FedSubK Feature: What To Know Before You Say Go (or No-Go)
The day has come…the Request for Proposal (RFP) you’ve been watching and waiting for has gone “live.” Your team has made a tentative decision that it wants to submit a proposal for this project. You download the solicitation documents and start looking through the requirements. Contract type, type of work, is subcontracting or limitations in subcontracting required, terms, conditions, pricing…you run down all the key pieces of information that you need to form your risk tolerance decision for the work. But, there are some other key pieces of information that, from a former Contracting Officer and Source Selection Authority’s perspective, to also keep in mind as you make your final “go/no-go” decision to propose and develop your proposal.
Know the Rules for Government Exchanges with Industry Before Receipt of Proposals (FAR Subpart 15.201)
Exchanges of information between the Government and Industry are encouraged. However, any exchange must be consistent with the procurement integrity requirements of FAR Subpart 3.104. This includes not only exchanges but also disclosure, protection, and marking of contractor proposal information and source selection information.
Requests for Information (RFIs) and Draft RFPs for industry input are considered part of the market research process under acquisition planning. These methods are not required but when used allow for more open exchanges between the Government and Industry. Potential offerors can share information to influence the Government’s procurement strategy (but mark anything proprietary accordingly). The Government may also hold conferences or meetings for the purpose of obtaining industry input. Recently one agency did an oral RFI exchange with industry and I was skeptical of how it would go but was pleasantly surprised at how Government posed the questions live and how industry responded (or didn’t when the line that led to exchange of proprietary info was near crossing). (See even an old dog can learn new tricks!)
Exchanges after issuance of the solicitation but before receipt of proposals are used by the Government to improve potential offerors’ understanding of requirements and allow them the chance to determine their ability to meet those requirements. These exchanges often take the form of questions from industry on RFP documents, answers in response from the Government, and pre-proposal conferences. The Contracting Officer oversees and controls these exchanges. If you get information from another source—a team member or someone other than the Contracting Officer—proceed with caution and verify, verify, verify.
Watch for Amendments! (FAR Subpart 15.206)
Changes to the RFP documents are made by formal amendment to the solicitation before the established time and date for receipt of proposals. Amendments must provide sufficient time for potential offerors to digest changes and update proposals. Each amendment will also be announced with its own notice and published in the Government Point of Entry (GPE), typically SAM, GSA eBuy, or other agency portal used to publicize opportunities. Amendment notices will outline the changes made. An oral notice may also be used when time is of the essence, such as the case may be in a contingency or emergency environment, which is then formalized by a written amendment issued by the Contracting Officer.
More often than not, the Government provides answers to RFP questions that may or may not be material in nature or result in an amendment. The Government doesn't always tell you if an amendment is forthcoming either. If in doubt, ASK. Don't wait for an amendment and then ask for a proposal extension later; not likely to happen. Instead put it in your rhythm to ASK questions like this as soon as they come up. Don't make assumptions!
Amendments can also be issued after the close of receipt of offers/proposals. However, if the Contracting Officer determines that such an amendment “...is so substantial as to exceed what prospective offerors reasonably could have anticipated so that additional sources likely would have submitted offers had the substance of the amendment been known to them”, the Contracting Officer must cancel the original solicitation and issue a new one, regardless of the stage of the acquisition.
The worst possible thing is to finish an offer/proposal and realize too late that you haven’t taken an amendment into account. Failure to acknowledge an amendment is grounds to eliminate your proposal from consideration right out of the gate!
Understand the Basics of Different Source Selection Techniques (FAR Subpart 15.1)
Techniques for the selection of sources under competitive procurements fall within a range called the Best Value Continuum. This range equates to the Government’s perceived risk of unsuccessful performance which is then translated into the prioritization of technical factors and cost or price factors and their individual and collective importance.
An agency may use only one or a combination of the Tradeoff Process and the Lowest Price Technically Acceptable Process to arrive at the determination of the best value for the Government. The characteristics of each are found in the table below.
