State of the World (of acquisitions) or The Great Disruption

Exploring the cascading impact of change, this image symbolizes the complexities of acquisition reform with a domino effect metaphor, highlighting the theme of "The Great Disruption."

The "Great Disruption" (as I am calling it) has had both desired and undesired effects. Many people have been displaced; professionally, financially, personally, and physically. Many very talented civil servants have left the government to pursue, paradoxically, more stable opportunities in industry. Much like the financial markets, the uncertainty in Government Business has resulted in shifting strategies.

In some instances, I have seen companies and individuals lean into the void to position themselves for the upswing. Others I have seen move away either for stability or cultural values. This will likely create big wins for those that can endure, and position appropriately and likely reshape the competitive environment. One thing we know is that industry is incredibly resilient. Why do “traditional government contractors” look and operate like bureaucratic behemoths? Because the Government told them for nearly a century that was what was required. It may take a while for the large ships to turn, but they will adapt and overcome. Mid-sized companies are likely best positioned to take advantage of this new era. While small companies are going to have to be more strategic than ever regarding what they pursue and who they partner with. Acquisitions and mergers will likely be on the rise as well.

Illustration depicting "The FAR Rewrite" with the U.S. Capitol silhouette, suggesting significant legislative or regulatory changes, complemented by an open book and pencil symbolizing drafting and revisions.

Regarding the new acquisition focused EO's; I think they are saying many of the right things. The FAR rewrite, for example, is following the recommendations I laid out in a post a few months ago (I am sure others directly involved provided the same). So what will the affects be? Of course, there are more questions than answers, but here is what I know. The FAR, as it currently stands, is more of a roadmap than a rulebook. You can remove the roadmap items, because they aren’t statutes, that will make the FAR shorter. Is shorter better? Only if the requirement is to read it in its entirety. That is not what the FAR is, you only read the sections pertaining to the work you are trying to do. So removing superfluous language will make those sections shorter, ‌potentially making it easier to consume, not necessarily easier to understand. 

Human nature and experience suggests, most people and nearly all bureaucracies like instructions, so what is removed from regulation will find its way into playbooks, handbooks, desk guides, and “best practice” guides. This is great news for someone like me who creates these artifacts for agencies. It is also good for the 20% innovators out there to “feel” more free to blue-sky acquisition strategies. For the remaining 80%, it will mean having to use multiple resources. 

Implementing plain language is always a good idea, but have you ever read the FAR? 

It isn’t written in “Old English" if it is hard to understand it has more to do with the references to other sections within each section, so if you don’t have a firm grasp of the FAR in its entirety, then you have to flip back and forth to understand what it is actually telling you. Can that be removed? Perhaps. It will certainly be reduced simply by removing non-statutory requirements. That said, as I understand it, the FAR will be composed primarily of statues (which of course are not written in plain language). So, now to meet both objectives, legislation will have to be translated to plain language, which invariably will require interpretation that will ultimately have to be resolved through case law following future protests. 

So will it make it “simple to navigate” for the non-acquisition professional? I don’t think so. The truth is, there will always be people who become experts in a subject and people who rely on them so they can spend their energy on what they are experts in. This isn’t unique to acquisitions, it is how every community, organization, business, and even most families function. Nevertheless, the FAR is long overdue for a refresh, and I look forward to seeing the final product. That said, it appears from GSA that this will be handled iteratively, through deviations, until formally implemented in two years. That raises questions about how it affects legacy contracts. Are they grandfathered? What happens in option years or modifications? Contracting professionals will now have to have two sets of regulations they are responsible for, adding to the already over-burdened and shrinking workforce.

Innovative Commercial Strategies: Prioritizing Security and Technology for Business Growth

Commercial First is not a new idea. It is already a requirement to consider commercial solutions before custom solutions, but giving it more emphasis is a good idea to address the underlying challenges of commercial solutions in government. So if it was already a requirement, why wasn't it happening at scale?

The truth is, "commercial" is hard for the government; it requires custom APIs or significant commercial customization to interface with custom government solutions. To realize the true value (in cost and time) would require replacing the legacy systems.

Additionally, security requirements and certifications are time intensive and costly. Without a rework of that process, truly commercial products will continue to face a lifecycle cost that is much higher than the license cost and take much longer than standard commercial implementations. Beyond the complexity of licenses, consider that the intent is, in part, to move away from custom SW, yet commercial services were included in the EO. Agile SW development has been determined to be a commercial service. So, is custom SW development using commercial services a loophole or intended escape valve?

Streamlining IT procurement: Transitioning acquisitions to GSA for enhanced efficiency.

Moving IT Acquisitions to GSA, this concept has also been around for a while. Anne Rung made category management the cornerstone of her time as Chief Acquisition Officer of OMB in 2014-2016. So why hasn't it been fully realized? GSA largely could not support the vast and voluminous IT requirements (even at previous staffing levels). The idea of centralized purchasing assumes standardized purchasing, but when every agency and sub-agencies have unique baseline architectures, environments, and requirements, something as simple as a laptop requires a unique set of imaging requirements. Extrapolate that idea to more complicated IT purchases, and the equation gets even harder to balance. 

So what does this all mean? As the dust settles and requirements move, the already strained acquisition community will be even further underwater. As we saw in the 90s, when there is a mass exit of talent from the Government, you will get some of the ineffective "Retired in Place (RIP)” out, which is much needed, but you will also lose a substantial amount of subject matter expertise and talent. So what is the logical consequence? Well, whatever the Government needs, but doesn’t have, they buy. So potential huge industry opportunities to come, with less resources to process. Simplified processes and consolidated procurement may address some of this, but the gaps will be huge. 

All of this is to say, the model of “move fast and break things” achieved exactly what it intended to do. By moving at a blistering fast pace, these changes (and many others) were put in place before the bureaucracy could adjust and counter-attack. So all battles, legal and the nuances of implementation will occur on the back end. Some will retract, others will fade aways, but some percentage will make a lasting impact. The chaos and confusion disrupted the machine, and forced out many of those who would resist the change, that is good. It also forced out many who are needed to lead the implementation in such a way as to be net positive. So who will be fixing the broken things? That is still to be seen...