FedSubK Feature: Finding Your Way Around a Federal Solicitation
Updated: May 4, 2024
You get a notice that a Federal opportunity that is perfect for your business has been posted to SAM.gov. After downloading the documents, where do you begin your review? What are all these sections and is there any rhyme or reason as to what is contained in each? Solicitations for new contract awards, particularly voluminous documents with hundreds of pages and attachments, can be confusing. How do you prioritize what to read? Let’s delve into how Federal solicitations are organized, how the contents in each section are interrelated, and why it’s necessary to understand it all to craft your best response back to the Government.
What is a Request for Proposal (RFP)?
An RFP document (a type of solicitation) is used in negotiated acquisitions (those over the Simplified Acquisition Threshold (SAT), presently $250,000) to communicate the Government’s requirements to prospective contractors and to solicit proposals. RFPs for competitive acquisitions, at a minimum, describe the–
- Government’s requirement(s);
- Anticipated terms and conditions that will apply to the contract. Terms may change depending on the status of the awardee (i.e., small business versus large business, for example);
- Information required to be in the offeror’s proposal; and
- Factors and significant subfactors that will be used to evaluate the proposal, the criteria that will be applied to rate offerors against each factor/subfactor, and their relative importance.
RFPs may also be issued in the form of a letter or fax, electronic commerce, and orally. Sometimes the Government will issue the RFP in draft format for industry comment. We will not cover those processes in this article as the use of these types of RFPs varies from agency to agency and in emergency or contingency situations.
How are Solicitations Organized?
The Uniform Contract Format (UCF) is used for most negotiated service contracts. However, there are exceptions:
- Architect-engineer contracts (those falling under FAR Part 36).
- Subsistence contracts.
- Supplies or services contracts requiring special contract formats prescribed elsewhere in FAR that are inconsistent with the UCF.
- Letter RFPs.
- Contracts otherwise exempted by the agency head or designee.
For this article, we will discuss UCF only. Under the UCF, solicitations have four parts:
- Part I - The Schedule
- Part II - Contract Clauses
- Part III - List of Documents, Exhibits, and Other Attachments
- Part IV - Representations and Instructions
Now let’s look at each part and what information it includes.
Several sections comprise Part I - The Schedule.
Section A, Solicitation/Contract Form. This is the specific form that the offeror signs when submitting their offer, and the Contracting Officer signs upon acceptance of the offer on behalf of the Government at the time of award. It is the Optional Form (OF) 308, Solicitation and Offer-Negotiated Acquisition, or Standard Form (SF) 33, Solicitation, Offer and Award. Other formats can be used and FAR 15.204-2(a)(2) outlines the minimum information that must be included on the first page of the solicitation.
Section B, Supplies or Services and Prices/Costs. Includes the list of contract line item numbers (CLINs) with a brief description of each to include the quantity and unit to be purchased. The offeror completes the unit price (if applicable) and extended CLIN price. The Government will use national stock numbers, part numbers, item numbers, and other nomenclature to describe each CLiN, as needed. Section B, at the time of award, is also typically populated with appropriation/funding data, by CLIN. Government contract writing systems often include the period of performance or delivery date for each CLIN in this section, as well.
Section C, Description/Specifications/Statement of Work. This section is the heart of the solicitation. It includes the description of the agency’s needs or specifications. How are descriptions of requirements developed? Per FAR Part 11, Describing Agency Needs, “Agencies may select from existing requirements documents, modify or combine existing requirements documents, or create new requirements documents to meet agency needs, consistent with the following order of precedence:
(1) Documents mandated for use by law.
(2) Performance-oriented documents (e.g., a Performance Work Statement (PWS) or Statement of Objectives (SOO)).
(3) Detailed design-oriented documents.
(4) Standards, specifications, and related publications issued by the Government outside the Defense or Federal series for the non-repetitive acquisition of items.”
Section D, Packaging and Marking. Provides packaging, packing, preservation, and marking requirements, if any, specific to the agency or end user’s needs.
Section E, Inspection and Acceptance. Includes inspection, acceptance, quality assurance, and reliability requirements as outlined in FAR Subpart 46.2 Contract Quality Requirements. This section will indicate if the Government will rely on the contractors' existing quality assurance systems as a substitute for Government inspection or if Government in-process inspection is required. It will also include any standard inspection clauses that require the contractor to provide and maintain an inspection system that is acceptable to the Government, allow the Government the right to make inspections and tests while work is in process, and require the contractor to keep complete, and make available to the Government, records of its inspection work. Other higher-level standards applicable to the work, such as International Organization for Standardization (ISO), American Society for Quality (ASQ)/American National Standards Institute (ANSI), National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), and others, will also be indicated. It describes the criteria the Government will use to inspect and accept the goods or services.
Section F, Deliveries or performance. Specifies the requirements for time, place, and method of delivery or performance, taking into account urgency of need, industry practices, market conditions, transportation time, production time, capabilities of small business concerns, administrative time for obtaining and evaluating offers and for awarding contracts, time for contractors to comply with any conditions precedent to contract performance; and time for the Government to perform its obligations under the contract; e.g., furnishing Government property (see FAR Subpart 11.4 Delivery or Performance Schedules and FAR Subpart 47.301-1 Transportation in Supply Contracts).
Section G, Contract Administration Data. Includes accounting and appropriation data (if not elsewhere included) and contract administration information like reporting requirements and invoicing instructions.
Section H, Special Contract Requirements. Includes special contract requirements that are not standard FAR clauses or those from a FAR supplement required to be included in other sections of the solicitation. Examples of special contract requirements are security, badging, facility access, task order award processes under multiple award contracts, key personnel requirements, and min/max order thresholds.
Part II - Contract Clauses has one section; Section I, Contract Clauses. It houses the standard FAR clauses and those required by agency FAR supplements as appropriate for the requirement as required by law. Clauses are typically indexed, listed in numerical order, including the date of the version of the clause, and are provided in full text but may be incorporated by reference, if allowable.
Part III - List of Documents, Exhibits, and Other Attachments also has only one section; Section J - List of Attachments. Examples of attachments are Data Item Descriptions (DIDs) and Contract Data Requirements Lists (CDRLs) in Department of Defense (DoD) contracts, Department of Labor (DoL) Wage Determinations, and sample resume formats and past performance questionnaires for purposes of proposal preparation. Other sections of the solicitation will frequently cross-reference to documents in Section J for further technical information regarding work requirements.
Part IV - Representations and Instructions includes three sections that encompass information that offerors must provide the Government to receive a contract award and information the Government needs to relay to offerors about the preparation of their offer.
Section K, Representations, Certifications, and Other Statements of Offerors. This section houses FAR solicitation provisions and those from agency FAR supplements that require the offeror to represent, certify, or attest to certain information. Instead of providing all required FAR and Defense FAR Supplement (DFARS) provisions (as applicable) in each solicitation, offerors complete most of these as part of their SAM.gov registration in sections labeled FAR Responses 1 - 4, found in their SAM entity record. Offerors’ SAM Representations and Certifications are downloaded by the Contracting Officer from SAM.gov, reviewed, and maintained in the official contract file. Agencies will include required agency provisions from their agency FAR supplement in Section K since they are not found in SAM.gov, and any other provisions that may be in effect based on a final FAR or DFARS rule but not yet incorporated in SAM.gov.
Section L, Instructions, Conditions, and Notices to Offerors or Respondents. Includes the solicitation provisions and instructions to offerors on how to prepare an offer. Specific proposal formats, volumes, or organization of the information submitted to the Government are provided. Section L also outlines the evaluation factors that will be used by the Government to determine the otherwise successful offeror for contract award. Information that should be provided in response to each faction that substantiates offerors' experience, personnel, management, past performance, compliance with subcontracting requirements, or other factors of interest to the Government are included.
Section M, Evaluation Factors for Award. Identifies the evaluation criteria that will be used by the Government for each factor (and subfactor) to determine if an offeror has met the technical and price requirements for award, and to what extent. The relevant importance of factors (and subfactors) are stated and the rating method (i.e., points, adjective ratings, colors) may be disclosed, following agency policy. The basis for the Government’s source selection decision will be disclosed in this section (i.e., low-priced technically acceptable (LPTA) or best value continuum).
The UCF does not apply to commercial contracts but is used by many agencies anyway to maintain a uniform contract formation process.
The use of standardized contract formats helps the Government prep the solicitation by being able to reference specific sections with specific meanings and communicate with offerors, awardees, Contracting Officer Representatives (CORs), and others that assist in contract administration.
Are All Sections Included in the Final Contract Document?
While solicitations contain Parts I through IV, Part III is incorporated by reference in the final contract through the use of FAR clause 52.204-19, Incorporation by Reference of Representations and Certifications, or under the terms and conditions for commercial products and commercial services found in FAR clause 52.212-4. Part IV is removed from the document at the time of contract award and not included in the final contract document.
Are Sections of a Solicitation Interrelated?
The various sections of a solicitation are interrelated and provide offerors a complete picture of the project work and the compliance requirements for performance. Businesses must understand this concept because the Government will not always cross-reference between sections and connect the dots. if a business focuses solely on Sections L and M which contain proposal instructions, evaluation factors and subfactors, and criteria, but does not read Sections B through H, the offeror will likely provide only a partially complete technical and/or price response compared to what the Government expects to receive.
Example: Section L evaluation factor asks an offeror to describe its schedule for delivery of supplies to be provided as part of services rendered. Section L does not cross-reference the offeror to Section F (Deliveries or Performance). Section M indicates this factor is the second most heavily weighted factor compared to the other factors. If the offeror fails to fully read Section F, it may propose a delivery schedule that is not compliant with the terms and conditions of the solicitation.
Generally, the Sections are interrelated in the following ways:
- Section A - Solicitation/Contract Form often references Section B, which details the supplies or services and their associated prices/costs.
- Section B - Supplies or Services and Prices/Costs information directly influences the evaluation criteria in Section M - Evaluation Factors for Award.
- Section C - Descriptions/Specifications/Statement of Work details directly inform how pricing is structured in Section B and the evaluation criteria in Section M.
- Section D - Packaging and Marking is driven by the nature of the supplies or services outlined in Section B.
- Section E - Inspection and Acceptance criteria are influenced by the nature of the work outlined in Section C.
- Section F - Deliveries or Performance is closely tied to the requirements outlined in Section C and the timelines set in Section B.
- Section G - Contract Administration Data is influenced by the nature of the contract outlined in Section A.
- Section H - Special Contract Requirements often references or builds upon information in other sections.
- Section I - Contract Clauses are directly tied to the rights and obligations established in Sections A through H.
- Section J - List of Attachments supplement the information in other sections, providing additional details or forms.
- Section L - Instructions, Conditions, and Notices to Offerors or Respondents and its evaluation factors and subfactors are informed by Sections A through H and the attachments at Section J.
- Section M - Evaluation Factors for Award and associated evaluation criteria is informed by Section L. Many times Section M relevant importance follows the order in which factors and subfactors are listed in Section L (but not always) with the most heavily weighted factor listed first.
Understanding these interconnections is vital for preparing a responsive proposal and ensuring compliance with the solicitation requirements. Cross-referencing information between sections is key to developing a cohesive and well-informed response.
What Happens When Sections Have Conflicting Information?
FAR clause 52.215-8 Order of Precedence - Uniform Contract Format is included in all solicitations that use UCF. It states, “Any inconsistency in this solicitation or contract shall be resolved by giving precedence in the following order:
(a) The Schedule (excluding the specifications) [Sections A - H, excluding Section C]
(b) Representations and other instructions [Section K]
(c) Contract clauses [Section I]
(d) Other documents, exhibits, and attachments [Section J]
(e) The specifications [Section C]”
Sections that contain requirements that are based on law, policy, or other Federal or agency regulations that have the force and effect of law when included in the solicitation are listed higher in the order of precedence. Conversely, documents that are drafted based on operational needs fall lower in the order of precedence because they are drafted at the operational level and should not set higher-level precedence.
NOTE: The Government encourages offerors to raise any conflicts and discrepancies found in the solicitation during the proposal period to its attention so it may consider issuing an amendment.
Being able to find information in a solicitation, particularly one that uses the UCF, saves time in the proposal review and preparation process, and allows businesses to cross-check between sections for various aspects of the work requirements to ensure an offer submitted to the Government takes into account a 360° view of the requirement. You'll be more confident in the proposals you submit, the information they include, your understanding of the Government's requirements, and your ability to successfully perform when you win.
Reference:
FAR Part 11
FAR Part 15
FAR Part 16
FAR Part 42.6
.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
