bob7947

". . . in the current fiscal climate, agencies and businesses alike have been forced to make tough spending cuts. After carefully reviewing the projected spending and attendance for this year’s conference, GSA is suspending Expo for 2013 in an effort to use our resources responsibly and to deliver better value and savings for our government partners, our vendors, and the American people." See it at gsa.gov.

I think its going all the way to the Supreme Court. I don't want to interfere but, when all of you have time, can you figure out a name for this contract "type?" PS: I'm enjoying this.

You're travelling on your own for the government and you found a way to save money but you're subject to the Joint Travel Regulations as well as the Federal Travel Regulation. What do you do? You went ahead and saved the government money and were proud of yourself. Unfortunately, your finance office stiffed you when it came time for payment. Its time to learn about rules that are mandatory. See the case at cbca.gsa.gov. (it is only 2 pages.)

Here is a list of M&O contracts at NNSA. NNSA M&O Contracts.

"Under a Contractor Team Arrangement (CTA), two or more GSA Schedule contractors work together to meet ordering activity needs. By complementing each other's capabilities, the team offers a total solution to the ordering activity's requirement, providing a "win-win" situation for all parties." But what is a Prime/Subcontractor relationship and what is the difference from a CTA? Let GSA explain. See the information at gsa.gov.

I posted Innovation Development Enterprises of America, Inc., V. U. S., No 11-217C, January 29, 2013. What do you think is/are the moral(s) of the story? What do you take away from the opinion?

The most downloaded articles in 2012. See articles. The most downloaded protests by FAR. See protests.

One of our colleagues sent this to me and I am posting it for you. Even Bilbo Baggins has a contract attorney to watch over him. "I, the undersigned, [referred to hereinafter as Burglar,] agree to travel to the Lonely Mountain, path to be determined by Thorin Oakenshield, who has a right to alter the course of the journey at his so choosing, without prior notification and/or liability for accident or injury incurred." "The aforementioned journey and subsequent extraction from the Lonely Mountain of any and all goods, valuables and chattels [which activities are described collectively herein as the Adventure] shall proceed in a timely manner and with all due care and consideration as seen fit by said Thorin Oakenshield and companions, numbering thirteen more or less, to wit, the Company." See the article at wired.com.

Searching for an item to post is time-consuming and frustrating. However, some times an item pops up from an unexpected place. In this case, it was the U. S. Civilian Board of Contract Appeals. The case is straightforward and easy to read and contains some excerpts that are noteworthy. Here is what the Board said: "Our view is in line with the contractor's. Although Drennon's technique for excavating the hillside may not have been ideal, due to the defects in the design of the project and significant differences between the geotechnical information provided and the actual soil composition, the hillside would have collapsed no matter what technique the contractor had used. Whether the contractor's design for the wall (which was approved by the agency) would have succeeded is irrelevant; the virtue of the design was not tested, since the project was truncated before the wall was built. We grant the appeal, excluding from the award only the contractor's profit on its suspension of work claim." See the entire case at Drennon Construction & Consulting, Inc. v. The Department of the Interior.

Whew! That clears me. I am unskilled and I know it.

In Estes Express Lines, Inc. v. U. S., No. 11-597C, January 15, 2013, the Court of Federal Claims said: "For the government to be sued on a contract pursuant to the Tucker Act, there must be privity of contract between the plaintiff and the United States." "This is so because the doctrine of sovereign immunity precludes a suit against the United States without its consent and because, under the Tucker Act, the United States has 'consent[ed] to be sued only by those with whom it has privity of contract."' Accordingly, "[t]he effect of finding privity of contract between a party and the United States is to find a waiver of sovereign immunity." Conversely, a finding of lack of privity deprives this court of jurisdiction. See the opinion here.