Tradeoff Process
Lowest Price Technically Acceptable Process
Allows selection of other than the lowest-priced or highest technically rated offeror using tradeoffs between technical superiority and cost or price, as described in the solicitation.
Requires selection of the technically acceptable proposal with the lowest evaluated price
The technical factors and significant subfactors that affect contract award and their relative importance are disclosed in the RFP.
The RFP also includes a statement whether all evaluation factor factors other than cost or price (aka “technical factors” when combined, are–
- Significantly more important than cost or price,
- Approximately equal to cost or price, or
- Significantly less important than cost or price.
Technical factors are not ranked by relative importance.
Failure of a proposal to meet the minimum technical acceptability standard of any technical factor or subfactor automatically eliminates the proposal from further consideration.
Past performance is a required evaluation factor.
Past performance is not a required evaluation factor.
Factors and significant subfactors establish a list of criteria describing required or desired skills and experience against which the proposal is subjectively evaluated.
Factors and significant subfactors establish objective thresholds of technical acceptability (measures) against which the proposal is evaluated.
Technical ratings are subjective and use a rating scale of adjectival descriptors, colors, numerical weights, or original rankings. Cost or Price is evaluated, not rated.
Technical ratings are objective and use a go/no-go, pass/fail, or acceptable/unacceptable scale. Cost or Price is evaluated, not rated.
Provides the greatest flexibility for the Government to achieve the best balance of technical and cost/price acceptability.
Provides the ability to achieve a minimum technical acceptability level on all technical factors and significant subfactors and achieve the lowest evaluated price.
Any perceived benefits of a higher-priced proposal require supporting documentation to quantify the payment of any additional cost in terms of specific benefits to the Government.
Only the lowest-priced proposal of the proposals found to be technically acceptable is considered for award.
The point-by-point tradeoff decision is documented and reviewed as required by FAR, any agency FAR supplement, and agency policy.
Tradeoffs are not allowed.
Award Without Discussions or Competitive Range? (FAR Subpart 15.306(c))
The Government has a choice. It can choose to make a contract award decision based solely on initial proposals and not engage with offerors, or it can establish a competitive range to conduct discussions (aka, negotiations) before an award is made.
What’s a competitive range? Based on the ratings of each proposal against all evaluation criteria, the Contracting Officer will establish a competitive range comprised of all of the most highly rated proposals; those most likely to receive the contract award. It’s a down-selection. The competitive range can be further reduced for purposes of efficiency when documented with the rationale why and the solicitation so states.
The solicitation will disclose the Government’s choice. This choice is important. An award without discussions means you get one shot – the first shot – to get your proposal right. There are no fixes or changes allowed later. However, even when the Government chooses “award without discussions,” it always reserves the right to open discussions with offerors if it is in the Government’s best interest to do so. But don’t rely on it happening. If the Government can avoid discussions before the award, it will; trust me on that. It saves weeks of work and documentation when discussions are avoided. Write your best offer/proposal the first time!
When developing your go / no-go decision matrix, add these elements. Depending on your current risk tolerance, you’ll feel more confident that you’ve covered the bases procedurally as well as technically when making that important decision about expending resources for offer / proposal development.
.webp)
View related posts
Market Research Isn't About Checking A Box (Weathering the RFO - Part 4)
"I guess FAR Part 10 is gone."
I've seen statements like that in a few posts floating around LinkedIn. And yes, on the surface that's true.
But in practice, market research just became more important and has moved upstairs to live with FAR Part 7 where it belonged all along, in acquisition planning. It's now woven directly in there and no longer seen as a separate activity. I mean, as a Contracting Officer, this is how we have approached it for decades. Good acquisition planning always depends on good market research. You can't develop a sound acquisition strategy without understanding the marketplace you're buying from.
From my perspective, that's not a bad thing.
