Jump to content
The Wifcon Forums and Blogs


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

0 Neutral

About mattdamaz

  • Rank
  1. When I was with the AF we occassionally did NAF buys. See guidance below: http://www.afnafpo.com/pages/Policy-And-Training/Docs/Afnaf-Contract-Regulations/AFMAN64-302_Nov_2011.pdf
  2. FAI did adapt most of the DAU courses to obtain a Level II with the exception of the ACQ courses. However, I see now that the DAWIA certification courses have changed. I can also tell you that I was much more impressed with the DAU training I received vs. the FAI training I received. When I went through my Level 2 the courses were delivered by former DoD 1102s, and these folks knew what they were doing. The FAI courses I attended were delivered by contractors and I was not impressed. I actually had the opporuntiy to correct the instructor a couple times privately about things he stated that were incorrect. Anyway, if you're curious, the two links below illustrate the differences, but you are correct that CON 217 is still required to get your 1102 Level 2 through FAI. http://www.fai.gov/pdfs/fac_contracting_program.pdf http://icatalog.dau.mil/onlinecatalog/CareerLvl.aspx?lvl=2&cfld=3
  3. I absolutely concur with your assesment. However, what if an agency uses LPTA? What if the lowest priced offeror is found technically unacceptable? Shouldn't that offeror or any offeror for that matter be given an opportunity for a debrief, notice of what led to an unacceptable technical rating, and to "cure" their proposals for future orders? Seems to me that if agencies don't have to provide unsuccessful letters or conduct debriefs on orders under $5M, they essentially have carte blanche to award to whomever they like (typically, this means keeping the incumbent in place). The problem here is that I think this provides a way for "smart" CO/KOs to circumvent FAR 6 and 15 by citing the "Ordering Procedures" of Part 16 after establishing an ordering vehicle. I understand what you've stated above, and if the IDIQ is for supplies or severable services (non-complex) than I agree. However, I do think this is very likely being abused. Thoughts?
  4. So, again the question. If an agency cites the ordering procedures process of FAR Part 16 under "fair opportunity" then they don't have to provide unsuccessful offeror notices or debriefs for orders under $5M? Does any one else see how agencies could easily abuse this? This belies logic in the alleged days of transparency.
  • Create New...