Jump to content


Root Admin
  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by bob7947

  1. 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.
  2. I plan on doing it again by the end of December 2020.
  3. 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.
  4. 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.
  5. 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.
  6. Joel: There are nearly 500 footnotes too. Maybe Briefing Papers should rename it to Detailed Tome.
  7. 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.
  8. Some news that I posted to the Home Page tonight. Fiscal Year 2020 Reporting Period Extended for Contractor Service Contract Reporting in the System for Award Management.
  9. In the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, the Appeals Court heard an appeal of two claims in which the Court of Federal Claims issued opinions on a bid protest. The Appeals Court sent one opinion on one claim back to the Claims Court for a further look. The protest involved something a bit different (qualified parts list) and deals with the terms "in connection with a procurement or a proposed procurement" and "interested party." The decision/opinion of the Appeals Court and the Claims Court are below. LAX Electronics, Inc. (dba) Automatic Connector, 2020-1498, November 3, 2020. LAX Electronics, Inc.,(dba) Automatic Connector, No. 19-1668C, December 17, 2019.
  10. H-2-H: Is this it. I think it is worth reading. I haven't done a thorough reading of the decision but it appears that the COFC backed down because of a "novel" ruling by the CAFC.
  11. In the Court of Federal Claims: Savantage Financial Services, Inc. v. U. S., No. 19-1805C, October 26, 2020
  12. I'm going to update site now.  You won't see it for a while.

  13. Send me a PM above where the envelope is at. Fill in your previous display name and e-mail addresses. I'll see if I can figure it out.
  14. Steve Schooner posted an article on the SSRN entitled Brand Name or Equal: Without "Equal," It's Not Competitive. I think you may find it of interest.
  15. I found this: GSA’s Take on Implementation of Section 889 from SheppardMullin.
  16. Joel: I looked at the Author's post when it was originally written. At that time, I believed that it was a question to the workforce for their opinion about an issue. I also considered whether it should be in the contract award forum. I felt that it was a general question to the workforce and left it in this forum. I understand your point and appreciate your efforts and have adopted many of your suggetions. However, this time I believe it is where it should be.
  17. Jamaal: Using the general definitions provided by the FAR an Wow! The Secretary of Defense, Deputy Secretary of Defense and an Assistant Secretary of Defense are agency heads. If they knew they were all the boss, we may be defenseless. I understand what they mean but it can be interpreted a different way. With the existing junk laws, some dating back to the 1700s; the annual perfections to those laws; the minor deletions, I guess the FAR Councils are having trouble keeping up with all the perfections and have no time to go back and read any of the regulations that are meant to implement law. It's so much easier being the Wizard of Wifcon hiding behind a curtain.
  18. The initial post mentions Section 889. I must assume that is the John S. McCain National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2019. Public Law - 115-232. In Section 889 which is the Prohibition on certain telecommunications and video surveillance services or equipment. Section 889 specifically contains paragraph (f) which defines Exeutive agency as "The term “executive agency” has the meaning given the term in section 133 of title 41, United States Code. " Below is Section 133 of Title 41, USC. that defines Executive Agency as Section 889 authorizes waiver authority to only 2 individuals. The head of an executive agency, and The Director of National Intelligence. Since the FAR is subordinate to Section 889, I would assume that the FAR is incorrectly written if its head of an agency is below the head of an executive agency. I cannot imagine the Executive Branch of government trying to subvert the will of the citizens as expressed by the Congress.
  19. Retread: This current discussion software, like many other softwares and web sites no longer supports Internet Explorer (IE). If you use IE to view this discussion forum, it may not look nor work as it is intended. Here is Microsoft's instructions. Lifecycle FAQ - Internet Explorer and Edge. I do not use IE because it no longer is maintained for my systems. Use a browser version that is continuously and vigorously supported and defended by it's owner. The internet is a War Zone. It is as simple as that. A good deal of my time is spent defending my spec of the internet.
  20. Joel: OK. I just noticed the one-month later response. I also see the expand button in long posts.
  21. There have been 2 major upgrades to the software within the past 10 days. I saw Joel's post and could not figure out what happened. I deleted it. I also note that in TimB's last post, there is the word author in the right hand top which should not be there. Below that and Joel's post there is something that says 1 month later... I cannot access those words nor the word author as the administrator. After Joel's post with the gibberish there was the second upgrade that I installed last night. I don't know if that upgrade did anything that matters or what. I could not replicate the gibberish that was posted in Joel's post. Please let me know of any other odd things you see in future posts so I can collect them and send them to the developers to fix.
  • Create New...