While acquisition planning encompassing market research is a change in structure, we really need to take it a step further and look at...Why did the Revolutionary FAR Overhaul (RFO) bring them together while simultaneously reducing much of the prescriptive language that historically guided how market research was conducted and documented?
For years, we taught acquisition planning and market research as two separate FAR parts. But they never really lived separately, though industry might think that:
“First, the Government conducts market research then it plans the acquisition.”
Not so quick.
If you’ve been around the inside of the Federal acquisition lifecycle as a member of the acquisition team – the requiring activity, the small business specialist, the end user, or in contracting – you know that's not how good acquisitions worked for real. Planning never stops once a need is put into the budget. It only ramps up on a trajectory that gets faster and steeper the closer to you to either the need date or the end of fiscal year. That trajectory includes market research throughout the pre-solicitation phase.
We used market research to shape, then adjust the acquisition strategy and acquisition plan with what we learned. And that learning didn’t always come in the form of an RFI. We refined requirements, reconsidered contract types, identified capable small businesses we hadn't previously considered, discovered commercial solutions that changed the direction of the procurement, and poured through acquisition history in our agency and others.
In other words, market research isn't one step.
It is always on your mind as the budget becomes known, the requirements start to materialize, and the opportunity becomes known to industry.
The RFO recognizes that reality by integrating market research now into FAR Part 7. That's a positive evolution. It reflects how acquisition professionals do the work.
But something else changed, too.
The rewritten framework is noticeably less prescriptive…intentionally. The FAR Council has been very clear that one of the objectives of the FAR re-write is to reduce unnecessary procedural requirements, simplify the regulation, and place greater reliance on professional judgment.
I understand that objective and I support it. BUT… I keep thinking about the fact that federal contracting isn't just about making good business decisions. It's about making decisions that are FAIR.
And those two things aren't always the same.
When people outside Government hear the word “process”, they often think “bureaucracy”. Federal employees like little hamsters on wheels running the cogs of a system where they are looking for ways to slow down, do less, take up more time, eat up more industry dollars, and short cut the system.
As a Contracting Officer, “process” to me meant “fairness”. And it provides certain tests you have to meet.
Could another company look at this acquisition and conclude it had a fair opportunity to compete?
Could GAO understand why we selected this acquisition strategy?
Could an Inspector General reconstruct our thinking?
Could my supervisor understand my rationale for this acquisition strategy?
Could I defend this decision six months from now if someone challenged it?
THAT STILL MATTERS.
Those questions are part of what makes federal procurement DIFFERENT from commercial buying, EVEN WHEN the Government's version of commercial processes are used.
It’s precisely why market research evolved into more than simply learning about the marketplace.
It also became one of the ways agencies demonstrated that acquisition decisions were informed, deliberate, and fair.
Not perfect, but fair.
From the Contracting Officer's Chair
One of the themes you'll continue to see throughout Weathering the RFO is a simple question: Why was this process or procedure there in the first place? That's very different from asking whether it was statutory.
Many of the historical procedures surrounding market research weren't created simply to generate more documentation. They evolved because they promoted thoughtful decision-making, encouraged agencies to explore commercial solutions, supported small business participation, and helped acquisition teams avoid unnecessarily restrictive requirements.
And most importantly, they created a record explaining how the Government arrived at its acquisition decisions.
Understanding why they evolved in the first place is equally important as putting process and procedure through a woodchipper. Because we all know – because it’s been said – that this is all about clearing perceived dead wood. But dead wood holds history. Trees grow through resilience. Every ring a year; a set of seasons that tested its endurance. The nonstatutory language shifted out of FAR holds years of lessons learned, protest wins and losses, shifting markets, and economic and national crises. While some may still be in the FAR Companion and Practitioners' Albums, they no longer carry the same weight.
It should carry some weight. It must inform judgement -- good judgement.
"Trust the acquisition workforce" is now basically what the RFO says.
The rewritten framework relies more heavily on judgment – but not professional experience, education, business acumen, and common sense.
