bob7947

Quick story: I was going through a source selection file at one of the Department of Energy sites many years ago. One of the offeror's Key Personnel was an individual present at the development of the first nuclear weapon. I stared at the name in the proposal for a moment and turned to an SSET member and said with reverence: he's one of the old ones. I seem to remember Captain Kirk and Mr. Spock saying something similar on their adventures. I've seen other offeror's using well known names for window-dressing but the guy I saw in the offeror's proposal was the real thing.

DoD sent a response to the Court of Federal Claims yesterday stating it "wishes to reconsider" the JEDI award.

This poll was closed by mistake--probably by me--and I reopened it because I think it is a good poll.

The only effect on me is a lack of disinfectant wipes which I normally buy. I am self-contained in my home office. Wifcon.com's Home Page is dependent on the federal government posting contracting related information. The discussion board will be available to you into the distant future.

U.S. judge says Amazon likely to succeed on key argument From Reuters. JEDI Opinion.

I agree. Will the services be used with a system under development, etc.

H2H: I don't think it had anything to do with your post.

I cannot find a current list but everything I find is dated in 2007.

I updated the Legislation Page and found this. H. R. 5822: Homeland Security Acquisition Professional Career Program Act. I was surprised to se that this bill was already marked-up by the full Committee. It may get through the House. Do you have an opinion on this Bill?

Did the contract, as originally awarded, have an option provision in it?

This is a 38-page advisory opinion. I will post it on the Home Page--in its usual place--tonight. However, I'm off to a 2-hour Tang Soo Do class now. Fluor Intercontinental, Inc.--Advisory Opinion. Edit: This November 2019 opinion was just released to the public today.

Today, GAO has returned to the old format on its web page. All the perfections have been removed. Maybe they have temporarily withdrawn the effort until it reaches its highest state of perfection. (I know there are no degrees of perfect but rubbing it in is so soothing.)

Here ia a letter from the Professional Services Council about Beta.Sam.gov. You need to click the one line on the page to download the file.

During the past week, GAO has built and published a new web site. Unfortunately, the authors appear to have broken the links to their decisions, reports, etc. It appears this is affecting decisions from mid-2019 that are posted on Wifcon.com. I don't know if they are planning to relink their decisions or not but it will take some time and complaining to sort this mess [aka as a government perfection] out.

Here is the latest article entitled: Amazon wins injunction in US 'Jedi' contract fight. She [the COFC judge] also ordered Amazon to set aside $42m for costs if future proceedings found she was wrong to have issued the injunction.

Productivity.

Here is another article. This one from Bloomberg entitled: Inside the Nasty Battle to Stop Amazon From Winning the Pentagon’s Cloud Contract.

I've found another article by Steve Schooner entitled: Enhanced Debriefings: A Toothless Mandate?

I found this article on Fortune Magazine about the JEDI procurement. It is entitled: Why Amazon wants to depose President Trump about cloud computing. It may be of interest.

Jacques: Taking a different approach, you can ask why are there so many dismissals in disputes over contracting officers' final decisions? See the CBCA and then you have to click the decisions for ASBCA. You figure that out. The Courts can overrule the Boards and then overrule each other there too.

the protestor is seeking COFC to review the agency's override decision

First look at 4 CFR 21.6: Withholding Award, Suspending Contract Performance, Override of Stay, Injunction B first got a CICA stay to stop work; which the agency defeated with its urgent and compelling and public interest talk to continue work; then B wanted to continue stoppage of work and went to the COFC which could stop work. The COFC has 4 thresholds it reviews to issue an injunction. It doesn't take an injunction lightly. In my scenario, It found something wrong with the proposal evaluation and determined an injunction was needed to stop performance. I'm assuming it did find that something. A could appeal the COFC opinion to the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit which could overrule the COFC opinion and knock down the injunction. At first, I was trying to find a way of defeating Contracting Blackmail. I couldn't eliminate the possibility in it entirety because of the COFC. Then you have the CAFC that can reverse the COFC. This is absurd. In the real world time is money. The longer B has avenues to stop contract performance, the more B has the possiblity of someone paying him off to go away and withdrawal court action. I've been a proponent of removing the courts from hearing bid protests. This seems to support their removal--if my scenario is possible. With GAO only in the bid protest arena, a CICA stay is granted until the GAO decision. If GAO denies the protest it's over. The agency can still ignore the stay and continue performance. There just won't be anyone hearing protests over the stay.

In 1991, there was a bill in the House to amend FPASA and report on Contracting Blackmail. It passed the House and died in Senate. Other than FASA, I didn't find anything else.

I was trying to come up with a way to defeat blackmail -- payments from the government to an offer to avoid a protest. Watch it fall apart. (This won't affect an offeror from blackmailing another.) Offeror A and B were competing on an important procurement. Offeror A is notified it looks like the apparent winner and B is an also ran. B threatens the agency with a GAO protest. The agency realizes it was a close competition and believes it followed all the rules. The agency tells B that the requirement was urgent and compelling and in the public interest to get its needs supplied but A as quiuckly as possible. B protests to GAO under 31 U.S. C. § 3553(c)(1) which causes a CICA Stay. The Agency awards the contract to A and uses its finding of urgent and compelling and in the public interest under 31 U. S. C § 3553(c)(2) to continue performance on the contract. Offeror B goes to the Court of Federal Claims for a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction. The Court of Federal Claims goes through its procedure and grants the preliminary injunction. All work stops on the contract. Checkmate. How do you solve this?