Jump to content
The Wifcon Forums and Blogs


Root Admin
  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

0 Neutral

1 Follower

About bob7947

  • Rank
  • Birthday 05/02/1949

Profile Information

  • Gender

Recent Profile Visitors

45,456 profile views
  1. Except for the Wifcon Forums and Blogs Pages, the search engine is being replaced on the other pages of Wifcon.com. Since Wifcon.com contains hundreds of pages, the replacement process is being phased in with the Home Page replacement first.
  2. Why is the Govt so cliquish?

    This is one of the most frequently used bits of the Protests Page. FAR 11.002 (a) (1): Requirements - Restrictive provisions
  3. The internet is a dangerous place. The last time I looked, around 60 percent of the internet traffic is produced by robots. Some of these robots are the typcial search engines looking for information to add to their database--such as google. That allows you to find information in a google search. When you add your e-mail address to a post, that e-mail address goes into the database. The internet also is littered with unfriendly robots looking for e-mail addresses to spam and scam. The e-mail address this forum asks you for during registration are hidden from the public and as long as this software works as it is designed to they are safely hidden. In short, PLEASE do not post your e-mail address in a post. Use the messenger service this software provides and clean your messages often.
  4. Default Clause to extend Period of Performance

    Jamal: If that is so, that is why CO might find case examples helpful. CO asked for a decision to support his/her understanding of clauses and to convince others he/she is correct in his/her reading of clauses. I provided access to decisions of the COFC, ASBCA and CBCA that CO might find useful. I don't know if CO will find those sources useful but CO can decide. Vern's opinion may be a good one--telling "squadron DBO" that if they can't understand the simple English of the clauses to read a book on the subject. Of course, I don't know how "squadron DBO" would react. CO will have to decide on that too.
  5. Default Clause to extend Period of Performance

    Construction CO: In your second post, you wrote: I assume you mean Inspector General auditors or analysts. If so, they are usually generalists who must prove to you that they are correct. They sure don't sound like they are, if what you describe is accurate. You also said: That may require some legal support to educate them. Go Here: U. S. Court of Claims. Where it says keywords, type in the name of your clause and read the cases. For example, "changes clause." Also go here: Armed Services Board of Contract Appeals. In the search box to the left, type the name of your clause. You can also use the Civilian Board of Contract Appeals.
  6. NDAA for FY 2018

    According to Congress.gov, H. R. 2810 was sent to the White House on Novembre 30, 2017.
  7. Over on the Polls category, there is a listing of 99 members who answered which age group they were in. Fifty-eight percent of our responding members are under 49 years of age. Since the COGP report is 45 years old this month, It is probable that the majority of our members were born after it was issued. The 99 members who responded are a small sample of our total members. We are now approaching 5,000 members.
  8. I received an e-mail yesterday afternoon that provided a GAO appropriations decision. I've added a link to the decision under the quote. What do you think of the decision? Air Force Reserve Command--Disposable Plates and Utensils, B-329316: Nov 29, 2017
  9. NDAA for FY 2018

    All of my prior post applies but here is some more. Congress.gov has, as A. Lincoln would call it, "the slows." After it went through the last "upgrade" it got slower to post new items. I've noted on this site's legislation page that it may take a week for Congress.gov to update. To make up for its version of "the slows," I try to find press releases from those members or senators who introduce bills. The last update for H. R. 2810 on Congress.gov is November 16, 2017 for the Senate agreeing to the conference report. That is 12 days ago. Of course we had a holiday and Congress was away. Who knows what the staffers were doing during that period. At the White House, it lists no pending legislation and the last signed legislation (public laws) in September 2017. However, Congress.gov, which has the slows itself, shows that there have been 20 Public Laws signed after September 2017. Frankly, the White House web site is somewhat south of pathetic. The best bet to learn of the signing of H. R. 2810 may be on twitter. I use twitter myself. Washington works at its own pace and we have to roll with the times. (In Washington, there is no precision. We, who are dependent on its institutions, develop workarounds.)
  10. NDAA for FY 2018

