emergency acquisition authorities in the …resources.ncmahq.org/chapters/nova/newsletters/2017...

NCMA NOVA NEWS – SEPTEMBER 2017 1

EMERGENCY ACQUISITION

AUTHORITIES IN THE WAKE

OF HURRICANE IRMA

Hurricane Irma roared through the Atlantic with the

speed and fury of a Category 5 for three continuous

days. The winds produced by Irma topped 185 miles

per hour (mph) for over 37 hours.1 For comparison,

tornado researchers note that between one and five

out of ten vehicles will be spun, flipped, or thrown

with wind speeds as low as 155 mph.2 This cyclonic

fury wrought destruction in its arc through the

Caribbean and Florida, leaving the Sunshine State

alone with a price tag exceeding $50 Billion.

In anticipation of recovery efforts, President Trump

declared emergencies in Florida, Puerto Rico, and the

US Virgin Islands on September 5th, later including

Georgia in the declaration on September 7th. That

same day, Jeffrey Koses, Senior Procurement

Executive for the General Services Administration,

issued a memorandum that declared the flexibilities

of Federal Acquisition Regulations (FAR) 18.2

“Emergency Acquisition Flexibilities” were in force

for the Contracting Officers en route to support the

relief. These flexibilities vault the micropurchase

threshold for supplies to $20,000 and increase the

Simplified Acquisition Threshold to $750,000

($13,000,000 for commercial items). FAR 18.2 must

be activated by a Presidential declaration. The

authority at FAR 18.203 requires an evaluation

preference or set aside for local sourcing.

1 Brandon Miller, All the Records Irma Has Already Broken --

and Other Jaw-Dropping Stats, CNN, (accessed September 12,

2017), http://www.cnn.com/2017/09/10/us/irma-facts-record-

numbers-trnd/index.html

Mr. Koses’ memo also reminded acquisition

professionals that flexibilities under FAR 18.1 apply

to any emergency situation. They include the

important latitude to issue oral solicitations when

posting a written one would delay supplies or services

for the millions of citizens that are still without

power, shelter, or medical care.

INSIDE THIS ISSUE:

Emergency Acquisition

Section 809 Panel: Bringing Flexibility to

DoD Procurements

Guest Author Spotlight:

Corletta Campbell & Jeanne Poovey

Contracting Officer Forums: An Approach

to Agency Introduction & Implementation

Contracting Officer’s Dilemma

Fast Five

NOVA NEWS Call for Articles

NOVA Member Anniversaries

2 Schmidlin, Thomas W., Barbara O. Hammer, Paul King, L.

Scott Miller, Wind Speeds Required to Upset Vehicles,

(accessed September 12, 2017),

https://ams.confex.com/ams/pdfpapers/50675.pdf

GSA HURRICANE IRMA MEMO

September 7, 2017

https://cdn.govexec.com/media/gbc/docs/pdfs_edi

t/090817cc1.pdf

https://www.flickr.com/photos/115089924@N02/12212272513


SECTION 809 PANEL:

Bringing Flexibility to DoD

Procurements

Senator John McCain did not hold back. In a scathing

2015 report on the procurement to replace the U.S.

Army’s venerable M9 handgun, he detailed the

circumstances that made the effort a poster child for

acquisition inefficiency:

“…the Army has managed to create entirely

new acquisition problems for what should be

a simple, straightforward purchase of a

commercially available item. The Army’s

effort to buy a new handgun has already taken

10 years and produced nothing but a more

than 350 page requirements document

micromanaging extremely small unimportant

details and byzantine rules….”3

McCain noted that the Army failed to describe

essential details that would allow commercial

providers a better understanding of the Government’s

needs, leaving the caliber of the M9’s successor

unstated while describing non-critical specifications

such as color, packaging, and the requirement to have

one inch margins on any document sent to the

Government as correspondence. The Senator noted:

“The Army is also demanding the full

technical data

rights to the

winning

manufacturer.

While this may

make sense for

very expensive

weapon systems

3 John McCain, America’s Most Wasted, October 29, 2015,

(accessed August 28, 2017), p. 1.

https://www.mccain.senate.gov/public/_cache/files/4da24065-

3e0e-4f8a-ba7f-c74d168dabeb/americas-most-wasted---the-

army-s-costly-misfire.pdf 4 Ibid. P. 4. 5 Ibid. P. 1.

such as planes and ships with lots of spare

parts and maintenance requirements for the

next fifty or more years, it is unnecessary and

wasteful for an item that costs in the hundreds

of dollars that will almost certainly be

cheaper to replace than modernize.”4

Senator McCain argued that the costs of

micromanagement and the paperwork attributed to

compliance with the Government’s requirements

would drive a price increase of up $50.00 per unit.5

The award eventually went to Sig Sauer for a contract

to deliver approximately 280,000 handguns, an order

that constitutes a small fraction of the 6.03 million

handguns either manufactured in, or imported to, the

U.S.6

It was frustrations of this nature that led to the

creation of the Section 809 Panel, an 18 person

commision tasked into ten

teams that will evolve the

way that the Department

of Defense (DoD) buys

goods and services.

Established by Section

809 of the Fiscal Year

2016 National Defense

6 Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives,

Firearms Commerce in the United States, Annual Statistical

Update, 2017, (accessed August 28, 2017), p. 1, 5.

https://www.atf.gov/resource-center/docs/undefined/firearms-

commerce-united-states-annual-statistical-update-

2017/download

“This is absurd… it’s a handgun,

for God’s sake.” - Robert Gates, Former Secretary of

Defense, “America’s Most Wasted,” p. 1


Authorization Act, the panel’s two year mission is to

make recommendations that will streamline and

improve the defense acquisition process. The panel’s

May 2017 Interim report reprised Senator McCain’s

theme:

“The acquisition system… makes DoD an

unattractive customer to large and small

firms with innovative, state‐of‐the‐art

solutions. The system creates additional

impediments because suffocating

bureaucratic requirements make the pace at

which it proceeds simply unacceptable in

today’s rapidly changing technological

environment. DoD must replace this system,

designed for buying equipment for the Cold

War, with one that takes advantage of

technologies and methodologies available in

the current marketplace.”7

The Nature of the Strategic Threat

The challenges to U.S. security have changed

considerably, from the Europe-centric focus of the

Cold War. Defense superiority depends on the ability

to respond dynamically to threats that could range

from global conflict with a world power, to

asymmetric warfare with terror groups.

