The Trifecta of Effectiveness: Tools (Part 2)

Serialized from The Trifecta of Effectiveness: How a Badass Cubicle Dweller Optimizes Tools, Mindset, and Relationships and from Contracting for Rapid Acquisition: A Practical and Personal Guide to Disrupting the Status Quo for a More Responsive Future by Lorna E. Tedder

In Part 1 of this series, I introduced the Trifecta of Effectiveness—a three-legged stool consisting of tools, mindset, and relationships. Now it’s time to explore the first leg in depth: Tools.

The Foundation of Effectiveness

When people talk about “fixing Contracting” or being innovative in Acquisition, they’re usually talking about tools. Depending on how you visualize the trifecta, tools represent either the first leg of the stool or the foundation itself. You constantly hear people talk about the next big thing to make Contracting faster, better, smarter, cheaper—Other Transaction authority, consortia, Middle Tier of Acquisition, or whatever new buzzword is making the rounds.

These are all wonderful tools, and the Government should think of them first and foremost as tools in their Acquisition strategy. Other transactions? Just a tool. Adaptive Acquisition Framework pathways? Tools. They’re all instruments to get you where you want to be. The more tools you have in your toolkit, the more choices you have to find the best one for the job.

But here’s what I’ve learned after decades in this field: tools alone aren’t enough. While regulations and policies provide the framework, they can’t satisfy the user’s need for timely and superior solutions by themselves. The current regulations—even woefully dated ones—are still useful provided the other legs of the stool (mindset and relationships) are strong.

Industry partners:  you can make a difference here, too. If you’re at a conference pitching your technology to a Government Program Manager (PM), let them know if there’s an easy way to get to you. Don’t just assume the PM knows the best way to contract with you.

Here’s an illustrative example:

At an additive manufacturing conference in 2023, I heard several PMs saying they were interested in certain small businesses they’d talked to, but had no idea how to do business with them. The small companies expected the Government to know, and it turned into a collective shrug fest. But one presenter stood out. After demoing his company’s technology, he told his audience exactly how to get to him—through a General Services Administration (GSA) schedule or as a subcontractor on a particular contract—and included that information on a handout about his tech. He gave them an easy path and led them to it.

For Requests for Information (RFIs) or any request for feedback the Government puts out, I always recommend they ask three to four questions of industry: your approach, how your approach applies to the platform or situation, maybe another question on security or something technical, and then a question that is basically, “How can we get to you?” The Government may need to look at a new competition, or you may already have a path they can use.

If you have Small Business Innovative Research (SBIR) Data rights, you want to tell the Government—even if they don’t ask. Same goes if you’re in a relevant consortium, have an Indefinite Delivery Indefinite Quantity (IDIQ) contract or GSA schedule, have submitted a white paper to a Commercial Solutions Opening (CSO), or if you have a contract already that covers the same or similar scope. That gives the Government the ability to reach you more quickly or efficiently if you already have what they need.

Lorna’s Greatest Hits: My Favorite Acquisition Tools

Let me share some of my go-to tools that I’ve successfully deployed throughout my career—what became known in my Division and across many Program Offices as “Lorna’s Greatest Hits.” Each of these tools has stood the test of time and can dramatically improve Acquisition outcomes when used appropriately. These tools are not the entirely of my Contracting knowledge but are in this guide specifically because of how I’ve used them successfully.  If a tool isn’t here, that doesn’t mean it’s not useful but that it’s not one of my go-to’s.  Also, I’m going to get into all the details and how-to’s of each tool except a bit more information for the rarer ones. Instead, I’ll focus on how I used these tools. There’s plenty of guidance out there for deeper dives, but some I will discuss in more depth in future chapters.

• Procurement for Experimental Purposes (PEP) – 10 USC 4023/2373 (1993)

This statutory tool covers nine technology areas: ordnance, signal, chemical, transportation, energy, medical, space-flight, telecommunications, and aeronautical supplies, including parts and accessories and designs. Telecommunications is a more recent addition, making it much easier to use this authority for software, robotics, and artificial intelligence—previously we had to shoehorn these into the tech area called “signal.”

The tool is intended for experimental or test purposes, not for inventory, and typically uses R&D funds. Do not misunderstand the word Procurement as a reference to procurement funds or that it must be for production only. The statute was renumbered in 2022 and renamed—poorly.  Previously, it was Acquisition for Experimental or Test Purposes (AETP), under 10 USC 2373.  Due to the change from the words acquisition to procurement, it now gives the impression that it’s for production only.