    It takes a few days after the bill passes Congress, gets prettied up, and is sent to the White House. After that, it sits in the White House for a political signing opportunity to develop. In Congress it's: we passed it before a holiday, let the staff clean it up and send it down the street, we have sucking-up to do with the voters and we have to raise funds, from just about anyone, to get reelected. In the White House it's: send invitations for the signing to members that won't hurt us, write a signing speech, find the most politically opportune time to sign the thing, make sure the pens work, tell the signer what he's signing, make sure everyone's teeth are clean, etc. Washington works at its own pace. While the above is going on it's: find someone that we don't like, and who can't hurt us politically, to blame in case anything goes wrong. Same thing every year. Washington works at its own pace. Years ago, the Federal Register rarely came out on time near the holidays. It's not hard to guess why. I complained and complained and complained and complained and now I take partial credit for straightening that out. It's almost flawless at this time. Of course now, for political reasons, it doesn't contain much in our field. That will end some day. Washington works at its own pace.
  11. NDAA for FY 2018

    As of this morning, the NDAA bill sections that you looked at the most in descending order: Increased simplified acquisition threshold (sec. 805) Requirements related to the micro-purchase threshold (sec. 806) Use of lowest price technically acceptable source selection process (sec. 822) Modifications to cost or pricing data and reporting requirements (sec. 811) Enhanced post-award debriefing rights (sec. 818) Applicability of cost and pricing data certification requirements (sec. 812) Performance of incurred cost audits (sec. 803) Statements of purpose for Department of Defense acquisition (sec. 801) Repeal of certain auditing requirements (sec. 804) Expansion of definition of competitive procedures to include competitive selection for award of science and technology proposals (sec. 221)
  12. NDAA for FY 2018

    We have to start with the NDAA Acts since that starts the process. Should an ignorant committee staffer draft the Intent of Congress that causes actions--even when a bill's section is intentionally not adopted? Should a bunch of ignorant politicians pass hundreds of legislative provsions, in a handful of years, that the FAR Councils must implement within a finite timeframe? Should the Office of Management and Budget intentionally fail to issue regulations required by law? Should the CAAC have to deviate from the FAR to implement a law because the Office of Management and Budget has a freeze on regulations that are required by law--even when that Office wants the law implemented? Vern has said this before - - we need to go back to the ASPR and FPR. I now agree. It is a waste of time and money having an intentionally "maimed-at-birth" OFPP together with FAR Councils hanging from hooks. If anyone goes back and reads the first few Recommendations of the Commission on Government Procurement they will agree that we have a bigger regulatory mess now than ever before. It is beyond fixing. If someone wants to get disgusted, go through the NDAA sections appearing at this site, create a table, and show how many NDAA sections change a prior NDAA's section. Do it for the past 17 years--all the NDAAs that I have analyzed are on this site.
  13. NDAA for FY 2018

    Imagine if Congress directed a change to the DFARS and the DFARS was changed to meet that requirement. Future FAR Councils open a case to add the same change to the FAR because it also was applicable to civilian agencies. The FAR is changed to add the DFARS rule. Since the DFARS change is now in the FAR, the DARC tries to delete the duplicate section from the DFARS. However, they realize that it is required in the DFARS by the NDAA of 2018. What do they do? There is an answer but should future Councils have to regulate in this manner?
  14. NDAA for FY 2018

    Vern: I believe that may be the longest contracting NDAA yet. It also seemed the most explanation by "conferees." Even though there were many sections not adopted, the conferees had direction to give in those sections and I italicized it. I also noticed that some sections that passed, specifically directed DoD to change the DFARS and not just stating regulation. There is a lot to think about in the NDAA sections. That was my weekend.
  15. I have added the annual contracting analysis of the National Defense Authorization Bill as it passed Congress. It awaits signature at the White House to become law. However, it will probably be signed.