7 Advisory Panel on Streamlining and Codifying Acquisition

Regulations, Section 809 Panel Interim Report, May 2017,

(accessed August 28, 2017), p. 2.

https://section809panel.org/wp-

content/uploads/2017/05/Sec809Panel_Interim-

Report_May2017_FINAL-for-web.pdf

SECTION 809 PANEL: TASK FOCUSED

The Panel’s Ten Tasks:

One - Change statutes and

regulations to increase DoD’s

access to new technology.

Two - Streamline acquisitions less

than $15M in value.

Three - Simplify DoD’s

commercial buying practices.

Four - Attract new companies to

the DoD marketplace by removing

barriers to entry.

Five - Identify & promote best

practices from successful

programs.

Six - Streamline the DoD IT

acquisition process.

Seven - Optimize the budgetary

flow of resources.

Eight - Streamline or remove

unnecessary regulations.

Nine - Modernize cost accounting

standards.

Ten - Foster a workforce culture

of authority and accountability.

Source: https://section809panel.org/about/


In each circumstance, U.S. forces must anticipate that

the ultimate technology or tactics that carry the day

may only become apparent after the first blow has

already fallen. The Section 809 Panel warns that the

DoD acquisition process must be:

“…agile enough to respond to rapidly

evolving threats and fast enough to develop

and deliver new capabilities within the arc of

emerging threats.”8

Yet, there are some critical impediments to agility in

Federal procurements. DoD is realizing that

technologies have changed and many innovators are

not entering the Federal market. The role of DoD as

a market maker has evolved since the 1960’s. The

desirability of doing business with the Government

hinges on the cost of doing business with the

Government.

Wars are Won With Speed

When German tanks broke through the Ardennes on

May 13, 1940, they encountered third-rate French

units poised at the edge of an “impenetrable” forest.

The spine of France’s military might was invested in

the heavily fortified Maginot Line, an artifact of

technologies and strategies drawn from the middle

ages and the First World War.

8 Ibid. Pp. 7-8.

In contrast, Germany’s fast-moving armored

formations were a blend of new technologies and

innovative tactics. Charles de Gaulle’s memoirs

recorded the tumult caused by the influence of speed

on the battle field. German tankers shouted for the

surrendering French soldiers to head south and stay

off the roads. “We haven’t time” the Germans cried,

“to make you prisoners!”9 Within seven days of their

breakout from the Ardennes the Germans reached the

English Channel.

Six of the eighteen Section 809 Panel members are

active duty or retired generals and admirals. Each

understands that disruptive technologies emerge at a

faster pace today than at any other time in history.

Tactical dominance is contingent on not just the

introduction of technically superior weapons, but on

the continuing evolution of that technology to remain

ahead of foes. The DoD acqusition process must

provide access to innovative new tools that either

anticipate or quickly respond to the needs of soldiers

in the field, with enough lead time to pair solutions

with effective tactics. After all, in 1940, the allies had

1000 more tanks than Hitler’s forces. What they

lacked was the combined arms tactics of Panzer

divisions that melded fast moving armor, infantry,

and air support in what would become known as the

“blitzkrieg” assault. The Germans fielded tactics that

successfully utilized the newest technologies for

communications and armor.

9 John Koster, “When France Defied Hitler’s Panzers”,

Military History, November 2017, p. 32.


DoD sees the private sector as the driver behind

innovations that would keep U.S. forces ahead of the

technology curve, even within the arc of an ongoing

threat. To engage the current commercial market, the

Section 809 Panel seeks to revise the acquisition

process, including requirements definition and

budgeting phases, to avoid rigidity and convoluted

processes.10 As they do so, they are mindful of the

sea change in DoD’s position as a market maker.

During the 1960’s DoD held a dominant role in the

markets. That power has evaporated as the market

evolved.

The Evolution of Defense Markets

The Panel’s reforms will seek to increase the number

of service and product providers. Industry’s current

defense sector is colistered within subcontractor-

prime relationships between five large businesses and

a host of “boutique” defense companies operating as

subcontractors. The universe of solution providers

has been shrinking since the 1960’s:

“The traditional defense industrial base -

manufacturing companies that primarily

operate in the defense sector - has diminished

substantially... the last major defense

downturn in the late 1980s and early 1990s

resulted in more than 300 prime contractors,

platform providers, and subtier companies

merging to form the five mega‐primes of

today: Boeing, Lockheed Martin, Northorp

Grumman, Raytheon, and General

Dynamics.”11

Changes are not limited to the number of potential

offerors. The relationship that DoD once had as the

dominant buyer in the marketplace has shifted

dramatically. Semiconductors serve as an illustration

of the impact of a broadening global commercial

market. Though DoD once accounted for 90% of all

U.S. semiconductor purchases, that relationship has

inverted, and the needs of the entire U.S. Government

10 Ibid. P. 10. 11 Ibid. P. 10.

only represents a 2% share of the global

semiconductor market. This is just one example of a

trend that has curtailed DoD’s ability to shape the

market, to require long lead times, or to demand the

reporting and compliance burdens associated with

Government acquisitions.

The Section 809 Panel reprised Senator John

McCain’s example of the U.S. Army’s decade-long

solicitation to replace the M9 Beretta handgun.

Industry evaluated the costs of proposal capture and

performance. In one visible case, Ruger opted not to

pursue the opportunity detailed within the Army’s

350 page solicitation and 23 attachments. They

looked to more lucrative opportunities for their

business development dollars because of the costs

required to comply with the Army’s requirements.12

The Path Forward: Mission First

The Section 809 Panel is examining the complexity

of the acquisition process to reduce the regulatory

burdens that add time to procurements without

focusing on DoD’s mission. As an example, the

Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) allows

simplified procedures. Yet there are 431 clauses that

must be researched for each simplified procurement

to determine if they apply. There are 19 procurement

types identified in the FAR matrix. In order of

complexity as measured by the number of

clauses/provisions that must be considered, the

12 Ibid. Pp. 11-12.


procedures for a simplified procurement ranks fifth.

Every type of cost contract has a lower regulatory

burden.13

In particular, the presence of public policy statutes

slow the process. The Section 809 Panel is aligning

DoD’s acquisition focus with the same line of sight

that commercial companies have when they obtain

goods or services. Commercial companies focus

cleanly on what they are buying. They do not

generally invest heavily in “how” they will buy the

goods or services, or “how” the seller will operate.

