It looks like a decade of "acquisition reform" didn't get through to some COs. Read the GAO's decision in the matter of Finlen Complex, Inc., B-288280, October 10, 2001.

http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=gao_comptroller_general&docid=f:288280.txt

The Army (Ft. Knox, KY) wanted to make a deal with a hotel or motel in Butte, Montana, to lodge, feed, and transport Army recruits arriving for in-processing. The contract was to be IDIQ for one year, with four one-year options.

Although claiming to use the simplified acquisition test program in FAR Subpart 13.5, the Army CO undertook what amounted to a full scale Part 15 source selection. The Army required the offerors to prepare proposals addressing five evaluation factors. It received six proposals. The three-person technical evaluation team's report was 85 pages long. The award was for $1.46 million.

The protester complained that the Army had failed to disclose the relative importance of the evaluation factors. The Army defended itself by pointing out that FAR 12.602(a) and 13.106-1(a)(2) say that the Government need not disclose the relative importance of the evaluation factors when buying commercial items or using simplified acquisition procedures. The GAO sustained the protest anyway, saying that despite the regulations, "basic principles of fair play are a touchstone of the federal procurement system and those principles bound even broad grants of agency discretion." (Wait until you read the Army's explanation of why it didn't want to disclose the relative importance of the evaluation factors in this case. It's a howler.)

The GAO recommended that the Army do what essentially amounts to a new source selection and pay protest costs, which won't be much since the protester apparently didn't hire a lawyer. Three Army lawyers, including a full colonel, got their butts kicked by a layman.

Butte is a relatively small town. The Butte Chamber of Commerce lists about 15 hotels/motels at its website. The Army could have had the personnel at the Military Entrance Processing Station in Butte personally inspect and evaluate the hotels/motels and discuss the requirement with and obtain price quotes from the managers of the top three in less time and at less expense that it took them just to prepare the 85 pages of evaluation findings. The CO could have made the selection and negotiated the terms of the contract with the selectee without issuing a written solicitation or obtaining written proposals. That's what the simplified acquisition test program is all about.

Why are some COs unwilling or unable to simplify? Is it lack of imagination or know-how, or do they lack the simplicity gene?

One thing should be clear from GAO decisions. Even if you claim to be using simplified acquisition procedures, if you use a procedure that looks like Part 15, the Comp. Gen. will hold you to the standards of Part 15.

By Anonymous on Sunday, October 14, 2001 - 11:36 am:

It is probably a presence or absence of some other gene. I don't think this is an inability to simplify. I've run into it time after time. It seems to be an inability to quickly identify differences in problems and apply specific, unique solutions not found in normal procedures. We can all fall into the trap at times. Others seem completely trapped.

We all use previous experience or training and education to approach a problem. The people we are thinking of are seemingly unable to see slight or even major differences in the problem. They seem compelled to force the problem into one of the experience boxes and then apply the remedy prescribed for that box -- regardless of sometimes clear evidence it is going astray. While considered bright, they cannot seem to identify differences in the problem and extrapolate multi-box experience for a unique, fitting solution.

Most standards of intelligence fail to be a predictor. Some of the best students as far as grades reveal can be the worst failures in this respect. They have a greater number of boxes to work with, but become equally trapped into force fitting a solution. In normal circumstances they are expert, quickly fitting those round and square pegs into the proper holes. Then they hammer away at the octagonal peg until peg and hole distort into a mess. Sadly the peg and hole often then become tightly bound into a problem that cannot easily be solved. In this case requiring GAO's "adult supervision."

The really interesting thing is that it may indeed be genetic. The differences are often evident in small children. It is summed up by the description "thinking outside the box." Some can. Many apparently really cannot. They must have some fairly rigid rule set to rely upon. This is one reason I believe the better training approach is flawed. The secret for innovative solutions is to select and promote proven innovators.

As an aside, I'm seeing what I think is a great deal of the trapped in procedure process now with security. Too many are adding process lacking effect.

By Anonymous on Sunday, October 14, 2001 - 11:55 am:

Follow on: I did like the bit about "labeling of a procurement as 'simplified' does not absolve the agency from its obligation to treat vendors fairly" in the decision.