Just less prescriptive lingo and little to no instruction.
Experienced Contracting Officers are capable of not missing a beat and exercising that good judgment. Many do daily. The larger question is how we develop that judgment across the workforce. Judgment doesn't appear because regulations shrink. It comes from experience, mentoring, training, discussion, successes, mistakes, and protests.
If we reduce regulatory prescription, we need equally strong investments in developing professional judgment. They go hand in hand.
As a Chief, I never just asked, “Did you complete your market research?"
This list of questions were almost always asked to at least one project manager in our Advanced Acquisition Planning Boards (AAPBs) in USACE and FAA.
“What do we know about the differences in the market between this procurement and the last.”
“Who is in the market now and who has left? Who is emerging?”
“What economic factors could change this acquisition throughout its lifecycle?”
“What are current trends and market indicators in this industry telling us?”
“What don’t we know and how are we getting that information?”
If the answer was, "Nothing," I usually wasn't encouraged but I also didn’t just let it slide because good judgement and due diligence demands these questions be asked and the answers found and considered.
Good market research should occasionally prove us wrong. It should challenge assumptions. It should make us rethink a requirement, reconsider a contract type, or discover capability we didn't know existed.
If market research never changes the acquisition strategy, we need to ask ourselves if we are really studying the right marketplace or simply documenting decisions we've already made to fit a solution we already know we want.
The VALUE of market research is that the "THINKING" piece of it MADE ACQUISITIONS BETTER. The report you spit out to check a box is not the value.
What I see working through the RFO is that there is strength in integrating market research into acquisition planning. However…we need to pay close attention is the corresponding reduction in prescriptive procedures. Those procedures didn’t only historically tell contracting officers what to do. They promoted consistency, transparency, and fairness in how acquisition decisions were made and documented.
The question isn't whether procedures should remain. It’s whether acquisition teams will continue to approach market research with the same discipline now that the RFO has created a less prescriptive process.
If acquisition teams can maintain discipline, consistency, transparency, and fairness, then the RFO changes have real potential to improve acquisition planning. But if market research becomes something we document after the important decisions have already been made, we'll have missed the opportunity the RFO, I believe, intended to create.
Ultimately, success won’t be measured by deleting FAR Part 10 and shifting it to FAR Part 7 to say we eliminated redundancy for some quick Administration win. It needs to be measured by whether acquisition planning becomes more informed because market research is fully integrated into it and not treated as a compliance exercise that happens alongside it.
Some measures of RFO success related to market research include assessing if:
• Agencies create ways to encourage thoughtful market research while reducing costs for industry. No more RFIs that are mini-RFPs.
• Tools, training, and leadership develop the critical thinking skills needed for newer contracting professionals in a less prescriptive market research environment. Moving beyond checklists to business acumen.
• Agency acquisition strategies demonstrate fairness and consistency.
• Market research is integrated into acquisition planning earlier, resulting in more meaningful engagement -- and new methods for that engagement -- with industry.
• Five years from now, acquisition professionals aren’t viewing market research as a report but an innate requirement for good acquisition planning.
It’s up to industry and Government to keep market research fair and real versus it being relegated to a claim of less pages or a shorter FAR.
What’s Coming Next -- When Judgment Carries More Weight
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Author: Shauna Weatherly, President, Federal Subcontract Solutions LLC (dba FedSubK). Shauna is a small business advocate and owner of FedSubK. FedSubK exists to simplify federal contracting, empowering small businesses with practical, understandable resources. We bring first-hand experiences in Federal contracting from multiple perspectives derived from roles held both in and out of Government over almost four decades of Federal service.
