I work for DOD buying commercial items to satisfy military needs. Whenever we can, we use FAR part 12 and part 13 simplified aquisition procedures to our greatest advantage, especially when it comes to contractor evaluations (ie; very informal) so as not to box ourselves in and spend days in evaluations. We also use FAR part 13.5 special extension and get into the 100K-3 million dollar range.

I am looking for some advice concerning technical data, in particular technical manuals (operation and repair). We like our manuals just so, and DFAR Part 227.7102 allows us to attempt to acquire what we want.

The problem is, although we clearly delineate what we want, after the contract is awarded the vendors act like that requirement is and was no big deal, and we fight like hell to get them to give us a manual we asked for. I guess they are just to used to the commercial world, or maybe we don't put enough teeth into our contracts. We do not as a rule add anything into the evaluation plan that covers the technical manual(since we do not get nor would we expect our version during evaluations, how can we evaluate it?).

What can we do to strengthen our simplified acquisition contracts to make sure the vendors know what we want up front, make sure they understand the work and cost involved, and that provides us with a contract that give us the leverage to demand (and get)results from them if they don't comply?

By Anonymous on Friday, February 22, 2002 - 01:52 pm:

Maybe they aren't usually asked to provide such manuals and don't have them available in a format designed for public release. Or maybe its a special order item. When you buy an automobile or a tractor you get an operators manual, but if you want a detailed maintenance and repair manual you either have to special-order it or buy it from a third party source. That may be part of your problem.

If you're relying on the contract documents to communicate the requirement for a technical manual that may be another part of your problem. The equipment comes from one part of the company but you have to talk to someone else to get the manual and they never see the contract document and no one tells them about the requirement. Most truly commercial sales aren't usually accompanied by the blizzard of paper that comes with a government "commercial items" contract.

When you make the buy ask who you have to talk to in order to get the manual and call that person to discuss your need. The equipment sales person is interested in selling the hardware. He or she couldn't care less about the manual.

By BobM on Monday, February 25, 2002 - 11:07 am:

This thread was provided by anon23. I duplicated it here for convenience:

The problem does not lie with the contractor or the contractor's understanding. I think your acquisition has a fundamental "What am I doing?" problem that needs analysis. The problem comes up where there is the almost commercial requirement and the acquiring agency sends a mixed message that amounts to give me a "just so" hammer at a commercial price. No, you will get the special hammer and special price! The problem is not insolvable. It does require more work and analysis than apparently many offices are willing to give.

First, don't expect a commercial vendor to either be prepared to provide or to accept as an bligation a specialized addition to what they normally provide under the normal terms regardless of how clearly you express the desire within the context of a commercial like buy. That is about as effective as going to the ice cream stand in the mall and ordering a vanilla cone at the commercial price while saying "Make it big! Lots of vanilla flavor!" -- yeah, sure. Most will make small accommodations and try to please a good customer. They will not hire or subcontract for writers to do your tailored manual at anywhere close to the
normal price.

The firm will not get into something outside their basic business practice just because you are the
government. You are into a variant of Henry Ford's "You can have any color you want as long as it is black" situation. They really are not going to react to your "We like our manuals just so, and DFAR Part 227.7102 allows us to attempt to acquire what we want" with anything other than this ttitude when you are trying to get their commercial item at a commercial cost. They, as I would, will likely say "You want something special? Sure, lets talk about a special contract!" Guess what? You are right back into what drove those notorious hammer costs. All the burden of that special manual cost are going to lie squarely on your shoulders.

Analyze your requirement in terms of the market. Do you really need the "just so" manual? Do a market survey of the stock manuals. Is the commercial data in the form (it may even be to an industry standard)any expert in the field should be able to use? Assuming the answer is "no," then parse your requirement. You may need a commercial item buy for the item and a custom contract for the manual specification. At the least you, along with auditors, congress and the news, will be able to see exactly how much that "just so" manual is costing us. Do not expect a commercial firm to play games of commercial pricing for just so requirements as you do one thing while pretending another. You cannot tilt too far into non-commercial item procurement without doing exactly that!

By BobM on Monday, February 25, 2002 - 11:15 am:

anon23,

In order to make the custom contract for the manual only, I would need to do a sole source requirement back to the equipment manufacturer after the equipment contract is let. Is that what you mean? Suppose they are unwilling at that time?