Since I posted the analysis of the NDAA for FY 2013, you have viewed a number of its provisions. Here are the sections that interest you the most in their order of downloads: SEC. 822: Extension of authority for use of simplified acquisition procedures for certain commercial items. SEC. 811: Limitation on use of cost-type contracts. SEC. 804: Department of Defense policy on contractor profits. SEC. 862: Uniform contract writing system requirements. SEC. 802: Review and justification of pass-through contracts. SEC. 831: Guidance and training related to evaluating reasonableness of price. Here, you can review the full Analysis of Contracting Related Sections.

At this time of year, newly introduced legislation often is introduced and then quickly enters oblivion. I checked this Senator's committee and subcommitee assignments and did not find any direct link to federal contracting. Maybe that explains it. "Sen. Toomey's bill would require the GAO to include the most common reasons bid protests are sustained. This additional information could help federal agencies identify needed improvements in the contracting process, reduce the number of protests overall and provide Congress with much-needed information about possible weaknesses in the federal contracting process to facilitate potential legislation." See it at toomey.senate.gov.

There are 3 CPAF guides here under FAR Part 16. Navy, NASA, and US AID. http://www.wifcon.com/quickit.htm

"The Subcommittee’s investigation of food service contracts has revealed systemic deficiencies in the transparency and oversight of contractors’ rebate and discount policies. Chairman McCaskill asked Office of Management and Budget Director Zients to review the Subcommittee’s findings and issue guidance to federal agencies to address these deficiencies. She also requested that OMB consider how the federal government can better leverage its buying power through the strategic sourcing of food service." See it at hsgac.senate.gov. (The letter is on the upper left of the linked page in a pdf document.)

In a letter to the Secretary of the Army and the Chief of Staff of the Army, Senator McCaskill, Chairman of the Senate Subcommittee on Contracting Oversight and Senators Shaheen, Coburn, Burr, Webb, Cornyn, Inhofe, and Blumenthal, questioned the significant delays between when a referral is made to the Army and when the Army takes action to keep the contractor from receiving additional government contracts. The Special Inspector General for Afghanistan Reconstruction reports that between June 2011 and June 2012, the Army's average time to process a debarment referral was a total of 323 days. See the letter at mccaskill.senate.gov.

Napolik: Thanks. Vern & Napolik: Thanks for always contributing your knowledge. Anyone: I checked the attorney's office (web site) and the individual attorney who represented Infoshred. You can do it yourself. The office appears to be a local law office in Connecticut. The specific attorney does not represent himself as having a background in federal contracts--and he won the decision. I think he used a non-technical practice--if you want to call it that--to win. Hint--2 words.

I posted 4 protests on the home page last night. What do you think of the first 3? They are easy to read and the excerpts are linked with their decision.

Stahr: Have someone look at the contract file starting with the solicitation, at least. Then follow the numbering scheme of the documents until you find the cause of the problem. When I read Velhammer's post, it rung a bell. I must have seen this before. Once you, or the other person, are sure of how it happened and can document it, explain (show it) to the person that is denying the invoices.

Is this it? http://www.wifcon.com/discussion/index.php?showtopic=1665&hl=options&fromsearch=1

Is this para your concern? FAR 37.602( B ), it provides "Agencies shall, to the maximum extent practicable (1) Describe the work in terms of the required results rather than either “how” the work is to be accomplished or the number of hours to be provided (see 11.002(a)(2) and 11.101);

About 2,500 individuals have registered for the forum. However, less than 400 have read the Terms Of Use for this Forum. Please read the Terms Of Use.

Vern: Your said: "The only reason to document the file would be to explain why you did something improper." If you are responding to my last note, you read too much into it. Leo could have a file in her desk for different things--including a hard copy of that e-mail exchange. If she ever needs to produce that piece of paper, it is available for her. I agree. The boss may have a reason for waiting.

Leo: You said: "The entire back and forth is in e-mail traffic." I would keep a paper document in addition to the electronic document. You may need it in the future.

Vern and Navy Contracting: So, although leo is correct, are you recommending that Leo risk a charge of insubordination? Leo: You wrote: "I like being in the trenches doing the work, dealing with people and issues." Been there, done that. Maybe I have found someone to take over this web site when I'm dead and gone.