Visit us at fedsubk.com to learn more about--
Getting Started in Federal Contracting: fedsubk.com/begin-your-journey-here
Solutions and Our Trusted Support Provider Network: fedsubk.com/solutions-services
Insights from a Contracting Officer: fedsubk.com/insights
Free Webinars and Resources: fedsubk.com/webinars-training
Where Good Procurements Really Begin (Weatherly the RFO - Part 3)
Before I got my first warrant (required to sign contracts), I was a Contract Specialist writing my first acquisition plan. It was for a large Total Environmental Restoration Contract (TERC) that included A-E, Services, and Construction terms and conditions. I was told, "follow FAR Part 7." I thought, "Okay, looks like I'll be doing a lot of these in the coming years. Figure it out." With a few years under my belt, I learned quickly that acquisition planning is the foundation for every successful procurement.
When I moved into leadership roles, we built acquisition planning into our entire program and project lifecycle. We implemented Advanced Acquisition Planning Boards (AAPBs) before writing lengthy acquisition strategy and planning documents. We invited stakeholders like Contracting to attend the budget request preparation meetings for the next FY. We started shaping an understanding and a plan of action months and years in advance of analyses and research.
Anyone who has spent time around acquisitions in the Federal space knows that most procurement problems begin at the beginning, before any procurement forecast goes into Acquisition Gateway or on the agency’s small business page, or any Sources Sought notice is issued in SAM. Long before a solicitation is issued and proposals arrive. And long before anyone files a protest.
You can almost always pin-point where, if you are going to have a problem, it will begin.
When an agency hasn't fully thought through what it's buying, why it's buying it, how the requirement should be structured, who might be capable of performing it, or what risks need to be managed before the acquisition ever reaches the marketplace.
Acquisition planning is preparation. If that’s not what we’re doing, we’re already creating problems for every acquisition phase that follows.
And that's why this topic in federal acquisition and the proposed RFO rules deserves attention, especially now that FAR Part 10, Market Research, has been combined with FAR Part 7, Acquisition Planning. Combining acquisition planning and market research recognizes something practitioners have known for years -- they're inseparable.
But it also means that changes to planning now ripple directly into how agencies understand the marketplace before they ever write a solicitation.
Congress never cared whether agencies produced acquisition plans. Congress cared whether agencies made good acquisition decisions. They care about competition, stewardship of taxpayer dollars, thoughtful use of small businesses, commercial buying, performance-based acquisitions, and risk management.
Those are the objectives.
Acquisition planning has been the primary tool for achieving them. But the plan itself was never the goal. The effort behind the plan was. Acquisition planning is simply one of the first steps in the procurement process. It is the place where the most important decisions have already been made.
Consider the examples I gave above about the discussions in the AAPB and budget request preparation. All of that is well before anything was put into writing. And heck, by the time the RFI was released (if we released one), just about every big question was already answered.
• Will this be a small business set-aside?
• Have commercial solutions been considered?
• Should the requirement be bundled?
• What's the acquisition strategy?
• What contract type makes the most sense?
• How will proposals be evaluated?
• How much performance risk is acceptable?
Those decisions are a product of discussions very early in acquisition planning. By the time industry reads the solicitation, many of the biggest decisions have already been made. The solicitation simply makes those decisions visible. So that begs the question…
…If acquisition planning changes, doesn’t everything downstream change, too?
I have a ton of notes in the margins of my electronic copies of the RFO parts issued so far. Most center around... Where is the acquisition leadership expecting contracting specialists and contracting officers to learn how to think through these decisions? I'm not talking training sessions, listening sessions, leadership briefings, webinars, the FAR Companion, Practitioners' Albums.
We are overwhelmed by data these days -- there is no shortage. Collection of data isn't the issue. it's what to do with it once we have it. What is meaningful and what isn't? That's a legitimate concern from the perspective of a contract specialist working different types of contracts in their cradle-to-grave office set-up. Or the specialist or contracting officer moved as a result of agency realignments and now buying something new, with no training whatsoever.
With the FAR Council is intentionally moving away from detailed procedural direction in favor of shorter regulations supported by guidance outside the FAR, we have to acknowledge that, historically, the FAR didn't just tell contracting officers what it needed to comply with, but often explained how to ensure compliance and answered questions about how to get it done.
