By Vern Edwards on Friday, September 15, 2000 - 10:13 am:\Bob:

As you noted, GSA has announced that it will no longer seek publication of a paper copy of the FAR. (See Edward Loeb's memo of Sep 11, 2000.) From now on, GSA will publish the FAR only on the internet.

I have mixed feelings about this. On the one hand, it will certainly save money. But, in my opinion, today's GS-1102s do not know the FAR as well as they should, and I cannot help but wonder if the elimination of the paper copy will lead to further ignorance in that regard. Much of what I know about the FAR came from idle browsing--what I call, "flipping around"--in its pages and pondering the meaning of what I read there. I don't think people will browse the FAR on line.

I was trained to believe that knowledge of the acquisition regs (ASPR-DAR-FAR) was professionally empowering. But the reform movement of the 1990s seems to have given rise to the notion that concern for the regs is a sign of professional rigidity. It's almost as if pride in one's knowledge of the FAR is a sure sign that you're a blockhead.

Steve Kelman, OFPP Administrator for most of President Clinton's administration and chief architect of the reform movement, writing in 1990 about government computer acquisitions, said:

"The contracting people are the agencies' own in-house lease holders. While there are some exceptions, in general contracting officers often try to reduce the exercise of discretion by the technical or program people, partly through their role as guardians of the regulatory process. As the ones who almost always know the regulations better than the technical or program people, they advise these others about how to proceed.... They insist on reviewing and signing documents--although their ability to spot, for example, restrictive specifications is limited by deficiencies in their knowledge of computers."

Procurement and Public Management: The Fear of Discretion and the Quality of Government Performance (Washington, DC: American Enterprise Institute, 1990), p. 25.

Ten years later, in the July-August 2000 issue of Program Manager magazine, Dierdre (Dee) Lee, successor to Kelman as OFPP Administrator and now the Director of Defense Procurement, is quoted as saying this to contracting personnel:

"First of all, be less dependent on rules for what you can or cannot do and rely on your judgment for what makes good business sense and why. Follow your instincts! Then, understand a contracting professional does not add value by virtue of the ability to write and the authority to sign contracts. Added value is bringing that business expertise that helps shape effective and successful acquisition strategies and then brokers the business deal."

Be less dependent on rules for what you can or cannot do? What does that mean? Are the rules rules, or aren't they? FAR 1.602-1(b) says: "No contract shall be entered into unless the contracing officer ensures that all requirements of law, executive orders, regulations, and all other applicable procedures, including clearances and approvals, have bee met." Is the FAR Council going to take that out? If not, then how can you "shape effective and successful acquisition strategies" and broker deals if you don't know and pay attention to the rules?

So, who are we 1102s and what are we about? Some people say that we are or should be "business managers" or "business brokers." But what does that mean? What do they mean by "business" and what do they mean by "manage"? Where do the program manager's responsibilities end and the "business manager's" begin? If acquisition strategy is no longer to be limited by the procurement rules, then why even have a specialized contracting job series? Why not just give program managers the authority to sign contracts and obligate the government? Indeed, why stop with the elimination of the paper copy of the FAR? Why not just do away with it entirely?

I realize that GSA's decision to end publication of the paper FAR is not a bad development in and of itself. But I think that it is symbolic of the professional identity crisis within the ranks of the GS-1102 community. It's going to take strong leadership to help us figure out who we are and what we are about. I wish that I could say that I know where we are going to find that leadership.

By joel hoffman on Friday, September 15, 2000 - 10:51 am:

When one can flip through a computer file as quickly as a book, I'll accept the elimination of FAR paper copies. As yes, Darn it(toned it down for you, ANON), there are times to carry the book into meetings, as a reference. I haven't memorized the book, so I need to use it, often. It's impractical to carry a computer to meetings or TDY and hook it up all the time.

Why do I carry it to a meeting? Generally as empowerment tool, not as a restrictive block! Convincing reluctant 1102's, ignorant XX types ...
Happy Sails! Joel

By Eric Ottinger on Friday, September 15, 2000 - 11:37 am:

Vern and all,

This should be a long thread.

Everybody I know who has worked with Dee Lee speaks the world of her.

In this case, I think she is doing her best to get us to reorient before we self-destruct.

There is a big difference between knowing the rules and understanding the rules.

I know too many Contracting Officers who think they are great musicians because they play oompah music to an exact four/four beat. Lee wants us to swing a bit. That means that she wants a higher level of musicianship.

