Jump to content
The Wifcon Forums and Blogs

sdvr

Members
  • Content Count

    37
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

0 Neutral

About sdvr

  • Rank
    New

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. Late to party here , but wouldn't it be 20% ? This is like a coin flip, the probability doesn't increase or compound as it goes through each appeal. Combining them assumes the results are connected.
  2. My original point was (and still is) that the CA process needs to be fixed. We agree 100% on the competency, ideally the workforce should know how do their job correctly, and some do. I think the process needs to be fixed, as it easier and more likely to have an impact. The costs are one factor, not the only. We agree on the long term effects, just disagree on how to solve it. The rest was me answering your question. You asked me what I thought, and I gave it to you. As for the "non-professional" , I have nowhere near the experience you have, but its unwise to assume that someone who knows less has less value or something to add to the discussion. I live solely in the COTS world of federal contracting, and can assure you that multi-million COTS contracts are awarded with no issues and no discussions all the time. If your position is the government should not be afraid of discussions, I agree 100%. But if you are saying it should happen on every large purchase, I am an honestly surprised by that position.
  3. Yes a drop in the bucket for the Government, but I was referring to the costs for both sides. It is an expensive process. It was an attempt at a simple analogy for a complex problem, of course its absurd. But not every multi-million dollar contract needs discussions, it depends on the variables and associated risks to those variables. The more COTS the product, the less discussions should be needed.
  4. Thanks - I didn't think that was correct, but couldn't find better data I am a data guy not a FAR guy, so my mind looks for #s. But I have to respectfully disagree with your first statement. From a legal standpoint, sure, the impact is down the road. But from the operational side, it costs everyone resources. Corrective Actions should identify the problem, correct it, and include measures that help prevent it from happening again. On the FAR question, my thought is that some think discussions lead to protests. But I don't have data to back that assumption. I think the intent of the clauses is to allow for the less complex purchases to be done quickly and efficiently ( Insert joke here), while give flexibility to allow for more complex purchases. Pretty sure this forum has gone down this road before as well, but outside of Federal Contracting buying a house is different than buying a computer. You can "negotiate" both purchases, but one is most likely done with discussions, one without. You can buy a house with out discussions, but I don't think most would. You can call Apple and attempt to negotiate terms and pricing, but you wont get far. That is what I think the intent is, but impact vs intent is always different.
  5. We discussed this a bit in the other thread, but I think it comes back to the Corrective Actions. GAO needs to evaluate the merit of a potential CA, and GAO and the government need to stop looking at a CA as a "win". A corrective action is not a positive thing for Industry or Government. 2600 cases filed at GAO in 2017, 581 had decisions. Does that mean 80% of protests go to Corrective Action?
  6. sdvr

    NASA SEWP and BPAs

    If you are on the government side, they will answer all of your questions if you contact them. If you are industry, they may not be as forthcoming...
  7. sdvr

    NASA SEWP and BPAs

    A lot of views for no response... In general SEWP doesn't really allow many of these anymore, they push Agencies to an Agency Catalog (which has even less info on the FAQ)if the requirement is less defined. I'm sure they still happen, but SEWP pushes the Catalog and multiple award , not a DOWO.
  8. sdvr

    Bid Protests: GAO or the Courts

    Very interesting reads. Trying to pick out a common theme, but need to read through a few more times. At the very least it seems as though the initial corrective actions were flawed, which led to multiple rounds of GAO. I go back to my original point, a CA should not be an instant do over, GAO needs to evaluate the potential success of the CA. And while this only goes back 4 years, some of these cases are still active and yet to be resolved... Bob - Thanks for the work here and on this site!
  9. sdvr

    Bid Protests: GAO or the Courts

    @bob7947 Out of curiosity, is it easy to see how many COFC cases went through multiple rounds of Corrective Actions at GAO?
  10. sdvr

    Bid Protests: GAO or the Courts

    Serious and slightly related question. Does anyone feel like the Corrective Action process needs to be looked at? Both Industry and Government seem to lean on it as a crutch. The government knows they can always stop a GAO process and use it if they see an unfavorable outcome. Industry knows that if they can create enough smoke, a CA is likely. I think a lot of issues would be corrected if GAO took a more active route in making sure the CA is a valid plan that will actually work. Instead you have these large procurements that seem to be in a carousal of award, protest, CA, award, protest, CA etc... Just my 2 cents
  11. Nothing shows on GAO. My bet is he drops 100+ on Monday.
  12. Its been one year, any betters on what Latvian does next?
  13. sdvr

    NITAAC vs GSA

    NITAAC has a few GWACS but all 3 have fees paid by the government. CIO-CS is .35%, SEWP in .39% GSA is .75%. None are paid directly by the government, but industry includes that cost.
  14. sdvr

    GSA CTAs

    Thanks to all so far on your input and the references. Under schedule 70, there is a growing trend of OEMs that no longer hold their own schedule, and have moved to a distribution held GSA model. Cisco, Adobe, Redhat (and more) are now only available from distributors, that while they have a GSA schedule, don't typically take orders directly from the US government. The issue becomes when there is a GSA request with just these items, and no other products, services etc. are being provided/requested. I guess I am just venting, but it seems like an outdated model that needs to change.
  15. sdvr

    GSA CTAs

    What if the only items on the order are on one team member's schedule and there are no open market items?
×