By anon23 on Monday, February 25, 2002 - 01:51 pm:

BobM,

A sole source back to a vendor is not necessarily what I mean. I do mean to say that you cannot expect an essentially commercial transaction with a commercial vendor to involve "just so" user manuals. From your post in the other discussion I get a distinct impression that you make mention of desired manual coverage in soliciting an essentially commercial buy, the vendors make agreeable sounds. They then react with surprise and non response when you "clarify" post contract that you really do want a custom manual. Frankly, what do you expect?

Commercial item manuals are stock items the customer gets in the package. Some are excellent and some are gibberish. Some, particularly for some lower end foreign items, are downright hilarious. The vendor is not in the manual business and may hire a writer for a product line without any in-house ability to even do a custom manual. Anyone who has done a Federal development contract that requires manuals to a precise data item requirement knows the real cost of this non trivial element. The commercial customer generally chooses based on shopping for the item with the manual an "as is" addition.

You have several choices and subchoices. They generally take you right out of the simple commercial buy world.  

You can include the manuals in your shopping, reviewing the commercial item, its commercial documentation and price as a package. Now you are into some sort of weighted source selection. Do you reject excellent form and fit with competitive pricing due to lousy documentation? At what point does nearly "just so" documentation outweigh item quality and price? I'll put it this way. Are your users going to be happy with a wonderful trouble shooting manual while doing an unusual amount of troubleshooting? You have a best value source selection on your hands with some interesting questions.

Your other choices involve some degree of alternate source documentation. Perhaps you could get the vendor to do a special documentation effort under another contract. Some might try, many will not consider that a part of their business plan. You might be much better served by a completely separate contract with a specialized firm that is in the business of translating technical data to end user manuals. You may even be able to get the original vendor's agreement to provide "residue" technical information for the effort. Another alternative, depending on your resources is an in-house "translation."

What you do depends on the scale of your acquisition and the nature of the manual audience. It would be idiocy to do a documentation development when buying a few dozen consumer electronic items for in-house use. It might be idiocy not to do so when buying thousands to be sent into the field with troops for use integrated with other items.

Only you can determine the trades, but unless you do a good analysis you can almost count on frustration. No sane commercial vendor is going to get into "just so" manual writing within their commercial pricing and capability. Expecting that is akin to expecting personal shopper service at a discount store. Your simplest course is to evaluate the manuals within a type of best value selection with the documentation assigned a realistic value and expectation. "Just so" is not realistic in a commercial environment.

By BobM on Monday, February 25, 2002 - 03:49 pm:

Gee anon23,

You seem to be hitting me over the head with my term "just so". I'm sorry I used it!

Seriously though, thanks for the input.

We do clarify that we want something other than their commercial manual. Suppose we add the words "custom manual" in the line item description, that might help (ps; custom is your term).

Here's a debatable point; if vendor gives me a commercial piece of equipment, and an Army(ized) manual describing it, is it still a commercial procurement? I say it is. What do you say?

By anon23 on Monday, February 25, 2002 - 05:57 pm:

I say you have a special procurement that is outside commercial procurement unless companies offering your item typically offer "Army(ized)" or other custom manuals in this particular market for similar sized purchases. Again, we have no idea of what market you are dealing with here. There would be a huge difference between firms selling desktop computers and a commercial aircraft company with very high unit values. It might be normal for the first to do custom manuals for a "branding" partner with its own sales and for the second to customize manuals for one $40 million unit. Your experience indicates your market is not typically in the business of custom documentation. That market acts surprised when it finds you really require custom documentation.

What is your logic here? How do you justify adding a special requirement for a non trivial added service with the item as "commercial" in that market? For example, how do you propose to establish a reasonable price for your custom manual work if the contractor does not normally provide custom documentation? (Wow, you may set the pace! $10k/page!) The item may be a FAR 2.101 "Commercial item" offered or sold, or leased, or licensed to the general public. Is the manual separately in the same category? Does the company offer or sell custom manuals for products in non governmental use? Apparently not in your market. I also would find it hard to call "Army(ized)" a minor modification as defined.

