Jump to content
The Wifcon Forums and Blogs

jewettr

Members
  • Content count

    17
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

0 Neutral

About jewettr

  • Rank
    Copper Member
  • Birthday 03/23/1962

Contact Methods

  • Website URL
    http://
  • ICQ
    0

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    Northern Virginia

Recent Profile Visitors

3,871 profile views
  1. page limitations on proposals

    What scares me is the possibility of adding a #7. The Government already knows who they want to award to and are only going through the motions. If proposals are intentionally vague by minimizing page counts, it's easier to justify and thereby select the "winner".
  2. U. S. Civil War Discussion Forum

    Gee, since I already admitted to being registered, I guess everyone knows I'm no longer a spring chicken . . .
  3. U. S. Civil War Discussion Forum

    Bob, As a Yankee from Ohio living in the Fredericksburg Virginia area, I'm looking forward to digging through your site. I'm registered, but haven't been able to devote the time yet. Randy
  4. Happy Birthday, Bob!

    A belated Happy Birthday Bob! Thanks for all your time, effort, and dedication to making this a high quality site!
  5. How about: https://acc.dau.mil/CommunityBrowser.aspx?i...〈=en-US Randy Jewett
  6. The Contract File

    Bob, Excellent insight! I hope you don't mind if I forward this information to my team members. It's not to justify my being anal, just to make them realize there's a reason to be anal! Thanks, Randy
  7. What about something along the lines of this? Assuming it?s a flat discount: Publisher ?A?: Prices from $X.00 to $X.00, minus X% discount the price is $X.00. Prices from $XX.00 to $XX.00, minus X% discount the price is $X.00. Prices from $XXX.00 to $XXX.00, minus X% discount the price is $X.00. Publisher ?B?: Prices from $X.00 to $X.00, minus X% discount the price is $X.00. Prices from $XX.00 to $XX.00, minus X% discount the price is $X.00. Prices from $XXX.00 to $XXX.00, minus X% discount the price is $X.00.
  8. warrant question

    My personal opinion: Display that warrant with pride! Let all the other 1102?s see it when they walk by; force them to raise their level to the standard you set! Pay increases and titles will come later when positions open, you?re promoted, and they?re not. When I received my warrant years ago, the increased responsibility, personal pride knowing that my skills were noticed, and respect of my peers was pay enough. Just my two cents worth . . .
  9. Without having all the details, I?ll just point back to this: FAR 31.201-2 -- Determining Allowability. (a) A cost is allowable only when the cost complies with all of the following requirements: (1) Reasonableness. (2) Allocability. (3) Standards promulgated by the CAS Board, if applicable; otherwise, generally accepted accounting principles and practices appropriate to the circumstances. (4) Terms of the contract. (5) Any limitations set forth in this subpart. You say, ?Let's assume that they are not required by any Government contract, and may or may not concern goods/services associated with Government contracts.? If they?re not required by a contract, and not associated with a contract, again, without all the details, I?d be inclined to say they?re not allocable and therefore not allowable.
  10. Service Contract Act

    22.1003-1 -- General. This Subpart 22.10 applies to all Government contracts, the principal purpose of which is to furnish services in the United States through the use of service employees, except as exempted in 22.1003-3 and 22.1003-4 of this section, or any subcontract at any tier thereunder. Without more details, my read would be that a portion (that which is furnishing services in the U.S.) would fall under SCA; the portion performed outside the U.S. would not fall under the SCA. The big question is trying to determine which portion is and isn't. And please keep in mind, when I was stationed in Panama, we also incorporated host nation requirements into our contracts.
  11. Where Were You On September 11, 2001?

    Interesting exercise; as usual, I?m a few days late and a dollar short. I was still active duty Air Force at the time, stationed at Moody AFB in GA. As was the trend here, after the first strike the TV went on in the conference room. And as events unfolded, we all knew our lives as Americans changed forever. I was dumbstruck when the second aircraft hit ?live? and more so as word trickled down that the Pentagon had been hit, as well as the aircraft in Pennsylvania. I was currently scheduled to deploy to Oman, as a matter of fact, my passport was at the Pentagon for the visa stamp. As a former member of the Security Police (prior to the Security Forces merger), I could relate to the changes in security posturing happening throughout the country. Eventually, I wound up in Qatar supporting OEF, thankful that no matter how insignificant my part seemed at the time, I was at least able to contribute. As a postscript, after retiring, I moved up to the D.C. area and began working in support of the Pentagon Renovation Program Office. I inherited the contract for the Phoenix Project, closing out the final punchlist items. To this day, when I?m at the Pentagon for unrelated projects, I can?t help but to think about that day.
  12. No New Task Order

    FAR 17.207 -- Exercise of Options. © The contracting officer may exercise options only after determining that -- (2) The requirement covered by the option fulfills an existing Government need; Without all the details, it sounds to me that there is no longer an existing need.
  13. My two cents worth: You stated, "I say the construction project is clearly out of scope. The PMO wants to have the ANC manage the construction project, eventhough the PMO can't provide sufficient requirements, and the ANC originally said the project was too risky for them. Now procurement wants to seek SBA approval and modify the contract for the new work or award a separate contract to the ANC for this construction work. " On top of what formerfed stated, the above has me concerned as well. If they feel it's too risky, and they've gone on record with that, a change order sets everyone up for failure. If they have problems, they point to the Government. If we have problems, they point to the Government. If I was in your shoes, I'd be doing everything possible to treat this as a new, stand alone requirement.
  14. Metics of performance question

    Rather than reinvent the wheel, you may want to contact some folks that have already been through this. Have you checked FedBizOpps? I did a quick check on ?translate? and received multiple hits, including FA4885-09-R-0005 . Maybe phone or e-mail the POC and see how they overcame similar issues; maybe they did or didn?t consider them but it?s worth a shot. Randy
×