In contrast, Federal contracting officers are bound by

Federal policy initiatives that are enacted by statute

or Executive Order and subsequently placed in the

FAR. These become a measurable diversion of a

contracting officer’s time from defense mission

priorites. The FAR mandates that require contractors

to print double-sided on postconsumer fiber content

paper, to ensure that vending machines accept the $1

coin, and to reduce texting while driving are all poster

children for well-intentioned public policy initiatives

that have outlived their purpose. The lack of a

congressional or regulatory mechanism to remove

policy initiatives when when their need is gone

creates a body of regulations that have outlived their

purpose.14

13 Ibid. P. 23. 14 Advisory Panel on Streamlining and Codifying Acquisition

Regulations, Supplement to the Section 809 Panel Interim

Report, (accessed August 28, 2017) p. 10, 17, 22.


The Path Forward: Authority

The Section 809 Panel also warns that the lack of

local authority authority is an impediment to

procurement timelines. Where regulations and

policies create tiers of bureaucracy, that burden of

reviewers without a stakeholder interest in the

requirement is costly:

“…the management structure and decision‐

making process within DoD are too

bureaucratic and encumbered by numerous

layers of review. Successive reviews do not

necessarily add substantive value, but they do

add time to the process and add to the number

of people who can say no or influence a

program, including people who do not have a

stake in the outcome of the acquisition.”15

Hand in hand with the multiple tiers of reviews is the

considerable burden of documentation that is

required. A procurement for the U.S. Army’s Global

Combat Support System (GCSS) produced

documents with a total length of over 18,680 pages,

at a time cost of five years to author, review, solicit

and award. Reading the GCSS solicitation and

ancillary documentation is the page equivalent of

reading each of the four books in the Harry Potter

content/uploads/2017/05/Section-809-Panel-Interim-Report-

Supplement-May-2017.pdf 15 Advisory Panel on Streamlining and Codifying Acquisition

Regulations, Section 809 Panel Interim Report, p. 30.


Series four times each, and then reading Tolstoy’s

War and Peace… and then reading James Joyce’s

Ulysses.16

The Final Report

The Section 809 Panel interim and supplemental

reports have already called for the removal of four

separate burdens for DoD acquisition professionals:

The 20-year limitation on the duration of DoD

fuel storage contracts. They seek an increase

to 30 years. (Title 10 U.S. Code Sec. 2922)

16 Ibid. P. 31.

The requirement for contractors to use 30%

postconsumer waste content paper.

(Executive Order 13693, FAR 4.3, Paper

Documents, and FAR 11.303, Special

Requirements for Paper)

The requirement to “encourage” contractors

to ban text messaging while driving.

(Executive Order 13513, FAR 23.11,

Encouraging Contractor Polices to Ban Text

Messaging While Driving, and Clause

52.223-18)

The requirement to accept $1 coins. (Public

Law No. 109–145)17

But these four recommendations are the low-hanging

fruit. As they contemplate further recommendations,

the Panel is sourcing expertise in a series of monthly

stakeholder meetings. In August Ralph Nash,

Professor Emeritus of Law at George Washington

University, gave attendees a 90 minute presentation

on “Protests and Modernizing CICA”. Stakeholder

meetings are open to the public, with two slated for

September.


Regulations, Supplement to the Section 809 Panel Interim

Report,” p. 5, 10, 17, 22.

The Presidential $1 Coin Act of 2005 requires

that businesses on Government property accept

and dispense $1 coins, despite the fact that

production of the coins stopped in 2011 and the

policy initiative to reduce reliance on the U.S. $1

bill has faltered. -“Supplement to the Section 809 Panel

Interim Report,” p. 22


The ultimate goal for the Section 809 Panel is a

comprehensive final report that provides guidance to

Congress and the President on the best ways to

achieve an acquisition system that ensures mission

success for DoD. In that report - required by the

Panel’s enabling legislations - they intend to:

“…make recommendations that

comprehensively strip away the regulatory

underbrush that hampers the department’s

ability to maintain a competitive advantage

in the face of the country’s enemies.”18


Regulations, Section 809 Panel Interim Report, p. 3.

SECTION 809 PANEL SUPPLEMENT TO

THE INTERIM REPORT

May 2017


content/uploads/2017/05/Section-809-Panel-

Interim-Report-Supplement-May-2017.pdf

AMERICA’S MOST WASTED

Senator John McCain

October 29, 2015

https://www.mccain.senate.gov/public/_cache/

files/4da24065-3e0e-4f8a-ba7f-

c74d168dabeb/americas-most-wasted---the-

army-s-costly-misfire.pdf

SECTION 809 PANEL INTERIM REPORT

May 2017


content/uploads/2017/05/Sec809Panel_Interim

-Report_May2017_FINAL-for-web.pdf

SECTION 809 PANEL

Stakeholder Meetings Information Site

https://section809panel.org/meetings/


NCMA NOVA GUEST AUTHOR

SPOTLIGHT:

CORLETTA CAMPBELL &

JEANNE POOVEY

By Brian Baker - NCMA NOVA News Editor

Over twenty thousand years ago, our forbearers

etched images in charcoal and pigments on cave walls

in an effort to share their culture and their

experiences. Ever since, there has been no more

ancient human obligation than the mandate to pass

knowledge from generation to generation. That

sharing is at the heart of this month’s NCMA NOVA

Guest Author Spotlight.

The Contracting Officer (CO) Forum described by

authors Corletta Campbell and Jeanne Poovey is a

Community of Practice, a modern gathering of bright

minds to share knowledge, to mentor professionals

who are new to their craft, and to find innovative new

approaches to current problems.19

Sharing Real-World Experiences

Communities of Practice in the private sector have

been a key risk mitigation against the loss of

19 Wenger, Etienne C., and William M. Snyder, “Communities

of Practice: The Organizational Frontier,” Harvard Business

Review, January-February 2000, Reprint R00110, (accessed

organizational knowledge from talent flight. As a

professional community shares their experiences, the

knowledge becomes a broadly held commodity that

persists despite the absence of any one contributor.

In particular, where the success of a professional is

dependent on the blend between academic knowledge

and life experiences, the communities are one of the

best methods to capture life-lessons that were often

earned the hard way. One Air Force General

attending a 2015 National Contract Management

Association called this valuable life-experience “scar

tissue”.