From the Contracting Officer's Chair
Let’s start with a discussion about curiosity. Bring me a purchase requestion and I would have a list of questions ready for you. I know from experience that my answers and how this action continues hinges on what those answers are. That includes everything that goes right and wrong, long before I use any AI tool and ask questions.
• What problem(s) are we trying to solve?
• Is there another way to buy this?
• Has it been purchased before?
• Who in industry might already be doing it and how is it procured?
• What risks are we creating and mitigating?
• What opportunities are we overlooking and creating?
• What is it that we don’t know yet but need answers for?
And then the standard "dollar value", "when do you need it", and "do you have money yet" questions.
Every profession has it and the contracting craft is no different. Knowing what questions to ask is part of the craft. Also part of the craft is learning how best to pass information from one experienced professional to the next. The RFO is forcing us to reconsider where and how that institutional knowledge should live going forward. And, how we preserve it in market research and acquisition planning.
Written acquisition plans preserve all discussion and decisions points. It is the ultimate fallback for the building of the solicitation and the justifications of what we are doing and why in the pre-award phase leading to the solicitation. It is never seen by industry but relied upon by acquisition. Making preservation discretionary means documentation practices could vary significantly across agencies, depending on each agency's implementation decisions and tolerance for risk.
What gets lost are rationales, alternatives considered, risk discussions, disagreements, lessons learned, why things changed from the last procurement, and what outside influences impacted current decisions. Acquisition plans in their written form allow that information to be inherited by future acquisition teams. This deserves more attention than it's receiving in the RFO.
The RFO made the changes in FAR Part 7 about the laundry list of what had to go in the plan.
Wrong argument.
It is ALL about careful consideration of facts and circumstances before acting. How much consideration is required to make informed decisions, preserve those decisions so we have them as a guide moving forward, and actually use them to improve and streamline the process. Contracting officers know that their judgment can't be regulated. They stop relying on checklists and start recognizing patterns. They know the questions to ask end users, requiring activities, legal counsel, budget, and small business specialists because seeing the patterns for a poor acquisition form. That's because most know where acquisitions tend to go off track from living through it.
If the FAR is going to become shorter, the acquisition workforce needs a deliberate and consistent strategy across the board for preserving the judgment, rationale, and historical knowledge that good acquisition planning has always provided.
Otherwise, while we simplify the rulebook, it will -- for now -- make the profession harder to master.
What’s Coming Next -- Article Four: Market Research Isn't About Checking a Box
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Author: Shauna Weatherly, President, Federal Subcontract Solutions LLC (dba FedSubK). Shauna is a small business advocate and owner of FedSubK. FedSubK exists to simplify federal contracting, empowering small businesses with practical, understandable resources. We bring first-hand experiences in Federal contracting from multiple perspectives derived from roles held both in and out of Government over almost four decades of Federal service.
Visit us at fedsubk.com to learn more about--
Getting Started in Federal Contracting: fedsubk.com/begin-your-journey-here
Solutions and Our Trusted Support Provider Network: fedsubk.com/solutions-services
Insights from a Contracting Officer: fedsubk.com/insights
Free Webinars and Resources: fedsubk.com/webinars-training
What Does Nonstatutory Really Mean? (Weathering the RFO Series - Part 2)
In my last article, I talked about one of the biggest misconceptions surrounding the Revolutionary FAR Overhaul (RFO) is the idea that the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) itself creates procurement policy. It doesn't. And if you are in GovCon, you should know that basic truth. Congress creates procurement policy. The FAR implements it. That distinction changes how we should think about the RFO. Instead of asking, "Why did they delete that?" I think we should first ask, "What purpose was that requirement serving?"
That question brings me to one of the most overused words appearing in every conversation or Government briefing about the RFO (aside from "empowering")...
Nonstatutory.
But it really is the most misunderstood word in the current conversation.
