Jump to content
The Wifcon Forums and Blogs


Root Admin
  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by bob7947

  1. I add this article because it might be pertinent. Pay attention to Costar III, LLC, ASBCA No. 56479, 11-2 BCA 34830 (2011) which is listed under the Tables in the article. The article is: The Christian Doctrine: The Double-Secret Contract Clause. Seyfarth Shaw LLP.
  2. This Topic is closed in accordance with Rule 15: 15. If the original poster abandons the original post for a significant period of time, the topic may be removed or closed.
  3. I added another blurb to my post showing costs associated with FEMA efforts. It's in bold italics.
  4. I was wondering what effect this Hurricane Michael National Interest Exemption has on anything. I've added this FEMA item a little later than my post. I'm also wondering if FEMA's reconstruction efforts can be used to support a claim against the government for increased costs. kathilou: I don't want to intrude on your discussion. If you feel I am, tell me and I will go away.
  5. Wikipedia. I'm adding the Wikipedia blurb about Hurricane Michael as background.
  6. Thank you mtclymer for starting this. I edited your post to make it look the way I intended it to look. Now, I can go back to my directions and improve them.
  7. Give Cewheaton a bit of time. OP posted early morning Monday. May be on travel, vacation etc. If there is nothin from Cewheaton by Tuesday of next week . . . .
  8. GAO's automatic stay provision is in 31 U.S. Code § 3553. Review of protests; effect on contracts pending decision. The process is kicked off by 31 USC 3553 (b)(1) which states: The automatic stay provision is at 31 USC 3553 (c)(1)here: Below that is the agency waiver provisions, etc. My initial thought was to take the automatic out of the stay provision and require GAO to determine whether they will invoke a stay or not. That would be somewhat similar to what the Court of Federal Claims (COFC) does in authorizing a restraining order. However, that takes time. Huh, why does GAO get an automatic stay when the COFC has to decide based on a set of rules. Then look at what formerfed posted: If fee or cost and fee is witheld on a frivolous protest, does that kick off the disputes clause. Should the Boards of Contract Appeals determine what frivolous is too? I was stumbling around google and found this article from The Procurement Lawyer published by the American Bar Association. Have fun with that one.
  9. I posted this topic in anger last week. Then I hid it. Now it is back. In reading: Judge Bruggink's opinion in Oracle America, Inc. v. U. S. and Amazon Web Services,  Inc., No. 18-1880C, July 26, 2019 I read the inevitable. The quote starts on p. 37 and then on p. 43 Judge Bruggink states: Apprently, a workaround was found. You will have to read a couple of pages of the protest to understand the quotes I added here. Maybe we can say no harm was done. But the Judge faced the issue of layers of legislation himself in this opinion. I've noted the problem and the solution in the Wifcon Blog over the years. I'm angry again and I'm going swimming.
  10. In the JEDI Cloud procurement, DoD is seeking an enterprise cloud services solution that will accelerate DoD’s adoption of cloud computing technology. DoD concluded that a single award, IDIQ would best meet its needs. On December 6, 2018, Oracle America, Inc. filed a pre-award bid protest. Judge Bruggink of the the Court of Federal Claims issued his opinion on July 26, 2019. It was posted on Wifcon.com's Home Page on July 29, 2019. Oracle's protest had three primary challenges. First, it argued that the decision to use a single award as opposed to multiple awards was a violation of law. This argument has two components because the decision to use a single award had to be made both by an Under Secretary of Defense and independently by the contracting officer (CO). Second, it argued that the use of certain gate criteria, the application of which led to Oracle’s exclusion, were improper. Third, it contends that conflicts of interest on the part of DoD employees and Amazon Web Services, Inc. (AWS), one of the other offerors, prejudicially affected the procurement. AWS intervened in the protest. The procurement is valued at about $10 billion and has drawn lobbyists and politicians into action. I won't say more. I've added a poll to see if anyone is following this procurement and to what degree, if any. All responses are anonymous.
