Jump to content
The Wifcon Forums and Blogs


Root Admin
  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

0 Neutral

About bob7947

  • Rank
  • Birthday 05/02/1949

Profile Information

  • Gender

Recent Profile Visitors

49,586 profile views
  1. Susan: In addition to an online forum, this site includes news, decisions, and rules every workday. I've done that for the past 21 years. I view this as a general COP for contracting. The forum's members are from government, industry, educational intstitutions, etc. They are located on different parts of the Earth. (I am not aware of anyone posting from Antartica.)
  2. I've added what CHESS is. Check if it is correct. Also, could you esplain what NEC is?
  3. Formerfed: I think we may have discussed this in person about 20 years ago.
  4. This unscientific poll is now about 37 months old. So, some Members who voted may have moved into a higher age group skewing the results. However, look at the distribution. 45.46 percent of our Members who answered the poll are/were in the age groups of 39 or younger. 41.82 percent of our Members who answered the poll are/were in the age groups of 50 or older. 12.73 percent who answered the poll are/were right in the middle at 40 to 49. This poll has remained open for anyone who wishes to add to it. If you haven't answered the poll in the past 20 months or so, please go ahead. If you can't remember if you answered the poll, the software should not allow you to vote again.
  5. In the discussion topic that I posted, Formerfed wrote: My question to anyone is: do you think that your methods for information gathering are too much of a competitive advantage that you cannot share them here. if you wish to share them, when do you start the information gathering process and what do you gather for a possible future procurement. Hint: I wouldn't wait until the FBO. Hint 2: I rewrote my question several times. is the information gathering process done in-house or through a service provider.
  6. Originally posted by Joel Hoffman Here is an interesting example where, in a GAO protest, the protestor protested on the basis of evaluation criteria that had been deleted by an amendment before the evaluation and selection decision. Both the government and (winner) intervenor defended the evaluation without realizing that the specifically protested criteria had been deleted. Thus there would have been no basis for the protest. The Government’s response to the protest had omitted the page in the Amendment that deleted the restrictive evaluation language. So, GAO had sustained the protest based upon the pre-amendment requirements. GAO had recommended re-evaluation as well as reimbursement of protestors costs to file the protest. Government and intervenor requested re-consideration upon realizing that the Amendment had already deleted the restriction that protestor said had been violated. Government provided the second page of the amendment that should have been part of the initial protest response. All three parties had previous knowledge of the actual, amended evaluation criteria but failed to realize in their arguments that there had been no violation. Upon reconsideration, the GAO said that its initial decision was correct, based upon the facts in the protest. But GAO withdrew its recommendations for re-evaluation of proposals and reimbursement of the protestor’s costs. A whole protest, defense by both the government and intervenor and decision based upon the wrong solicitation requirements. Sheesh!! Total waste of everybody’s time and resources as a result of NOBODY involved in the protest knowing the solicitation requirements. Wonder how the KO, who issued the amendment and the source selection team who evaluated the proposals didn’t discover that the lawyers were defending the wrong terms of the solicitation and arguing the wrong (made up??) justification for the evaluation. https://www.gao.gov/assets/710/701097.pdf
  7. I intended to post this as a separate topic because it is unique. However, I forgot. It was mentioned in another topic and I will try to copy that post below . You can think post about it, if you wish.
  8. Frequently Asked Questions Pertaining to the Issuance of Wage Determinations Under the McNamara-O'Hara Service Contract Act (SCA) of 1965, as Amended.
  9. I add this article because it might be pertinent. Pay attention to Costar III, LLC, ASBCA No. 56479, 11-2 BCA 34830 (2011) which is listed under the Tables in the article. The article is: The Christian Doctrine: The Double-Secret Contract Clause. Seyfarth Shaw LLP.
  10. This Topic is closed in accordance with Rule 15: 15. If the original poster abandons the original post for a significant period of time, the topic may be removed or closed.
  11. I added another blurb to my post showing costs associated with FEMA efforts. It's in bold italics.
  12. I was wondering what effect this Hurricane Michael National Interest Exemption has on anything. I've added this FEMA item a little later than my post. I'm also wondering if FEMA's reconstruction efforts can be used to support a claim against the government for increased costs. kathilou: I don't want to intrude on your discussion. If you feel I am, tell me and I will go away.
  13. Wikipedia. I'm adding the Wikipedia blurb about Hurricane Michael as background.
  14. Thank you mtclymer for starting this. I edited your post to make it look the way I intended it to look. Now, I can go back to my directions and improve them.
  • Create New...