What makes it particularly powerful is that can be sole source or a limited competition for a flyoff–requiring only a simple Determination and Findings (D&F) rather than a Justification and Approval (J&A)—though you could make it Full and Open Competition.  If you use it for a competition, just don’t use FAR Part 15 language or it might be legally interpreted as a FAR source selection. You can award it as a FAR contract, OT, OT-like agreement, or bailment agreement.

Although I’ll go into more depth in a separate chapter about why I love this tool, it’s important to point out that is it not an Other Transaction authority, though it may be used in conjunction with an OT authority or you may use an OT as the resulting business arrangement. OTs are statutory authorities (10 USC 4021 and 4022).  Procurement for Experimental Purposes is another statutory authority (10 USC 4023).  Separate authority, not a subset of some other authority.  Not an OT.  However, you can, as previously mentioned, use OT authority in combination with PEP authority.

A lot of confusion still surrounds this authority, mainly because it’s not been used enough to answer every possible situation or misuse, so there’s gradually developing policy around it and plenty of trying to force-fit it to match FAR requirements by people who’ve never actually done one. Because the local review requirements when awarding it as an OT might be—in some locations—much more restrictive than awarding it as a FAR contract, the generally accepted rule is currently that if you award it as an OT agreement, you follow the review processes for an OT and if you award it as a FAR contract, you use the review processes for FAR contracts.  Awarding it as an OT agreement is ideal, but there may be some actual cases when you need to award it as a FAR contract, and I believe in having the flexibility to do that if you need it, whether you use it or not.

I’ve used this authority dozens and dozens of time as a Contracting Officer and more than that as a guide for those who are new to it, and across the full spectrum of dollar values. My first application was a modest $60K effort to test the strength of bomb casings (welded versus all−forged) when the rules said I had to conduct a large−scale competition that would take months. My last application using this authority helped implement a nearly $100M IT initiative. The versatility of this tool is remarkable when you understand its proper application.

• Other Transactions for Prototype/Production (10 USC 4022) (1998)

If you’re in the Defense Acquisition community, you’re likely familiar with OTs, so I’ll focus on key insights rather than basics. There are plenty of official guides out there for OTs at this point.  These flexible statutory “contracts” exist outside the FAR and can move incredibly fast to award. However, their main benefit isn’t just speed—it’s their collaboration-focused nature.

The biggest problem I’ve seen with OTs? Contracting Officers (also known as Agreements Officers when they have the authority to award OT agreements) who miss the entire point by trying to cut and paste FAR clauses into them or trying to figure out how to put all the “safeties” they’re familiar with in the FAR into an agreement, as if FAR clauses are somehow more effective than statutes themselves. This is what we refer to as “FARifying your OT.”  This undermines the very flexibility that makes OTs valuable in the first place.

One of the most challenging yet beneficial aspects of OTs, in my opinion, is the extensive room they provide for negotiating intellectual property (IP) rights. This can be difficult for Agreements Officers accustomed to working with standard FAR options like limited rights, unlimited rights, and Government Purpose Rights.  Most AOs don’t know how to valuate or evaluate IP, and honestly, that’s something that most people, including the contractor, will struggle with. I’ve found that having an IP attorney as legal counsel during the process gives the AO a significant advantage in navigating these more nuanced negotiations.

I still refer to Other Transactions as OTs, and I’m not going to change that.   I wrote my first one almost 30 years ago, and that’s what we called them then. You young’uns can call them OTAs all you want. The important thing is learning how to leverage them to get the best solution and get it fast.

• Commercial Solutions Openings (CSOs)

CSOs are one of the newer tools in the Acquisition toolkit—they emerged after I had already submitted my retirement papers, so I never got to use one myself as a Contracting Officer, but I’ve advised others on their implementation, and they’re probably a close favorite to 10 USC 4023 authority.

This powerful tool allows the Government to procure innovative products and services using FAR-based contracts, Other Transaction agreements, or other alternative agreement types. What makes CSOs particularly valuable is that all submissions are considered competitive, yet the Government can award contracts as proposals are selected, without waiting for all proposals to be negotiated or awarding all contracts simultaneously.

The biggest advantage, in my opinion, is the ability to use commercial procedures, which can significantly streamline the process. The commercial procedures using FAR contracts as the result can outpace OTs in terms of speed. I know that sounds a little strange, given the speediness of using OTs, but in this case, I’m referring to using a CSO as your solicitation and then awarding a FAR contract under commercial procedures vs using an OT process for the solicitation.   However, CSO as a solicitation do allow you to award, as mentioned above, an OT or a contract.  You want to use whichever is the best tool for the job. In fact, as of the DoD mandate in March 2025, the business arrangements resulting from CSO solicitations for AI must be OT agreements, and I think that’s probably a fine combination to use for AI.

