Acquisition process goals as they relate to the changing times, and the recent needs of the Federal Agencies are a continuing effort. Understanding the goals of the Federal Agencies and needs of the government must have guidelines that allow for a broad initiative in terms of meeting the customer’s needs. Every single situation would be nearly impossible to cover in the FAR. It is however accounted for in the FAR, one part the council clearly understood, is that all knowing is impossible. The factual basis is in the FAR under the 1.102 Discussion, subpart (b), “Vision. All participants in the System are responsible for making acquisition decisions that deliver the best value product or service to the customer. Best value must be viewed from a broad perspective and is achieved by balancing the many competing interests in the System. The result is a system which works better and costs less.” (Council, 2016). I believe the Council was smart by stating the broad term of “Value”. It can be defined differently, however, this doesn’t always mean getting the “cheapest” product. In turn, this will allow for creativity and changes to be made due to culture, social climate, and environment. Obviously the cheapest doesn’t always mean the best value.
The Cycle will clearly start with an account of cultural, social climate, and environment when we develop the need. Although I would venture to say that much of it should be addressed in the Pre-Award phase. Reasoning is due to the impact of the customers and stakeholders. The social and cultural climate may affect whom will provide what, and how it is provided may be affected by the environment. For instance the social climate in a war torn country could easily pose a threat to the safety and delivery of the product or service being rendered. Culturally the country’s population may fight over the product or service, and their cultural differences may directly affect the end contract.
Council, A. (2016, October 24). General Structure and Subparts. Retrieved from Acquisition.gov: https://www.acquisition.gov/sites/default/files/cu…
Federal acquisitions have greatly increased over the last 15 years, causing a lack of qualified personnel to provide proper oversight and quality assurance. This has caused excess money to be spent and false sense of product and service reliability. The federal acquisition process goals are very similar to what most people want, a quality product or service at a reasonable price that is available immediately or shortly after purchase. The problem with this is that “the demand for contract management talent exceeds the supply.” (National Contract Management Association, 2013). I found this very interesting as well as shocked that we are lacking the workforce to meet the demands of the government procurements as well as provide the quality assurance needed to ensure the government is not wasting money. For the past 10 years I have seen this very issue with wars in two countries. New problems required new services and new product which required more contracts in condensed timelines. This can lead to gaps and failures in the process. The second goal to federal acquisition is to ensure that purchased supplies and services are delivered or performed within the given timeline. According to the U.S. Government Accountability Office the $80 billion that is annually invested into information technology often failed, lacked or required additional time and money. This is because of the rapid growth of technology in the world makes it enticing to compete and want the latest technology. The federal government has recognized the need to grow this field and properly train and credential a workforce that can manage the federal government’s acquisitions.