Jump to content
The Wifcon Forums and Blogs

Vern Edwards

  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

0 Neutral


About Vern Edwards

  • Rank
    Senior Member

Profile Information

  • Gender
  • Location
    Portland, Oregon

Recent Profile Visitors

139,498 profile views
  1. Don Mansfield wrote a comprehensive analysis of the FAR 19.000(b) problem for the September 2015 issue of The Nash & Cibinic Report entitled, "Small Business Programs Do They Apply Outside the United States?" He analyzes the case law and indicts all culprits.
  2. Vern Edwards

    31.205-26(e) clarification

    See Bain, DETERMINING THE PREEMPTIVE EFFECT OF FEDERAL LAW ON STATE STATUTES OF REPOSE, University of Baltimore Law Review (Spring 2014): . Footnote omitted.
  3. Vern Edwards

    31.205-26(e) clarification

    Isn't every clause a subsection?
  4. Vern Edwards

    Source Selection Approaches- all of them?

    FAR 15.101 uses confusing terminology. It mentions "approaches" and then discusses two "processes." But the LPTA and tradeoff "processes" are not, in fact, processes. LPTA and tradeoff are decisional rules. You can use different processes to make selections based on the LPTA and tradeoff decisional rules. For instance, when doing a tradeoff source selection you can use the standard FAR Subpart 15.3 process model or you can use a Four-Step process. Highest Technically Rated with a Fair and Reasonable Price is a decisional rule, not a process. There is more than one way to conduct a source selection under that rule. VATEP, on the other hand, is a kind of tradeoff process. Yet another tradeoff process is Simple Additive Weighting (SAW).
  5. Vern Edwards

    Relevance of the Defense Acquisition Corp

    I think that's a pretty accurate description of what happened after the future arrived. CO certificates of appointment were, indeed, handed out like candy at a Halloween party.
  6. Vern Edwards

    Relevance of the Defense Acquisition Corp

    If you think I did, then my last post failed.
  7. Vern Edwards

    Relevance of the Defense Acquisition Corp

    As usual, the discussion has descended to its LPLI. The AC was created to improve promotional opportunities for military officers who were assigned to acquisition jobs, which had long been considered a backwater secondary career filed. See Robbert, et al., Promotion Benchmarks for Senior Officers with Joint and Acquisition Service (Rand 2016): See, generally, 10 USC Ch. 87, §§ 1722b, 1731, 1732, 1734, 1735, and 1737. The only mention of an acquisition corps in the CFR is at 32 CFR 751.4(c). It is not clear to me what if any effect the creation of an AC has had on the acquisition process or on the advancement of civilian acquisition careers. It is not possible to compare the old workforce to the new, primarily because job content and working conditions are drastically different. The work of a GS-1102-12 or -13 has a much higher clerical content today than it did in the 1970s and early 1980s, because of the arrival of the desktop computer and the elimination of most clerical and virtually all secretarial support, and because of the effective merger of 1102 and 1105 GS series. For all of the emphasis on professionalism, 1102 job content is much less professional today than it was when I entered the field. How do today's 1102s compare with those of yore? It depends on where you worked in yore and which of today's 1102s you're comparing them to.
  8. Corduroy's problem won't be solved by finding other contractors' unit prices. The solution for him is to take a hard look at his own pricing.
  9. The awarded contract may be available through FOIA, but federal courts have ruled that unit prices are not disclosable if the contractor objects, FAR 15.506(d)(2) notwithstanding, although lawyers will argue about that. https://www.justice.gov/oip/blog/foia-post-2005-treatment-unit-prices-after-mcdonnell-douglas-v-air-force https://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=719ca28f-45dd-4c1d-861e-eaa32d1a0229 If this is something that interests you, you might want to check for the current status of the law. I have not kept up with developments.
  10. It shouldn't entail more than filling in a different set of CLIN pages for the options, signing a new cover sheet, etc. Everything else will be the same. I doubt that the agency prohibited submitting more than one proposal. The thought probably never crossed their minds. Anyway, that's what I'd do, assuming there is no express prohibition. Just make sure to send two complete and separate proposals. Put an end to all the fretting.
  11. Why not just submit two complete and separate offers, one with the discounts and one without?
  12. Vern Edwards

    Amended Solicitation - Fair Opportunity

    Next time, tell the contractors that any that do not submit an offer (or quote) in response to an RFTOP will not be notified of any amendments, including amendments that make material changes in the requirement. (I presume that such procedure will not violate the terms of your contract.)
  13. Vern Edwards

    Including Evaluation Method in Solicitation

    Strength and weakness are themselves nothing but ratings, summary judgments based on premises and proposal facts. See "Postscript: Source Selection Decisions," The Nash & Cibinic Report (June 2018):
  14. Vern Edwards

    Including Evaluation Method in Solicitation

    What does that mean? What do you describe when you describe "how" the evaluation factors will be evaluated? For instance, suppose that the evaluation factor is "Soundness of Proposed Approach" (which is a very popular factor). What kind of information would you provide in order to describe "how" that factor would be evaluated?