In my view, every Program Executive Office (PEO) should have a CSO that covers their entire mission, allowing innovations to be onboarded efficiently, even for technologies already in production that can be on-ramped or incorporated to be the most current. PEOs need this capability more than many realize, especially those acquiring software solutions where nimbleness and staying current with commercial innovations is crucial.

• Renewable Open Omnibus Solicitations (ROOS) (1988)

This is what I call a “Lorna-ism” as it is not an official tool or terminology. ROOS is a term I coined for solicitation announcements that stay open as catch-alls for a year at a time. They can and should be tweaked and renewed annually to cover the full scope of technical areas (omnibus) that a buying office supports.

In my practice, these were primarily Broad Agency Announcements (BAAs) covering 17 to 25 technology areas for which I bought studies with R&D funds. Occasionally, I bought prototypes but hardware was usually incidental to the aim of gaining knowledge. The process was remarkably efficient—we could conduct mini-source selections, issue calls against the BAA, or Contractors could submit what would otherwise be unsolicited proposals for innovative ideas.

Our typical approach asked for a one-page concept paper first. If the idea merited funding, we’d request a full proposal, usually delivered orally to further streamline the process. Most oral proposals were simple briefings of bullet charts that memorialized the proposal, and we were usually done in 20 to 45 minutes. Most awards were completed in 9 to 30 days, with only the most complex efforts (usually classified work) taking longer than 60 days. That include the proposal, evaluation, contract award, everything.   They were simple and didn’t take long individually—we just had a lot of other work to do at the same time.

This ROOS concept works beautifully with the 10 USC 4023 (PEP) authority I mentioned earlier. I have this implemented effectively in the Air Force.

I also strongly recommend pairing this approach with CSOs for maximum flexibility and speed.

The beauty of ROOS is having a ready-made vehicle available when the Government identifies something they want to fund but they don’t have to have funds to create this kind of framework. It creates an efficient on-ramp for new solutions without starting the Acquisition process from scratch each time. For organizations acquiring rapidly evolving technologies or needing to respond quickly to emerging requirements, this approach is invaluable.

• Class J&As (1998)

I always advocated for using Class J&As wherever possible—they allow for significantly more flexibility than individual J&As for each procurement action.

The key to making Class J&As work effectively was maintaining strong communication with Program Managers. Because they shared their roadmaps and anticipated needs with me, we could build J&As that covered not just current requirements but also what might emerge suddenly due to real-world events. I always has my PMs look ahead at least 6 months to any real-world conflict that might break out so that I can respond quickly.  We would work those possibilities into the J&A, along with appropriate “headroom” or ceiling.

One strategy I consistently employed was incorporating strategic ambiguity—or what I like to call “placeholders”—into our J&As and Statements of Work. This built-in flexibility allowed us to be more responsive when unexpected situations demanded quick action. Rather than starting a new J&A process from scratch (which could take weeks but—honestly—months when it was outside my span of control), we could execute within the parameters of our existing Class J&A.

This approach proved particularly valuable during contingency operations and rapidly evolving mission requirements. By anticipating potential needs and documenting them appropriately in advance, we positioned ourselves to respond when mission-critical needs arose—sometimes accomplishing in days what might otherwise take months.

• Death Star Scope (1987)

How broad are you willing to make your contract scope? Can you drive a Mack truck through it? Or better yet, can you pilot a Death Star through it?

This tool is about strategic scope definition. I learned early in my Contracting career that properly crafted scope language can provide tremendous flexibility later in contract execution. The key is adding carefully selected placeholders that allow for adaptation as requirements evolve.

For example, including phrases like “which may include training, testing, and support” or using words like “approximately” creates valuable wiggle room. You don’t necessarily need specific tasks for these elements at contract award, but by incorporating them into the scope, you preserve the flexibility to add them later without scope creep concerns.

I’ve seen countless situations where narrowly defined scopes forced programs into lengthy contract modifications, new competitions, or other time-consuming processes that could have been avoided with more thoughtful initial scope development. When mission needs shift—as they inevitably do—Death Star Scope gives you the ability to respond within your existing contractual framework.

