bob7947

Amen!

The discussion forum was updated last night. It looks like it added some silly features. I need to look what happened and see what I can discard. It lookes like all numbers of posts were deleted.

Vern: When I was in GAO's Preocurement and Systems Acquisition Division (General Procurement Group) in the 1970s, I was told to do research on the 4-Step procedure in DoD. The Navy keeps entering my mind and a blue transmittal page possibly covering a DoD report on the subject is what I was looking at. I know that it is not much but I am not aware that the General Procurement Group--the group who would have done something--did anything on the subject after that. I seem to remember that someone mentioned the 4-step was similar to NASA. ---------------- OK, I wondered what happened to it. So, I just checked and found a 1980 article in the American Bar Journal. Apparently, DoD adopted it.

Thanks. Yes, today was the first time I've seen that terminology and it is one of the cases on the Home Page. Whoever reads this will now hear of it too. I added a link to the opinion in your Two Rivers citation.

Have you ever experienced the “mirror image rule?"

H2H: I'm just advocating getting rid of some layers of review. In the case of a dispute the Boards begin the process. For example, lets' take a civilian dispute from the Treasury--PACIFIC COAST COMMUNITY SERVICES, INC.. But first, let's look at some congressional perfections that made it into law. Now, the law provides a choice of venues--a Board or the Court. PACIFIC COAST COMMUNITY SERVICES, INC. went to the the Gourt of Federal Claims. After the dispute rolled around the Court trying to find a judge, the Court of Federal Claims issued an opinion on 10/1/19. Of course, the contractor filed an appeal to the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. The appeals court issued its opinion/decision of April 30, 2021. We can safely say that the case rolled around the court system for over two years. Whenever congress says something like and then allows the issue to go to court, they're just kidding. Now, let's mention a protest that recently made the news and now is in the court system. Oracle America, Inc., B-416657, B-416657.2, B-416657.3, B-416657.4, Nov 14, 2018. DoD is almost ready the throw the JEDI in the trash. My presentation has flaws but an unhappy bidder, offeror or contractor can get more than one bite at the apple. It can devour the orchard. I believe the Courts should be eliminated fron the protest and dispute process. A bidder or offeror should get one shot at a protest and that ends with a GAO decision. Likewise, a contractor should get one shot at resolving a dispute and that ends with a board of contract appeals. It will save bidders, offerors, contractors and the government time and money.

I wrote a small piece many years ago about creating a House and Senate committee to straighten out contracting legislation and then provide them only with oversight of the contracting process. It could be done but it has absolutely no chance. What is possible but highly unlikely is eliminating the courts from the protest and dispute system. I would limit the hearing of protests to the Comptroller General and disputes to an entity similar to the boards. Once you involve the courts you open the process to appeals. No appeals, once and done!

Comptroller General Reports to Congress on Audits of Defense Contracts: The above is the online hearings from Google. I don't know how long ot runs but that is it. It was several days long. I tried it and was able to get to 70 pages so maybe all 1,000 pages are available.

Yes it is Joel. I have a hard cover book by a GAO historian that includes the Hollifield hearings which were held in 1965. I looked at the book a bit. Hollifield's Hearing was an ambush. At the end of the hearing, 2 GAO individuals had a chance to speak and be criticized. Before them was a small army of people from DoD and DoD contractors that aired their complaints against GAO. The 2 GAO individuals tried to provide answers at the table but after a while, I'm sure they realized they were only there to take a beating. The real problem may have been the writing of the Hollifield report on the hearing. GAO claimed that the report was filled with errors and falsehoods. It probably was. That's all part of an ambush. I joined the General Procurement Group of the Procurement and Systems Acquisition Division in 1972 after I completed my training assignemnts in GAO's Civil Division. The General Procurement Group did contract pricing reports. Before the Hollifield hearing the contract pricing reports were done and then dent sent to the Department of Justice for action with contractors names. That built up a lot of resentment from contractors. After Hollified, GAO's pricing reports, if they found anything, were sent to DoD with a recommendation that the contracting officer take action, if he/she sees fit. If that is not exactly the way we did it, it is close. I remember asking why were we doing pricing reports. The answer was so they know we were still in that business. I think the pricing reports ended in the 1970s.