This “lived it - learned it the hard way” type of

knowledge is a vulnerable area for organizations

because it leaves the building every day at the close

of business. It departs forever whenever individuals

resign, retire, or accept positions with other

organizations. Capturing those experiences has been

a competitive advantage for firms in industry because

they do not have to suffer the expense of repeating a

learning curve. For Government agencies, that same

learning curve during a procurement could mean the

difference between mission success and a failure that

wastes resources. In a worst case scenario, it would

compromise the delivery of services to citizens in

need.

Yet communities of practice are not prevalent within

either the Federal or the commercial landscape. They

August 30, 2017), p. 140.

http://www.rareplanet.org/sites/rareplanet.org/files/Communiti

es_of_Practice__The_Organizational_Frontier%5B1%5D.pdf


require certain environments to encourage their

conception and later growth to maturity. Their

success is also heavily reliant on the early

engagement of management stakeholders:

“…it’s not particularly easy to build and

sustain communities of practice or to

integrate them with the rest of an

organization… managers cannot mandate

communities of practice. Instead, successful

managers bring the right people together,

provide an infrastructure in which

communities thrive, and measure the

communities’ value in nontraditional

ways.”20

Culture and Diligence

Starting a Community of Practice within an

organization is a complex undertaking. That is what

makes the efforts by guest authors Corletta Campbell

and Jeanne Poovey so unique. Despite the article’s

understated incubation process for the CO Forum, it

should be noted that the degree of planning,

coordination, and presentation that won approval is a

testament to the culture of the Acquisition Services

Directorate (AQD), and to the diligence shown by

Campbell and Poovey in researching, planning, and

20 Ibid. P. 140. 21 Kerno Jr., Steven J., “Limitations of Communities of

Practice,” Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies,

Vol. 15, No. 1, August 2008, (accessed August 30, 2017), p.

presenting their vision to their colleagues and their

senior leadership team.

A successful Community of Practice relies on the

presence of an engaged workforce that has a desire to

learn communally, a commitment to their shared

identity as a profession, and a passion for their craft.21

In the acquisition community, that passion could

focus on specific phases of the acquisition (e.g.,

discussions/negotiations), on the research required to

ensure familiarity with Government Accountability

Office and Court of Federal Claims decisions, or on

any other technical area within rich body of

knowledge. It is activated by buy-in for a client’s

mission. In addition to those key components,

scholars have shown that successful Communities of

Practice have these characteristics:

Continuity of professional relationships.

Similar practices & procedures.

Rapid flow of information (i.e., grapevine).

Swift understanding of problem scenarios.

Consensus regarding membership.

Awareness of where strengths can be used.

Ability to measure and assess actions.

Common tools, techniques, stories and lore.

A shared language, acronyms, and terms.

Behavioral patterns and interactions.

Common viewpoint of the environment.22

72. http://www.knowledgemobilization.net/wp-

content/uploads/2014/02/8.-Limitations-of-Communities-of-

Practice-.pdf 22 Ibid. P. 71.


Management’s responsiveness to the concept of a

Community of Practice is also critical. The initiative

will face a cost/benefit analysis. Costs include the

labor hours necessary for a significant percentage of

the workforce to attend the forums. Benefits arise as

shared ideas increase the professionalism associated

with service delivery, increase the quality of

decision-making, and drive the quantity of innovation

initiatives. However, not every organization has

metrics that can correlate the hours of forum

participation with these benefits. Recognizing the

value of these benefits requires a management culture

that encourages knowledge sharing and will support

organizational changes, where necessary, to monitor

benefits. Buy-in and champions are essential from

every level of the chain: team lead, branch chief, and

division chief.

AQD is both unique in mission, and in the way it

captures technical or process innovations in the

workplace. Working within the U.S. Department of

the Interior’s shared services provider, the Interior

Business Center, AQD provides cradle-to-grave

acquisition support for Federal agencies and the

Department of Defense.23 This creates a professional

landscape where managers understand the value of

knowledge sharing and the importance of harvesting,

and retaining best practices that otherwise only

accrue as scar tissue.

23 Note: The Government Management Reform Act of 1994

(Pub. L. No. 103–356, tit. IV, § 403, Oct. 13, 1994, 103 Stat.

3413) authorized the Office of Management and Budget to

establish six franchise fund pilot programs. The U.S.

Department of the Interior’s pilot became permanent in 1997

and today operates as the Acquisition Services Directorate.

https://www.doi.gov/sites/doi.gov/files/migrated/ibc/services/A

QD/upload/Fran_Fund_Authority.pdf

COMMUNITIES OF PRACTICE

Structural Components & Challenges

Population size - With large groups, it is

likely that the community will fracture

along topical or geographic lines.

Longevity - development of the body of

knowledge associated with the technical

field may require years… or generations.

Member Communications - expect to

evolve from table discussions to the use

of videoconferencing across time zones.

Product/Process - communities form

more swiftly for a single discipline than

they do for a group with differing

backgrounds (e.g., contracting, legal.)

Intra to Interorganizational - requires a

shift from problems that impact a group

within the organization, to those that

afflict an industry or all practitioners.

Time Constraints - where events are

sanctioned, it will consume productive

labor hours and provide benefits that are

not measurable by traditional metrics.

Management Hierarchies - flat

structures provide greater benefits

-Steven J. Kerno Jr., “Limitations of

Communities of Practice”, p. 72-74.


AQD is also well-positioned to seek solutions that are

outside the box. That openness to new ideas provides

a foundation for the collaboration that is essential for

the success of a Community of Practice. In 2016,

Anne Rung, U.S. Chief Acquisition Officer,

announced the appointment of Acquisition

Innovation Advocates to test new ideas and practices.

