Jump to content
The Wifcon Forums and Blogs

rafieldjr

Members
  • Content Count

    15
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

0 Neutral

About rafieldjr

  • Rank
    New

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  1. Well, "for now" has expired, Vern. Industry has made a motion to AT&L to reconsider -- Contractors complain about Pentagon limits on labor rates http://cdn.govexec.c...t/092012cc1.pdf Just a bunch of whiners, 350 of them, I guess . . .
  2. . . . Aaand Vern furnishes the image to go next to "pseudo-intellectual joker" in the dictionary. Laugh if you want Vern, but Infoseeker's depiction of the emperor with no clothes is pretty dead-on. Maybe some time out of the classroom and in the trenches for a reality check is in order. When I came here as a new participant, it was with the honest belief that I would find seasoned, thoughtful analysts of the acquisition art with whom I could converse on a patently defective piece of legislation and companion regulation. The idea was to put heads together on damage control, as well as perha
  3. Well, then, that is a different discussion, isn't it? --It certainly has nothing to do with getting "same or similar services' at two-year-old prices. You're talking "workarounds" necessary to exercise damage control for poor policy. Look - all of these arguments in defense of/apology for this garbled law/policy are wholly reliant on a combination of irrelevancies, assumptions about intentions of drafters, belief that regulatory language does not have to say what it really means - sprinkled with occasional ad hominem attacks. Since when did we decide we had to settle for such slop?
  4. I'm glad that is established - perhaps there is hope after all! So, Rooney's memo really doesn't have much significance to the point of the discussion - the 2010 bogey. Will not . . . or can not? I project the latter.
  5. Yes, I did, and alluded to the same in post #48. The history is not mysterious, only the logic.
  6. I do not see anything in Rooney's remarks that pledges allegiance to 2010 price levels. In fact, this appears to want to deflect that notion by merely signing up to the obvious: don't exceed 2012 enacted levels and the 2013 budget, no contracting for inherently governmental work, reduce support services contracting, motherhood and apple pie. We already knew all that and what's more - it's within the realm of the possible! In fact, the silence in Rooney's remarks on the 2010 pricing bogey is deafening! This makes the whole DoD treatment of Section 808 even curiouser. --Sorry, far from "case
  7. So is this the new, acceptable norm? When ambiguous, confusing direction comes out of Washington, contracting officers should revel in the opportunity to leverage the uncertainty by using their best business judgment? Is this the Mad Hatter's tea party? --and, in anticipation of the claim that it is our responsibility to interpret language rife with multiple interpretations, as that is a basic responsibility of practicioners of contract law - no, I'm sorry, it has NOT always been this way. This is a new era of blatant ambiguity and impracticality that I have not seen before. Here's what SHO
  8. Thanks for posting that, Vern. Infoseeker and I eagerly await the more careful re-reading of the "deviation", to be following by the gesture of the hand clasped over the agape mouth, and the muffled utterance, "What were we thinking?!..." Perhaps it will be found that the "misunderstanding" of those whiney COs reading plain English will be best "clarified" by rewriting the law and its implementing memo. By the way, I have been at this for 39 years (contracts, program, and operations management, government and industry). I have done plenty of negotiating - on narrow to broad charters. I get
  9. I guess my original point was that the NDAA and the resulting DPAP memo are attempting to "hold the line", or even "move back the line", on services contracting cost by placing cost control responsibility on the hapless contracting officer in a way that flies in the face of marketplace economic realities. The CO is obliged to set negotiation objectives at cost levels that are two years old and/or actually negotiate net, bottom line prices at two-year-old expectation levels. This is notwithstanding any actual history that may have seen costs move upward by reason of any number of factors, inc
  10. This presumes the scope of the services has not changed in two years and enjoys apples to apples pricing. I do not see that kind of stability in my programs. Even if it were to be apples to apples, there is a second presumption (if one is anticipating success in using the tactic) that the government market is a must-have for the services provider. Not the case in my programs. . . . or as you say, "the question is whether the big player can make it stick". Hardly a game of chance I would want to play - given the choice. Well, so much for exchanging economic theories. I am more interested
  11. I realize what the two paragraphs may have intended to address - they just haven't done it in a way that makes the direction clear, or even feasible. For instance, "price" is inclusive of labor, OH, and all other cost elements in its make-up. Any natural market pressure upwards in the latter will most certainly create an increase in the former. This is what happens wnen the attempt to lower government contracted services cost is addressed through an attempt to unnaturally reverse the natural cost progression of a free market enconomy . . . instead of, for instance, reforming program require
  12. I do not agree that the paragraphs do not conflict. Granted, the law and the waiver are rife with ambiguity, but the second paragraph in a plain English reading has the effect of nullifying the ostensible limitations of the first paragraph - and it is not clear that the conditions of the first paragraph apply to the second paragraph. In any event, I agree with the statement, "Expect the waivers to be used frequently." Barring greater clarification of the law, I am sure this will be the pragmatic approach.
  13. For those performing DoD services acquisition, what is the general feeling about DPAP Memo USA001973-12-DPAP, June 6, 2012 on this subject? Frankly, I am surprised at the lack of reaction in the trade press and the DoD community in general. Briefly, it seems to require mandatory pricing at the FY 2010 levels (whatever and however those are determined to be) for service contracts over $10 million, unless the head of agency waives the requirement. Furthermore, it's two key paragraphs (from the Act) seem contradictory -- (1) Unless rates are otherwise established by law, negotiation objectiv
×
×
  • Create New...