(Sorry for the figurative language Vern.)

Yes, every office should have one well maintained hard copy of the FAR.

Maybe CCH can be persuaded to publish a loose-leaf hard copy again. The CCH version was always superior to the GPO version.

Eric

By Vern Edwards on Friday, September 15, 2000 - 01:48 pm:

Joel and Eric:

Good comments, but what I'm really interested in is a discussion of the role of the contracting officer/contract specialist in what appears to be a new environment.

Eric, I think you're right about what Dee wants (figuratively speaking), but we can't ignore the fact that her comments reflect a (radical?) de-emphasis on regulatory compliance. I don't mean that she doesn't care about the regulations (I think she was a little careless in the way she spoke), but that she is emphasizing "business" knowledge over regulatory knowledge. What does she want from us, in specific terms?

Contracting officers and contract specialists have always been contract negotiators ("business brokers," in Dee's language). But their negotiation objectives and strategy have always been conditioned by the regulations. After all, the regulations prescribe the vast majority of contract terms. So, what "business expertise" is she looking for? What does she mean by "business"?

What kind of education and training should 1102s seek? What kind of knowledge should they bring to the office? About what topics should they be prepared to advise program and project managers?

I'm trying to get to specifics and away from the generalities of "business."

By bob antonio on Friday, September 15, 2000 - 02:36 pm:

Vern:

As you know, the FAR is written in accordance with the requirements of the Office of Federal Procurement Policy Act and it is prepared, issued and maintained by DoD, NASA, and GSA.

Over the last several years, Ms. Lee was both the head of NASA's procurement organization and the Administrator of the Office of Federal Procurement Policy. Currently, she is the Director of Defense Procurement. No other single person can claim more responsibility for the FAR than Ms. Lee. I do not think that can be questioned.

The parts that Ms. Lee cannot claim responsibility for are the those parts that are a verbatim repetition of federal law. I do not think that Ms. Lee intended contracting officers to ignore federal law or her regulation.

I don't think anyone truly understands the entire FAR. There is just too much of it. That is not to say the regulation is too long; it simply points out that federal contracting is quite complicated. The FAR has the effect of law and it must be followed. Although the FAR is quite long, it is only one piece of information that the humble contracting officer must have within their grasp. Pre-award matters in the FAR are supplemented by legal decisions. Additionally, contract adfministration rules are--for a great part--written by the boards of contract appeals and the courts. Did Mr. Kelman or Ms. Lee forget that? No, they are much too bright for that.

So the contracting officer must be knowledgeable about federal law, Ms. Lee's regulation, and a wide assortment of legal decisions. Within this framework of law, regulation, and decision, the contracting officer must operate. Even with all this in place, there is room to innovate.

I think the contracting officer must learn as much about contract law, regulation, and legal decisions as they can. Additionally, they must work in an organization that treats them as professionals. The rest is up to the contracting officer. I believe this is what Ms. Lee means.

By bob antonio on Friday, September 15, 2000 - 02:41 pm:

Vern:

Have you read the acquisition strategy that I posted for the DD-21. I wonder if a contracting officer was involved in that.

By Vern Edwards on Friday, September 15, 2000 - 03:15 pm:

Bob:

But Ms Lee's remarks suggest that she thinks that contracting officers have been too rules-oriented, too focused on law, regulation, and legal decisions. They suggest that there is another set of knowledge that they must seek--something she would call "business" knowledge, and that they must become "business brokers," not just rules followers.

That's what I'm trying to get at and to understand. Beside ensuring compliance with the law and regulation, what is the role of the contracting officer/contract specialist? What should they know and do that is so special that it warrants a special career field? Indeed, how could a specialist career field exist without a specialist function like ensuring compliance with the set of general rules known as the FAR?

By joel hoffman on Friday, September 15, 2000 - 06:01 pm:

Having been a negotiator for almost thirty years, I can think of a lot of situations which require "business sense", far beyond just knowing/following the rules and regulations. For example, "bargaining" in competitive procurements, knowing how to draw fine lines between competition fairness issues, yet getting the best technical and cost deals you can from each offeror.

I found that many (not all) contract specialists have a hard time with these issues - admittedly, experience helps as well as having a full understanding of the technical subject matter of the acquisition.