The head of contracting activity at AQD is the

designated Acquisition Innovation Advocate for the

Department of the Interior, and has engaged the

contracting workforce to submit ideas. This high-

level support for innovative inquiry, and the presence

of an Innovation Lab are culturally favorable for the

creation of a Community of Practice. They are also

directly in line with Rung’s vision:

“The greatest catalyst for innovation is each

agency’s willingness to embrace a culture

that continuously encourages new ideas and

finds better applications of existing

practices.”24

The potential for meaningful change - procurement

by procurement, agency by agency - begins exactly

24 U.S. White House, Fostering a Culture of Innovation Across

Government through Acquisition Innovation Labs, by Anne

Rung, (Washington, DC, March 9, 2017).

in this way. Our guest authors for this issue would be

modest in the assessment of their own efforts. Their

executive champions would not desire a spotlight for

their support of the CO Forum. That said, creating a

Community of Practice is difficult. That uphill climb

is what makes this emergence unique. Each month,

every AQD CO has an opportunity to benefit from a

structured dialogue with peers engaged in a brand

new Federal Community of Practice. Their dialogue

is enriched from experiences serving agencies across

the entire Federal landscape. This is the best way to

share the lessons leading to scar tissue, without

suffering the pain. It is NCMA NOVA’s great

pleasure to bring you this month’s spotlight, featuring

the experiences of Ms. Campbell and Ms. Poovey.

Please do read on, and enjoy.

Disclosure: the NCMA NOVA News editor is a

Contracting Officer with the Acquisition Services

Directorate. All articles are selected for their topical

interest to the broad group of professionals that

comprise the NOVA membership. The chapter is

currently comprised of 73% industry, 2% academia,

and 25% Federal/DoD, and includes members in

legal, technical, and acquisition careers.

https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/blog/2016/03/09/fosteri

ng-culture-innovation-across-government-through-acquisition-

innovation-labs

https://pixabay.com/en/trip-around-the-world-explore-cities-996858/


CO FORUMS:

An Approach to Agency

Introduction & Implementation

By Corletta Campbell & Jeanne Poovey

The contracting profession is a dynamic and

demanding discipline that is heavily laden with

statutes and regulations, which are subject to change

at the flip of a switch. Despite this constant

evolution, a Federal Contracting Officer (CO) must

ensure statutory and regulatory compliance. This is

the ultimate challenge for COs. How can they master

this dynamic body of knowledge when there is so

much to know?

Federal contracting, in particular, carries its own

varied complexities. Its main body of reference, the

Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR), is

encapsulated in a more than 2,000 page document.

Federal Agencies also have their own supplements to

the FAR, and in many cases, supplements to the

supplements. The information necessary to award

and administer federal contracts constitutes a

seemingly endless amount of regulations, mandatory

procedures and guidance. So, the million-dollar

question is: How do contracting professionals, more

specifically Federal contracting professionals, keep

up with the ever-increasing changes and trends in the

field?

Turning to the National Contract Management

Association, its various chapters, and the multitude of

other federal and private resources are a few ways.

Classroom and on-the-job training are also effective

means for developing the knowledge, skills and

abilities of any workforce. However, seasoned

contracting professionals recognize that they require

more than just traditional training and/or a quick

Google search to address some of today’s

complicated issues. To answer this call, some

agencies have come to rely on internal means (their

own experienced COs) by which to hone the skills of

their contracting workforce, and to ensure COs are

equipped with the necessary knowledge to function

effectively as the Government’s business advisors. In

contracting offices across the Federal Government,

the Contracting Officer Forum concept has proven to

be a successful means for collective exchange

amongst COs, to fill the gaps that creep in after

training is completed and real-world application of

their classroom learning begins.

Having participated in CO Forums at other agencies,

we both learned the value of this type of

program. For this reason, we were prompted to

introduce the concept to our current organization, the

Department of the Interior, Interior Business Center

(IBC), Acquisition Services Directorate (AQD). IBC

is a shared service provider and AQD offers full end-

to-end contract management services to DOI and


other Federal agencies, including the Department of

Defense.25

Approximately six months after collaborating to

develop a plan, we implemented AQD’s first CO

Forum, conducted June 19, 2017. Primarily, we took

a three-phase approach to developing the CO Forum,

consisting of preparation, logistics and continuity.

Phase One: Planning

Determine the Vision and Mission

As with any program, it is important to determine

what the vision of the new program is and how it will

fit into the mission of the organization. We each

shared a similar vision; however, we understood the

importance of gleaning the perspective of others in

the organization to help shape this new program. In

order to gain organizational insight, we surveyed a

sample of COs. We described the CO Forum to the

survey group and asked the following questions:

Would you participate in a CO Forum?

How frequently should the event take place?

What is the duration you would expect?

Are you willing to lead a topic?

The feedback was very positive and encouraging,

which helped us fine-tune our vision for the forum

25 U.S. Department of the Interior, “Interior Business Center”,

(accessed September 2, 2017). https://www.doi.gov/ibc/about-

us/jobs/organization

and gave us the impetus to continue moving forward

with the plan to execute the CO Forum. We

determined that the forums would provide for an

informal exchange of best practices and lessons

learned among COs. Furthermore, this forum is

expected to enhance on-the-job learning, improve the

effectiveness of AQD’s acquisition support, and

foster innovative thinking. Our vision for the CO

forum is that it will serve as a real-time resource for

the COs.

Seek Support

The CO Forum is not a concept we could develop in

a vacuum. It was necessary for us to seek

support. We pitched the idea to our Division

Chief. He expressed support and agreed to serve as

our sponsor. This meant that he would endorse the

plan to AQD’s senior leadership team, and would

advise us, as we moved forward with the

plan. Additionally, we solicited the assistance of

several COs as “Champions.” AQD’s offices are

located in Herndon VA, Denver CO, Sierra Vista

AZ, Boise ID, and Anchorage AK. A Champion

from each location helped advertise the forums and

encouraged participation. They also provided

feedback regarding the planning and setup for each

event.


Engage Leadership

On May 17, 2017, we formally briefed the AQD

senior leadership team (SLT) and received approval

to execute our plan. Our success for receiving

approval was the result of the following:

Effectively demonstrating a need for the CO

Forum and the benefit to the organization.

Anticipating potential opposition and devising

solutions and/or alternatives.

Seeking SLT input so that the program

reflected their priorities for the organization,

which serve as our guiding principles. Top

SLT priorities are compliance and

documentation, customer collaboration and

satisfaction, and process innovation.

Phase Two: Implementation

Determine Schedule

The CO Forum is held monthly for one hour. The

intent of the forum is that it would be accessible

across the organization’s landscape, which spans four

time zones. We recognized that it would be

impossible to schedule a date and time that will

accommodate all COs. We settled on a time that

worked for the majority of the participants and will

alternate the days each month to achieve the

maximum possible participation.

