Jump to content
The Wifcon Forums and Blogs


Root Admin
  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by bob7947

  1. Pepe: Your comments were deleted because they are inconsistent with this forum. However, I didn't feel they required your immediate banishment. Leave it at that. If the 8(a) program is race-based, try it in court. If you are correct, you can make it temporary and then end it. Don't just whine about it. Vern was correct in his appraisal of your knowledge of this issue. This is not a private forum. It is private property but it is open to all who have contracting experience and who abide by its rules.
  2. I hid some language in some posts and hid other posts altogether. However, I did not ban anyone. There are studies on the internet that will either support or not support just about any program in Part 19 of the FAR. If you want to discus these programs, use one of the studies based on factual data to support your case. Don't use your opinons or gut feelings. On 6/16/18, I revisited the posts in this forum. I made more deletions. I anticipate making more.
  3. Vern posted Big Is Beautiful: Debunking the Myth of Small Business, by Robert D. Atkinson and Michael Lind to begin this topic. I thought it would be opinion-based but I think it may be supported by facts. One of the authors is President of the Information Technology and Innovation Foundation. The author has made the book circuit and lists reviews and interviews on the linked page that add information. I found an interview interesting.
  4. Anytime we stray into this area, I must review the discussion word for word as a matter of policy. I will do that at a future date. I am not claiming that anyone wrote anything improper but I will say that my version of strict scrutiny makes the SCOTUS or any other court look like kittens.
  5. Someone asked me how to get information on number of member posts. I didn't know because the software had changed. Well, I found it. If you to the menu and click More you will see Leaderboard. Click Leaderboard and click Top Members and you will get a drop-down menu on the right top. You can find information on posters there. I don't use the Leaderboard for anything.
  6. bob7947


    There was a discussion dealing with SBA and the FAR from the past. It might be useful hre. FAR trumps SBA Regs? I forgot to add that the discussion was from 2009 when this discussion software used a wacky editor that added its own preferred punctuation. There may be a fairly recent--and important--SCOTUS decision that touches on an agency's regulation too. I cannot think of it at the moment but I posted it here somewhere.
  7. S.2987, the John S. McCain National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2019 was reported out of committee with a written report last week. The report explains the Senate provisions in Title VIII. There are plenty of provisions in Title VIII so I expect the House version will go through changes when this thing is finally passed.
  8. On May 9 and 10, the House Committee on Armed Services held a markup of its version of the NDAA for FY 2019, H. R. 5155. Below is a blurb from the Chairman's Mark Summary. As you can see, there is a mention of 1947. That is the date of the Armed Services Procurement Act of 1947. To get a sense of what the full Committee reported to the House, you can use the Chairman's Mark and go to p. 110 (numbers on bottom of pages). Look at items listed in the "800" sections. There were some relatively small perfections proposed to the bill by the full committee. They are listed as amendments below. Amendments: Full Committee En Bloc Package #1. Full Committee En Bloc Package #2. Full Committee En Bloc Package #4. Full Committee En Bloc Package #6. Once the bill is debated in the House, its free-for-all starts. This is the beginning stages for the new DoD contracting provisions. The bill, as it was officially reported out of the Committee, will be available in a week or two, or less.
  9. I would not use the memo that the previous poster linked because it is dated June 5. The memo I linked on June 5 for June 6 is now dated June 7. I would use the June 7 memo on the Home Page of this site because there may have been an edit by the issuer.
  10. 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.
  11. bob7947

    COR Conflict of Interest

    What does your firm's employment agreeement with its employees say in the area of confidentiality?
  12. In the Case of a protest to the Court of Federal Claims (COFC), there is the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit which hears appeals of COFC decisions. But, how about appeals from a GAO bid protest decision. After GAO renders a bid protest decision, there may be a request to GAO for reconsideration. However, this question asks something totally different: Is there a forum above GAO that hears appeals of GAO bid protest decisions.
  13. bob7947

    Appeals of GAO Bid Protest Decisions?

