Jump to content
The Wifcon Forums and Blogs

bob7947

Root Admin
  • Content Count

    1,869
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by bob7947

  1. The Partial Government Shutdown is having an effect on Federal Contractors, Subcontractors, Vendors, Suppliers, etc. and their employees. Once the Shutdown ends, there will be studies estimating the cost of the Shutdown. But what about now? How bad is it for Federal Contractors and Their Employees out there? This poll asks a simple question with answers from 1 to 5 with 5 being the hardest hit. This poll is anonymous.
  2. The Partial Government Shutdown is having an effect on many, if not all of us. Once the Shutdown ends, there will be studies estimating the cost of the Shutdown. But what about now? How bad is it for Federal Employees out there? This Poll provides a numbered response to answer that question using the numbers of 1 to 5 with 5 being the hardest hit. This poll is anonymous.
  3. I've been doing research on a government contracting program and came across this item in the Federal Register. Do you know what it is about? ------------------------------------------------------------------------- WITHDRAWING LANDS FOR USE OF ATOMIC ENERGY COMMISSION IN CONNECTION WITH NEVADA TEST SITE, ADDITIONAL TO THOSE WITHDRAWN BY PUBLIC LAND ORDER NO. 805 OF FEBRUARY 12, 1952 By virtue of the authority vested in the President, and pursuant to Executive Order No. 10355 of May 26, 1952, it is ordered as follows: Subject to valid existing rights, the following-described public lands in Nevada are hereby withdrawn from all forms of appropriation under the public land laws, including the mining and mineral-leasing laws and-the act of July 31, 1947 (61 Stat. 681; 30 U. S. C. 601- 604) as amended, and reserved for use of the Atomic Energy Commission in connection with the Nevada Test Site: Beginning_ at a point that has coordinates-- Northing, 911,551.82; Easting, 7 14,867.37; Latitude 37°15'07.268"1 N., Longitude 115°55'42.268"' W., which is the northeast corner of the present -Atomic- Energy Commission Proving Ground as withdrawn by Public Land Order No. 805, thence N. 0°32'47" W., 2 miles to the Intersection of a line bearig west of the-point for a corner of Tps. 7 and 8 S., Rs. 55 and 56 E.; East, 10 miles along line for Tps. 7 and 8 S.; South, 6 miles to intersection of the 2d Standard Parallel South and Its. 55 and 56 E. West, 10 miles along said Parallel to east boundary of Public Land Order No. 805 N. 0°32'47" W., 4 miles along said boundary to point of beginning. The above described tract will embrace the following lands, if and when surveyed: - MOUNT DIABLO MERIDIAN T. 8 S., R. 54 E., Secs. 1 to 4, 9 to 16, 21 to 28, and 33 to 36 inclusive. T. 8 S., R. 55 E. The area described contains approximately 38,400 acres. ROGER ERNST, Assistant Secretary-of the Interior. JUNE 20, 1958
  4. Michael: You wrote. You said agreement. I assume it is a contract. We assume your contract has a disputes clause as mentioned by others. If you cannot find one in your contract, let the posters know. That clause, backed by federal law, tells you what to do and what the contracting officer must do. You will note that there are dollar thresholds and time limits in the clause. You believe you did the work, your have a right to be paid for it. As ji said, follow the directions in your contract's clause. Forget the one last chance, force the government to do something by enforcing your rights under the clause.
  5. Yes, they were found around Roswell and shipped to the future Area 51.
  6. The item in the box was an A-12, successor to the U-2, and the precursor to the SR-71. They left Burbank, California in those boxes in the early 1960s and were moved to Area 51 for testing. The A-12 was, and still is, the fastest and highest flying air-breathing plane. One of its pilots referred to the one-seater A-12 as the Hot Rod and the 2-seater SR-71 as the family model.
  7. OK, Pepe. You have to save everyone and tell us what everything is. When they were moving the boxes, they hit someone and paid them off for their troubles on the spot.
  8. You have to have a place to hide the aliens and their spaceship. Here is google maps' image of the general area.
  9. The item I posted is Public Land Order 1662 isued by the Department of the Interior. There were several different names given to this area. However, most know it as Area 51.
  10. I was looking at an online database and I found a blurb for an interagency agreement between NSF and DoD. I don't have access to the interagency agreement. The work was for logistics support provided by DoD at the North and South Pole. What interested me was that NSF names its Program Office but lists the DoD sponsor as DFAS. "Sponsor" in this case is normally the awardee which I would have assumed would be a Logistics office at DoD. Can anyone imagine why DFAS is listed as the Sponsor?
  11. I got one of my links backwards but I think it can be found.
  12. NSF is the funding agency and it ships money to DFAS, which is a defense agency. Here is the Act. Do a "find" in chrome for "defense." It doesn't seem to be non-defense. Take a look at the U.S. Antarctic Program Blue Ribbon Panel Report listed at the top of the NSF Antarctic Infrastructure and Logistics (AIL) page. Look at the Chairman for that Panel. 😁 Now, look at the equipment listed on the page for logistics. It may be that NSF is renting that logistics equipment and paying DFAS for it. This recent news article lists an NSF "contractor" and "subcontractor." The NSF and DoD Interagency Agreement (IA) appears to be for rental of DoD equipment which may be operated for NSF by its contractor and subcontractor under a separate NSF contract. That would make sense. You can find the NSF/DoD IA starting here. Click California. Click DoD. Click 1758735. Click FastLane Award Info. I'm guessing that if the IA runs for its full term NSF will pay DFAS roughly $300 million.
  13. A couple of days ago, the COFC issued a protest opinion in Pinnacle Solutions, Inc.. In this procurement, there were 2 protests at the GAO--one sustained with a corrective action and one dismissed. The COFC opinion in Pinnacle was the third protest and was dismissed. I did not post the Pinnacle opinion because the 3 protests stretched only about 18 months.. Someone mentioned in another forum that the issue of successive protests and corrective actions was a problem. Earlier, in another procurement, there was a series of GAO protests, corrective actions, and a COFC protest that streched for a period of 4 years. If I remember correctly, the protester was able to improve its techicnal evaluation score significantly. However, before these 2 protests, I never noticed successive protests as a possible problem. My questions to the community are: Will you benefit if I make a separate section in the bid protest area dealing with successive bid protests and their effect. What are the possible effects of successive protests and what should I address?
  14. 3 for: In 2014, Dept of State issued a solicitation. In 2016, there was a GAO protest. (DynCorp International LLC, B-411126.4, B-411126.5, B-411126.6: Dec 20, 2016) In 2017, before the Court of Federal Claims, No. 16-1704 C, November 16, 2017 In 2018, Federal Circuit, 2018-1209, December 10, 2018.
  15. bob7947