You'd think it was pretty straightforward. When you hear that the FAR Council was removing nonstatutory requirements from the FAR, the reaction was pretty simple. “Well, okay. If Congress didn't require it, why should it stay?" Just one thing...that assumes something that isn't necessarily true --
...if Congress didn't specifically require a process or procedure, the process or procedure isn't important.
Whoa! Think about that for a minute.
I spent most of my career implementing FAR, not just reading it, and that is NOT the right conclusion.
Being a Contracting Officer teaches you is that two questions can sound almost identical while leading to very different answers. And as Contracting Officers, we’ve been taught to pay attention to words very carefully.
In this case, the first question is a legal question: "Did Congress require this? " But the next is an acquisition question: "Why did this process or procedure exist to begin with?" Sometimes the answer to both questions is the same. Congress required it. Case closed. But more than not, they aren't. And that comes out when you sit in a FAR policy working group meeting. You hear the discussion and debate over what Congress said is the law and the intent of that law, versus how we implement the law and ensure compliance with the law. In that room, the conversation always went back to Congress established the objective and intent or outcomes. The FAR established the procedure with which to ensure objective or intent was achieved.
And THAT requires consistency to get there Governmentwide. So, how do you get consistency? Processes and procedures.
Ouch! There are those pesky processes and procedures again. Those "nonstatutory" actions.
Congress rarely dictates via law how to get from point A to point B for something like acquisition planning. Or market research. Or documenting a responsibility determination.
The FAR has historically translated policy into repeatable acquisition practices. And for good reason. Left to their own devices, agencies have as many ways to do acquisition as the number of acquisition professionals they have on staff.
Honestly -- how many times have you worked with two Contracting Officers in the same office that didn't do the same thing the exact same way, even with processes and procedures in place.
Often.
How FAR Actually Evolves
FAR didn't appear one day as a finished document. It evolved. And that evolution was expressly the oversight of the FAR Council which allowed the document to grow to into a perceived answer book, versus a regulation. And every acquisition professional has lived some part of that evolution. We've seen the legislation, been involved in protests, participated in IG reviews and seen the reports (and responded to them), instituted best practices and lessons learned...and more. Over time one-off procurement issues in a single agency or type of acquisition across Government become a way to migrate fixes into regulatory language in an effort to reduce risk. If Contracting Officer's weren't taking risks it was because the FAR kept the lanes narrow to the point there couldn't be an innovation race to streamline acquisition. The grey area in FAR become harder to find. Not because Congress required it but because acquisition leaders across Government kept watering the regulatory jungle of the FAR.
The thread of consistency is created in the rulemaking process.
Congress passes a law requiring agencies to maximize practicable opportunities for small businesses. Congress doesn't necessarily prescribe every analytical step a Contracting Officer should take before deciding whether a procurement should be set aside.
But take that law, give it to SBA, they write a rule, and upon finalization...if the FAR Council believes it should be incorporated into the regulation, it creates a FAR case and tasks one of two councils – the Civilian Agency Acquisition Council (CAAC) or the Defense Acquisition Regulations Council (DARC) – to lead the process of drafting, coordination, and agreement on the text of the rule.
The entity on point (CAAC or DARC) and its co-chair (whichever isn't the lead) herd procurement analysts in working groups to write FAR changes that include PROCESSES for implementation. These acquisition professionals from across government talk about interpretations and context. And they are sorting out the commonality all of what they all do. That's where process and procedure start to become important.
Interpretation and context is everything in the acquisition business. The words are chosen carefully and the decision to create a process or procedure within the FAR is the way to ensure consistency and the outcome / intent is achieved.
Once rules become final and their processes were implemented, they become tied to other processes and you get a series of procedures that tie across types of contracts, use of certain funding, types of buying methods, and types of evaluation processes... and more.
Those processes and procedures become threads of consistency across government.