Technological considerations

The logistics for how best to present the event to

everyone at one time is a significant factor. We

determined that the forums would be presented in

local conference rooms, using video

teleconferencing, shared screen technology (e.g.,

Webex, Google drive), and bridge line phone

connections.

Establish Topics

During our presentation to the SLT, we presented a

list of potential topics:

Fiscal Year End Challenges

Federal Procurement Data System-Next

Generation Errors and Audits

Contractor Performance Assessment Review

System

Customer Service and Compliance

Contract Guidance and Templates

Review and Approval Policy

Contract Specialist Role and Responsibilities

Topics led by acquisition experts (e.g., legal

counsel)

THE DISCUSSION LEADER ROLE:

Engaging Contracting Officers to

Serve as Presenters and

Subject Matter Experts

“…the discussion leader will

research the topic, identify the

materials to share, prepare an

agenda, outline the issues, and

develop questions.”


In order to lend structure

to the “conversations”,

each month focuses on a

different topic. Topics to

date include managing

end of fiscal year

challenges (a timely,

warm up topic to

introduce COs to the CO

Forum concept and

generate some useful

takeaways), and sessions

on two noteworthy GAO

decisions. The topic for September will be a

discussion led by a CO who is in the process of

settling a contractor claim. October’s topic will focus

on how to streamline contract file documentation, in

order to take advantage of the flexibilities afforded by

FAR Parts 8, 12, 13, and 16.5. Typically, the

discussion leader will research the topic, identify the

materials to share, prepare an agenda, outline the

issues, and develop questions. These items are

provided to the COs in advance of the forum, so that

they have time to prepare themselves for the

discussion. We expect to broaden the universe of

presenters in the future to include legal counsel,

policy, subject matter experts, and possibly, program

customers.

Request Feedback and Conduct Follow-up Survey

Following each forum, participants provide

feedback. Feedback thus far confirms that the forum

successfully provides COs

with a real-time exchange

of relevant and valuable

knowledge, helps COs to

sharpen their skills, is

regarded as a place of

professional development,

and helps COs in their

mentorship of junior

specialists. Over the long

term, the CO Forums offer

an informal setting to

explore potential creative

“experiments” in

streamlining routine acquisition processes, which

happens to be one of the SLT’s priorities. Potential

experiments could see testing and refinement in

AQD’s Innovation Laboratory, which pilots and

measures the efficacy of new ideas in acquisition

processes.

As with any worthwhile venture, we must establish

measures for success. AQD intends to gauge success

as well. To this end, beginning in October 2017,

participants will be asked to complete a brief survey

consisting of 2-3 questions after each session in order

to assist us in ascertaining the effectiveness of the

training. The results of the surveys will be briefed to

the AQD director on a quarterly basis. If at any time,

negative feedback is received, we will address the

feedback and attempt to resolve the issue with the

participant and discuss the issue with our sponsor,

who will in turn apprise the SLT, as necessary.

CO FORUM: HOT TOPICS

Fiscal Year End Challenges

Protest Decisions

Streamlined File Documentation

Flexibilities in FAR Parts 8, 12,

13, and 16.5.


Phase Three: Sustainment

Establish Standard Operating Procedures

It is expected that the CO Forum will have a

beneficial and lasting impact on the organization and

its CO population; therefore, it is necessary to

consider and to put in place a sustainment plan. We

are currently developing a standard operating

procedures document. It addresses topics such as:

Topic and document preparation

Electronic storage/shared drive instructions

Event planning logistics

Advertising

Email distribution lists

Leadership status briefs

Conclusion

By no means is the CO Forum a new idea, but it is a

practice that had not been previously implemented at

AQD. The introduction and implementation thus far

has been successful. The CO Forum will continue to

take shape as the AQD COs work together to

determine how best to sustain the program. It is

understood that the forums are intended to be of

benefit to all who participate and we all stand to get

out of it as much as we invest in it.

Corletta Campbell is

a Contracting Officer

working in support of

the U.S. Department

of the Interior,

Interior Business

Center, Acquisition

Services Directorate.

She has over eight

years of contracting

experience. Her

career in the contracting profession began with the

Air Force Copper Cap Intern program at Eglin Air

Force Base in Florida. The program was of

tremendous benefit to her growth and development as

an acquisition professional, allowing her to gain a

vast amount of contracting experience. She holds a

Masters of Science Administration in Contract

Management from the University of West Florida and

a second Masters of Science in Human Resource

Management from Troy University. Corletta is also

a Certified Federal Contracts Manager.

Jeanne Poovey is a

Procurement Analyst

in the U.S. Department

of the Interior (DOI),

Interior Business

Center, Acquisition

Services Directorate.

She has been active in

the contracting field

for over 30 years and

at four Federal

agencies. Prior to her current position at DOI, she

served as a Contracting Officer with an unlimited

warrant for over 20 years, and as a branch chief and

source selection authority for Environmental

Architectural & Engineering procurements in

support of the Environmental Protection Agency’s

Superfund Program for almost 12 years. She is also

a graduate of the United States Department of

Agriculture’s Executive Potential Program.


CONTRACTING OFFICER’S

DILEMMA: Scenarios for

Training and for Interviews

This series of articles provides

lessons for Contracting

Officers to share during team-

based training events. They

may also be used by job

seekers to prepare for

interviews that will probe their acquisition

knowledge in response to real-world scenarios.

“All Things Being Equal”

You are a Contracting Officer and your technical

evaluators have completed their individual

evaluations for a competition that includes an

incumbent offeror. Maintaining the current levels of

expertise on the contract is important to the program

office. The request for proposal has a technical

workforce subfactor that will allow evaluators to

examine how the solutions will ensure that staff

expertise is not lost during a transition from the

incumbent contract to the new award.

What do you look for when the individual evaluations

are complete?

Solution

This question seeks a better understanding of your

ability to provide quality control to the technical

evaluators. It also tests your knowledge of the

difference between evaluating an incumbent, and

evaluating a new potential service provider.

When the evaluators complete their individual

narratives, the Contracting Officer partners with the

Technical Evaluation Committee Chairperson to

26 U.S. Government Accountability Office, SURVICE

Engineering Company, LLC, B-414519. July 5, 2017, p.10.

https://www.gao.gov/assets/690/686406.pdf

check the evaluations for the non-incumbent firms to

see if any have strengths from a strategy to capture

incumbent personnel. When it comes to maintaining

the current levels of expertise on the contract, as

identified in the technical workforce subfactor, the

review context for non-incumbents is one of

recruitment. If they can pick up highly trained

personnel who are already performing the work for

the incumbent, they are delivering a benefit to the

Government under the subfactor.

