bob7947

In questioning the feasibility of a due date for an RFQ, I was reworking the process in my head and deciding what it should look and work like. In that mode, I don't concern myself with the existence of government forms, regulations, or laws. They can all be changed. I realize that is beyond the original posters (OP) intent but the sloppiness of the procurement and GAO's decisions upset me.

I'm still sorting this out in my mind. At present, I'm on the side of accepting due dates for receipt of quotations. However, I may change my mind. Below are two blurbs from GAO decisions which also trouble me. OK GAO, what is the standard? Apparently "requesting" is not strong enough but "must" is. OK, but it could be used as a procurement rule that GAO may pull out of its bag of precedents sometime in the future. If you look at the second case that I used in my post (Advanced Decisions Vectors, Inc. B-412307: Jan 11, 2016,) you will see that the agency warned quoters 3 times aboiut a due date for quotes. That wasn't enough for GAO's attorneys, they decided to support this by using the wrong clause in an effort to make their position stronger. Using the wrong clause with all its citations to offers and offeror in a decision dealing with an RFQ is shoddy workmanship. In government contracting, we all should recognize key words, their meaning, and their differences. When you hear the word bid versus proposal, it means something. When you hear the acronym IFB versus RFP, it means something. When you hear the word shall versus may, it means something, and when you hear the word quote versus offer, it means something. Using the wrong terminology can cost the government money.

I've been troubled with this topic--not the responses by any member. Assume that the agency intended this to be an RFQ. Then why is FAR clause 52.212-1 in this solicitation with all the references to offer and offeror? I shave my head so I can't pull my hair out. Forget that any possible protest is late for now. Earlier this week, I viewed this page in the protest section of Wifcon.com and found this: You will find something similar near this blurb on that same page but I didn't look further. I focused on the expressly providing part of the first quote I highlighted and wondered what that meant. Then I went back to this topic and read the original post with the reference to the wrong clause for this procurement. I did a search at GAO using RFQ and wrong clause. Voila. This popped out first. FAR clause 52.212-1(f)(2)(i). (emphasis provided) Advanced Decisions Vectors, Inc. B-412307: Jan 11, 2016 (I did not correct the font in the quoted text above because GAO had it indented and I didn't want to indent it myself. So you may have to squint to read it.) OK GAO. Three times in the first paragraph of the quoted text above is enough for me to accept that it is expressly providing. We need a hybrid where an aspect of a quote uses offer rules and I am the correct person to come up with a new term for such a hybrid quote/offer. It is Quofer! That's better than contracting mongrel. I'm thinking about a defintion in FAR Pat 2 and sending it to the FAR Councils. Now we move to the second part of the quote. GAO quotes FAR Clause 52.212-1 since it was in the quofer. Doh, GAO.

I noticed a memorandum from OFPP today. I added it on the Home Page and I am adding it here because it is nearly a month old. It is "Myth-Busting #4" - Strengthening Engagement with Industry Partners through Innovative Business Practices.

Normally, the Committee for Purchase From People Who Are Blind or Severely Disabled publishes its proposed additions and deletions to its Procurement List each Friday. Since it involves government contracting, I post it to the Home Page in the Contracting Rules and Tools column whenever it appears without giving them much thought and I don't read the Committee's posts. I am not familiar with the Committee's rules but do know that its sources can be/are mandatory on the government. However, recently I have read the content of the Committee's weekly postings and was surprised that the items are proposed as required sources of supply for some individual federal agencies or some individual contracting activities. It made me realize that these postings are more important than I originally thought. As a result, I am posting a yes or no question with your answers being anonymous. If you answer no, after reading the Committee's posts, you too may realize these Committee postings are more important than you originally thought.

Recently, I've noticed that posts are made hours before a member is approved. In short, you may have successfully posted to the forum before you are approved. It just won't appear until you are approved. I approve each request for membership at different times during the day.

On May 1, 2019, H. R.2450 - Military Base Operations and Infrastructure Innovative Management Act, was introduced. I read it twice and did not notice any restrictions--yet--on contracting to accomplish the goals of such a demonstration program. In fact, the stated purpose of the bill includes testing the feasibility and benefits of using innovative technologies and systems. We have many contracting members that are involved in base operations around the world. The 2 sponsors of the bill are mid-ranking members of the House Defense Appropriations committee. I have no idea if either of them can influence the House Defense Authorizing committee and I saw no companion bill in the Senate. Assuming that this bill can attach itself to the annual National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) and it is interpreted as including contracting, can you figure out a way you can use it to solve a problem in base operations contracting? I updated the Legislation page and remember adding some bills that may interest you. H. R. 2500 is just a placeholder at this point. I think the Buy American revisions may make their way into the NDAA this year because there are both bills in the House and Senate.

