Jump to content
The Wifcon Forums and Blogs

jwomack

Members
  • Content count

    156
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

0 Neutral

About jwomack

  • Rank
    Bronze Member

Contact Methods

  • ICQ
    0

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male

Recent Profile Visitors

7,771 profile views
  1. IDIQ Decision

    Comparison to what is proper. “Weakness” being a polite word for incompetence.
  2. IDIQ Decision

    As an auditor, would it be wrong to only review acquisitions made in September? It may be statistically skewed but the weaknesses would certainly be identified.
  3. Navy SeaPort is/was the same way at least a few years ago. If the contractor met minimum standards they got a contract.
  4. Court Order and the FAR

    Good articles. A reminder that the three Branches of Government are separate but must strive to speak in unison. Sometimes established processes need to be questioned.
  5. Court Order and the FAR

    Longer than many folks want to invest. Agree with all the input and thank you.
  6. Court Order and the FAR

    Vern, Imposed. Agree. I'm a government KO trying to determine the boundaries I have to work within. Joel, Agree but am hoping someone can help me find a loophole if there is one that's reasonable. Sometimes in the legal community things happen relatively quickly and it can be highly inconvenient to the Attorneys if forced to follow normal acquisition protocols.
  7. Court Order and the FAR

    Yes, unless the Court Order explicitly states otherwise, the agency has discretion on how to satisfy the Order. Issuing a PO or using a GPC or other procurement authority is current practice when external help is needed. I’m trying to determine if, when doing so, the agency must follow FAR. For example, if a government employee commits what would ordinarily be considered a UC in trying to satisfy a Court Order, would that action be subject to FAR 1.602-3 ratification procedures? The answer is probably yes but I’m looking for a loophole. Like, “Though not directly with the vendor, the Court established the obligation on the Government by way of issuing the Court Order. Therefore, satisfying the Court Order is considered a mandated legal process and a FAR procurement vehicle is not required.”
  8. A federal judge issues a Court Order. The Court Order requires an Executive Branch government agency to perform an action in which a 3rd party commercial vendor must be involved. The agency is expected to identify and establish whatever relationships are necessary with vendor(s) to satisfy the Court Order. This includes paying the vendor with the agency's funds for any services rendered. The Executive Branch agency is subject to FAR. An example of this would be if the Court ordered DOD/DOJ to perform a psych exam on a defendant. This would, in turn, require DOD/DOJ to enter into a relationship with a commercial entity such as a hospital or doctor. Who incurred the obligation on the Government? The Court? The Executive agency? Would the agreement between the agency and the vendor be considered an acquisition subject to FAR?
  9. Ability to effectively communicate with and assist the program office, especially pre-solicitation. And this -
  10. Kickstarter and the GCPC

    Not if the Government only receives benefit comparable to its cost.
  11. 17.200 says “This subpart prescribes policies and procedures for the use of option solicitation provisions and contract clauses.” A list is then provided describing when “this subpart does not apply”. Neither Part 7 as a whole nor lease to purchase type contracts are listed as exceptions. 52.207-5 “Option to Purchase Equipment” is an option clause as illustrated by the clause’s title and 52.207-5(a) which says, “The Contracting Officer may exercise this option…”. Regarding exercise of the option, 17.207(a) says “When exercising an option, the contracting officer shall…”. It does not say “When exercising an option prescribed by this Part, the contracting officer shall…”. Therefore, the requirements of 17.207 would be applicable as well.
  12. Original Intent of FAR Parts and Subparts

    Thank you, Vern. Enjoy life!!!
  13. Original Intent of FAR Parts and Subparts

    A lot of research, time, and experience. No magic pill (darn it!!!). As to experience, having been around since the birth of the FAR would clearly have its advantages. An obstacle I can’t overcome so I guess it’s more time and research in my future. Appreciate the sources. I’m familiar with most but there are a couple I don’t use as often as I probably should. Thanks for everyone’s input.
  14. Mr. Edwards (and others), You often identify where a FAR Part or Subpart originated from presumably to help understand original intent. Can you explain the steps you follow to identify the origins? For example, in a recent posting you said – “The rule in FAR 15.405(d) originated with DOD. It was added to the Defense Acquisition Regulation in 1982, 47 FR 9399, March 5, 1982, DAC 76-31, without explanation. The rule appeared in DAR 3-801.1(c) as follows…” How did you get from 15.405(d) to the DAR and the other citations? I’m not particularly interested in 15.405 but rather the generic process you follow. I know there are citations at the bottom of many FAR Subparts but clearly you’re looking beyond those. Any particular websites you find most useful?
  15. Sounds reasonable. Thank you.
×