  11. There is no reason for any account to be removed. Seeking clarification is not trolling.
  12. Get Ready! H. R. 2500 and S.1790 have passed their respective houses of Congress. S.1790 has around 19 provisions in Title 8 dealing with contracting while H. R. 2500 has over 60 provisions in Title 8 dealing with contracting. I've only scanned the names of the provisions but there is a lot of new garbage that is coming DoD's way. I haven't looked to see if any of the garbage is being tied in to civilian agency contracting in them. I've updated the Legislation page so you can find links to them there. Remember, this flotsam is still far from adding to the already created garbage. In the months ahead, one of the Houses will pass an NDAA version, then a conference to iron out the differences--probably a paper, scissor, rock game to decide on provisons to include in the conference report, then an agreement and conference report, and then a new law.
  13. At times, an individual's web browser is stuck on an old image and cannot see the new image. I had this problem long ago when an advertiser couldn't see an advertisement on this site. For some reason, MSIE would not show the ad until I beat it into submission. It took hours for the ad to appear but it did. The Section 809 panel appears on google chrome and MSIE. I have an android phone and it appears there. I wouldn't worry much if you cannot see it since it hasn't had a post since February.
  14. Neil: I will try to make the purpose of this more clear in the future. However, it must run on its own. In short any original poster (OP) starts a topic under the other forums, eg., workforce, contract award, contract administration, etc. The OP says he/she is going to do something. What happened is for any OP that asked something in any other forum and said he/she was going to do something to return here to --What Happened--and tell us what he/she did.
  15. You posted a contracting topic for discussion or asked a contracting question. Often, we are left wondering how your issue or topic was resolved. For example, did you contact the contracting officer for further information, file a bid protest, file a claim, etc. Here is how you can use "What Happened?" Find the discussion or question you originally posted by going to it. While you are there, go to the "url address" window above and highlight it with your cursur. Copy it. Once you have it copied, return to this area and start your "What Happened" discussion. Paste the url address that you copied into you initial post in this area. After the first post is made, others may respond to it. This is a test done for a member. If it is used, it will stay. If not, it will be removed. If this area is removed, the posts will be moved to the original topic, if possible. If you have any questions or suggestion let me know. The Section 809 panel discussion area, that was once at the top of the page, is now listed at the bottom of this page.
  16. The CIA source did not specifiy the contract type but I assume it was a cost reimbursement of some type. There was a committee which was not an SSEB nor SSA. I think it was called the Land Committee--after the Polaroid guy who was on it Lockheed's cost estimate was about 30 percent lower than Convair's. Both technical designs were judged equal. However, there was doubt that Convair's design could work. Lockheed's past performance was judged better because of the performance on the U-2 which was completed ahead of schedule and under cost. Lockheed's experience was judged better than Convair because of the Skunk Work's and its cleared personnel who worked on classified projects. The terms past performance and experience were not used but you can fit what they did into those terms. I would assume that the A-12 and SR-71 were classified as a major project or system. If you look at it that way, the design competition was between Convair and Lockheed and others for about 18 months. After the award to Lockheed, there was some testing done on the A-12 mockup. The building of 10 planes in the CIA contract could be considered the low-rate-initial production (LRIP). Finally, the Air Force's 20 or 30 SR-71s could fit as the the production run. The SR-71 is an A-12 with a back seat and different reconnaisance equipment. There was a one-on-one test between the 2 planes to see which could do the best surveillance job. It is said the result was inconclusive. Which plane flew the highest and fastest? The A-12 probably was capable of flying a little bit faster and a little bit higher because of its lower weight. However, it really doesn't matter because they are about the same plane. If you look at the two planes, the top speed that either could achieve was probably about MACH 3.35 and the top altitude was about 100,000 feet. If you begin with the design competition for the A-12 and end when the SR-71 was first operational, we're talking about 4.5 years. I'd have to look but I think the A-12 was operational a year or so earlier. So, we are looking at a program that began as beyond the state of the art and into production in less than 4.5 years. Maybe we should go back and see how it was done and do systems that way or maybe it was just Kelly Johnson that got it done.