I've been reading some discussions from the Contracting Workforce Forum. As some of you know, I abhor the use of management phrases like "cool kids organizations." What the hell is a "cool kids organization?" Is it an excuse for something? I spent my working career listenting to the latest meaningless phrases like that. I was around when the words Human Capital became popular. The words Human Resource preceded it. If you look at the definition for capital and resource, you will see they are much the same. Perhaps it is my own personal perception but I always hated the thought of being considered an inanimate object by some stiff holding a management position. Why not get rid of the words capital and resource and just treat each other as human? That leads me to a story about a so-called manager--think Senior Executive Service--who clearly had risen beyond his abilities within an organizaion and one of his unfortunate underlings. The manager wanted to fire the underling because the manager claimed that the underling lacked any initiative. Oh, how things can go so wrong for an incompetent manager. I remember the manager's face as having a permanent scowl and marching around looking like that. He must have been permanently constipated. No one wanted to work for the manager because he was an asshole and he screamed at people. All I can remember about the underling is that he reminded me of one of the Mario Brothers because of his mustache. One morning, the underling was standing on a crowded subway platform waiting for a train. The signal showed that the train was approaching the platform when a woman fell onto the track. To save the woman on the track, someone had to quickly jump down onto the track--avoid electrocution by the 3rd rail--and lift the woman to the platform. There was no time to hesitate. Only one person jumped onto the tracks that morning to save the woman. He didn't have time to think about what to do, he didn't have time to change into a Superman outfit, he just did it within seconds. The moment that he saved the woman and climbed back onto the platform, the underling was hailed as a hero. I can still see the newspaper article in my mind describing the hero's actions. How do you fire a hero because he lacked initiative? You don't. You pull the paperwork that the manager was planning to use to fire the underling and you make sure it never finds the light of day. And, that's what happened. Years later on the day I retired, I remember seeing the hero in the GAO lobby. He still had that mustache. The manager went no futher in GAO and was no longer there. So what's the moral of this story? Its obvious. You'll figure it out.

Thank you.

I've updated it through FAC 2019-2. of this week here. .

I have to update them.

I posted the new Circular to the Home Page.

You can contact members in private by going to the upper right of this page and looking at the letter icon. That is the messenger. It goes between those involved in the message. One caveat. The person you have a private message with may be an interested party. You may want to get a feel if the party is involved in the procurement by asking some questions of him/her.

I will keep the thread open for a week after the orignal poster's second post. On Monday, I will close it unless there is a response to the questions.

here_2_help: I think I may have found a solution by using a different government service. If so, I think I can begin updating them this weekend. When dealing with the federal government, one must know "the workaround." If I can, I will deal with it.

BigBob and rsherbondy appear to be the same poster.

In past years, updates to the Legislation Page were posted to the Home Page on nearly every Monday. However, that is when the Government Printing Office (GPO) and Congress.gov updated legislation in about 2 or 3 days after the legislation was introduced. That has changed dramatically. Currently, GPO and Congress.gov now update legislation 2 weeks or more after it is introduced. To counter the agencies' tardiness, I tried to find online Press Releases issued by the sponsors of the legislation that explains the legislation. However, the Press Releases have dried up. As a result, I still update the Legislation page every 2 weeks but don't post that it has been updated because I never know if and when the GPO and Congress.gov will update the legislation.

CB&I AREVA MOX Services, LLC v. U. S., Nos. 16-950C, 17-2017C, 18-80C, 18-522C, 18-677C, 18-691C, 18-921C, 18-1779C, 19- 245C, April 8, 2019. This opinion is related to a dispute between the above contractor and the NNSA. I didn't add it to the Home Page but I thought it was interesting and someone else might. So, the link is here.

I posted the full CAAC Letter on the Home Page. The issue was discussed here last year.

COR . . . Shall be . . . unless . . . . but an underling must be . . . . I could not find an example fitting the unless COR type. I'm guessing that the wording that is being questioned has something to do with the FAR section being in Part 1 and the DOSAR section being in DOSAR's Part 42.

Oh Pepe, that's a nasty way to go. Can you shape shift into something else?

I think that should be it.

Guardian: There are italics throughout the text. Do you want the italics removed?

Guardian: I just saw your post with the strike-throughs. The software had a hiccup which I an correct. I am on my way out the door. If it isn't fixed within minutes, I will fix your post when I am home again. The conversion of the word document added lines of puncutaton that I must carefully eliminate. I will complete my editing when I return. This is going to take me several sessions to edit. It won't be as you hoped but it takes a long time to remove all the mess. Bob

I began working in 1971. A year later, I completed my trainee assignments at GAO, and was forced into something called the Procurement and Systems Acquisition Division -- pronounced "P" sad. I couldn't figure out what I had done for GAO to stuff me into P-sad. Actually, my trainee assgnments ended at the end of a month and P-sad was the only place that was left for a new trainee. I have no regrets for being stuffed. Anyway, when I started in P-sad I remember people talking about someone named Ernie Fitzgerald who became famous in the late 1960s. After talking with Vern yesterday, I thought I would do an internet search on Ernie Fitzgerald this morning. I found that Ernie Fitzgerald died at the age of 92 on January 31, 2019. I believe it is important for a relic like me to introduce you to other contracting relics from the past. Then I found this wonderful article with a 43-minute C-SPAN video of Fitzgerald from 1989. This article and video are provided by the Project on Government Oversight (POGO). So here is POGO's: A Tribute to Pentagon Whistleblower Ernie Fitzgerald.