There are at many keys to success in negotiations; know the other party's core needs, know the allowability and allocability rules, know the market conditions and sources, know how the contractor does business, know the mechanics of the cost proposal but one of the most important is fully understanding the scope of work. There are others, too.

Could some of these acquisition considerations be what Ms. Lee was referring to? Happy Sails! Joel

By Vern Edwards on Friday, September 15, 2000 - 07:35 pm:

Joel:

Certainly. But it seems to me that she is talking about more than that, although I am not entirely clear about what it is. For instance, in the Program Manager interview she says:

"[T]he new contracting professional will understand the ramifications of your decisions throughout the process--programmatic, technical, financial...more than just contract management."

Ellipsis in original.

Now, while that makes sense at a superficial level, deeper consideration raises doubts about its specific meaning, at least in my mind. To the extent that the government hires a contractor to execute a program, the contract specifications, schedule, price and other terms will affect the program's outcome. But there is nothing new about that. So why do we have to be "new contracting professionals"? New in what way? How do we have to change?

I hope that everyone understands that I'm not being disingenuous. I'm really trying to work my way through to a deeper understanding of what I consider to be an identity crisis in our profession. We are told that whatever we have been in the past, we have to change. See, for example, the article by W. Gregor Macfarlane in the August issue of Contract Manager magazine, "The Buyer as a Business Manager?" In it, Macfarlane says:

"Many professionals are speaking energetically about the need to re-engineer contracting and purchasing functions so that the people who practice them (contracing officers and purchasing agents) become more like business managers or advisors."

I interpret that to mean that contracting officers are not business managers now, and that the job of business manager is different than the job of contracting officer. But Macfarlane doesn't make a direct comparison. He then goes on to say:

"Successfully navigating the road ahead will require years of work. We are not merely attempting a mid-course correction. We are plotting a new journey."

(What's with the metaphors? I often suspect that people who use a lot of metaphors in nonfiction writing are trying to hide the fact that they don't have anything specific in mind.)

A new journey to where? Macfarlane doesn't say. Instead, he concludes that we need a "guiding construct," whatever that means. I don't know what he's talking about. He has concluded that we need to go to a new place, but he doesn't know where it is or what we'll find when we get there.

Do you see where I'm going with this? I'm just trying to figure out what we have to become that we aren't already supposed to be.

By Ramon Jackson on Friday, September 15, 2000 - 09:47 pm:

Vern,

This could indeed be a huge thread and maybe we'd better begin branches. I share your fears on going all digital. As much as I enjoy and depend on computers the screen does not replace pages to flip. Joel's observation is to the point.

I also share the Kellman/Lee frustration wiht hidebound cites of FAR to obstruct reasonable efforts. Before I was thrown headfirst into the firepit of a rather unique contracting organization I shared the view 1102s were universally out to make life miserable for us technical types. I saw too many useless things delivered after contracts had cited regs to turn our requirement to mush.

I'm also afraid we also live in a time, illustrated by a well known steakhouse's ads and I-66/Beltway traffic, of "no rules." It may be getting critical for an organized society. Still, I can't quite believe these two really want rules ignored.

I heard a great deal from contracting officers about their being the government's business experts. Many really were, others not. In the last category were some I wondered about greatly. They had never been in business, had no business education, didn't read business journals, and probably were no better qualified as business experts as the ordinary worker. We probably need a new thread on needed qualifications.

Your quote, "[T]he new contracting professional will understand the ramifications of your decisions throughout the process--programmatic, technical, financial...more than just contract management." hit a nerve. The "business" sense most contracting people mention is outward focused. They often do not have a good feel for how the contract will fit into the internal business of the agency and interact with other key areas, even the comptroller's office. Could that be what they are talking about?

It would make sense. I know some in my past had no internal "business" sense. Why else would they focus on external and contracting business to the extent I occasionally went to sea with things unfit for sea duty? They had no sense that the "restrictive specification" was restrictive of landlubber items. They had no sense that on occasion the business of the agency was slightly hindered by their externally focused business sense.

By bob antonio on Monday, September 18, 2000 - 08:35 am:

Vern:

I think the GS-1102 series is merely a bit-player in this issue. Let me add a few ideas before we get to the bit-players.

We need some organization in charge of federal acquisition. Currently, we have none. The concept of an OFPP makes sense however its authority was muted when it was created. Even the CASB will get away from it soon. It has the authority to grovel as Ms. Lee must have found out when she was there. The law needs to be replaced and a new Office of Acquisition Management needs to be created. That office would have responsibility for all acquisition personnel, acquisition training, acquisition regulation, proposals for acquisition law, etc.