    Overriding the evaluators

    ". . . source selection officials are not bound by the evaluation judgments of lower level evaluators; they may come to their own reasonable evaluation conclusions." (PiperCoughlin, LLC B-414352.2: Apr 17, 2018) " . . . source selection officials are not bound by the evaluation judgments of lower level evaluators; they may come to their own reasonable evaluation conclusions." (TruLogic, Inc. B-297252.3, January 30, 2006) "The SSA then, in making his decision, documented his rationale for his concurrence with the SSAC’s evaluation of the protester’s proposal under the technical approach and management approach factors, as well as the higher ratings that the SSAC assigned to PiperCoughlin under the past performance factor." (PiperCoughlin, LLC B-414352.2: Apr 17, 2018) "The record, however, shows a well-documented, reasoned evaluation and award decision without evidence of bias." (TruLogic, Inc. B-297252.3, January 30, 2006) "The SSA, however, did not explain how she reached her conclusions; rather she simply stated that they met the definition. The SSA relied on this finding as part of her determination that MIRACORP’s proposal provided the best value to the Government. Having failed to adequately document the basis for her conclusion regarding MIRACORP’s past performance, the determination that MIRACORP’s lower-priced, lower-rated proposal was more similar in technical ratings to TAG’s proposal than the SSEB found is not supported by the record. We find the agency’s best-value determination to be unreasonable because it is relies, in part, on a determination that is inadequately documented." (The Arcanum Group, Inc. B-413682.2, B-413682.3: Mar 29, 2017) That should give you an idea of how to start. Sometimes GAO may smack you in the face and write: It is a general rule. Some may say that the above decisions are simply GAO following FAR language. They may be but here's the deal. You may be faced with a chicken or the egg question when asking if a GAO decision led to a regulation or if GAO is following the regulation in deciding a protest. It doesn't always matter since you are seeking knowledge and the decision expands your knowledge and understanding.
  16. bob7947

    Overriding the evaluators

    Lotus: There are nearly 20 years of decisions/opinions by GAO, COFC and CAFC posted here. Quite a few of them involve the subject your question covers. Not all decisons and opinions are posted here because of the repetitive nature of the protests. You can develop the 2 or 3 rules that will answer your question. See if you can find them and post them here in bulleted form. By the end of the day, you will be quite knowledgeable. The link is below. FAR 15.308: Source selection/tradeoff decision
  17. Federal Acquisition Regulation FAR Case 2016-011: Limitations on Subcontracting. (December 4, 2018)
  18. 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.
  19. He rode off into the sunset.
  20. 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.
  21. A Member sent me this letter from the House Small Business Committee to the Acting Administrator of the Office of Federal Procurement Policy. You can find the letter at the bottom of the committee press release.
  22. 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.
  23. bob7947

    NDAA Implementation

    Fascinating.
  24. 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.
×