year, with COFC numbers increasing. We’ll keep you updated as we follow the trends on federal bid protests. Questions about this post? Email us. Need legal assistance? Call us at 785-200-8919. Looking for the latest government contracting legal news? Sign up here for our free monthly newsletter, and follow us on LinkedIn, Twitter and Facebook. The post 2025 GAO Bid Protest Report: Numbers Down, Effectiveness Still Even Odds–COFC Shows Increase in Bid Protests first appeared on SmallGovCon - Government Contracts Law Blog.View the full article

There it is! Don't ask what's different between what the old FAR said and what the new FAR says! It kills me when people ask that. It doesn't matter! Forget the old FAR! What matters is what the new FAR says. Don't wait for guidance! Just: read the new FAR, decide what you think it allows/requires you to do, talk it over with colleagues you respect for their knowledge, competence, and willingness to think new thoughts, think it through, plot a course, and develop a supporting argument for the staff naysayers (write it out for preparation and presentation), then Go for it. They want innovation, so innovate! Keep doing it! Don't let fear of criticism enter into your way of thinking. You don't have to win your first battle or every battle, but you must learn after each battle. Be a leader. Consider every battle to be an opportunity to excel.

So true. The RFO provides a means for someone to shine. While others sit back and wait for additional guidance, detailed policy memorandums, examples to copy, and see that’s it fine to proceed, a few will see the opportunity to be a pioneer. They will just jump in and use RFO now. Those will be looked at as taking bold actions and not timid. They will be in demand. Others will be eager to listen to or read what they have to say. I know already what the typical reactions to this will be - “wish I could but I can’t do that where I work.” If you are motivated, you’ll just be able to do it. I saw this in another site on a completely different topic. But it’s relevant here. “While your organization debates strategies, policies, governance, and pilot plans….you could be operating in expert mode.”

I love this. Also, thank you for the 300 plus articles written and the time you have devoted to this site. There are still a few of us out there who and are curious creatures seeking knowledge, growth, and opportunities outside of our comfort zone. I once had someone tell me experience comes from time, and you gain that experience by either having lived through it, or you can hijack that time and read about someone else's experience.

No, it's not. It's just not as much fun as it used to be, largely due to the contracting workforce itself I hope so. For your sake(s). Government contracting is the work of planning, designing, entering into, and managing (administering) contracts for the procurement of materials, products, and services that government agencies need in order to fulfill the duties assigned to them by Congress and the President, all in accordance with statute, regulation, and sound business practice. Government contracting is a specialty largely because of the myriad statutes and regulations that govern contracting processes and procedures and the expectations of the American public. It will always be a specialty. It's not going away. It takes know-how in several action domains, and the quality of professional life for contracting officers is largely a function of their knowledge, competence, and energy. And that's where the profession has failed itself. The last thing I would want to do is work in a "contracting squadron" or "contracting agency" or staff. I would want to work for, report to, and be evaluated by the man or woman who ultimately needs the product or service. The "owner" of the requirement. My motto, on a plaque behind my office wall or cubicle partition: Just tell me what you want, when and where you want it, and how much money you've got or can get. All of you who think your work is harder now than it was when I was working are wrong. What's different is attitude, determination, and level of commitment. You think buying military space systems during the Cold War was leisurely and easy? If so, it's because you don't know the history of your profession. You'll have a golden opportunity next year to seize the day. Take it! Find a way or make one. That's the fun part. But it takes study and hard work.

Good stuff. I agree with your position. Questions on my mind: Is there any precedent for this situation, in which the FAR reinterprets a longstanding statute so audaciously? I imagine COFC would be the appropriate venue for challenging this regulation. But what would happen if the GAO received the protest instead? Would it be within GAO's authority to disregard the FAR because they believe it runs counter to statute?

Contracting is less important today than it was then. As time goes on, we will no longer have "Contracting Squadrons" or "Contracting Agencies" the Contracting Officer will be absorbed under the requirement organization. Each requirement organization will have a Contracting person at their disposal, maybe they'll even change the name of the Contracting officer to a resource advisor, the FAR will be updated so that contracting officers are not the only ones that can obligate the government.

