The following Q&A appears at Ask A Professor in the Acquisition Policy section:

"Service Contracts

Posted to Acquisition Policy on 11/6/00 by John Peters

The Scenario:

We are researching the possiblity of setting a custodial services requirement aside for a 8a sole source. We cannot find anything that addresses this specific action.

The Question:

Can a service requirement, in this case custodial, be a sole source 8a set aside? The magitude of the requirement would be estimated at less than $3 Mil.

The Answer:

Yes, is can be, however you will need a J&A if you want to go sole source.

FAR 37.105 -- Competition in Service Contracting. (a) Unless otherwise provided by statute, contracts for services shall be awarded through sealed bidding whenever the conditions in 6.401(a) are met, (except see 6.401(b)).

(b) The provisions of statute and Part 6 is this regulation requiring competition apply fully to service contracts. The method of contracting used to provide for competition may vary with the type of service being acquired and may not necessarily be limited to price competition.

Gail Vaubel -- MTC
Deskbook JPO"

Italics added.

How many Wifcon readers think that Gail Vaubel was correct when she told John Peters that he will need a J&A if he wants to award an 8(a) contract on a sole source basis?

By bob antonio on Tuesday, November 21, 2000 - 12:59 pm:

From CICA section at 41 USC . . .

"The justification and approval required by paragraph (1) is not required - (A) when a statute expressly requires that the procurement be made from a specified source;"

From FAR

"6.302-5 Authorized or required by statute.

(b) Application. This authority may be used when statutes, such as the following, expressly authorize or require that
acquisition be made from a specified source or through another agency:

(4) Sole source awards under the 8(a) Program 15 U.S.C. 637 (see Subpart 19.8)."

By Vern Edwards on Tuesday, November 21, 2000 - 01:07 pm:

Bob:

Yes, and also see FAR 6.302-5(c)(2):

"Contracts awarded using this authority shall be supported by the written justifications and approvals described in 6.303 and 6.304, except for--

(i) Contracts awarded under (a)92)(ii), (b)(2), or (b)(4) of this subsection... ."

Underlining added.

Really--DOD needs to shut down the Ask A Professor site until it can figure out how to check the accuracy of the answers that its "professors" are giving. This answer is so bad that it deserves special mention. Poor John Peters comes looking for guidance about 8(a) procurements ("We cannot find anything that addresses this specific action."), and the "professor" not only gives him incorrect information, but cites FAR 37.105 instead of directing him to FAR Subpart 19.8.

Shut it down before somebody gets hurt!

By bob antonio on Tuesday, November 21, 2000 - 01:24 pm:

Vern:

I looked at the "Ask A Professor" site a day or two ago. It is not very active. However, it now notes who is answering questions. I don't remember that from the last time I looked. It also seems that answers are coming from individuals who do not participate in the contracting process on a daily basis.

If I wanted to ask a question, I would come here. We have you, at least 4 heads of contracting activities that post--from different civilian and defense agencies, numerous contracting officers, contractors, contract lawyers, etc., that view this board. Each is active in the process.

I hope to use the holiday break this December to try to find more people to post here.

By joel hoffman on Tuesday, November 21, 2000 - 02:00 pm:

Bob, many of the Ask a Professor "Construction and A-E Contracts" site answers were terrible, when questions were answered at all, which was rare. Apparently, somebody woke up and combined that area with a few others. Good luck in your quest... Happy Sails! Joel

By Vern Edwards on Tuesday, November 21, 2000 - 05:23 pm:

Bob:

This site is a much better place to ask questions than Ask A Professor for one very good reason -- If one of us answers wrongly others are ready and waiting to let the world know it. At Ask A Professor the answers are represented as authoritative -- after all, they come from "professors" -- and there is no mechanism for others to write in and say that the "professor" is out to lunch. There is a disclaimer at the site, but it's in fine print, and nobody pays much attention to it because, after all, DOD says that the answers come from DOD professors. How could they be wrong, right?

Well, they are wrong a lot. DOD needs to fix Ask A Professor or eliminate it entirely and refer people to Wifcon.

By bob antonio on Tuesday, November 21, 2000 - 07:18 pm:

Vern:

I agree. We have a fine mix of people here. Now if we can get all the lurkers to chirp a bit too.

By Linda Koone on Wednesday, November 22, 2000 - 09:08 am:

Bob:

This is a great site, without a doubt. I can't thank you enough for your dedication to it. And my thanks also goes out to the regular participants who provide invaluable insight and information to those of us who primarily lurk here.

It's unfortunate that the "Ask A Professor" site is dishing out bad information. I believe that providing such a service is a great idea. It seems to me that over the years, the quality of the answers at the AAP seems to have degraded. But this may be a reflection of the quality of the questions being asked. Truthfully, I have to wonder which is worse... the fact that the person asking the question couldn't find 'anything that addresses' the issue of a sole source 8(a) procurement ... or the"Professor's" misinformation about the J&A.

I do agree that you can get better advice at this forum; but, due to the high level of expertise by the regular participants, I also think that this forum can be somewhat intimidating. And sometimes, real answers to questions can get lost in the digressions that occur here. That's not meant to be a complaint, but rather an observation. Unfortunately I think that some people need everything answered in black and white. Gray upsets the balance.

(Consider this my 'chirp').