This is a sparrow (quack, waddle, swim, dive). I suppose because we've always quacked, waddled, swam and dived.

By formerfed on Monday, October 15, 2001 - 07:33 am:

Anonymous,

You're absolutely right. We all encounter those type of people. The thing I don't understand though is why does management give them CO warrants? I believe one criteria often overlooked in deciding who gets warrants is the ability to think, act and speak on their feet in a business-like way.

By bob antonio on Monday, October 15, 2001 - 08:16 am:

Here is the site for Fort Knox

http://knox-www.army.mil/garrison/doc/

It appears to be a fairly small base contracting activity with few large contracts. Maybe the finger should be pointed at the Command level, or at some management level, for this organization.

By Anonymous on Monday, October 15, 2001 - 10:30 am:

Formerfed and Bob have identified the problem. Management failure.

In government most "managers" are "administrators" with the difference in this argument being that a manager takes responsibility, leads from the front, faces and manages risks, actively seeks knowledge of what is really going on and makes decisions and forces change based on best knowledge available at the time -- an accepted risk in itself. A good manager hasn't forgotten the old MBWA (management by walking about) and will move about the entire organization getting the feel and early intelligence on problems. A good manager need not be dislikable and certainly not a "Rambo" type, but a good manager does not quiver at the thought someone may be bitterly opposed to the course they chart through a clear decision.

Administrators make sure everyone follows the rule, preserve the status quo, avoid conflicts at almost any cost, get briefed by staff having never heard of MBWA (or terrified by the idea) and spend a great deal of time trying to cover every possible event by a policy manual. That last is important. It generally allows them to avoid being the focus of a decision. If forced into the role of a decider they tend to seek compromise at the cost of effective clarity.

The thing that had to be done may have utterly failed and the funds wasted, but "Policy was followed." The administrator is often something like the Titanic's Captain. They will calmly follow procedure into disaster. If blame focuses on them they will sadly wonder why. They followed the rules. It wasn't really their fault. They go stoically and passively go down with the ship.

A final characteristic: administrators tend not to promote a potential rival. Real managers will find and not hesitate to promote even potential rivals who will advance the mission for which they are responsible.

Looking back on a government career I realize I knew only a few managers and many administrators. I was fortunate to generally inhabit little zones with the former. Some were quite powerful and very senior. In the end most found they paid a price for not being comfortable administrators. Top Administration usually fears and hates Managers.

Think a moment about the policy manual issue. The government at the very top level proliferates detailed policy for administration rather than parameters for management. The initial reform effort tried to trim some of that underbrush. The administrators came back and we now see simply a different species of underbrush. Reform will only work by pulling the administrator weeds, not more and more "guidance."

By Ron Vogt on Monday, October 15, 2001 - 12:59 pm:

There is more of a problem here than just the inability of the contracting office to conduct a simple acquisition. The Army had ample opportunities throughout the protest process to correct its mistakes. Instead, it chose to adopt a win-at-all-costs attitude, with the end result being a resounding butt-kicking. Rather than fixing the problem, it resorted to arguments that Vern - with admirable restraint - politely referred to as "howlers."

Read what the GAO had to say about the Army's arguments: "In our view, neither of these considerations is appropriate under the circumstances of this, or any other, procurement, nor are they advisable for the integrity of the public procurement process." Wow!

A whole lot of intelligent people put a lot of time and effort into taking and supporting a position that violated the integrity of the procurement process. Why?

By Anonymous on Tuesday, October 16, 2001 - 09:28 am:

A lack of business judgement contributes to the problem. Too many want to hide behind the FAR because exercising business judgement is riskier and brings more visibility to the decision maker. I liked the Navy procurement office I worked for in the late 70s/early 80s. They encouraged business judgement by telling us, "Everyone makes mistakes, what can we learn from our mistakes and once a mistake occurs, how do we fix it?" Later the same office came under a new commanding officer who viewed mistakes as "How did this happen and who's to blame." Suffice to say, morale plummented and the great exodus from that office occurred. Unfortunately, I found more of the latter view on mistakes to be the rule rather than the exception in other procurement offices. Management looking for an underling to take the heat while they CYA, worse yet, I've even ran across a few who take credit for other's accomplishments. Sad but true.