Unless you find a company in your market area with a stable of technical writers normally engaged in offering custom manuals to the non government market place I think you do not have a commercial item procurement with respect to a special manual.

By BobM on Tuesday, February 26, 2002 - 10:44 am:

I disagree with you. You want to tie the data we are requesting to the definition of a commercial item acquisition.

As I said in my opening post, DFAR Part 227.7102 allows a diversion from the normal restrictions of FAR Part 12 (see 12.111). You may, and still be within the standards of a commercial item acquisition, ask for data that..(is).."not customarily provided to commercial users or the data provided to commercial users is not sufficient for military purposes" (227.7102-1)

In my case (the data) is usually not sufficient. To use your words, some is downright hilarious.

So in that respect, why do I have to stick with what they normally offer the commercial world? Why can't I include special military data requirements in a commercial item acquisition?

By Anonymous on Tuesday, February 26, 2002 - 11:52 am:

It seems to me that you can..it may be more of a question as to how one communicates acceptable standards for such manuals. Years ago we would make similar requests using echelon standards. There were simple operator echelon manuals all the way up to fifth echelon which included sub assembly-component repairs. I will wager someone has established such a standard and once found,should be easily incorporated into the solicitation

By anon23 on Tuesday, February 26, 2002 - 12:36 pm:

Why? Because those definitions apply to you, not the firms. You are doing a government defined commercial item acquisition -- the firms you deal with apparently do not agree. That is taken directly from your statement (My emphasis):  

The problem is, although we clearly delineate what we want, after the contract is awarded the vendors act like that requirement is and was no big deal, and we fight like hell to get them to give us a manual we asked for. I guess they are just to used to the commercial world, or maybe we don't put enough teeth into our contracts.

Yes? Reckon so? You are surprised when you are dealing with a commercial firm, in a stated commercial item acquisition and the businesses expect a commercial world result? Anonymous of February 22, 2002 - 01:52 defined your problem in terms of commercial autos and tractors. The government can define an apple as an orange and it does not make apples citrus for the rest of the world.

Quit trying to pretend and force the commercial world to agree that your special manuals are just normal commercial practices. They are not. Go find a tame DoD contractor to be your "integrator" and have them buy whatever it is and write the "Army(ized)" manuals. Be prepared to explain to someone just why manuals must be "just so" at the price you will pay. If your explanation is sound you can take the flak. If you don't have a sound argument for being really special, go for best overall value in item, stock manual and price as C. Mercy and I have suggested.

You might even have some success being really explicit with those commercial firms. Go ahead, put real "teeth" in, really be clear on what you want and will require and watch what happens to those "commercial prices."

Be prepared though. Peel away all the government and press rhetoric and this was the root of the hammer and the toilet seat problem. What seemed like ordinary items were clearly delineated to be just a little bit special and DoD acquisition practice got some real moments in the sun. We probably both know there at least were special things about the toilet seat. That is exactly why there were special prices just for them! Of course you can then expect someone to ask why you bought a truly commercial toilet seat with a $1,000 manual!

By Linda Koone on Tuesday, February 26, 2002 - 04:31 pm:

BobM:

In my opinion and my understanding of your problem, I agree with you that you can use FAR Part 12 or Subpart 13.5 to acquire the item. The contractor may not consider it to be a truly commercial contract, but that isn't your concern. You want to be able to take advantage of the flexibility offered by Part 12/Subpart 13.5 and I agree with you that you can do that.

You say that you can't ask for the manuals for purposes of evaluation, which makes sense since you are looking for a customized manual. Why don't you specify clearly in the solicitation exactly what the manual needs to cover, and request that offerors provide a copy of their commercial manual as part of their offer, along with a description of how they will revise this manual under the contract to comply with your requirement. It may provide you with better insight as to their understanding of your requirement.

By anon23 on Wednesday, February 27, 2002 - 12:44 pm:

Linda,

I understand the desire to use the commercial item approach internally. What I also see is a fairly high risk of mixing real commercial items with imaginary commercial items.

Unless I misread (and "mislived") the nineteen nineties efforts to correct some of the obvious problems with Federal acquisition this situation is such a case. Even ordinary acquisition people were amazed at abuses while the public and Congress sometimes went off on hammer and toilet seat tangents. This was particularly obvious in the IT area where very expensive and sub performing MILSPEC computers sometimes sat in pretty ordinary spaces.