If you look at the DD-21, you will see that they are using "Other Transactions" to get the job done. That really means "Other than the FAR and authorizing legislation." So I accept what the DD-21 program is saying and think that all federal acquisition laws should be rewritten--and unified in one section of the U. S. Code. The laws should be as brief as possible. It is time that they be performance-based and not descriptive.

Once the laws are rewritten, regulation can be rewritten in its entirety--performance-based of course.

After all of the above has been done, the Office of Acquisition can decide what the GS-1102s should be.

By Vern Edwards on Monday, September 18, 2000 - 09:02 am:

Bob:

Well, as desirable as all that might be, I assume that you know it will never happen.

One obstacle to putting all the acquisition laws in one part of the U.S. Code is that it would affect Congressional committee jurisdiction over acquisition law. I don't think that any of the committee chairs would willingly go along with any loss of jurisdiction.

Also, some agencies (especially DOD) would fight tooth and claw to prevent the establishment of an Office of Acquisition with power to regulate the way that they conduct their acquisitions.

And I doubt that OPM would give up authority over any aspect of personnel policy without a fight.

However meritorious the program that you have described, it simply is not practicable. There are too many powerful players that would be in opposition.

By Vern Edwards on Monday, September 18, 2000 - 09:08 am:

By the way--I just received an e-mail announcement that the Superintendent of Documents is going to continue to publish the looseleaf version of the FAR. The HCA from one agency told me that several agencies took exception to GSA's plan to publish the FAR only on the Internet.

By STan Livingstone on Monday, September 18, 2000 - 09:24 am:

I believe too many rank and file 1102's do a very specialized job. They see it that way as well as the rest of their organization. The job begins only when a fully complete procurement package is given to them (funded req, final spec/SOW, approvals obtained, etc.). Consequently the tasks they are responsible for include reviewing and critiquing the package, preparing the solicitation, negotiating (in some instances), and preparing award documentation. Required training includes knowing the FAR, learning how to negotiate, and contract law.

I think the future 1102 will operate differently. They must see the "bigger" agency mission and program picture. They need to learn some of the upfront things about how their agency operates like strategic planning, budget formulation, performance goals and measures, preparing business plans, evaluating capital investments, quantify risks, capital planning, etc. Next they need to learn how to work as team members of projects - things like listening and contributing in areas beyond the FAR and regulations. This gets to the point where program managers see the 1102s as someone with good common sense and values. We are creative and become valued members of the program team.

Sure, we need to know the FAR. But we also need to know a whole lot more. Vern asked what do 1102s need to know and do that is so special to warrant a separate career field. My answer is this. Entry level 1102's need a solid educational background, ideally with a business degree. If they haven't worked in the private sector previously, that experience is needed. Somewhere in their career, they need that exposure (perhaps job exchange program). In addition to regulation and law training, lots of "soft" skill training (communications, making effective presentations, public speaking, team based training, conflict resolution, effective listening). Coupled with this are more of the typical business skill training (cost accounting, managing risk, present value analysis, cost of capital, organizational design, etc.). At least 20% of assignments should be in other parts of the organization (program offices, general counsel, budget, finance, technical) as well as other agencies including assignments as headquarter elements, OFPP, and GSA.

So the bottom line is the 1102 knows and brings to bear to programs the concepts and principles of the procurement statutes and regulations. They are the FAR expert that everyone turns to when discussions get to details. But they contribute to the success of program in many other ways by their openess, creativity, innovative ideas, insight, and broad based knowledge and experience in many other areas.

By Linda Koone on Monday, September 18, 2000 - 10:50 am:

In the April 3rd edition of Federal Computer Week, Steve Kelman shares a story that he believes illustrates Ms. Lee's message (FCW Article).

I find this interesting because he challenges each procurement person to come up with one new idea like CECOM's, when the idea of exchanging property already existed in the regulations (DFARS 217.70). It may very well have been the CO's knowledge of the regs that was instrumental to the whole deal!

I don't know what will become of the 1102 series. Maybe ultimately, it will be replaced with the 1101 series and program managers will become COs, as Vern suggested in another thread.

By bob antonio on Monday, September 18, 2000 - 11:51 am:

Linda:

See NAVSUP 8/7/00 Press Release. I see the Navy also did what CECOM did.