This approach requires balance and good judgment. The scope must be broad enough to accommodate reasonable evolution but specific enough to define the core work clearly. Mastering this balance is one of the most valuable skills a Contracting professional can develop, and not every Contracting Officer is going to be comfortable with a broad interpretation of scope.

• Indefinite Delivery/Indefinite Quantity (IDIQ) Contracts (1991)

Preferences for contract types come and go, and IDIQs are more disliked in 2025 than I have seen them in my lifetime. That said, IDIQs are ideal for repeat buys when you don’t know exactly when customer funding will arrive. With proper setup, they can be dramatically faster than Undefinitized Contract Actions (UCAs).

One of my greatest strengths as a Contracting Officer was the ability to accept substantial expiring “fall-out” money that other organizations couldn’t handle. That meant that some other Contracting Officer could get to an award before the money expired, but I could and I had contracts that were always looking for money to defend the guys downrange. I was typically able to accept over $20M in funding on the afternoon of September 27th (just days before fiscal year-end) and have it awarded by the 29th. This wasn’t magic—it was careful planning and establishing the right agreements with my Contractors in advance.

The key to effective IDIQ management is pre-pricing as much as possible during the initial contract clearance. This prevents additional reviews from delaying future orders. When you can’t price everything upfront (which is often the case with complex systems), focus on pricing what you need first or most frequently, then return to price the remainder when time pressure is lower.  You also want to have IDIQs with contractors you’ll use, and not award contracts to firms who’ll never win a delivery/task order, which has unfortunately become a trend that can be expensive for Contractors.

There is a downside worth noting: IDIQs may count for less in manpower models than standalone “C” contracts. They did for me.  However, if not properly pre-priced, each IDIQ order may require as much work as a separate contract. This creates a disconnect between how these contracts are counted for staffing purposes versus their actual workload. Smart Contracting Officers find ways to address this through their pre-pricing strategy and internal processes.

• Oral Presentations/Proposals (1996)

Oral presentations completely transformed how I approached complex procurements. The advantages are substantial:

First, they provide a much clearer understanding of what Contractors are actually proposing. When technical experts explain their solutions directly, evaluators can ask questions and get immediate clarification, eliminating the ambiguity that often plagues written proposals.

Second, we typically get more substantive information from Contractors in oral formats. Technical teams communicate more naturally, and the genuine expertise (or lack thereof) becomes readily apparent.

Third, the process can be dramatically faster both for Contractors preparing proposals and for Government teams evaluating them—provided you don’t make the mistake of duplicating written documentation or scheduling marathon 24-hour presentation sessions.

As for disadvantages? Personally, there are none that outweigh the benefits, though I must emphasize that keeping control of your evaluation team is essential and can be challenging. Everyone needs to understand what questions are appropriate and how to maintain consistency across offerors. However, all good ideas and innovative techniques eventually face bastardization, and since 2020, I’ve seen more firms hire someone to present orally or even choose their key personnel for a contract based on who was a smooth talker and could deliver an eloquent proposal briefing. 

I always required cost proposals in writing for documentation purposes, but almost everything else could be handled orally.

The beauty of this approach is its scalability—I’ve successfully used oral presentations for requirements ranging from $8K to $500M. I even guided programs using them for Acquisitions exceeding $1B. In one particularly memorable case, we were able to make an award four months early, preserving expiring funds that would otherwise have been lost, and many of my mentees reported being able to make their deadlines before the end of the Fiscal Year solely through using my techniques.

• Price Based Acquisition (PBA) (2000)

Price Based Acquisition may be the most underutilized tool in the Contracting toolkit. Its greatest benefit is allowing price analysis instead of cost analysis for sole-source negotiations by leveraging existing data—whether recently certified or awarded under Adequate Price Competition.

PBA is ideal for production contracts where 85% or more of the pricing data already exists. For example, when dealing with Lot 15 of a missile contract that had only a 10% technical change since Lot 14, we used data from previous lot buys plus a focused adjustment for just that 10% difference. This targeted approach saved months of proposal preparation, evaluation, and negotiation time.

I had one particularly interesting case where we attempted to use a losing proposal that had been priced under another Service’s source selection (which qualified as APC even though they lost to a lower bidder). We planned to use this data for approximately 90% of our evaluation and negotiate only the 10% difference. Unfortunately, the Contractor backed out because they thought they could extract more money from us through traditional means. Had they continued, we would have saved an entire year of lead time.