By Anonymous1 on Tuesday, October 16, 2001 - 11:19 am:

Anonymous, you give an example of exactly what I refer to on the fifteenth. Once there was management. Administration followed with bad effect. Management, in the sense I used above, accepts well considered and reasonable risks and then learns from consequent mistakes.

Administration avoids risk, accepts poor results and hides behind a shield of rules. The "nothing ventured, nothing gained" dictum is meaningless to them. The object is to get through a tour or career without venture, gain or risk and a blot free copybook.

By bob antonio on Tuesday, October 16, 2001 - 12:57 pm:

There is a similar situation in Dubinsky v. United States, 43 Fed. Cl. 243, 259 (1999). This case was noted in the Comptroller General's decision. The internet URLs are provided below. I think it would be useful to read each decision. The first is more important. In the case, the Court (1) analyzed the procurement, (2) evaluated the agency's claim that it was conducted under simplified acquisition procedures, and (3) declared that the agency used Part 15 of the Federal Acquisition Regulation. One interesting quote from the case follows.

"The FAR does not require explicitly that contracting officers announce whether a procurement is to be conducted pursuant to Part 13. In the court's view, however, making offerors aware of the rules of the game in which they seek to participate is fundamental to fairness and open competition. Providing offerors with notice that a procurement is being conducted as a simplified acquisition has the secondary benefit of avoiding unnecessary bid protest actions that challenge an agency's failure to comply with Part 15 where the agency, unbeknownst to the protester, was
conducting the procurement according to Part 13. The court notes that there has been at least one other such protest recently. See United Marine, 1999 WL 88941. These protests--which presumably would not arise if contractors and the Government were reading from the same page--divert the resources of contractors, agencies, and the judiciary."

http://www.law.gwu.edu/fedcl/Opinions/Bruggink/99/Dubinskr.htm

http://www.law.gwu.edu/fedcl/Opinions/Bruggink/99/DUBINKSY.htm

By Anonymous on Tuesday, October 16, 2001 - 10:56 pm:

Well, the same KO that was involved with the protested solicitation is doing still putting out solicitations for the same services in many other parts of the country. Here is the KOs latest solution to losing the protest. Do market research, then decide how to procure it.