Have you read the acquisition strategy for the DD-21 at the Crane, Indiana web site? It appears the contractor will be responsible for logistics for the class of ships after they are sent to sea.

By Kennedy How on Monday, September 18, 2000 - 12:57 pm:

I don't consider myself a Luddite, but I did "enjoy" flipping through the FAR when I was looking for something specific. The online version tends to be too literal when doing a search; a person can always scan a page faster than they can scroll about. There's also a question of network reliability, going to the AF FAR site is great when our network is up...

Having been an 1102 prior to CICA (but not by much), I was taught to "learn the rules" as well. As time went on, my CO basically imbued me (us) with the mentality of "if it isn't prohibited by the FAR, then go for it". This was somewhat different from the prevailing "if the FAR doesn't permit it, then you can't do it". I think this is where Ms. Lee is coming from, let's not be hidebound to what the FAR doesn't say. This would appear to me where the FAR rewrite came in.

As my career progressed, I would look at the FAR, DFARS, AFARS, AMCFAR, then maybe even a local procedure, all of which implemented/guided us with some tidbit of information not provided by something farther above. Case law is a good example, even though the FAR is silent on a topic, there may well be case law which will have an impact on what we do. This will result in Procurement Directives, which guides the 1102s in their duties. And then, after a time, we get FACs adding into the FAR some of these things, which makes the FAR larger again. It's a cyclical thing, to me.

Our office was of the following mentality: 1. Is it Legal? 2. Does it make good business sense? 3. Does it get the job done? If it meets those criteria, you really couldn't go wrong. The problem becomes where regulations cause a bad business decision to be made.

Kennedy

By Eric Ottinger on Monday, September 18, 2000 - 05:44 pm:

Joel,

I think you are right on the money regarding “business sense.”

Stan,

Exactly. The point is to apply knowledge of the rules proactively in the process of planning and strategizing.

I think previous business experience is ideal. I think an MBA is very good. I am skeptical about undergraduate business degrees for various reasons.

I agree regarding “cost accounting, managing risk, present value analysis, cost of capital, organizational design.” I would add statistics and statistical quality control (AKA “TQM”) to your list.

Kennedy,

Some of us are doing business for the government within the rules. Some of us are rule-bound bureaucrats doing business.

Some of us are obsessed with preserving our remedies in the great by and by. Some of us see the need to preserve remedies, but keep our focus on results in the here and now.

I don’t think the regulations per se cause a bad business decision to be made very often. (There is always a dollar cost to assure accountability to the public. But I wouldn’t consider that a bad business decision.) Lawyers, supervisors and reviewers with some power to (mis)interpret the rules cause all kinds of havoc.

Eric

By Fred Weatherill on Monday, September 18, 2000 - 07:05 pm:

Vern,

Like most of the other commentators, I too prefer the printed page. For me, the written page is a conversation between the author and the reader, while the screen justs glows silently.

I must admit to some puzzlement in this discussion. We seem to have taken for granted the applicability of the terminology of the private sector to the public sector. The term "business" must be used very judiciously in our discussion. In "The Balanced Scorecard" by Kaplan and Norton (page 179-180) they make the following distinction between for profit and government enities. Speaking of the private sector they say, "...the financial perspective provides a clear long-run target for profit-seeking corporations." They add that, "the financial perspective...provides a constraint, not an objective for government..organizations." So, when we hear phrases like, "business advisor", and "business manager", it is only prudent that we ask ourselves, "What are they talking about?" The terminology suggests that we are in a for profit organization, while the reality is that we are far away from it. Commentators on the government, both within and outside, seem to miss this distinction.

Kaplan and Norton go on to explain how government is to measure its accomplishments. They say, "success for governement...should be measured by how effectively and efficiently they meet the needs of their constituencies." (page 180) This is where the 1102s come in. We are the ones that acquire the things, services, and commodities that make it possible for our agencies to be effective and efficient. I would submit that we are not the budgeters, nor the technical experts, nor the ones who determine the agency's needs. And, I know of none of these people asking us to do their jobs for them. With all due respect to Mr. Kellerman, and Ms. Lee, the 1102 job is already challenging enough without trying to be "players" in the financial, programmatic, and technical areas.

I discussing the role of the 1102, I would like to suggest that a starting point might be the "Balanced Scorecard for the Federal Procurement System' at page 182 of the Kaplan and Norton book.

