Jump to content
The Wifcon Forums and Blogs

bob7947

Root Admin
  • Content Count

    1,846
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

0 Neutral

1 Follower

About bob7947

  • Rank
    Administrator
  • Birthday 05/02/1949

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male

Recent Profile Visitors

48,534 profile views
  1. Frog: When I started this site in July 1998, Vern was there, when I took this site commercial in 2008, Vern was there. For those and many other reasons, it is inconceivable that Vern and I (Wifcon.com) could part on less than the most cordial of terms. I know why he left and I respect his wishes.
  2. He rode off into the sunset.
  3. bob7947

    NDAA Implementation

    Carl: When you do a legislative history, you begin at the end and work to the beginning with the actual supporting source documents. For example, CICA was passed in 1984. However, Lawton Chiles was pushing for it as early as 1977. I know, I started in 1984 and worked back to 1977. Then you build your history. By the time you are done, you know everything there is to know about that public law. You know more than any congress or any congressman, congresswoman or senator. So what do you have with that. Well, nothing really. You are still stuck with the writing in the law. I had to do legislative histories for each law that I encountered in an audit. It was a lot of fun. I had to do them for the Armed Services Procurement Act, Federal Property and Administrative Services Act (yeah, DoD put the screws to GSA before it was born), the Truth in Negotiations Act, CICA, the one for 95-507, etc. I was in the 7th floor law library so much that the lawyers thought I was a lawyer. I would ask the librarian for the background on a public law and the librarian wheeled the folders out in carts. It's very frustrating, you know more than anyone about a public law, but you cannot use it. The NDAA for 2017 was signed into law on 12/23/2016. The document you are copying from is a CRS document dated 7/13/2016. You didn't start with the NDAA for 2017 because it wasn't enacted yet. Start here. You can see the Public Law number, the conference report number, the senate report number, and the house report number. We're talking about Sec. 829. Preference for fixed-price contracts. Click the link. On the left is the section in the public law. On the right is the explanation from the Conference Report. It begins with: There was no provision in the House bill. However, the Senate Bill was amended in conference. The House conferees may or may not have worked with the Senate conferees on the revision and what you are seeing on the left is the final agreed-to section of law. I would stop here on any explanation because of the changes in conference. However, if you want to take a chance, I would go to section 827 of the Senate report and compare section 827 of the Senate bill to section 829 of the public law to see what the changes were. If the changes were not dramatic, I would go to the bottom of the report and find the explanation for Section 827. I already provided that. If you really want to wonder why section 827 was in the Senate bill, you can begin when it was first introduced. You can find that by the NDAA work that I do. Was there a section 827 when it was introduced? If not, go to the floor amendments listed for the Senate bill. Check each one to see if it was provided by an amendment. If it was by amendment, check the congressional record. The sponsor of that amendment might explain about his/her concern. It may have been based on a Senate hearing. Search for the Senate hearing. See if the amendement's sponsor says something during the hearing. The sponsor may have added a press release on his/her home page. OK, you found something. Now, you know. So what? You're still limited by the words of the Public Law. Since the conference report was approved by the House and the Senate, you can use that explanation in an argument. Beyond that, you are jumping off a cliff with an umbrella. Expect to hit the ground----hard.
  4. bob7947

    NDAA Implementation

    Carl: You are using the wrong section of the Senate bill. You must start with the conference report, as I did, and work down. The only legislative history for Section 829 appears in what I posted. Your post should not be used for anything. It has no bearing on the discussion. Joel: The law is the law. You must read the words of the law and go no farther. Every year that I do the NDAA, I post caveats on using the legislative history. You will see legislative history used, at times, by judges and administrative law judges (or whatever they want to call themselves now). They can do that until someone higher up the chain hammers them. At GAO, from time to time, we might have cautiously added a reference to congressional intent. At the end of my career, the General Counsel at the time, took the position that he would not recognize any references to congressional intent below the Conference Report for any law. He was the head lawyer and he got his way. You are reading between the lines of the conference and senate reports. There is nothing in either of them to support your belief. Just be thankful that the $5 million in the Senate Report was changed in conference to $50 million.
  5. bob7947

    NDAA Implementation

    Fascinating.
  6. bob7947

    NDAA Implementation

    Joel: The legislative history is this diccussion's second post. I'll post it again. The conference report is below. The Senate Report mentioned in the conference section is below. All this information is available on this site. I guess your lucky the Senate did not get its way. Every pissant cost contract would be getting approval.
  7. bob7947

    NDAA Implementation

    Pirate: Keep it handy?
  8. bob7947

    NDAA Implementation

    Joel: How does the section of law under discussion affect program manager's and program management.
  9. bob7947

    NDAA Implementation

    I was thinking about this type of thing this morning. The agency appoints a contracting officer with some designated level of responsibility based on some qualification. For the moment, let's assume the appointment process is working. The contracting officer is preparing a procurement. He/she knows there will be some level of review. It's to be expected. Then a congressman or senator reads a news article or a report and believes a problem exists. He/she introduces a bill to solve the perceived problem. To his/her amazement it gets enacted in the annual NDAA. It is then implemented through regulation for the workforce to use. The contracting officer begins to follow the regulation and finds that his/her authority is being restricted further. This happens every year. The contracting officer realizes that some politician, who cannot distinguish a solicitation from a contract, indirectly is telling him/her that he/she is less competent than his office believes. The best contracting officers can only take so much of this until they resign from government.
  10. bob7947

    NDAA Implementation

    Pirate: You wrote: and Have any of them given you an electronic or paper document directing you to ignore the law and stick to the outdated DFARS? -------------------------------------------- PS: I think the provision in the law is stupid.
  11. bob7947

    NDAA Implementation

    Retread: Those are the two I saw.
  12. bob7947

    NDAA Implementation

    Frog: There goes your habitat! Here are my thoughts. As I have written, there are too many changes in Defense contracting law every year, Look at this page and read the Early Engagement Opportunity sections, The regulators are falling behind under the legislative onslaught, In these situations, to provide direction to the Defense contacting personnel, the USD's office must provide timely deviations to regulation. It appears, this one slipped through the cracks. You can search here to see if it was done and I missed it. In Class Deviation 2018-00017 the USD's office wrote: That, in the least, is what should have been done here. Instead, the pirate encountered the problem. As a result, the USD is violating the law, the pirate's advisors are violating the law, and the pirate is violating the law. At least the pirate made sure his/her flak jacket is riding low.
  13. bob7947

    NDAA Implementation

    What else would sheep do?
  14. bob7947

    NDAA Implementation

    Pepe and Carl: Does the follwoing section of the law have meaning?
  15. bob7947

    NDAA Implementation

    Here is the section.
×