We could see that ordinary items from commerce were adequate while we were getting very expensive items that were made so by a layer of unique specifications of doubtful value. I could give dozens of examples, as could anyone in DoD over the last half century. A good thing had become mindless in long and often unthinking application. The worst examples were those 95% commercial and 5% unique that were at 400% (or much more) commercial cost.

Commercial was not the panacea some thought. A little Navy group had a wonderful briefing on the subject in about 1992. There were downsides. Going commercial was going to take care and wisdom. A real danger that they noted was mixing objectives in a way that could bring about the worst of both worlds. For one, duplication of that 95% commercial and 5% unique cost driver could be done "commercially" with even sadder result. That is the danger I see here.

The question and analysis that must be done is whether a desire to look commercial and take advantage of the commercial item rules will drive an essentially non commercial result with bad effect. I know something about documentation issues in high tech contracts. They are non trivial and can be very expensive.

We don't know whether these manuals are for can openers or high performance computers so it is hard to judge. I do know that if the commercial audience is driven to price what is outside their normal process you can get some astounding prices without protections normally provided by non commercial item contracting. I suspect, though I cannot know, that this issue is pushing that envelope. We now have to leave it to the people knowing the details to do some thinking about just what it is they are demanding, whether it is really necessary and how to best obtain it if so.

By Linda Koone on Wednesday, February 27, 2002 - 03:25 pm:

Anon23:

You're right. We don't know what type of equipment the manuals support, therefore, our advice must be general in nature. Maybe a comparison of the current manual with the price tag for a specialized one will allow a thoughtful decision to be made.

I simply wanted to express an opinion that buying a commercial product with a specialized manual wouldn't limit BobM's ability to use Part 12 or 13.

(By the way, in general, I'm not wild about stretching the definition of a commercial item to fit government unique requirements either.)

By BobM on Wednesday, February 27, 2002 - 05:24 pm:

As this is an interesting and informative topic, I want to keep it going a bit. I can shed a little light on the type of equipment in the way of just one of many factual examples:

DOD is moving towards the process of powdered paint coatings for equipment. It is a great advantage to normal "wet" painting methods in that it (among other good things) reduces hazardous waste and is more friendly to the environment. We are purchasing several large commercial powder paint curing ovens for various DOD facilities that still perform the painting themselves instead of contracting it out. Several of these activities just happen to be overseas.

A large gas or infrared oven is not a simple item, and we want the overseas (or stateside for that matter) military man to have the best data we can get him so he can easily operate it, fix things, and quickly find information to order the repair parts. Remember, these guys rotate frequently, and who was there yesterday may not be there today. The new guy needs good data to work with.

The U.S. government is not about to try designing large gas ovens when commercial ones do just fine. If we did design them though, we would create a technical manual that allowed the guys at an airbase in Japan to take care of all but the most major problems without calling in a repair man from the U.S.

The manuals you get from the commercial world are not up to par. So, why not include a little work in the same (commercial type) contract to upgrade them? If the oven manufacturer cannot do it, why can't he sub it out?

I don't see the big problem here. Unique problems sometimes require unique solutions.

By anon23 on Thursday, February 28, 2002 - 12:57 am:

BobM, I'm willing to go a bit further with the added information. This is interesting.

We now know we are not talking about large numbers of troops or other people using an unfamiliar item on occasion in the field. We are talking about "DOD facilities" and people, presumably with some industrial training or experience, using industrial items in an industrial setting. The other assumption, based on your earlier statements, is that multiple vendors, not just one, have unsatisfactory manuals. Perhaps the best approach is to ask a series of questions.  

Why does Army in a similar setting require unique manuals if the (note plural) anufacturers' manuals are good enough for the normal industrial customers for these ovens? For the sake of argument alone here, do you contend the Army's industrial facility people are not as smart or skilled as those in comparable industries? Bluntly, if companies driven by the need to compete survive using these ovens with stock manuals why is Army unable to do likewise?

One of those reform issues was the unique requirement that was more cultural than real; is this one of those where "the best is the enemy of good enough" and you are creating a needless cost driver?