  17. I was looking back at my source and it seems that P&W may have built the factory with its funds. However, the source explains that the CIA swallowed the J-58's enormous development costs of $600 million. What is in that $600 million is not explained and I don't have another source for this amount.
  18. Clearly somone knew the significance of this aircraft. The A-12 was truly a first-of-its-kind. The only off-the-shelf item was the P&W J-58 which still was modified substantially for the A-12. It is claimed that the CIA bought a new factory for P&W to build the modified J-58. Then there was enlargement of the facilities at Groom Lake. I could not find the contract between Lockheed and the CIA. However, it is claimed that there was a clause in the contract which allowed for cost reevaulation each year because the plane was the first one built with titanium. I do know the plane was said to have had about an 80 % increase in cost at least. However, the A-12 contract did not include the cost of the J-58 engines. When you are talking about a 60 year old spy plane built for a spy agency you are dependent on what is available and what is declassified. Then you have data conflicts between the spy agency account and the Lockheed employee accounts. Finally, my goal is to limit the paper to 10 pages so that it is read. I'm searching for items that are not already in other published papers. The A-12 had a life span of about 1958 through 1968 when they were brought back from Kadena. The CIA didn't declassify its documents until 2013.
  19. There are about 6 A-12s in existence. Usually, they are found at the end of a stick. This is the one that the CIA swiped from the Minnesota Air National Guard and placed on a stick at CIA headquarters.
  20. Here is another sitting on a stick in San Diego. It is Article 130 about two thirds through production. There once was one at the Minnesota Air National Guard but the CIA swiped it so it could be placed on a stick at the CIA. Who can argue that the CIA should have one of its own since the CIA paid for it. That one is Article 128. If anyone is wondering why I am posting about the A-12 it is because I am writing an article about it.
  21. No question about it. It was cool.
  22. here_2_help: The A-12 trainer never had the A-12's powerful engine--the P&W J-58. The initial A-12s were built with J-75s fitted in the engine space while the J-58 was readied. Once the J-58s were readied they replaced the J-75s in all but one aircraft--the Trainer. The J-75 engine could still get the A-12 to Mach 2. Once the J-58s were installed the A-12's reached their full speed of at least Mach 3.2.
  23. This topic is in Contrat Administration under "CM"
  24. The 3 airplanes are at the Air Force Flight Test (AFFT) Museum at Edwards AFB. All 3 are at Blackbird Airpark. I've linked the coordinates of the Airpark on Google maps so you can see them. If you look at the image, you will see the CIA's U-2 spy plane in the back (it's the little one). Next, on the right, is the CIA's A-12 spy plane--the original blackbird. To the A-12's right is the D-21--a pilotless drone--that was originally supposed to fit between the engines of the A-12. Finally, on the left is the "family version" of the A-12--an Air Force SR-71. The SR-71 was a 2-seater and the A-12 was for a single pilot. To the left of the SR-71, is the Pratt & Whitney J58 engine. That engine was built for a Navy airplane that was scrapped and then significantly modified to meet the needs of the A-12. By the way, the A-12 is wearing Air Force markings. I know the 3 A-12s stationed at Kadena Air Base in the 1960s wore those to confuse people that might see them. The CIA had no markings on it's spy planes, other than the Air Force markings. The 3 planes--2 well known--and one not well known are at the Palmdale Regional Airport--not far from where they were built. If you haven't been there, the museum doesn't charge but they use volunteers. If I was out there, I would check with the museum to see if they would be open tomorrow, and if so, I would be out there tomorrow. There are a few A-12s at museums around the country. ------------------------------ PS: The A-12 is wearing the number "6924." This was given the CIA name "Article 121" and appears to be the first A-12 built.
  • Create New...