Cajuncharlie

The only thing clear about this is that they are trying to confuse us. Appreciate the caution and recommendation.

Points well taken. Looks like the answer to the title's musical question is "No."

"Neither favorably nor unfavorably," as you pointed out, logically requires throwing out past performance as an evaluation criterion.

This defeats the whole purpose of asking for past performance information as soon as a proposal is received from a vendor who has none.

There is a clear need for clearer thinking expressed in clearer language to balance the Government's interest in properly taking past performance information into consideration and the interest of fairness to new vendors.

How many times have you heard "change order" or "amendment" used as a generic term for a contract modification?

(I learned the difference under the ASPR, but I'm not quite old enough to have fallen under the AFPI.)

How often do people use "provision" and "clause" interchangeably?

It's hard to encourage precision in terminology without sounding pedantic, but it is important to be precise.

If the bidder knows that it is not in position to fill the order at the bid price and still submits a bit, the decision-maker should go to jail.