There has been much discussion on what body of information must an 1102 know in order to be successful. Must they know the FAR, CG decisions, court cases, the market place, and business principles? Yes, to all of them. However, I submit that this is the "going in" minimum. What separates one 1102 from another is not what they know, rather it is how they think and what they are. It has been my experience in working with 1102s that some have it and most do not. The "it" is an analytical mind, clear thinking, character, integrity, an understanding of human nature, and will.

This is not the "new professional" that some speak of. Rather, it is the description of the successful 1102s of the past and present. What the commentators are really saying is that we need more of them. I agree.

By Anonymous on Tuesday, September 19, 2000 - 10:19 am:

Fred's comment, "The "it" is an analytical mind, clear thinking, character, integrity, an understanding of human nature, and will." hits the nail on the head. When you get beyond the legal definition of a contract (offer, acceptance, etc), a contract is really a series of decisions. Unfortunately, too many 1102s make poor decisions because they are rule bound by their misunderstanding of FAR and are either unable or unwilling to think clearly and properly analyze the acquisition situation.

By Eric Ottinger on Tuesday, September 19, 2000 - 10:37 am:

Fred,

I agree with Anon. We ought to have these words framed and posted on the wall in every contracting office.

Eric

By Peggy Richter on Tuesday, September 19, 2000 - 10:50 am:

GSA providing a hard copy of the FAR or not is really a non-issue. Our office decided that they would no longer provide FAR or DFAR copies once the initial web sites went on line, so we haven't had hard copies for a while. I myself have a bit of a problem reading computer screens. My solution, and that of anyone who wants a "hard copy" of something on line is to employ a printer and download the file from the internet and PRINT IT OUT. Fits reasonably well in loose-leaf binders just like the old hardcopy FARS and has the added plus that one can download a revision promptly instead of waiting months for GSA to get around to mailing and distribution system to trickle down the copies to the person who actually is the "Indian".

As to what Contracting Officers are or should be, it would be nice if they understood what the POINT of a particular procurement was - why the requirement was there in the first place, funding to the extent that navigation thru the myriad funding laws & regulations and policies was reasonably efficient, business sense to the extent that they can reasonably negotiate, oversee and manage contracts with contractors both cooperative and not, have enough team "spirit" that their goal is not entirely self promotion and so forth. But I don't see any of the above being "NEW". That's always been the mark of a good contracting officer. The problem has always been one of finding, hiring and retaining such. The "new" regulations, policies, pronouncements regarding the 1102 don't seem, IMO, to actually be achieving an improvement there.

By Anonymous on Tuesday, September 19, 2000 - 11:32 am:

GSA SAID IT WAS NOT ORDERING OR STOCKING THE FAR. GPO WILL CONTINUE TO PRINT IT.

By tb on Tuesday, September 19, 2000 - 01:30 pm:

The problem with many 1102s is their understandable propensity to "do things the way they've always been done". Obedience to given rules inhibits the human imagination and creativity needed to thrive in todays dynamic acquisition environment. I believe our senior leaders' de-emphasis on adhearing to the FAR is a clarion call to break the shackles of our own narrow paradigms. I believe this is good as the FAR, except for certain statutes, does facilitate divergence oriented interpretations necessary for our current acquisition environment can be characterized as ill-structured and complex.

By Anonymous on Tuesday, September 19, 2000 - 02:07 pm:

You will never achieve innovation as long as the process and middle management resist it. It is not necessarily the 1102 who has a propensity to "do things the way they've always been done" it is a case of -- if you do it differently, you will have 5X more work explaining and justifying it than if you do it in a manner with which the reviewer is familiar. It doesn't MATTER if the different method is better, faster, cheaper and more beneficial to the Government, supported by FAR/DFAR and commercial contract code. It matters to the "Indian" if their supervisor is going to accept their approach or not. Most discussions I see on 1102s imply that the Contract specialist (the lowest of the Indians) is on the level of the Stone Age in terms of accepting change. The fact is that in my own experience, I've seen dozens of innovators be discouraged, disheartened and finally dissuaded from attempting innovation because of the resistance by management

By joel hoffman on Tuesday, September 19, 2000 - 03:02 pm:

Let me give you a couple of real examples, with names changed "to protect the innocent." A few of our Corps of Engineers Districts, more noticably our Civil Works Districts, have EXTREMELY CONSERVATIVE Contracting Offices.