Someone wrote that they believe there was a violation of forum rules. I will lock this topic until I can review the topic posts. This will take time.

When I was doing my research in GAO's microfiche room that I mentioned above, another name kept popping up. It was Edward Hébert. He is mentioned in Robert Keller's statement that I linked above. That statement is why I remembered him. I had pounds and pounds of microfiche paper to support my research on 87-653 but it no longer exists. I had the same for FPASA and that is gone too.

Joel: I did extensive research on P. L. 87-653 and even remember Carl Vinson getting one of those new fangled color TVs on the floor of the House for his 50th anniversary serving in the House. I think that might have been before the transistor. I read the article from the New York Review and I was surprised at the quote. Rickover may have attended a hearing or so but he was not a significant factor in P. L. 87-653. I also read interviews with Chet Hollifield and he showed little interest in P. L. 87-653 or its passage. Even when he was specifically asked about it. During 1965, Hollifield was busy with the Hollifield Hearings during which he beat GAO up so that it would curtail its contract pricing audits and not request refunds from contractors that overpriced contracts. There was some talk about the Hollifield Hearings among the press such as: Drew Pearson wrote that Hollifield was "strangely found on the side of luxurious shuffleboard courts, table tennis facilities, a scenic mall, out-door dining rooms for [a federal contractor] all paid for by the taxpayer." The driving force behind P. L. 87-653 was Carl Vinson, not Chet Hollifield. Maybe that is why Carl Vinson has his own aircraft carrier. I don't know. I believe the hearings discussing the fixed-price incentive contracts that were involved in P. L. 87-653 were televised. The contracts may have been with Ford or GM. I can't remember that. In the 1970's, Hollifield did sponsor and was the Vice Chair of The Commission on Government Procurement. Vern correctly mentioned that GAO played a sifnificant role in P. L 87-653. Here is a prepared statement by GAO's General Councel in 1968.

Check the right-hand column of tomorrow's Home Page. It will be posted around 8 PM Eastern. I rarely add fraud against health care programs, the plague programs, etc. However, I think something can be done to reduce all the baloney in law and regulations.

There was a time when I battled the bid protest attorneys in the Law Library for a desk. Then the attorneys got an online legal service--can't remember the name--and the books slept. One could read Attorney General (AG) decisions too. GAO acquired its AG books from one of the agencies within the Treasury Department. They were first editions. I told the Librarians they had those books there and they gave me a blank stare. With a "b" number, I could go to the librarians desk and get all the documents associated with that decision. I could see from 1st draft to final decision and why the final differed from the first cut. Same think with legislative histories of Public Laws. I asked for the legislative history on FPASA and they brought the documents in folders in a shopping cart. There was a time when I knew everything about FPASA, even when DoD was cutting GSA's legs out from under it in 1949-or so. (Think Jack Brooks and OFPP.) Best of all was the "microfiche room." If you could find an open machine that worked, you had access to the gray boxes of microfiche. All hearings, House and Senate reports, etc. that an inquiring mind might want. It was a historical heaven at one's fingertips. After the attorneys had access to lexis/nexis, or something like that, I was one of the few visitors to the Law Library. But that was the 20th century.

Vern, Steve Schooner mentioned that he just received a shipment of this edition. I took the liberty of posting this. Is that OK?

Actually, the greatest 3-year old is a fact, not emotion. Secretariat holds the current record times--made in 1973--for a 3-year old in the Kentucky Derby, the Preakness, and The Belmont. (The official timer at Pimlico incorrectly timed the Preakness in 1973 and it wan't until 2012 that the Maryland Racing Commission acknowledged that error.) For anyone watching the video I posted, they will see a horse ahead by nearly a football field at the finish line. The Belmont is a mile and a half and Secretariat won that race at the mile point. For the final mile, it ran on its own. It realized it had no competition and it just felt like running. For those few minutes, we watched the greatest 3-year old of all time. And that's the truth! Since I violated the forum rules by taking this off topic, I will now close it.