"To perform market research on subject requirement IAW FAR Part 10. This requirement is for furnishing meals,
lodging and transportation for applicants processing through the Tampa FL MEPS for a base period plus four one year
option periods. Services are for a supper meal, overnight lodging, breakfast the next morning and morning transportation
from the lodging facility to the MEPS location.
 It is estimated that there are 13,005 applicants processing yearly. The contract will be awarded on a Best Value basis
 using the tradeoff source selection process. Based on a review of industry response to this sources sought synopsis,
 the Government will decide an appropriate procurement strategy. The appropriate NAICS Code is 721110 with
 a size stan dard of $5M. To submit a response, complete the survey below and email to xxxx.xxxx@knox.army.mil or you
may fax your survey to 502/xxx=xxxx or 502/xxx=xxxx NLT 19 Sep 01. The survey must be completed in its entirety.
Failure to submit all require d information may preclude consideration of your company as a viable candidate.
MARKET SURVEY FOR CAPABILITY TO PERFORM SERVICES FOR THE KNOXVILLE TN MEPS
 CONDUCTED BY:THE DIRECTORATE OF CONTRACTING (DOC) AT FORT KNOX, KY NAME OF
COMPANY:______________________ ADDRESS:__________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________ POC:_______________________________PHONE/FAX:____________________OWNERS NAME AND PHONE NUMBER IF DIFFERENT THAT ABOVE:________________________________________ DUNS NUMBER:_________________CAGE CODE NUMBER:_________TAX ID NO.____________________ 1. IS YOUR COMPANY CONSIDERED TO BE A SMALL BUSINESS OR SMALL DISADVANTAGED BUSINESS FOR PURPOSES OF PERFORMING SERVICES UNDER NAICS 722310 (SMALL BUSINESS SIZE STANDARD $5 MILLION)(TO QUALIFY FOR BEING A SMALL BUSINESS, THE OFFEROR'S AVERAGE ANNUAL GROSS REVENUE FOR THE LAST 3 FISCAL YEARS IS $5M. THIS AVERAGE ANNUAL GROSS REVENUE IS FOR ALL ITS AFFILIATES COMBINED, NOT JUST LODGING SITE THAT YOU WOULD BE PROPOSING.) SEE FAR 19.001 AND 19.101 FOR DEFINITIONS OR REQUEST A COPY BE EMAILED OR FAXED TO YOU. SMALL________SMALL DISADVANTAGED_______HUBZONE____WOMAN OWNED______LARGE______8(a) CONTRACTOR______JOINT VENTURE/TEAM MEMBER________ SERVICE-DISABLE VETERAN OWNED_____ 2. TOTAL NUMBER OF DOUBLE ROOMS__________ 3. TOTAL NUMBER OF SINGLE ROOMS__________ 4. DAILY AVERAGE OCCUPANCY RATE_________. 5. PROVIDE THE TOTAL VALUE OF ALL REVENUE YOUR COMPANY RECEIVED FROM JANUARY 1998 THROUGH DECEMBER 1998. REVENUE IS DEFINED AS THE ACCOUNTING REVENUE USED IN SUPPORT OF YOUR COMPANY'S FEDERAL INCOME TAX RETURNS:________________________ THE SAME INFORMATION IS REQUESTED FOR THE PERIOD JANUARY 1999 THROUGH DECEMBER 1999: _________________________________________________________________ THE SAME INFORMATION IS REQUESTED FOR THE PERIOD JANUARY 2000 THROUGH DECEMBER 2000__________________________________ THIS SYNOPSIS IS NOT A REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL. IT IS A MARKET RESEARCH TOOL BEING USED TO DETERMINE THE METHOD OF ACQUISITION AND ISSUANCE OF A REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL. THE GOVERNMENT IS NOT OBLIGATED TO, AND WILL NOT, PAY FOR ANY INFORMATION RECEIVED FROM POTENTIAL SOURCES AS A RESULT OF THIS SYNOPSIS."

They contract each MEP center separately and also separate the noon meals from the night meals and rooms. So they have to award two contracts for each MEP.

I hate picking on people when they are down, but this looks like it is going from bad to worse. I got it from Ft Knox FEDBIZOPPS entries.

By Anonymous on Wednesday, October 17, 2001 - 02:11 am:

Huh? This is market research. It is not an RFP. "Failure to submit all required information may preclude consideration of your company as a viable
candidate"? That could get interesting!

Maybe the travel industry is really hungry now, but any place of lodging with good sense would round file this idiocy. It asks a lot of work for nothing.

By Anon on Wednesday, October 17, 2001 - 07:21 am:

Why does the Army persist in complicating things. I once received a past performance questionaire from an Army procurement office contemplating a source selection. The darn questionaire was in excess of 10 pages! Sorry, but I don't have time to work for the Army. Haven't they learned the KISS concept (Keep It Simple Stupid)? Hey, does the company deliver on time, if not, what problems were encountered? Do they provide a quality product, if not, what quality issues were involved? Does the company support the customer, were warranties honored? How did the company cooperate with the government in administering the contract? Did the company control costs, were there any payment/cash flow difficulties? Did the company meet its subcontracting goals, what is the company's record in supporting government socioeconomic programs?

There, did that questionaire require 10+ pages?

Sheesh...

By joel hoffman on Wednesday, October 17, 2001 - 11:24 am:

Why not an interview? I hate filling out canned forms for someone else. Let the interviewer do the writing. I found past performance interviews to generally be well received by the references. I followed a standard ONE page format and got great results. Using mailed questionaires seems to me to be an attempt to get someone else to do my job. happy sails! joel

By Dave Barnett on Wednesday, October 17, 2001 - 01:29 pm:

Joel, we do exactly what you recommended, a telephone interview with other customers of the offeror, and the questions mentioned by anon are pretty close to what we normally ask (depending on whether its a commercial or government reference).