1) A year ago, I conducted a 2 hour mini-seminar on design-build construction contracting to various Contracting, Counsel, Engineering and PM officials at a Civil Works District. During a discussion about the flexibility allowed in best value trade-off procurements to establish price as the most, least or of equal importance to technical factors, the Chief of the Distict's Contracting Office broke in. She emphatically stated that "AFARS prohibits us from setting price as the most important factor (in a trade-off consideration). If price is the most important consideration, we must use the lowest-priced, technically acceptable method, not the trade-off method."

She was adamant about this. I decided it would be fruitless to debate her, a waste of the limited time available and didn't want to embarass anyone. Subsequently, I was told that this is typical of that office and a major reason they don't ever try anything new.

2) Last week, I received a call from a spec writer in another District, attempting to develop their first design-build RFP. He had read our Internet guidance on D-B RFP formats and special contract requirements necessary to define the non-traditional roles and responsibilities for a D-B construction contract. He advised me that his Contracting Office said he couldn't use the D-B special clauses because of a COE PARC policy, prohibitng use of special contract requirments more than once.

That policy was rescinded about 3 or 4 years ago. I reminded him that there aren't any Design-Build clauses in the FAR and that the COE is in the painfully long process of getting our (I am one of the COE's D-B proponents) SCR's adopted as Engineer FAR Supplement clauses. He said that his Contracting Office is at a standstill and cannot proceed with the RFP - that they simply do not know what to do!!

I forwarded him the following guidance from our D-B acquisition proponent attorney at Headquarters: "The FAR states that when it covers a subject, following the far is mandatory. When the far does not cover a subject, use sound business judgment (see far 1.102-4(e), role of the acquisition team.) The course proponent is from HQUSACE, and the course clause package is the only USACE guidance. It would, in my opinion, be sound business practice to follow that guidance." - - - I'm anxiously awaiting a reaction from their Contracting Office. Happy Sails!

By CAPT MERCY on Tuesday, September 19, 2000 - 03:33 pm:

EARLIER IN THIS THREAD..IT WAS MENTIONED THAT REGULATORY COMPLIANCE WAS AN 1102 GOAL.......AND FOR THE MOST PART THESE OBSERVATIONS ARE CORRECT. HAVING SAID THAT I THINK THE TRUE GOAL FOR OUR PROFESSION IS REGULATORY COMPETENCE VIS A VIS COMPLIANCE. VERY LITTLE CANNOT BE ACCOMPLISHED WITHIN THE FRAMEWORK IF YOU POSSESSES AN UNDERSTANDING OF THE OBJECTIVES OF SAID REGULATIONS. I FIND THE FAR A ROOM OF DOORS AND WHEN ONE CLOSES THERE ALWAYS SEEMS ANOTHER HAS OPENED. IF YOU THINK OF THE FAR AS A SET OF OBJECTIVES YOU WILL FIND MANY PATHS TO THEM. I THINK MANY OF US HAVE NOT TAKEN THE TIME,OR EVEN THOUGHT ABOUT,THE WORK NECESSARY TO LEARN THE UNDERPINNINGS OF REGULATORY GUIDANCE AND THEREBY LEARN THE OBJECTIVE,. MOST RULES HAVE REASONS....KNOWING THESE REASONS CAN LEAD US ,MORE OFTEN THAN NOT,TO WHAT IT IS THAT WE WISH TO ACCOMPLISH.

By Linda Koone on Wednesday, September 20, 2000 - 08:02 am:

Bob:

I did read the acquisition strategy on the DD-21. Thanks for sharing it.

We are seeing a similar shift in acquisition strategies for spare/repair parts. Our "new contracting role" has been described as "managing contractors instead of managing contracts". I confess that I don't have a clear understanding as to exactly what that means.

By Anonymous on Wednesday, September 20, 2000 - 08:40 am:

Accolades to Anonymous' post of 19 Sep 2000. I couldn't agree more that "usually the resistors to change are the reviewers and middle managment".
I worked (past tense) for an agency for seven and one half years that did everything they could to stifle innovation and new thinking. It was as Anon said above "we don't do it that way".
As Vern Edwards pointed out yesteday in a brief that I attended - "usually" the innovation and new ideals come from the "working level". Once someone decides that it is a good idea -- a policy group comes along and wants to put out guidance to control it (speaking of the reverse auction process).