Assume for the purposes of the scenario response that

a non-incumbent has the strategy of hiring as many

incumbent personnel as possible. It’s regarded -

properly - as a strength on the subfactor. After all, if

they can successfully recruit those current high-

performers, the Government faces lower risk of

performance gaps associated with turnover or

learning curve.

With the knowledge that a “strength” is in the

evaluation records for recruiting the incumbent

personnel, it’s now important to check the evaluation

for the incumbent. In this context, the strategy shifts

from a plan to capture talent, to a plan to retain and

reward personnel currently working to meet the

Government’s needs. GAO notes:

“…when the agency recognizes the ability of

a non-incumbent offeror to perform on the

first day of the contract by retaining

incumbent employees, the agency will often

recognize a strength in the incumbent’s

proposal, for using the same methodology to

arrive at the same result.”26

Assume for the purposes of our scenario that your

evaluators didn’t see much of a strength in the

incumbent’s plan to continue the employment for

their current team of high-performers. Your

evaluators may ask: “Why should they receive a

strength when they’re not bringing in new personnel?


They’re just working to ensure that the current people

stay on the job.”

This is an unequal evaluation. Help your evaluators

to understand that the strength for the subfactor is

based on the firm’s ability to minimize performance

risks for the Government. Where there’s a strength

for a new offeror that plans to pick up incumbent

personnel, there should also be a strength for an

incumbent that has a good plan to keep those same

people. They both mitigate the same risk.

In the sustained protest at the foundation for the

scenario, an Air Force procurement for engineering,

program management, and administrative services

went astray for exactly this type of strength-omission

for an incumbent. The evaluators twice gave the non-

incumbent competitor, Engineering Research and

Consulting (ERC), strengths for staffing and

transition plans that sought to capture incumbent

personnel. In contrast, the evaluators ignored the

plan that the incumbent - SURVICE Engineering

Company (SEC) - provided to ensure that those same

personnel would remain on the job:

“ERC was awarded a strength for proposing to

retain incumbent personnel, while SEC was not

similarly credited for also offering those

personnel. Furthermore, the underpinning of

ERC’s strength was… ERC’s ability to retain

SEC’s ‘high-performing, highly-skilled senior

incumbent staff.’ …Although SEC received a strength for proposing certain staff with specific

software expertise, SEC did not receive a strength for retaining its own employees by

respecting seniority or for proposing the same

staff.”27

Your quality control actions as a Contracting Officer

are to ensure that proposals are fairly evaluated in

accordance with the terms of the solicitation.

Avoiding unfair and unequal evaluations requires an

awareness of the scenarios where the same benefit

can be recorded for incumbent and a non-incumbent

offerors through the use of very different strategies.

27 Ibid. P.9.

FAST FIVE:

Questions to

Bolster Your

Immediate Recall

This series of articles provides questions that should

be close-hold knowledge for acquisition

professionals. They are intended to help refresh key

concepts.

Questions

1. The Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR)

15.101 description of the Best Value Continuum

recognizes that these considerations may play a

dominant role in source selection for requirements

that are not well defined, or that have higher

performance risk:

A) Technical or Past Performance

B) Protest risk. C) Contracting Officer experience.

D) Cost or Price.

2. The FAR 15.101 description of the Best Value

Continuum recognizes that these considerations may

play a dominant role in source selection for

requirements that are well defined, or that have low

performance risk:

A) Technical or Past Performance

B) Protest risk.

C) Contracting Officer experience.

D) Cost or Price.

3. A tradeoff process is appropriate when:

A) Best Value is expected to result from award to

the technically acceptable proposal with the

lowest price.

B) Proposals are not ranked using non-cost/price

factors.


C) It is in the best interest of the Government to

award to other than the lowest priced offeror or

other than the highest technically rated offeror.

D) A and B.

4. The Uniform Contract Format (UCF) is

comprised of 13 sections that are divided into 4

parts. The parts are:

A) I - The Solicitation

II - Contract Clauses

III - List of Documents

IV - Representations and Instructions.

B) I - The Schedule

II - Solicitation Provisions

III - Contract Clauses

IV - Attachments, Representations and

Instructions.

C) I - The Schedule


III - List of Documents, Exhibits, and Other

Attachments


D) I - The Schedule


III - Instructions to Offerors


5. At award, UCF Part IV is not included in the

contract. However, one section within Part IV is

incorporated by reference. Which is it?

A) K - Representations, certifications, and other

statements of offerors or respondents.

B) L - Instructions, conditions, and notices to

offerors or respondents.

C) M - Evaluation factors for award.

D) None of the above

Answers

1. A. [FAR 15.101]

2. D. [FAR 15.101]

3. C. [FAR 15.101-1]

4. C. [FAR 15.204-1(b) (Table 15.1)]

5. A. [FAR 15.204-1(b)]

NCMA NOVA NEWS:

Call for Articles

NCMA NOVA News is a

monthly electronic newsletter

for 600+ NOVA Chapter

members. This is a call for

article submissions.

Guidelines for Submissions:

Articles Sought: Submit features, news articles, interviews and editorial ideas that are

of interest to the acquisition community.

Homage: Include a brief author’s biography.

Word Limits: There is no word limit for articles. Longer works (i.e., over 2500 words)

are welcome if they may be considered for

serial publication across multiple issues.

Publication Rhythm: The deadline for consideration is the 15th of the month for the

following month’s issue. All authors review

the draft newsletter when NCMA NOVA

chapter officers conduct their review.

Rights: The author/copyright holder must provide NCMA NOVA News with one time,

nonexclusive rights to display, copy, publish,

distribute, and transmit digital or physical

reproductions for the issue or series of issues

in which the article will be presented.

Open to All: NCMA NOVA News is open to

ideas from all sources. Contributors need not

be members of the chapter, or of NCMA.