By formerfed on Wednesday, October 17, 2001 - 03:23 pm:

Joel and Dave,

From my perspective, you're doing the right thing. One thing I learned is that canned written responses aren't the best to make selection decisions. The key is finding which company is best for the specific procurement at hand, and nothing helps getting at that as interviews. You wouldn't make a major employee hiring decision without direct personal reference checks (only the government seems to do this, but that's besides the point). Why try and rely on doing evaluations from canned survey questions for selecting a contractor? Nothing beats oral interviews, and face-to-face is the best. You really need to often dig and prod to get frank and candid performance feedback.

By Anonymous on Thursday, October 18, 2001 - 04:25 pm:

Hey guys, I'm going to jump in on this one. I've worked Post, Camp and Station (PC&S) contracts and have been involved in awarding several of these MEPS contracts. Of all the contracts you award at the installation level this is one of the worst. No matter what the Contracting Officer does, no matter how well written the solicitation, it's going to be protested. One of these contracts will pay a hotels' operating expenses for a year and the competition is fierce. If awarded one of these contracts everything else the hotel makes is gravy. These are often small independent hotels. If you're in the D.C. area and have been down Route 1 in Northern VA you know the ones I'm talking about. One step above the "Dew Drop Inns". MEPS Commanders don't want recruits staying in these hotels as it doesn't portray the image they're trying to project to the new recruits. The Contracting Officer is in a bad spot. While one of these hotels fills the letter of the contract, the Commander isn't satisfied and makes the COs life and the Director of Contracts life miserable. No matter what the Commander is not going to agree to an award to one of these hotels. While it's nice to sit back and think that Contracting Officers act independently, at PC&S contracting offices its not always that simple. Having been there, I'm guessing the Contracting Officer made the award knowing it was going to be protested. Now he has the upper hand and can do it the way it should have been done in the beginning. Granted the Army's position could have been better defended, but most of the protests don't reach this level. The majority of them are resolved at the contracting officer's level. One other thing, the noon meal is served at the MEPS station and it' a box lunch affair. Most of the hotels awarded these contracts don't have kitchen facilities. The breakfast and dinner meal is served at a pancake house or a restaurant of that type. These places don't have the ability to provide the noon meal to the MEPS. Granted the hotel could subcontract this portion of the contract, but they're already subcontracting the breakfast and lunch and adding another subcontract to the mix is a another nightmare. At one time, these contracts were handled by the individual installations. The last I heard the MEPS Command in St. Louis was going to be awarding all contracts themselves, but it appears that they gone to regional contracts.

By joel hoffman on Friday, October 19, 2001 - 09:35 am:

Anon, thanks for the insight. The problem is how the source selection was conducted. The evaluation, documentation and source selection decision all looked terrible, as though incompetent people ran and participated in it. Documentation has to be clear enough that someone, not familiar with the local situation, can clearly follow the whole process through and understand the decisions. happy sails! joel

By Vern Edwards on Friday, October 19, 2001 - 10:05 am:

Anonymous of Thursday, Oct 18:

"MEPS Commanders don't want recruits staying in these hotels as it doesn't portray the image they're trying to project to the new recruits. The Contracting Officer is in a bad spot."

Why is the contracting officer in a bad spot?

I'm a former base contracting officer, but I side with the MEPS commander. It's up to him or her to decide if the recruits need more than just "a hot and a cot."

If I were the contracting officer, and if a MEPS commander was concerned about the effect that hotel appearance would have on the recruits, then I'd make "aesthetics" one of the evaluation factors. It's perfectly legal and the GAO won't have a problem with it, because there is a valid reason for it.

The problem in this case was not the requirements of the Butte MEPS commander, and it was not the fact that such procurements take place in a protest-rich environment. The problem was the needlessly complex "simplified" contractor selection procedure. Any competent contracting officer could have done that procurement in a week with less than one-quarter of the paperwork generated by Ft. Knox, given the Butte MEPS commander what he or she wanted, and kicked any protester's butt at the GAO. All without working up a sweat.

A good contracting officer would have told the Butte MEPS commander that she could have any hotel or motel she wanted as long as she could afford it, and then gotten it for her in less time, at less cost to the Army and to the competitors, and with no chance of a sustained protest. Piece of cake. Really.