By bob antonio on Wednesday, September 20, 2000 - 08:43 am:

All:

I agree with everything said here. I see four basic items. Education and training, program knowledge, industry knowledge, and opportunities provided by your organization.

First, there is a great body of knowledge that a contracting officer must know. However, knowledge is empowerment. The more one knows about their profession--and that is what federal contracting is--the more one can show confidence in their work. Formal education is great and a number of universities provide degrees. However, federal agencies also provide a great deal of training.

Second, I think that every contracting office should have the agency's strategic plan, annual plan, and performance-based budget. The policy group or procurement analysts can develop a brief presentation and materials for contracting staff that work with specific program organizations. One additional step is to look at the annual authorizing and appropriations hearings to identify issues related to the programs. That will give the contracting staff an opportunity to see what Congress thinks of the program organization. The contracting staff needs to be able to relate to the program organization. For example, several weeks ago, I spent 6 weeks in a conference room at a federal agency reviewing contract files. From time to time, contracting staff would drop in and chat with me and we would talk contracting. I was most pleased when one fellow came in to shake my hand. He said I was the only auditor he ever met that could discuss contracting with the contract organization. Although I am a professional second-guesser, I am also one of you and can relate to your experiences. It works.

Third, know your business area. Understand the industry with which you contract. In today's world there is an enormous amount of information available at your fingertips. Yes, government is different than industry. However, when you sit down with industry your represent the business aspects of government. You are making deals. Even when you are implementing a socio-economic goal, you are making deals. Some day in retirement you may read about a successful business and remember when you worked with it during its formative stages.

Fourth, agencies must provide leadership and not just talk. Civilian agencies do not buy all the neat stuff that DoD does. For that matter, DOE is quite different. Contracting staff should be given the opportunity to experience different types of contracting as they progress through the organization. If that requires informal inter-agency transfers of staff on a temporary basis, why not? Staff from federal agencies are temporarily assigned to other agencies all the time. For example, Washington, D. C. is loaded with contracting offices. Individuals could be temporarily transferred across the street to gain different experiences. We build ships, buy corn, build dams, construct accelerators, clean up the program's contaminated sites, etc., etc. Each is a different experience. This requires a government-wide policy. As individuals are given the different opportunities, they should also be observed to determine what they are best at. Not all individuals are the same. The federal agency together with the contracting staff, should identify how the individual can make their greatest contribution to federal contracting.

By Kennedy How on Wednesday, September 20, 2000 - 12:36 pm:

The other issue is whether or not your innovative approach results in a "make work" situation. We've discussed the lack of 1102s in the career field in another thread, but following that, we, as worker bees, do not have the luxury of time to try and sell a new and better way. I get graded on how fast I churn out the work, not by how innovative I can be. Especially if I have to battle reviewers and middle management every step of the way. I simply do not have the time to do that, because while I'm writing papers to justify why I'm doing what I'm doing, I have other work that's piling up. Work that I inherited because there is nobody else left to do it.

If managers and reviewers were more amenable to change, it wouldn't be such a big deal. If you can make a good case, it should go through with a minimum of fuss.

Kennedy

By bob antonio on Wednesday, September 20, 2000 - 04:07 pm:

Linda:

I thought the acquisition plan was fascinating for the DD-21. I looked at the Joint Strike Fighter program site and that is interesting also.

In the case of the DD-21, they are going to share the production and add logistics as a part of the contract to maintain the industrial base. So I assume the requiring organization and the buying organization for the parts on those ships will become part of the contractor. That will leave NAVSUP watching the contractor do what it once did. Of course, the auditor will watch you watch the contractor. Some day, more of us will become extinct. Fortunately, I do not have that long to go.

By Stan Livingstone on Thursday, September 21, 2000 - 08:54 am:

Kennedy,

It's always upsetting to read statements that contract specialists get evaluated on how fast they churn out work. Agreed, timeliness is important but customers want a whole lot more. I used to think faster is always better. That is until I took the time to sit down and talk with customers. I was surprised they want so much more - things like upfront advice and assistance, being kept informed on status, quality in products and services received, a cooperative attitide from the procurement staff, COs that take the time and interest to learn about their program and how the procurement fits into satisfying their mission, and yes, even innovative approaches. Several years ago we started using customer surveys to see how well we do and let customers rank the importance of each attribute. Timeliness is still important, but lots of other things come into play. It's too bad some managers don't recognize this and see that customers want full service and always not a rushed job.

Stan