FYI, this is what I wrote: "Lastly, the authority to establish BPAs under multiple-award contracts could be problematic. Unlike ordering under Federal Supply Schedules, when ordering under multiple-award contracts there is a statutory requirement (41 U.S.C. §3302(c)(2)) to 1) notify all contractors of the intent to make an individual purchase (defined as a task order, delivery order, or other purchase) and 2) afford all contractors responding to the notice a fair opportunity to be considered for the individual purchase. Having said that, the RFO Practitioner Guide for part 16 states “Contracting Officers must create ordering procedures for the BPA that provide fair opportunity to all BPA holders, not all contractors under the IDIQ.” That doesn’t seem to comply with the statute—we may have to wait for a protest before we know for sure."

I didn't catch that, but I assumed they were implying that was now possible. I agree that it seems the RFO folks believe they are being innovative.

There is still a heavy emphasis, at least at my agency, on 1102s being "business advisors" that handle many aspects, including things that are normally done by supporting offices. I think program offices have grown quite comfortable with having CO's pick up all these extra duties. The amount of meetings and "planning" that goes into maintaining and even understanding these complex procurement systems is massive. We spend far more time studying and debating means and methods than we do with the fundamentals.

You're correct. My mistake. I didn't read far enough.

In what way? If I understand the topic here (which I may not, I frequently misunderstand things), it's about adding the ability to issue BPAs under IDIQs. The link talks to them adding the ability to have BPAs under OASIS+ by the end of January. GWAC Updates Coming in January Beyond the MAS refresh, Stanton said similar updates are coming to GSA’s GWACs and other multiple award contracts in the coming weeks. Those updates will incorporate the same FAR deviations and policy changes now appearing in the schedule program. “We’re also looking at our GWACs and our other multiple award contracts, such as Oasis+,” Stanton said. “All of those, you’re going to be seeing similar refreshes by the end of January.” “I know that Alliant 2 already moved out on being able to add [blanket purchase agreements], so you’re already seeing some of the changes of FAR,” she added. Stanton said other contracts, including Oasis+, will also have blanket purchase agreements by the end of January, telling stakeholders to “hang on for six more weeks.”

I'm wondering if you caught this bit in the Practitioner Album within your article, Don: Based on this, if I awarded a multiple-award IDIQ years ago without any contemplation of BPAs even being possible, I can now unilaterally change the contract to conduct a competition for BPAs and exclude the unsuccessful IDIQ-holders from further participation under the IDIQ. It really feels like the RFO drafters believe they've identified a gap in the existing body of Federal acquisition knowledge, and now they're merely pointing it out for others to exploit. I wonder if they have reason to be so confident... The irony here is that they may have been on firmer ground to make this sort of creative interpretation before SCOTUS overturned Chevron. Looking forward to the article!

This is a different topic.

Sounds like they're pushing forward for this in January: https://www.meritalk.com/articles/gsa-plans-refresh-of-major-gwacs-by-end-of-january/

Excellent thoughts! This seems like a great theme for an article or class. Very motivational.

Great expectations are the paving stones to power over the process. I love great expectations. I love the looks on their faces when you produce. And the phone calls you get from happy higher ups. If the people I supported didn't have great expectations, I'd suggest some. I once had a boss (a colonel who became a major general) who would give me really hard tasks. If I looked at him blankly he would say, "Consider it an opportunity to excel." I took him seriously.

By that time contracting was already a ruined career field. It became ruined because the contracting profession was not solving problems. I and others have been documenting and writing about the process of deterioration for more than 30 years. I have written about 300 articles about it in various publications, mainly in The Nash & Cibinic Report, buy also here. The contracting profession can blame itself for many (not all) of their problems. Mainly, for lack of leadership. Today, contracting has a chance to recover. The smart thinkers and hard chargers have the chance of a lifetime to seize the day. The rest will continue to be clerks. You know how I can tell the difference? The clerks ask what's the difference between the old FAR and the overhauled FAR. The smart thinkers don't care about the difference; they don't plan to think about the old FAR; they are already thinking about what they can come up with to do better work and do it faster under the new FAR. The clerks will wait for the "buying guides" from on high... and new software.