The efficiency comes from focusing only on what’s new: proposal for the delta, evaluation of the delta, no audit for the delta, negotiation of the delta. For example, if you’re buying medical equipment upgraded with an 8% change, you can treat the pricing data on the existing 92% as validated and focus your analysis exclusively on the new components or capabilities. This targeted approach can dramatically accelerate the procurement timeline.

• Creative Pricing Arrangements (1987)

Want to know how to be creative when buying sophisticated Defense systems like missiles? Think about everyday shopping experiences.

I’ve implemented rebate structures for missile purchases—essentially “Buy X, get Y free” arrangements. This approach created tremendous value because the “free” units didn’t count against my J&A ceiling, effectively extending our procurement authority without additional paperwork.

Another successful approach was developing special clauses that allowed bundling quantities over longer periods and with other Services to get discounts or rebates. By combining requirements across fiscal years or branches, we achieved economies of scale that would have been impossible with traditional segmented procurements. Our J&A allowed us to buy, say, 500 missiles, but we ended up with an armload more due to the quantity discounts.

My favorite arrangement was implementing price matching clauses. If any buyer—domestic or international—secured a better price for the same system, we automatically received that pricing. This incentivized Contractors to offer their best price upfront and protected us from subsidizing discounts for other customers.

These creative approaches required thinking beyond conventional Contracting methods. Just because we’re buying complex military systems doesn’t mean we can’t apply innovative commercial pricing strategies. And I have to admit that I didn’t come up with all of these—some were suggested by Contractors themselves when I asked for incentivization suggestions.

Lessons From the Toolkit: Final Thoughts

In case you’re wondering or feeling nervous, yes, I did all these in lockstep with my legal counsel.  Cool, huh? The more experience you have with these tools, the more comfortable you’re likely to feel. You discover what works and what doesn’t.

Have you figured out yet what the 4 digits after each tool name mean? Those are dates—the years I first used each of these favorite tools. When I point them out in a seminar on Contracting tools, I often have attendees realize that these tools have been available to use since before they were born, and yet it’s the first time they’ve heard of them. PBA (2000), Other Transactions (1998), Procurement for Experimental Purposes (1993)—these aren’t new cutting-edge innovations; they’re proven tools that have been delivering value for decades.

This realization often leads to an important question: If these tools have been available for so long, why aren’t they more widely used? The answer speaks to a deeper challenge in our profession, which we’ll address in the next leg of the Trifecta of Effectiveness.

Before we leave tools behind, I have a few reminders for you.

First, just because you’ve implemented something incredibly innovative, you can never rest on your laurels. Even the best of innovations can eventually become bastardized—by intentional abuse or lazy familiarity. The razor-sharp dagger becomes bent when used as a screwdriver or, when uncared for, dull as a spoon.

Second, don’t feel like you have to restrict yourself to only one great tool in any given contract or agreement. Let’s abandon the scarcity mindset when it comes to Contracting. I once sat in a meeting with my Division Chief, explaining that my Acquisition strategy with an aggressive lead time included oral proposals, PBA, and several other “innovative Contracting tools” that complemented each other perfectly.

“Ugh, just pick one unique tool at most for each contract you write,” she said. “You don’t have to use them all. Save some for next time.”

Oh, no. No, no, no. Thou shalt not hoard ideas, especially when they make sense in combination—and help you go faster.

What made this particularly frustrating was that none of these approaches were actually new or truly innovative—they were proven techniques I’d successfully used for years. I was completely confident in what I was doing, as was my legal counsel, who had worked with me on what he called the “fun stuff” for over two decades. My supervisor simply hadn’t used these tools in her 20-plus years and wasn’t comfortable with them, even though she’d risen to one of the highest positions in our organization. In her mind, it was safer to reject anything unfamiliar, or at minimum, put it on a short leash. It was also a lot slower, and my last discussion with her as I was out-processing was a fiery one because I’d given my PM a way to get to award in 5 months on a $200M contract that she needed over a year for.  That’s the difference in knowing what tools are out there and how to use them.

You may not need to keep reinventing your toolkit, but you do need to continually think about how to keep your tools effective—and be willing to use them in combination when the situation calls for it.

Hence my favorite movie quote: “I never saved anything for the swim back.” — Gattaca

When you think of Rapid Acquisition, these are the kinds of tools you’re usually thinking of.  Unfortunately, all the tools in the world won’t do you any good if you don’t actually use them, and that brings us to the next leg of the three-legged stool that is the Trifecta of Effectiveness:  mindset.

I’ll see you in the Part 3 of this series, or you can find more of my writing at my Rapid Lorna – Agile Acquisition Blog.