Assuming you have a solid requirement, does it make sense to wrap the specialized task of manual writing into a contract with a manufacturer that in your opinion has already failed to meet its customer's needs?

If none of these companies can write a good manual, using whatever means, when driven by competition what makes you think they can do so with your money and specifications? Is your oversight and guidance going to have such muse like influence?

Why do you think they will not establish a whole new, probably unique, commercial product line and price at your expense when these companies normally provide manuals along with the commercial item ("NSP" comes to mind) and have no commercial pricing track record for unique manuals? Would you not really be entering into unknown and unique territory without the usual protections offered by contracting for unique requirements? What basis will you have for knowing whether you've just gone to the cleaners or not?

Are you going to solve that problem with a side contract where you will have more insight into the cost and pricing? Why not go directly to someone proven in the business of taking a mess (and perhaps mass too) of technical data and turning it into well organized, plain language, user information with the appropriate contract safeguards instead of mixing things up with the hardware vendor?

Aren't you more likely to get something really useful going to a specialist? Perhaps even a maintainable electronic version of the manual? (Think on that a moment. A manual in which experience of those facilities could be wrapped back into updates.)

Would it not make sense to incorporate terms into your hardware contract that the vendors might more easily meet? Couldn't the terms be that they provide source data and rights for your use in the custom manual? Is it possible they might even be interested in some sort of cooperation for improvement of their own manuals?

I'll venture what are obviously casual suggestions. I don't and can't know all the details. User manual quality was a constant issue in systems and software development. Translating the vendor's engineers' knowledge into organized, plain language appropriate to the audience was not trivial. Most of the amusing examples I've seen, baring some wild examples of English as a strange and mysterious tool, have been engineering staff trying to explain something to an unknown user.

The best work was done by professionals in industrial educational materials. Your life cycle O&M of these ovens may benefit from that type of attention -- and don't forget the opportunity to have control of an independent electronic manual for incorporation of user experience. Only you can do the cost benefit estimates there, but I think you need to escape the box of thinking only in terms of already failed vendors.

One thing that I would be interested in trying is perhaps a pilot cooperative agreement whereby my hardware vendor really cooperates with my manual specialist for mutual benefit and perhaps some overall life cycle cost savings.

By anon23 on Thursday, February 28, 2002 - 08:34 am:

BobM, I certainly do not expect to see answers here in the forum. The questions are simply some that I would be asking and honestly answering for myself in the course of reaching a decision.

Good luck.

By Kennedy How on Thursday, February 28, 2002 - 12:15 pm:

With the new info that BobM provided, I can see what his issues are. Having been involved with tech manual development only in a peripheral sense, and knowing how the military does things, I can see the need for a more specific manual.

The army has bought various commercial construction equipment in recent years. For support, we've also bought the contractor's commercial manual, parts/repair. Usually, in the field, you get, say a generic diesel mechanic MOS to repair the thing. He needs a clear manual to really understand how to fix the thing. He probably comes to our NETT facility to get this. If he's a "short timer", he'll be rotated out, and the new guy will have to go through all this again, presuming there's another class. In the meantime, the CO is crying to get the NMC equipment back up to speed.

Second, commercial manuals don't include NSNs. The Army basically requires you enter a part requisition using an NSN, though punching in a PN that has an NSN will work, the logistics system will match the two up. The problem comes when the PN is obsolete, and there is no match. It's more reliable to provide the NSN to the field. We've gotten around this by providing the cross-reference to the contractor, and he provides it either as an addendum to the printed manual, or as a supplemental insert. Of course, these things could get lost....

In the private sector, your repair/maintenance folks are more stable, and dedicated. They go to more schools, and get more training. I believe that you would get more knowledgeable repair folks at a Ford dealership when repairing your vehicle than having a generic vehicle mechanic at some camp/post/station fixing it. Not to say he can't fix it, but it might take him longer, because he doesn't see this every day, and he needs to have specific procedures. I know when I look at my vehicle repair manual (like a Chiltons), it's not really that good, compared to Tech Manuals for, say an M1 tank.

My few cents....

Kennedy

By anon23 on Friday, March 01, 2002 - 10:38 am: