Federal Acquisition regulations and policies that should be lifted or changed

To Those in the government acquisition community in accordance with the new administration’s push to reduce regulations I would love to hear from you on some of the federal level regulations that are causing undue hardship in government contracting and assisting in being a part of the mission. We are looking internally and externally at what regulations we should analyze and potentially cut and will be providing suggestions up the chain in the next few weeks. We are mainly looking at anything that will improve processes and make the Government and in my case the Navy more efficient in government contracting.  Feel free to message me vs. just commenting on this post that way we can discuss it and to ensure it is justified and adds efficiency on both sides of the house. Try to keep politics to a minimum as I’m not trying to cause any controversy just trying to get some industry opinions on regulations that are impeding the Naval Mission.

——————————
Kyle Beagle
Naval facilities Engineering Command
——————————

0

Replies

  1. Totally agree Mark. I am actually working on a project at VA to do just what you state, which is to streamline the Veterans Affairs Acquisition Regulations (VAAR), and make it current, streamlined, and to eliminate redundancies with the FAR. Now if I would just have the power to prevent the various VA organizations from demanding deviations to regulations and policy, we would be in great shape!

    ——————————
    Jaime Gracia
    CEO
    Seville Government Consulting
    jgracia@sevillegovcon.com
    (202) 716-0122
    ——————————
    ——————————————-
    Original Message:
    Sent: 03-16-2017 17:41
    From: Mark Amadeo
    Subject: Federal Acquisition regulations and policies that should be lifted or changed

    Sorry for the late reply.  Along the lines of streamlining, it would be nice to have DFARS and FAR rules on data rights, technical data rights and computer software rights conform more closely to each other or made identical. Rules that are sometimes identical and sometimes not make it needlessly complex, especially for small businesses, when the same technology or same kind of technology is developed for civilian agencies and defense agencies.

    ——————————
    Mark Amadeo
    Principal – Amadeo Law Firm, PLLC
    Amadeo Law Firm, PLLC
    Washington DC
    (202) 640-2090
    ——————————
    ——————————————-
    Original Message:
    Sent: 03-06-2017 08:37
    From: Kyle Beagle
    Subject: Federal Acquisition regulations and policies that should be lifted or changed

    To Those in the government acquisition community in accordance with the new administration’s push to reduce regulations I would love to hear from you on some of the federal level regulations that are causing undue hardship in government contracting and assisting in being a part of the mission. We are looking internally and externally at what regulations we should analyze and potentially cut and will be providing suggestions up the chain in the next few weeks. We are mainly looking at anything that will improve processes and make the Government and in my case the Navy more efficient in government contracting.  Feel free to message me vs. just commenting on this post that way we can discuss it and to ensure it is justified and adds efficiency on both sides of the house. Try to keep politics to a minimum as I’m not trying to cause any controversy just trying to get some industry opinions on regulations that are impeding the Naval Mission.

    ——————————
    Kyle Beagle
    Naval facilities Engineering Command
    ——————————

    0
  2. Sorry for the late reply.  Along the lines of streamlining, it would be nice to have DFARS and FAR rules on data rights, technical data rights and computer software rights conform more closely to each other or made identical. Rules that are sometimes identical and sometimes not make it needlessly complex, especially for small businesses, when the same technology or same kind of technology is developed for civilian agencies and defense agencies.

    ——————————
    Mark Amadeo
    Principal – Amadeo Law Firm, PLLC
    Amadeo Law Firm, PLLC
    Washington DC
    (202) 640-2090
    ——————————
    ——————————————-
    Original Message:
    Sent: 03-06-2017 08:37
    From: Kyle Beagle
    Subject: Federal Acquisition regulations and policies that should be lifted or changed

    To Those in the government acquisition community in accordance with the new administration’s push to reduce regulations I would love to hear from you on some of the federal level regulations that are causing undue hardship in government contracting and assisting in being a part of the mission. We are looking internally and externally at what regulations we should analyze and potentially cut and will be providing suggestions up the chain in the next few weeks. We are mainly looking at anything that will improve processes and make the Government and in my case the Navy more efficient in government contracting.  Feel free to message me vs. just commenting on this post that way we can discuss it and to ensure it is justified and adds efficiency on both sides of the house. Try to keep politics to a minimum as I’m not trying to cause any controversy just trying to get some industry opinions on regulations that are impeding the Naval Mission.

    ——————————
    Kyle Beagle
    Naval facilities Engineering Command
    ——————————

    0
  3. I am in agreement that streamlining the FAR would be great, as proper and effective execution of contract type selection and management is ultimately what is important. Regretfully, the focus always seems to be on creating new policy or regulations, as opposed to root cause analysis and fixing problems for which existing policy or regulations normally exists.

    ——————————
    Jaime Gracia
    CEO
    Seville Government Consulting
    jgracia@sevillegovcon.com
    (202) 716-0122
    ——————————
    ——————————————-
    Original Message:
    Sent: 03-08-2017 17:35
    From: Jason Bakke
    Subject: Federal Acquisition regulations and policies that should be lifted or changed

    Jaime, I agree on T&M generally, but I wonder how the risk compares to so-called fake fixed price: a SOW with payment tied to a status report invoiced in equal monthly installments. They create the appearance of reduced risk with no actual payment milestones. 

    I like the solution you propose, because it allows time for the development of meaningful metrics and deliverables to govern that most-important carrot.

    But also, maybe remove the D&F requirement in part 12?

    ——————————
    Jason Bakke
    Proposal Manager
    Censeo Consulting Group (Censeo)
    Washington DC
    ——————————
    ——————————————-
    Original Message:
    Sent: 03-07-2017 10:03
    From: Jaime Gracia
    Subject: Federal Acquisition regulations and policies that should be lifted or changed

    Great thoughts Benjamin. Streamlining the FAR would be a great place to start, which would be a colossal exercise as it is seems like it is always easier to add than to delete. I personally do not understand that notion.

    T&M contracts need to be judiciously used, but in regards to services, I feel they are abused. I always worked with federal clients to ensure that the acquisition plan and acquisition strategy, in conjunction with the customer, have a clear plan to turn the contract from T&M to FFP in the out years. After the base year, hopefully, learning curve effects take hold, and risk can be properly accounted for. The inherent risk to the government is simply too great to continue a service contract seemingly in perpetuity under a T&M construct. 

    Nonetheless, I agree that FAR 16.103 discusses the contract type selection, and should be adequate to allow the contracting officer to use his or her judgment to make the best business decision without the need of further regulations. 

    ——————————
    Jaime Gracia
    CEO
    Seville Government Consulting
    jgracia@sevillegovcon.com
    (202) 716-0122
    ——————————
    ——————————————-
    Original Message:
    Sent: 03-06-2017 18:16
    From: Benjamin McMartin
    Subject: Federal Acquisition regulations and policies that should be lifted or changed

    Great Topic! Thank you for posting.

    I would recommend the removal of FAR 16.601(d), along with 12.207(b) and (c), relating to limitations on the use of T&M/LH contract types for non-commercial and commercial actions (especially services). These regulations are a legacy overreaction to abuses of T&M, which ignore the reality that T&M/LH type contracts are, in many circumstances, the commercial standard way of doing business. The heavy burden to justify use of T&M/LH has led to a number of overly complex and in some cases improper treatments of FFP and FFP-LOE which increase risk on the part of the Government, by decreasing enforceability, while creating termination liability.

    FAR 16.103 already puts the burden on the Contracting Officer to document the file explaining contract type selection based upon sound business judgment and management of risk. This should be adequate, along with Agency level reviews and approvals, to assure that the Government “negotiate[s] a contract type and price (or estimated cost and fee) that will result in reasonable contractor risk and provide the contractor with the greatest incentive for efficient and economical performance”.

    ——————————
    Benjamin McMartin
    ——————————
    ——————————————-
    Original Message:
    Sent: 03-06-2017 08:37
    From: Kyle Beagle
    Subject: Federal Acquisition regulations and policies that should be lifted or changed

    To Those in the government acquisition community in accordance with the new administration’s push to reduce regulations I would love to hear from you on some of the federal level regulations that are causing undue hardship in government contracting and assisting in being a part of the mission. We are looking internally and externally at what regulations we should analyze and potentially cut and will be providing suggestions up the chain in the next few weeks. We are mainly looking at anything that will improve processes and make the Government and in my case the Navy more efficient in government contracting.  Feel free to message me vs. just commenting on this post that way we can discuss it and to ensure it is justified and adds efficiency on both sides of the house. Try to keep politics to a minimum as I’m not trying to cause any controversy just trying to get some industry opinions on regulations that are impeding the Naval Mission.

    ——————————
    Kyle Beagle
    Naval facilities Engineering Command
    ——————————

    0
  4. Jaime, I agree on T&M generally, but I wonder how the risk compares to so-called fake fixed price: a SOW with payment tied to a status report invoiced in equal monthly installments. They create the appearance of reduced risk with no actual payment milestones. 

    I like the solution you propose, because it allows time for the development of meaningful metrics and deliverables to govern that most-important carrot.

    But also, maybe remove the D&F requirement in part 12?

    ——————————
    Jason Bakke
    Proposal Manager
    Censeo Consulting Group (Censeo)
    Washington DC
    ——————————
    ——————————————-
    Original Message:
    Sent: 03-07-2017 10:03
    From: Jaime Gracia
    Subject: Federal Acquisition regulations and policies that should be lifted or changed

    Great thoughts Benjamin. Streamlining the FAR would be a great place to start, which would be a colossal exercise as it is seems like it is always easier to add than to delete. I personally do not understand that notion.

    T&M contracts need to be judiciously used, but in regards to services, I feel they are abused. I always worked with federal clients to ensure that the acquisition plan and acquisition strategy, in conjunction with the customer, have a clear plan to turn the contract from T&M to FFP in the out years. After the base year, hopefully, learning curve effects take hold, and risk can be properly accounted for. The inherent risk to the government is simply too great to continue a service contract seemingly in perpetuity under a T&M construct. 

    Nonetheless, I agree that FAR 16.103 discusses the contract type selection, and should be adequate to allow the contracting officer to use his or her judgment to make the best business decision without the need of further regulations. 

    ——————————
    Jaime Gracia
    CEO
    Seville Government Consulting
    jgracia@sevillegovcon.com
    (202) 716-0122
    ——————————
    ——————————————-
    Original Message:
    Sent: 03-06-2017 18:16
    From: Benjamin McMartin
    Subject: Federal Acquisition regulations and policies that should be lifted or changed

    Great Topic! Thank you for posting.

    I would recommend the removal of FAR 16.601(d), along with 12.207(b) and (c), relating to limitations on the use of T&M/LH contract types for non-commercial and commercial actions (especially services). These regulations are a legacy overreaction to abuses of T&M, which ignore the reality that T&M/LH type contracts are, in many circumstances, the commercial standard way of doing business. The heavy burden to justify use of T&M/LH has led to a number of overly complex and in some cases improper treatments of FFP and FFP-LOE which increase risk on the part of the Government, by decreasing enforceability, while creating termination liability.

    FAR 16.103 already puts the burden on the Contracting Officer to document the file explaining contract type selection based upon sound business judgment and management of risk. This should be adequate, along with Agency level reviews and approvals, to assure that the Government “negotiate[s] a contract type and price (or estimated cost and fee) that will result in reasonable contractor risk and provide the contractor with the greatest incentive for efficient and economical performance”.

    ——————————
    Benjamin McMartin
    ——————————
    ——————————————-
    Original Message:
    Sent: 03-06-2017 08:37
    From: Kyle Beagle
    Subject: Federal Acquisition regulations and policies that should be lifted or changed

    To Those in the government acquisition community in accordance with the new administration’s push to reduce regulations I would love to hear from you on some of the federal level regulations that are causing undue hardship in government contracting and assisting in being a part of the mission. We are looking internally and externally at what regulations we should analyze and potentially cut and will be providing suggestions up the chain in the next few weeks. We are mainly looking at anything that will improve processes and make the Government and in my case the Navy more efficient in government contracting.  Feel free to message me vs. just commenting on this post that way we can discuss it and to ensure it is justified and adds efficiency on both sides of the house. Try to keep politics to a minimum as I’m not trying to cause any controversy just trying to get some industry opinions on regulations that are impeding the Naval Mission.

    ——————————
    Kyle Beagle
    Naval facilities Engineering Command
    ——————————

    0
  5. Although I’m arguably the least qualified reader here I’ve enjoyed following this discussion string.  In the private sector, simplification of T & C’s have been ongoing over at least the past 20 years.  Further, firms that have reduced or eliminated needlessly burdensome legal requirements the most and the quickest generally out-perform their peers.  The underlying principle seems to be – sharing risks and rewards with suppliers is a far more effective strategy than trying to pass risk with various hold harmless clauses.

    ——————————
    Joseph Sandor
    Professor
    ——————————
    ——————————————-
    Original Message:
    Sent: 03-06-2017 18:16
    From: Benjamin McMartin
    Subject: Federal Acquisition regulations and policies that should be lifted or changed

    Great Topic! Thank you for posting.

    I would recommend the removal of FAR 16.601(d), along with 12.207(b) and (c), relating to limitations on the use of T&M/LH contract types for non-commercial and commercial actions (especially services). These regulations are a legacy overreaction to abuses of T&M, which ignore the reality that T&M/LH type contracts are, in many circumstances, the commercial standard way of doing business. The heavy burden to justify use of T&M/LH has led to a number of overly complex and in some cases improper treatments of FFP and FFP-LOE which increase risk on the part of the Government, by decreasing enforceability, while creating termination liability.

    FAR 16.103 already puts the burden on the Contracting Officer to document the file explaining contract type selection based upon sound business judgment and management of risk. This should be adequate, along with Agency level reviews and approvals, to assure that the Government “negotiate[s] a contract type and price (or estimated cost and fee) that will result in reasonable contractor risk and provide the contractor with the greatest incentive for efficient and economical performance”.

    ——————————
    Benjamin McMartin
    ——————————
    ——————————————-
    Original Message:
    Sent: 03-06-2017 08:37
    From: Kyle Beagle
    Subject: Federal Acquisition regulations and policies that should be lifted or changed

    To Those in the government acquisition community in accordance with the new administration’s push to reduce regulations I would love to hear from you on some of the federal level regulations that are causing undue hardship in government contracting and assisting in being a part of the mission. We are looking internally and externally at what regulations we should analyze and potentially cut and will be providing suggestions up the chain in the next few weeks. We are mainly looking at anything that will improve processes and make the Government and in my case the Navy more efficient in government contracting.  Feel free to message me vs. just commenting on this post that way we can discuss it and to ensure it is justified and adds efficiency on both sides of the house. Try to keep politics to a minimum as I’m not trying to cause any controversy just trying to get some industry opinions on regulations that are impeding the Naval Mission.

    ——————————
    Kyle Beagle
    Naval facilities Engineering Command
    ——————————

    0
  6. Great thoughts Benjamin. Streamlining the FAR would be a great place to start, which would be a colossal exercise as it is seems like it is always easier to add than to delete. I personally do not understand that notion.

    T&M contracts need to be judiciously used, but in regards to services, I feel they are abused. I always worked with federal clients to ensure that the acquisition plan and acquisition strategy, in conjunction with the customer, have a clear plan to turn the contract from T&M to FFP in the out years. After the base year, hopefully, learning curve effects take hold, and risk can be properly accounted for. The inherent risk to the government is simply too great to continue a service contract seemingly in perpetuity under a T&M construct. 

    Nonetheless, I agree that FAR 16.103 discusses the contract type selection, and should be adequate to allow the contracting officer to use his or her judgment to make the best business decision without the need of further regulations. 

    ——————————
    Jaime Gracia
    CEO
    Seville Government Consulting
    jgracia@sevillegovcon.com
    (202) 716-0122
    ——————————
    ——————————————-
    Original Message:
    Sent: 03-06-2017 18:16
    From: Benjamin McMartin
    Subject: Federal Acquisition regulations and policies that should be lifted or changed

    Great Topic! Thank you for posting.

    I would recommend the removal of FAR 16.601(d), along with 12.207(b) and (c), relating to limitations on the use of T&M/LH contract types for non-commercial and commercial actions (especially services). These regulations are a legacy overreaction to abuses of T&M, which ignore the reality that T&M/LH type contracts are, in many circumstances, the commercial standard way of doing business. The heavy burden to justify use of T&M/LH has led to a number of overly complex and in some cases improper treatments of FFP and FFP-LOE which increase risk on the part of the Government, by decreasing enforceability, while creating termination liability.

    FAR 16.103 already puts the burden on the Contracting Officer to document the file explaining contract type selection based upon sound business judgment and management of risk. This should be adequate, along with Agency level reviews and approvals, to assure that the Government “negotiate[s] a contract type and price (or estimated cost and fee) that will result in reasonable contractor risk and provide the contractor with the greatest incentive for efficient and economical performance”.

