Over the last 8 years, we have had the Federal Acquisition Streamlining Act of 1994, the Clinger-Cohen Act (Federal Acquisition Reform Act of 1996 and the Information Technology Management Reform Act of 1996), and many other legislated and regulatory reforms.

Some agencies and activities now sell their wares as if they were a commercial enterprise. Some agencies are now performance-based. Other activities now are exempt from the Federal Acquisition Regulation.

Think back over the past eight years. What are some of the best reforms and what are some of the things that need reform. Simply put, after 8 years of reform, what do you think works and what does not work?

By Eric Ottinger on Monday, December 18, 2000 - 01:52 pm:

Bob,

Good question,

This is a complex issue. These are just some random thoughts.

After much pushing from the top, I think we have climate where innovation is encouraged. I think the “I’m here to help you” audit, review and legal types, who might be obstacles, are very much on their good behavior right now.

I think there was a large and rather ugly tendency to bash the contracting workforce early on by stereotyping and stigmatizing us as bureaucratic slugs and obstacles to progress. I think that has abated.

The credit cards have put almost all of the small purchase workforce out of work. I don’t know whether anyone saw that there would be such a massive impact, but that is the way things have worked out.

I think historians will note that much of the change is simply the impact of new IT and communication technology. The Acq. Reform push has made the changes happen more rapidly, but the changes were going to happen.

I think the historians will say that Government learned from industry and industry learned from Government and both were motivated by the fact that the world in now a much more competitive place. We are all learning from the Japanese.

The changes are much bigger than Acq. Reform in the government. Look at the changes that Sears and IBM have gone through in this period. Look at the way GM has tried to reform with, at best, mixed results.

Eric

By bob antonio on Monday, December 18, 2000 - 02:15 pm:

Eric:

Have you noticed fewer critical audit reports from the various audit organizations or do you think their tone is different? Why do you think there is a change?

By Eric Ottinger on Monday, December 18, 2000 - 03:01 pm:

Bob,

Take this bugaboo about fully funding the minimum on IDIQ contracts.

I'm sure there are a lot of offices ignoring this rule (which is probably not as absolute as some of us think).

I think your agency and other audit types are turning a blind eye because they don't want to get in the way of progress.

This is just my subjective personal opinion, and I would be very curious to see what other people think.

Eric

By Diane on Tuesday, December 19, 2000 - 09:46 am:

I think the purchase card program streamlined the process, but I also think it could have been made easier in some Agencies. It's still the 1102s going out there and performing assessment reviews on how well the cardholders are following the rules. It's still the 1102s (in my agency) that are the A/OPCs for the program.

Now FAR Part 12 was a good thing. Purchase orders for $5M, what a concept! I think my office was doing that before the ink dried.

My only real regret about the 8 years of reform is the top leaders passed it down, the next level passed it down, the next level too, and the next thing you knew, you had entire offices wondering "HOW" to do more with less. Management, in my opinion, fell short on managing the reform. They simply said do it. The stress level for the acquisition workforce has probably doubled.

By Dave Berkey 304.285.4990 on Tuesday, December 19, 2000 - 11:11 am:

Personally, the opening up of the GSA Federal Supply Schedules was by FAR the greatest reform of the 90s. It wasn't FARA and FASA which allowed me to award a competitive five year GSA Schedule delivery order for $18M of program services in about 45 days. The revised scopes of the GSA schedule contracts and scopes of the new array of schedules will permit most Agencies to acquire a full complement of site support services without RFPs, CBDs, cost/price reports, and FAR 15 confusion. Select the firms to compete (wonderful QA) and establish your own selection/discussion methodology without having to use FAR 15. We can buy technical services too. Some of the selected activities available include:

1. Engineering from aeronautical to nuclear to chemical
2. Administration from accountant, contract specialist, procurement clerk, receptionist, tech writer, graphics design,auditor, librarian, paralegal, property management
3. IT services
4. Environmental services including EISs and EAs. Everything but remediation.
5 Energy Mgt.
6. Laboratory services
7. Travel, Transportation, Document and Mail mgt.
8. Management and Business improvement services

A/E and construction are not covered.

In terms of contractor interest, note that there is (or was) around 400 Environmental and 2000 IT firms holding GSA schedules.

I solicit opinions on the true meaning of FAR 8.4's priority listing of purchasing sources/techniques. It would seem to be saying that we are to use GSA Optional Multiple award schedules before going to a commercial source (RFP, no?) It's interesting to note that even the admonishments of the top DoD and Civilian Agency procurement officials to use the Schedules has not seemed to diminish the number of posted RFPs.

By anon2 on Wednesday, December 20, 2000 - 08:28 am:

This is to Eric regarding the bugaboo on fully funding the minimum.

Could you expand your thought on this issue? I am not quite following what you mean by this comment and several others that I work with read the thread and asked the same. I'm the only one that would come forth and ask.

Thanks

By Eric Ottinger on Wednesday, December 20, 2000 - 09:47 am:

Anon2,

The rule goes back to a time when ID/IQs were strictly for fixed-price and commercial type supplies and services. Of course, fixed price and commercial should be fully funded.