There is only one "greatest" Horse who ever lived. And that Horse ran in the Belmont in 1973 and owns the current record for the Belmont. Belmont Stakes of1973.

This is a Congressional Research Service report on the Army's replacement for the Bradley Fighting Vehicle and its history. It is a system acquisition. Take a look at the history of the system and see if you can identify why problems occurred. At least one will scream at you. A version of the requirements are on p. 2. I don't know if they are current or not. There is a current brief acquisition strategy discussed on p. 14. It's going to take about 10 years to field this system. Now, the question. Would you accept the job as Program Manager on the OMFV?

I am updating the Home Page for tomorrow and I am adding this audit. It deals with Management and Operating contracts and similar contracts at the Department of Energy. These contracts began with the Manhattan Project during WW II. I would appreciate any comments on the substance of this audit report. The Transition to Independent Audits of Management and Operating Contractors’ Annual Statements of Costs Incurred and Claimed.

H-2-H I read the articles. It is worthy of some discussion. The “Negligent Negotiations” Theory of Recovery – Is it a Go or No Go at the Boards of Contract Appeal? Part 1 (JD Supra.com) The “Negligent Negotiations” Theory of Recovery – Is it a Go or No Go at the Boards of Contract Appeal? Part 2 (JD Supra.com) CBCA Wary of “Negligent Negotiations” Claim Recognized by ASBCA (Rogers Joseph O'Donnell, PC)

Have you heard of a "design-build-finance-operate-maintain (DBFOM) contracts?" If so, what is your opinion.

Thank you for your observations.

Many years ago, as a teen, I noticed a magazine on a barbershop table with an incredible black airplane on the cover. Huge engines on each side of a delta wing and a long thin fuselage with a cockpit near the front. I never forgot that airplane, it was an SR-71 Blackbird. Fifty-five years later, I wrote a brief article about the first Blackbird -- the A-12. It's the fastest and highest flying jet airplane that was ever built. Everything about the A-12 was incredible. A requirement was developed to: make an airplane so fast that nothing could catch it, make it fly so high that nothing could reach it, and make it nearly invisible. Add to that the fact that no one knew how to do it, the materials didn't exist and it had to be done quickly. Groom Lake and Area 51 were built for the U-2 and then used for the A-12, Clarence "Kelly" Johnson and his Skunk Works built the U-2 and then built the A-12. The A-12 was a Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) spy plane just as the U-2 was originally. ---------------------------------------------------- In September 2020, I finished this 20 page article on the A-12 and placed it on the Analysis Page. I never thought to post it to the Wifcon Blog. I'm doing that now. The article took a long time to write because the building of the A-12 was incredible. Much of the material used to write this article was from 60 years ago and many potential sources confused the SR-71 story with that of the A-12 story. Others were flat out wrong. I used sources from people who worked on or flew the A-12. Fortunately, the CIA finally declassified some documents on the A-12 sometime after 2000--maybe 2007 or 2013--and made it available to the public. There wasn't much of it but it filled in some of the missing pieces. There are many facts and stories about the A-12 that are of interest. One is that, in the A-12, the engines produced only about 20 percent of the power at crusing speeds. Most of the power came from from the pointed cones sticking out of the nacelles. Also, the A-12 ran its afterburners continuously. Then there were the 2 Buick "nailhead" V-8s that were conected to each other to "spool-up" and start each A-12 engine. At the end of the article, I list the places you can still see an A-12 and added links to Google Maps. If you look closely at the maps, you will find an image of an A-12. I also list where the only YF-12A, a derivative of the A-12, is at. Now, the YF-12A is another story. Please read: Faster Than A Speeding Bullet, Three Times Higher Than The Tallest Mountain.

rios0311: Thank you. That is exactly the intent of this forum: What Happened?

Things are moving so quickly that the White House information has been out of date. I knew this happened but it wasn't posted.