    ——————————
    Benjamin McMartin
    ——————————
    ——————————————-
    Original Message:
    Sent: 03-06-2017 08:37
    From: Kyle Beagle
    Subject: Federal Acquisition regulations and policies that should be lifted or changed

    To Those in the government acquisition community in accordance with the new administration’s push to reduce regulations I would love to hear from you on some of the federal level regulations that are causing undue hardship in government contracting and assisting in being a part of the mission. We are looking internally and externally at what regulations we should analyze and potentially cut and will be providing suggestions up the chain in the next few weeks. We are mainly looking at anything that will improve processes and make the Government and in my case the Navy more efficient in government contracting.  Feel free to message me vs. just commenting on this post that way we can discuss it and to ensure it is justified and adds efficiency on both sides of the house. Try to keep politics to a minimum as I’m not trying to cause any controversy just trying to get some industry opinions on regulations that are impeding the Naval Mission.

    ——————————
    Kyle Beagle
    Naval facilities Engineering Command
    ——————————

    0
  7. Great Topic! Thank you for posting.

    I would recommend the removal of FAR 16.601(d), along with 12.207(b) and (c), relating to limitations on the use of T&M/LH contract types for non-commercial and commercial actions (especially services). These regulations are a legacy overreaction to abuses of T&M, which ignore the reality that T&M/LH type contracts are, in many circumstances, the commercial standard way of doing business. The heavy burden to justify use of T&M/LH has led to a number of overly complex and in some cases improper treatments of FFP and FFP-LOE which increase risk on the part of the Government, by decreasing enforceability, while creating termination liability.

    FAR 16.103 already puts the burden on the Contracting Officer to document the file explaining contract type selection based upon sound business judgment and management of risk. This should be adequate, along with Agency level reviews and approvals, to assure that the Government “negotiate[s] a contract type and price (or estimated cost and fee) that will result in reasonable contractor risk and provide the contractor with the greatest incentive for efficient and economical performance”.

    ——————————
    Benjamin McMartin
    ——————————
    ——————————————-
    Original Message:
    Sent: 03-06-2017 08:37
    From: Kyle Beagle
    Subject: Federal Acquisition regulations and policies that should be lifted or changed

    To Those in the government acquisition community in accordance with the new administration’s push to reduce regulations I would love to hear from you on some of the federal level regulations that are causing undue hardship in government contracting and assisting in being a part of the mission. We are looking internally and externally at what regulations we should analyze and potentially cut and will be providing suggestions up the chain in the next few weeks. We are mainly looking at anything that will improve processes and make the Government and in my case the Navy more efficient in government contracting.  Feel free to message me vs. just commenting on this post that way we can discuss it and to ensure it is justified and adds efficiency on both sides of the house. Try to keep politics to a minimum as I’m not trying to cause any controversy just trying to get some industry opinions on regulations that are impeding the Naval Mission.

    ——————————
    Kyle Beagle
    Naval facilities Engineering Command
    ——————————

    0
  8. From a comment on LinkedIn:

    FFATA via 52.204-10. Cut the whole thing. The data is not being used as part of any evaluative process I know of on the government side; no one outside the government can access the data; as a result it raises the cost of file administration without any identifiable benefit to … anyone. 

    ——————————
    Jaime Gracia
    CEO
    Seville Government Consulting
    jgracia@sevillegovcon.com
    (202) 716-0122
    ——————————
    ——————————————-
    Original Message:
    Sent: 03-06-2017 08:37
    From: Kyle Beagle
    Subject: Federal Acquisition regulations and policies that should be lifted or changed

    To Those in the government acquisition community in accordance with the new administration’s push to reduce regulations I would love to hear from you on some of the federal level regulations that are causing undue hardship in government contracting and assisting in being a part of the mission. We are looking internally and externally at what regulations we should analyze and potentially cut and will be providing suggestions up the chain in the next few weeks. We are mainly looking at anything that will improve processes and make the Government and in my case the Navy more efficient in government contracting.  Feel free to message me vs. just commenting on this post that way we can discuss it and to ensure it is justified and adds efficiency on both sides of the house. Try to keep politics to a minimum as I’m not trying to cause any controversy just trying to get some industry opinions on regulations that are impeding the Naval Mission.

    ——————————
    Kyle Beagle
    Naval facilities Engineering Command
    ——————————

    0
You must be logged in to post a comment.