    Pepe: Interesting. However, GAO reports to Congress and I found no requirement for an agency to report (appeal) to Congress. Instances of agencies not following GAO recommendations are rare and a quick look shows, that when they do occur, it may be caused by disagreements with the COFC. If the courts and agencies are eliminated from hearing protests, GAO protests should be dealt with in 100 days. If they aren't, GAO must report its failure to Congress in its annual report. Before I posted the poll, I asked myself if there is an avenue for appealing a GAO protest decision and I couldn't think of any. I looked at the law quickly and couldn't find any. Then I asked a popular search engine and found this from the Public Contracting Institute. Below are excerpts from the law I identified.
  14. This is the NDAA for FY 2019 that was reported out of the HASC.
  15. 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?
  16. Yesterday, I noticed another two-timing protest at GAO--Pinnacle Solutions, Inc.--so we may have another three-timer soon if they protest to COFC. The top note here is about Pinnacle Solutions, Inc.. I didn't look to see if the protests were related.
  17. I forgot to post another successive protest case this weekend. It is a little different that earlier ones, in that, the original GAO protest was from 2 unnamed protesters whie the 2nd GAO protest and the COFC protest was from Technik. Details are below and the COFC case is Technik Inc. v. U. S. and VSolvit LLC. January 12, 2017 - RFQ issued, Summer 2017 - first GAO protest from 2 unsuccessful offerors, GSA took voluntary corrective action and canceled award to Technik, GAO dismissed protest August 30, 2017 - GSA issued second RFQ, December 7, 2017 - GSA awarded second RFQ to VSolvit December 15, 2017 - Technik protested to GAO, March 22, 2018 - GAO denied Technik protest, April 6, 2018 - Technik protest to COFC April 20, 2018 - COFC denied Technik protest
  18. I've been thinking about how I would build a federal contracting process from scratch. I'm sure there are bits and pieces of discussion on here but I am thinking about more than that--say, putting it all in one place under a special forum on this board. First, we need to have specific finite items to discuss. For example, maybe a forum called "Starting from Scratch." Within that forum, we have areas, such as, laws, regulations, personnel, etc. How would we build a new system. I can set it up, if I can figure out the new upgrade. However, there needs to be people providing ideas. I know, we have an area for the 809 panel and maybe before I'm dead they will have a final product. Maybe such a new effort would draw new participants. I'm just wondering if anyone cares. If you do, give me some ideas. If there are any responses, I can set it up for you. You can even approve of the design for the forum.
  19. That's OK. When I found that Attorny General opinion in the GAO Library on its 6th floor, I was excited for 2 reasons. First, the decision was interesting. Second, the volumes were first editions but they were annotated by individuals from agencies that preceded GAO. Because of that, they had little value. I tried to share my excitement about the first ediditons with the librarian and I was given the classic doh stare. After a few more dohs, I shrunk back to my little corner of the law library. I had access to all sorts of things including the hard copy legislative histories of procurement laws such as the Competition in Contracting Act (CICA). That's where Lawton Chiles came from. His versions of CICA began in the late 1970s. I did the same for 87-653 at 76 Stat 528. FPASA, 95-507, etc. I cannot remember them all. I had access to the B-files and ordered them from an elderly woman in the procurement law branch. She told me about the A-files that prededed the B-files. She's probably in her 120s now and swallowed up by the cloud. Eventually, Lexis emptied out the law library and I was the last regular researcher that used the place. I don't even know if it exists now. If it does, its shrouded in cobwebs. Anyone want to guess what the U.S.C.C.A.N. is? Don't cheat.
  20. Vern: Did you recommend to their agency that they be quarantined?
  21. Nonense Vern. They need to make time or maybe they need someone to explain in a 10 minute discussion. That's all it takes. Probably the time it takes to drink a six-pack and a family size bag of doritos. If they don't take the time to read or hear about where we've been, they will never spend the time to do what you want. I agree that they should strive to be the best at their jobs. I just want them to be complete. That isn't nonsense.
  22. Vern Don: I can accept that. I didn't read and study those things until 15 years into my career. Now, those who are interested and have the time can look at the citations and learn some good stuff without having to do the research that I did. I know one or two people here will check my citations. I'll probably do it again myself because I want to see it again. Vern: The people who don't know it is there. Come to think of it, I'm going to look at some of those citations again.
  23. Vern: Years ago, I don't know if it was before CICA or after, FSS was using negotiation to buy autos. They were using standards instead of specifications. I never saw them asking anyone for clarifications, discussions, best and finals (used back then), etc. Negotiation worked. I could have challenged their use of negotiation instead of formal advertising/sealed bidding but I decided it might have had a detrimental effect on FSS. I let it slide. In 1842, the U. S. Congress laid out 4 basic procedures for advertising at 5 Stat. 526. They are public notice of the agency need, sealed offers, public opening of bids, and award to the lowest bidder. I'm sure GAO and its predecessors filled in the blanks. They should look there for exceptions or conditions to advertising that permitted something called negotiaion. Then they should go to 1862 and think qui tam. That is what members should strive to learn--everything they can. They should go to 1 Stat 234, 2 Stat 536, (2 Ops. Att'y Gen. 257., 259). 12 Stat 103. Take on ASPA of 1947 and FPASA of 1949. Read the legislative histories. Study the COGP and what it said. (I've posted links to it and GAO reports that Congress required.) Find out why there is an OFPP, why there is a CICA, etc. Find out about the old House Committee on Government Operations and the Senate Committee of Government Affairs. They need to know how PL 87-653 came about and who Carl Vinson, Lawton Chiles, and Jack Brooks were. I've been there, I've done that, decades ago. Who else knows anything about procurement history. I'm sure there are a handful of people here that do and they are the ones that post here. There are a handful that will check my citations to statute and maybe look for that Attorney General opinion. Those that do will say huh and enjoy any new knowlege they gain. I'm sure that Thornberry has no idea of what came before him and that is one reason he spews crap before us. That is the problem, too few people care. It's easier to be an automaton.
  24. I've just posted the first item--Should Sealed Bidding be Abolished? There is a poll to go with it since it is a yes or no response. It can be discussed also. It's a race to 10 votes for either yes or no. If we cannot get 10 votes for a yes or a no, the community gets a Doh? The incentive or disincentive is the fate of Wifcon.com. I really don't care anymore and I won't participate either.
  25. Vern: Thank you for the offer. There will be no other prizes. A free and privately held discussion board is the prize. Members need to understand the importance of the highlighted text and they must decide if they are leaders or followers. This is the site's Thermopylae.