FASA permitted ID/IQ orders to be any contract type in Part 16 including CPFF. I would expect CPFF orders to be incrementally funded in the same way that a CPFF contract may be incrementally funded.

This is strictly person opinion. (I wouldn’t argue with your supervisor or your GC, if they see it differently.)

It is clear that many agencies are not finding it practical to fund the minimum for all of the multiple award contractors at the outset of the contract, but I haven’t heard of any IG or audit findings related to this issue.

I infer that the IGs and auditors are reluctant to pursue this kind of issue when the ground rules are changing and they might be perceived as obstacles to reform.

Eric

By Stan Livingstone on Wednesday, December 20, 2000 - 10:13 am:

I think one more thing needs mentioning and that is the 1102s now have a more broader, business perspective. Eight years ago, "knowledge of the FAR" is the most imporant thing brought to the table and "that's my job,not yours" or vice versa was all too common an attitude. Now the acquisition professioanl is expected and encouraged to do much more, and add value to the programs they support. Many IPTs are so successful because the CO contributes in so many other ways than just being the FAR expert.

By bob antonio on Wednesday, December 20, 2000 - 11:35 am:

Stan:

If I remember correctly, P. L. 106-113 made PTO a Performance-Based Organization (PBO). I remember you were asking what we would do with the freedom to develop acquisition regulations.

Do I remember correctly that PTO is exempt from the FAR?

If so, have you made any changes to PTO regulations that are different from the FAR?

By Stan Livingstone on Wednesday, December 20, 2000 - 03:01 pm:

Bob,

You have a good memory. PTO is exempt from the Federal Property and Administrative Services Act which governs much of the FAR but not all. Essentially the agency can develop new regulations for FAR parts 13, 14, and 15. The new regulations are just about ready for posting in the Federal Register. The key items are:

Use of A/E procedures to optionally acquire professional services.

Ability to conduct negotiations in a more "business-like" manner and without regard to a common cut-off date.

Establishing a $5,000 threshold for competition and associated amount for the Purchase Card.

Use of a multi-step process which isn't just advisory.

By bob antonio on Wednesday, December 20, 2000 - 03:05 pm:

Stan:

Thanks. We are all going to be here to chat about them.

By Stan Livingstone on Wednesday, December 20, 2000 - 03:12 pm:

Bob,

I should also add I'm no longer with PTO. I retired a couple weeks ago (I think their HR computer system made a mistake because I know I'm only 35 years old!). I'm now working in the private sector. Once the PTO regs get to the final stage, they will be posted to the web site. I'll let everyone know when that occurs - always welcome the input and suggestions.

Stan

By bob antonio on Wednesday, December 20, 2000 - 03:17 pm:

Stan:

Yes, I forgot that you left. I did get an e-mail from one of the fellows at your new workplace. Someone else told me that you were there now.

I'm happy to see contractors use this site.

By joel hoffman on Wednesday, December 20, 2000 - 07:35 pm:

Stan and Bob, I know I use "COE" (Corps of Engineers) a bit indiscriminately - what is "PTO"? We call the power take-off on our tractor the "PTO". :) Congratulations on your new status, Stan. Happy Sails! joel

By bob antonio on Wednesday, December 20, 2000 - 08:45 pm:

Joel:

I try not to use acronyms but sometimes I slip-up. PTO is the Patent and Trademark Office. Last year about this time I think, Stan asked us what we would all do if we were free from the Federal Acquisition Regulation.

By Chuck Solloway on Saturday, December 23, 2000 - 11:42 am:

While trying to reform the process, the FAR has actually become more confusing. Instead of using plain English, it creates new and convoluted definitions for things that were once well understood. Further it does not define at all many of the common words and phrases used by those in the profession.

For example,

Communications with contractors are called "exchanges"

Best value is now anything on a continuum.

Statements of work are not defined, nor are specifications.

In the interest of further reform, I suggest the following:

All intercourse with contractors be called communications.

Communications include pre-solicitation communications, requests for clarifications, and discussions.

If award is to be made without discussions, the current FAR coverage for clarifications would suffice.

When establishing a competitive range, requests for clarification would be limited to those whose inclusion or exclusion in the range is uncertain.
However, when a contractor is being kept from the competitive range because of an adverse past performance report to which the contractor has not had an opportunity to reply, the contractor must be given an opportunity to further clarify past performance information received.

Thus there would be no need for the use of the word "exchanges". And "communications" would actually mean communications.

The distinction between clarifications and discussions would be the same as it has always been.

With respect to the FAR definition of best value, the change now in the FAR did nothing except confuse people. It added no new process, no new policy, and no reform. It simply muddied waters that once were clear.

The definition of "tradeoff" should again be the definition for best value. "Low price, technically acceptable" should be called "Low price, technically acceptable" and not best value.

The FAR could restate the obvious - the time and cost of acquisition should be considered when choosing the method of selection.

The FAR should also be revised to provide government-wide definitions for the terms we use everyday, such as statements of work, specifications, scope of work etc. While this would be a difficult job, it should not be overlooked simply because it is difficult.