Send articles or editorial concepts to Brian Baker:

[email protected]

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Stipula_fountain_pen.jpg


SEPTEMBER NCMA NOVA CHAPTER ANNIVERSARIES

Member Years

Ronald Ostrom, 38

Gloria Sochon, CPCM, Fellow 34

Thomas Brown, 34

William Keating, 34

Linda Clement, CPCM 33

Lisa Bruch, 32

Iris Cooper, CPCM 28

Sandra Gross, 27

Mimi Murphy, 25

Kelly Dowd, 24

John Roman, CPCM, CFCM 23

Randall Senn, 23

Carl Anderson, CPCM 22

Lisa Maguire, 21

Leigh Gillette, CPCM, Fellow 20

Marcelle Brown, 17

Kerri Williams, 16

Kiu Power, 15

Eric McDoniel, 15

John Acton, 14

Doug DuBois, 12

Kevin Coleman, 12

Sandra Sermons, 12

Sharolyn Mack, 12

Member Years

Susan Colvig, CFCM 11

John Barker, 10

Sonja Rousey, 9

Michael Neff, 9

Amy Grulke, 9

Kenneth Carter, 8

Andrew DeGiorgi, CFCM 7

Philip Lee, 7

Matthew Graham, 7

Tyler Johnson, CFCM 6

Heather Rabinowitz, 6

Rebecca Davies, 6

Keith Lopes, 5

Robin Johnson, 5

Michael Kaciban, 5

Joseph Lentini, 4

Rebecca Lawrence, 4

Nii Addo, 4

Derek Charles, 2

Tim Wasserman, 2

Teresa Allen, 2

Derek Rogers, 2

Rennie Cory 1


Chapter Elected Officers

President Eric Crusius, Esq.

President-Elect Joan Kirkwood

Secretary Philip Lee

Treasurer Shuna Ross

Chairs and Advisors Membership & Elections

Chair Joyce Patry

Education & Programs

Chair Tami Nguyen

NOVA News Chair Brian Baker

[email protected]

Chapter Advisor Danielle Grunwald

Chapter Advisor Crystal Glenn

Chapter Advisor William Kirkwood

We’re on the Web! Visit us on:

https://www.facebook.com/NCMANOVA

https://www.linkedin.com/groups/NCMA-NOVA-Chapter-8142710

https://www.twitter.com/NCMA_NOVA


NCMA NOVA Newsletter Staff

Editor Brian Baker

Assistant Editor/Graphics Design Connor Baker

All images used for thematic or artistic support of article content are sourced using Google Advanced Image

Search. Results are filtered to provide images that are free to use, share, or modify. “Search Attribution”

provides the image location and any unique source credits requested by the license. Where an image has been

modified by NCMA NOVA News staff, it is indicated in the “Date Accessed & Rights” column.

Image Rights Source Attribution

Free to use, share, or

modify.


513 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0/


modify. This image has

been modified.

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:SigP320FullSize.j

pg



been modified.

https://www.flickr.com/photos/marine_corps/5051179082



been modified.

https://www.defense.gov/News/Article/Article/1091247/oir-

official-conditions-have-been-set-for-isis-defeat-in-western-

mosul/#pop1741776



been modified.

http://www.publicdomainpictures.net/view-

image.php?image=91570&picture=road-sign-distracted-

driving



been modified.

https://pixabay.com/en/opportunity-directory-option-many-

396265/



been modified.

http://maxpixel.freegreatpicture.com/Not-Useless-Town-

Sign-Usefulness-Use-Useful-Road-822236



been modified.

https://www.flickr.com/photos/digerati/818149346


modify.

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Non_Profit_Orga

nization_Lawyers_Oakland.jpg



been modified.

https://www.flickr.com/photos/gdsteam/14064123625


modify.

https://pixabay.com/en/hammer-sledge-hammer-russia-

soviet-155831/




Free to use, share, or modify.

https://pixabay.com/en/award-ribbon-best-glossy-one-red-151615/


modify.

https://pixabay.com/en/american-flag-sunlight-star-

1272115/


modify.

https://pixabay.com/en/money-cash-currency-dollars-dollar-

87201/


modify.

https://pixabay.com/en/monitor-internet-computer-screen-

1276948/


modify.

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Flickr_-

_The_U.S._Army_-_Camp_Taji_obstacle_course.jpg


modify.

https://pixabay.com/en/dollar-sign-blue-shiny-dollar-sign-

2198767/



been modified.

https://www.flickr.com/photos/seaofash/21218052878


modify.

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:United_States_on

e_dollar_coin,_reverse.jpg



been modified.

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Lascaux_painting

.jpg



been modified.

https://pixabay.com/en/monument-head-scar-sculpture-

412941/



been modified.

https://pixabay.com/en/audience-crowd-event-cheer-

945449/



been modified.

http://www.goodfellow.af.mil/News/Features/Display/Articl

e/612532/just-a-helping-hand/


modify.


5



been modified.

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/cc/NAS

A_Science_Update_-_The_Voyager_Spacecraft_-

_Humanity%27s_Farthest_Journey_-_detail.jpg





been modified.

https://www.flickr.com/photos/timetrax/376152628



been modified.

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Study_(16840395

246).jpg



been modified.

https://pixabay.com/en/compass-magnetic-orientation-

801763/



been modified.

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/5e/Bara

ck_Obama_listens_during_a_meeting_with_Secretary_of_S

tate_Hillary_Rodham_Clinton_and_Chief_of_Staff_Rahm_

Emanuel_at_Blair_House.jpg



been modified.

http://www.jble.af.mil/News/Article-

Display/Article/844448/armys-special-victims-prosecutors-

bring-enhanced-expertise-to-courtroom/



been modified.

http://www.fairchild.af.mil/News/Article-

Display/Article/762865/the-daily-flap-brings-morale-

leadership-to-total-force-team/



been modified.

https://pixabay.com/en/lamps-oil-many-bright-light-

1107447/



been modified.

https://pixabay.com/en/stopwatch-time-treadmill-race-

259303/


modify. https://www.flickr.com/photos/coolmel/3242477790


modify. https://pixabay.com/en/silhouette-man-race-run-114436/


modify.

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Stipula_fountain_

pen.jpg


modify.

https://pixabay.com/en/the-light-bulb-light-ideas-concept-

1831594/

Copyright © 2017 by Brian Baker. All rights reserved. All articles in this newsletter are the property of their

authors and may not be reprinted without the author's written permission. For more information, please contact

the newsletter editorial team at [email protected].

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Stipula_fountain_pen.jpg