By joel hoffman on Wednesday, November 22, 2000 - 09:23 am:

Linda, good points, indeed! I am one of the guilty parties in several ways. Will try to avoid intimidating the audience. By the way, you shouldn't lurk - I respect and appreciate your opinions. Happy Sails! Joel

By Vern Edwards on Wednesday, November 22, 2000 - 09:35 am:

Linda makes a good point about how answers can get lost in digressions. When Bob was putting the site together I suggested the separate Q&A and Discussion pages, but it's proven to be difficult to segregate the two forms of discourse. On the other hand, sometimes there are no black and white answers and questioners need to understand that much of our professional life is colored in shades of gray. Some of the most interesting professional insights have been the product of digressions from the original question.

While I regret that some people are intimidated by the controversies, the give and take, and the occasionally tough discourse, I am sympathetic only up to a point. Contracting people are supposed to be able to cope with controversy and confrontation -- in the conference room, at the negotiating table, at the jobsite, and in the hearing room or the courtroom. It's an essential professional qualification.

By bob antonio on Wednesday, November 22, 2000 - 09:43 am:

Linda:

Thanks. The use of this forum makes the effort worth it. I explained to one person that some individuals take breaks from their work to discuss sports. The users here take breaks from their work and discuss work. So government and industry are better off for it.

As the moderator of the forum--when I am acting in that capacity--I serve as the janitor. The true success of this forum rests with the contributors.

In designing the forum, it was suggested that a general discussion area and a question and answer area be set up. The question and answers were for strict questions and answers. The general discussion area is for lighter discussion of issues. I added a small business topic and a grant and agreement topic to boot. I think that the users are moving towards that now.

People should not be intimidated. They can post as anonymous or with any alias they choose. They should view this forum as a source of advice from a broad spectrum of individuals.

By bob antonio on Wednesday, November 22, 2000 - 09:45 am:

Vern:

I was going to add your name as the suggester but then I thought you may want me to remain silent. So, it was Vern that made me do it.

By Linda Koone on Wednesday, November 22, 2000 - 11:55 am:

Joel:

Don't change a thing.

Vern:

I agree with everything you said, though I'm not sure that controvery is the intimidating factor here. I think it may be more a fear of exposing ignorance (which may be worse, I don't know).

Bob:

How 'bout those Eagles? :))

By carol elliott on Wednesday, November 22, 2000 - 11:57 am:

I think Linda's right that a lot of folks aren't interested in the nuances, they just want a straight-forward simple answer. As for myself, if there is a black and white answer I can usually find it on my own. I lurk in this forum because I enjoy the shades of gray.

It's the more complex, non-routine aspects of the job that gives us the opportunity to use our judgement and add the most value to the process. If this job was all black and white, I'd be bored silly.

The professional differences of opinion I've observed in this forum have made me rethink some of my past actions and I hope will make me a better CO in the future. Please don't stop delving into the shades of gray and occasionally going off on tangents. It's the reason I lurk here.

By Ramon Jackson on Wednesday, November 22, 2000 - 12:44 pm:

Finding and following black letter law or rules is a clerical job. Working the gray is the job of professionals applying judgment. Finding the most appropriate and effective shade of gray to the situation seems to be the test of real professionals.

That applies to one of the discussions going on in another thread.

By Vern Edwards on Wednesday, November 22, 2000 - 01:45 pm:

I notified the Ask A Professor staff about the bad answer that Gail Vaubel gave to John Peters. They have thanked me and told me that they would notify Mr. Peters and take steps to improve the quality of their answers.

By Anonymous on Wednesday, November 22, 2000 - 02:47 pm:

This site is great!!! I appreciate all the input and feedback provided to questions and issues that are put on the boards. Although sometimes brutal (see "Use of Patented Construction Designs"), the information provided to a question or topic is usually very helpful. The site is wonderful for us less-experienced/educated K.O.'s. It provides a place that one can begin searching for good quality answers on those "fuzzy" issues that seem to appear at every turn of a corner. Just wish more feedback would occur in the Grants section.

Thanks to all who graciously give up their valuable time to answer "stupid" questions.

Anon

By Anonymous2 on Wednesday, November 22, 2000 - 03:00 pm:

Hey, Anon, believe it or not, there is some history behind the reluctance to delve into the "Grants" topics. The old GAO(?) "Acquisition Reform Watercooler" site was virtually taken over by posters seeking grants, contracts and jobs. Evidently, they went to Yahoo or whatever, and found the site.

Since there was little, if any, administration of the site, it eventually killed that site. The webmaster valiantly tried to set up a new site, which met its demise, last summer. Came Bob Antonio to the rescue with this Forum! Bob has even taken care of the Grant seekers with his daily "What's New", "Today's News", etc.

By Anonymous on Wednesday, November 22, 2000 - 04:17 pm:

Read em' daily. You're appreciated...Bob!

Anon

By bob antonio on Wednesday, November 22, 2000 - 06:55 pm:

Anons:

The various search engines send out electronic readers referred to as spyders or spiders. When a site is visited by the spyders, the spyders may read all or a few of the pages. The main wifcon.com site is constantly visited by these spyders and it can be found at the various search engines such as google.com. However, this forum is stored in a folder within the main site's folder on a commercial server. I do not believe the spyders read files that far down in the filing hierarchy. So this forum is not visited by the spyders and its existence is unknown to them.

That, I believe, is the reason we have not had stray software requests and other items.