Jump to content


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  1. Bob: Sorry to be late to the party, but I wanted to add my congratulations for creating what is truly a brilliant website. I use it all the time. There is no parallel. Outside of the excellent content, it provides a way for those struggling with complicated issues to get the unvarnished views of experienced contracting professionals. This site provides a critially important arena in which contracting folks can get ask honest questions and get meaninful/helpful responses. In a government contracting culture where folks are often mortified to confess a lack of knowledge or experience in the office, your site provides a public service. Congratulations on the 15 year milestone. My hat is off to you.
  2. OK, I humbly change my answer to yes. It fits the definition of a "claim."
  3. Frog2: I thought you were referring to a published decision. I don't recommend sending any more info on this without your servicing attorney's knowledge/permission. The last para is GAO direction not to release it. Release may violate the protective order.
  4. Yes. The rule is irrelevant to the definition.
  5. Frog - Can you cut and paste the actual language of the GAO recommendation from the decision? That would likely help others answer your questions.
  6. Typo in last part: "In other words, I'm to know curious..." should change to "curious to know." sorry
  7. Almond2020 et. al.: Just to throw another log on this fire - is Almond2020's experience increasingly typical? That is, setting aside the many irritations that attach to almost all federal employees' jobs, (i.e. sequestration, pay freezes, negative societal attitudes towards goverment, overworked, underpaid, etc.) is the 1102 world getting better, worse, or about the same? If worse, why? If better, why? I know individual experiences differ, but I wonder what those with at least 15+ years of experience as 1102s would say - from a 50,000 foot type of perspective. I doubt there was ever a truly "golden era" of federal contracting: when leadership understood the legal and time restraints involved, when customers were responsive and supportive, when legal and policy reviews were always on time and helpful, when there was adequate resources and personnel for effective contract oversight, when contractors were always above board, when there was time for thoughtful analysis of they type that Almond2020 admirably seeks, etc. (Chanelling Edith Bunker at the piano). In other words, I'm to know curious what has fundamentally changed from previous eras that is (apparently) making the 1102's life more miserable (or better). Thoughts? Comments?
  8. here_2_help: Thank you for your insightful post. I appreciate it. Good info.
  9. Perhaps this should be a new discussion thread, but I noticed that there is a March 7, 2013 DOD IG Report on DCAA. It found that DCAA failed to use "professional judgment" in 74% of the sample audits that the DOD IG reviewed. I've had limited exposure to DCAA, but that experience was negative - in line with the report. I know that it is no secret that DCAA has pervasive problems, but can anyone shed some light on why they are so bad exactly? I'm assuming that there is a confluence of contributing factors, but its surprising to me that they are allowed to continue on without a major restructuring of some sort. Thoughts? Comments?
  10. Brian: I agree with Vern. You have to take a look at the Axiom case: http://www.wifcon.com/fedcir/08-5072.pdf There the COFC judge got it wrong at every turn. The GAO was correct. The CAFC opinion is over two years after the GAO protest. But for the COFC's involvment (where the Judge made a series of questionable judgment calls - both substantive and procedural) the case would have been decided correctly almost two years earlier. I just disagree with you. This is far too much "accountability." The Government needs to run the railroad - and the current protest system is no way to run it.
  11. BrianR - Good example. I think we need to re-visit the wisdom of the 1940's Supreme Court on this topic. As the article cited above points out, it was once inconceivable that the Government's purchasing decisions would be subject to judicial review. That is, the 1940 Supreme Court case - Perkins v. Lukens Steel (310 U.S. 113, 1940) - (one of the earlies bid protest-type of cases) - warned that such a system would result in "confusion and disorder." Further they explained that: "The bare suggestion of [judicial review of Government purchasing decisions], with its attendant inconveniences, goes far to sustain the conclusion which we have reached, that a suit of this character cannot be maintained.” Although that is no longer good law, I think they were wise to warn of this confusion and disorder - which is apparently affecting your business or contracting activity. Again, along with Vern, having the GAO as the sole protest forum makes the most sense - one forum/one decision/swift 100 day process - period! Its clearly time for reform - but that will require consensus building among the business community. I don't think there is anyone in Government that thinks the current system makes a lot of sense as evidenced by the DOD legislative proposal. I think small businesses especially should contact lobbying groups such as the PSC and ask them to think through this issue a little more intelligently.
  12. Vern: I agree with you. The COFC is an unwieldy protest forum that adds nothing of value to the protest system. I, like you, have the utmost respect for the COFC and the COFC judges. Its nothing against them personally or their decisions - its just not well suited as a protest forum. Sadly, as noted in my comments above, if DOD cannot even get Congress to pass the sensible and rather modest legislative proposal referenced above, it is highly unlikely that Congress will take the more drastic step of eliminating the COFC as a protest forum. I always appreciate your comments Vern.
  13. Just to add to my previous comment, the text of the DOD proposal can be found here: http://www.dod.mil/dodgc/olc/docs/25April2012Proposals.pdf (You have to click on the PDF entitled, "Timeliness Rules For Filing Bid Protests.pdf," on the left side of the screen.) It is virtually verbatim from the proposed legislation set out in the Saunders and Butler article. The morale of the story (at least at this point) appears to be that regardless of the merit of any proposed legislation it will not move forward without industry support.
  14. Excellent discussion. If anyone is interested in reading the full text of the Saunders and Butler article on this topic, it can be found here: http://www.pubklaw.com/papers/clause/clause092010.pdf (starting on page 7). It was originally published in the ABA's Public Contract Law Journal and then republished (with permission) in the Board of Contract Appeals Bar Association's (BCABA) publication entitled "The Clause." It was selected as for BCABA's 2010 Writing Award. The legislation proposed in the article later became a DOD legislative proposal for the FY13 NDAA that was quickly shot down by industry. See http://www.mckennalong.com/news-listing-3309.html See PSC's poorly-reasoned objections here: http://www.pscouncil.org/News2/NewsReleases/2012/PSC__DoD_Bid_Protest_Proposal_Denies_Due_Process.aspx The odd thing is that the current system that allows for two bites at the protest apple is not good for "industry" either. Isn't there another contractor on the receiving end of this needless and zany system of duplicative protest jurisdiction? In other words, why is industry against this? (I know, it is good for the lawyers in the system ... maybe that's the real "industry" fighting this proposal).
  • Create New...