bob7947

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.

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Things are moving so quickly that the White House information has been out of date.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.

What does the award fee plan look like?  What are the factors for earning the award?

Thanks.  I agree.

Anyone?

I have posted the 20th annual analysis of the National Defense Authorization Act.  This one is the William M. (Mac) Thornberry National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2021.  I've been doing this for 20 years.  

I'm going to proof it over the next day or two.

It's now law.  I'll have it online before Monday.

At this point I have no plans for an app.  There are two immediate things on the agenda:

1. The 2021 NDAA analysis which takes several weeks.  That wil be done within the week.  I also want to post a blog entry on an unrelated issue.
2. A redesign and streamline of the non-discussion board part of the site.  I expect that to take some months because there are about 500 to 1,000 pages to that part of the site.

Wifcon Community:

Merry Christmas, Happy New Year and a belated Happy Hanukkah.  (I've been late or behind all year.)

Thank you for participating in Wifcon.com's discussion forum during 2020.  You, the participants, make it work and I am grateful for your participation.

I have a long list of things to do to improve the overall site during 2021.  But first, I'm baking raisin-walnut cookies tonight.  

Your host,

Bob

The William M. (Mac) Thornberry National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2021 was vetoed today.  Congress will return next week to deal with the bill.

Yes, possible veto and then override.  It won't affect any new Congressional  perfections to contracting law.  Then a few days to get the Public Law number.

I plan on doing it again by the end of December 2020.

That's fine.  

I didn't notice that this question was asked twice.  I cannot change it now or several useful posts would be deleted.  Posting the same message more than once is referred to as spamming.

Joel:

Time will tell.

From trying to remember over a decade or so, the Councils like to group final and interim rules in a FAC.  I do list proposed rules in the bottom right column and add the final rules to the issued FACs as they are included in FACs.  If any are made final and not included in FACs, I shift the Final rule to the left hand column.  The simple answer is that making a rule final without a FAC is done much less often. 

It is my belief that fewer FACs have been issued over the past several years.  If there are no FACs to tie a final rule to as in 2018-005, they just make it final without one.  In this case the rule was nearing 3 years old.

By the way, there are some items that I am not updating at this time.  (I'm saving the information.)  The reason is that I have a new souped-up computer with web-site software and I am planning to design and update the non-discussion forum part of the site.  I think there are about 500 to 1,000 pages to that part of the site and the update will eliminate some of the rarely used pages.  Other pages will look more better.  With that much content, it is like turning the Titanic.

It is in FAR Case 2018-005.  This is the proposed version.  The Final version was dated 7/2/2020.

The DoD Deviation was 2018-00012.

The NDAA became law in December 2017.

Joel:

There are nearly 500 footnotes too.  Maybe Briefing Papers should rename it to Detailed Tome.

Joel:

Let's stretch this out further and add something more to the Briefing Papers which explains the process.  On it's p. 3, the Paper mention's there are 3 BCAs.  I know of a 4th - GAO's Contract Appeals Board.