bob7947

In 1972, the Commission on Government Procurement wrote that Congress should limit its acquisition legislation to fundamental acquisition matters and let the Executive Branch implement Congress's policies through specific acquisition regulation. If Congress had listened, it would be passing less acquisition legislation, doing a better jub of fulfilling its oversight responsibility of acquisition activities, and the FAR Councils would be performing their regulatory duty to implement Congress's acquisition policies. Unfortunately, Congress didn't listen--to its own creation. Today, Congress doesn't deal with fundamental acquisition matters, it deals with acquisition minutiae and esoteric details--especially when it comes to the Department of Defense (DoD). Someone has an idea and before you know Congress is passing another section of acquisition legislation. No idea is too small for Congress to more on its acquisition legislation dump-truck. For the most part, Congress meddles in the acquisition process through the House and Senate Armed Services Committees. These committees propose acquisition legislation in their annual National Defense Authorization Acts (NDAA) with much of it in Title VIII of the NDAAs. Title VIII is usually labeled: Acquisition Policy, Acquisition Management, and Related Matters. You can run from it, you can stall it, but you cannot hide from it. In the past 17 NDAAs, Congress has passed 725 sections of legislation in Title VIII of the NDAAs. Another 166 sections of acquisition legislation are included in other Titles of the 17 NDAAs. That's at least 891 sections of acquisition legislation in the past 17 NDAAs. What is worse, Congress is picking up its legislative pace and has passed more sections of acquisition legislation in the past 3 years than ever before. If you have been a follower of Wifcon.com for the past 17 years, you would be familiar with the 17 NDAAs by viewing them here. Take a look at the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2018 sections for Title VIII. Do you see coherent acquisition policy? No, you do not! Its a lot of junk legislation patched onto a growing body of junk legislation that is called Title 10 of the U. S. Code. Don't think you are safe if you are in a civilian agency. Remember, the NDAA is an annual event and during debate on the Senate or House NDAA versions, any stray piece of legislation may attach itself to the NDAA. It's kind of like a tick or leech latching onto you. Take another look at the sticky bomb idea on another of my blog entries. If you throw an amendment at the NDAA during the debate process, it might stick to the NDAA and become law. See if you can identify the source of TITLE XVII that is included in this year's NDAA. I'm getting angry again just thinking about this so I better end here. However, you should get angry too. Your the ones who have to deal with it on a daily basis. If you need some incentive to get angry, there are about 250 sections from the last 3 NDAAs waiting for the FAR Councils to deal with them. I've posted an article with tables to the Analysis Page with the same name as this blog entry. You can probably see my anger growing with sarcasm as I progress towards the end of that article--see the part on zombie legislation. Some of you are too young to remember the movie Network. However, there is a part of the movie where the character Howard Beale decides he has had enough. I looked at it again this morning.

I've added Government Technical Monitor (GTM) to HUD in my original post. The HUDAR defines the GTM as an assistant to the GTR. I remembered GTM this morning.

Many years ago, I tried to standardize the title of a Contracting Officer's Representative (COR) but couldn't get it done. I just noticed a topic about CORs and it reminded me of the various titles for a COR I encountered. I'm going to list a number of the names and acronyms that I remember with the agency that uses or used them. Feel free to correct the ones that I post since some of mine date back to the 1980s and may no longer be used. If the titles for COR's have been standardized by some government rule or regulation, mention that also. I don't remember it happening. If you are a government employee, please list the ones you have heard that agencies currently use. If you are outside of the government, please list the ones you have encountered while you worked in the private sector. Contracting Officer's Technical Representative (COTR) - various agencies. Contracting Officer's Representatives (COR) - various agencies Government Technical Representative (GTR), Government Technical Monitor (GTM) - HUD. Project Officer - DHHS

Sunnyo: Please enter one post in one category for the same item. You posted the same item in 3 different categories the first time and in 2 different categories the second.

Go to the tabs at the top of this page and click Workforce. At the left top, you will see current openings for a variety of contracting fields and internships. I updated them yesterday and the links now work.

This is one of the most frequently used bits of the Protests Page. FAR 11.002 (a) (1): Requirements - Restrictive provisions

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.

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.

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.

According to Congress.gov, H. R. 2810 was sent to the White House on Novembre 30, 2017.

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.

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

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.)

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.

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)

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.

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?

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.

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.

Yesterday, I found something entitled: Antideficiency Act Reports - Fiscal Year 2017. It was timely and I posted it on the News section of the Home Page. To my surprise, federal law requires agencies to submit violations of the Act to GAO. GAO collects them and posts them to its site on an annual basis. I don't know when GAO began posting these. I've seen questions about the act posted here. GAO provides a summary of each agency report and then links the agency letter it received to the case. There are 10 to 11 years of these annual reports with quite a few individual cases and reports. If someone wants to get a decent grasp of this type of violation, this should be helpful. I have added a link to GAO's web page that includes these reports on this site's Bona Fide Needs Rule page since it includes links to the Red Book. You can find the Bona Fide Needs Rule page by going to the "Legal" tab that this forum provides, placing your cursor on it, and looking to the left.

From time to time over the years, I searched for the Commission on Government Procurement (COGP) report--a 4-volume set-- online. I never could find it however I never gave up. Yesterday, I found it and I am excited to share it with you. It was published in December 1972, and in my opinion, is still the most thorough study of the federal contracting process. Some of you may have heard of it, some of you may have read it, some of you may have searched through the supporting documentation for the study. I was fortunate to have done all three. In addition to the 4-volume COGP set, I have added the GAO reports that monitored the implementation of the COGP recommendations. At the very least, you should click the links I have added and browse through parts of the report and its recommendations. Then look at the GAO reports and see what was done to implement the COGP's recommendations. It is federal contracting history.

This will appear in tomorrow's issue of the Federal Register. In regard to FAC 2005-96; FAR Case 2017-015

This will appear in tomorrow's issue of the Federal Register. In regard to FAC 2005-96; FAR Case 2017-015 So 2 is the winner. The corrected document will be posted on the Home Page tomorrow.

When an item is published in the Federal Register incorrectly, it is corrected some day later. There is no standard amount of days to issue a correction, its corrected when someone finds the error. Over the weekend, it was pointed out that the "new" FAC had a surprise for readers. So what am I going to do about it? I've got it. A Poll about when it will be deleted or . . . . if it will be deleted. I counted Federal Register issue number 1 as today's issue so your first choice is "2 Federal Register issues." I made the Poll so that your vote would be anonymous. I was a little carried away and added a few extra choices

The Washington Post is a pay-to-view site. However, you might try something so that you may gain access to a pay-to-view site for a specific article. If you are blocked by the Post's servers and told you have viewed all of your freebies, google an item from the article. I googled "Greenert" as a search and then changed the search to "news." Voila. I clicked the link in the news area and I read the article. Sometimes this works, usually it does not.