But that doesn't mean every process or procedure put into place should remain forever. I mean, the RFO just now got rid of the American Reinvestment and Recovery Act (ARRA) language from awards made in 2009 and 2010. Why did that take so long?
From the Contracting Officer's Chair
We need to understand what role processes and procedures have been playing before deciding they are no longer needed. Particularly with an acquisition workforce turned upside down through "The Fork" and DRP and people jumping ship. We don't have the same level of historical knowledge now. Face it. Things are different. Not bad, just different.
Without process and procedures in place, how do they learn? By making bad decisions and getting your neck chopped in a time of threats to your livelihood coming from several directions? Behavior isn't likely to include a new level of taking risks in that environment.
Government acquisition leadership (and some of those hosting Government acquisition leaders in their think-tanks) simply aren't facing reality.
Now, I'm not arguing against simplification. Frankly, it is the exact opposite. Ive wanted a more readable and user-friendly FAR for years. That part of the RFO is worthwhile. But simplification being good, isn't what this is all about. It's about -- Now that “X” has disappeared, what else disappears with it? It's about distinguishing between simplifying regulations and building better outcomes. It's really easy to simplify something when you're looking at it from 30,000 feet. It's much harder when you're the Contracting Officer responsible for defending the acquisition file two years later.
Will Contract Specialists and Contracting Officers still have the same training, historical knowledge, management support, and tools available in while operating in the shell of the former workforce capacity -- especially at the end of fiscal year?
Did you notice the thing missing in my take versus the FAR Council's take?
I'm not asking whether the provision was statutory.
I'm asking questions the acquisition workforce is asking.
If someone had walked into my office twenty years ago and said, "Shauna, this thing you're making me do, it isn't statutory." My next question probably would have been, "Okay...but it helps accomplish X, so why wouldn't we use it?" Not because I was defending regulations but because I was trying to understand whether not doing something changes how I approached an acquisition and create efficiencies. Should I push back and how far can I push the envelope? Or could I defend taking a different action and argue I'm still compliant?
Some procedures existed because they genuinely improved decision-making. Others existed because they reflected old ways of doing business that no longer made sense. One of the responsibilities of a good Contracting Officer is learning to tell the difference. Working in the grey area. Understanding where it lives and not get rid of it when it is needed to achieve the outcomes intended by Congress.
That is our charge as acquisition professionals - exercising business judgement. That often involves a process to ensure we hit the mark and do our due diligency. And you Contracting Officer's know just how often you used processes and procedures in the FAR to fall back on when they actually helped streamline decision-making, efficiency, and consistency.
The RFO now revolves the conversation around statutory information that remains which short-circuits the discussion we need to have.
Statute tells us where a requirement came from, but experience helps us understand why the nonstatutory stuff mattered. And why it might still be needed.
We need that both perspectives as we move forward reviewing proposed RFO changes.
What's Coming Next -- Article Three: Where Good Procurements Really Begin?
One of the first places it gets real is acquisition planning. The FAR has historically translated procurement objectives put in place by Congress into how we determine acquisition planning requirements. And that influences everything from competition to market research to small business participation.
Next, I’ll be talking about why acquisition planning became one of the foundations of federal procurement and what it means when many of those implementation details move from regulation to guidance…again, two very different things.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Author: Shauna Weatherly, President, Federal Subcontract Solutions LLC (dba FedSubK). Shauna is a small business advocate and owner of FedSubK. FedSubK exists to simplify federal contracting, empowering small businesses with practical, understandable resources. We bring first-hand experiences in Federal contracting from multiple perspectives derived from roles held both in and out of Government over almost four decades of Federal service.
Visit us at fedsubk.com to learn more about--
Getting Started in Federal Contracting: fedsubk.com/begin-your-journey-here
Solutions and Our Trusted Support Provider Network: fedsubk.com/solutions-services
Insights from a Contracting Officer: fedsubk.com/insights
Free Webinars and Resources: fedsubk.com/webinars-training
