Jump to content
The Wifcon Forums and Blogs

C Culham

Members
  • Content count

    770
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Blog Comments posted by C Culham


  1. Don - Not associated with an agency so did not go through the matrix in detail for an incentive, or at least that is my excuse.  Quick thoughts.....

    I suspect you went to a lot of work to create and it would take same to maintain as the FAR/DFAR and additional 31 Agency Supplements change.  I wonder if the effort is worth it when many depend on database programs to assemble the solicitation/contracts these days?  Clearly it would help in explaining why something is in a solicitation/contract but being from the old school days the matrix was handy in preparing the solicitation/contract as well.  Consider a connected effort in using the WIFCON poll discussion topic and ask how many folks refer to the matrix at all these days and why or why not?

    An associated thought -  does your format help the private sector in understanding why a provision/clause ended up in a solicitation that they are considering?  To an extent yes, but my thought extends to both sides of the fence.  Personal experience admittedly but I find that if I have to go read the prescription under the current format I then find myself wading through the clause and even the details of the FAR/DFAR further.   I wonder if for lack of better term this "cause and effect" gets lost some how if you make it too easy for folks on the prescription?

    Even with these thoughts I do think your suggested format is good idea. 


  2. Two quick thoughts from my first read which are spin-offs of those already offered.

    The example is an easy read and would be useful but I wonder what the view/document might look like when you get to another FAR Part that has a significant amount of DFAR/PGI/Class Deviations?

    Not sure if my personal experience is completely up to date and this thought varies from office to office but have visited some where folks have two screens from which they view the FAR and an agency's supplement side by side.   Understand the DoD has the PGI as well but with this thought in mind I am having some difficulty in wrapping my mind around how the proposed idea would work for the two screen folks.

     

     


  3. Noting reference 12.301(B )(1) and its further reference to 12.302 it would be important in my view to describe how the proposed tailored provision would be added by addenda which in part may go to the title of the proposed tailored provision. By example adding something to header – Addenda to FAR Clause 52.212-1 – and add a lead in paragraph that provides that “52.212-1 is replaced in its entirety by this addenda.” Minor I know and one would hope that users of the format would know the mechanics but you would be surprised!


  4. Vern - Just a little confusing with regard to use of "government" including when capitalized and not. Most references seem to be to the Federal sector but then other times not. With intent for wide audience and application includes state/local government it might be good to differentiate. If just intended for the Federal sector side of government so noting would clairfy as well.

    First rate document.

    Carl


  5. Great ideas but I fear that the that persuading Congress, which is really persuading their legislative aides who have no idea whatsoever what Federal procurement/acquisition is all about, is a pipe dream. Why? Because it is these very same folks that have gotten us, in part, to where we are today with their attempts to make procurement/acquisition right sided.....dazed and confused!

×