• Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

0 Neutral

About apsofacto

  • Rank
    Bronze Member

Recent Profile Visitors

11,611 profile views
  1. I have never issued an unpriced purchase order (they may be horrible and I'm curious if anyone has experience), but it sounds like they were conceived with this circumstance in mind . . .
  2. He deserves better supporters that that!
  3. C Culham beat me to it! That is always the first place I go when these questions come up. I usually think of passages like this form (Overseas Lease Group, Inc., B-402111, January 19, 2010) (emphasis added): I'm in the habit of putting a statement in new contracts like 'The purpose of this Contract is [broad statement]' for this very purpose. Hope that is a good habit, I think it helps put all proposers on notice what kind of changes could occur. Sounds like Fear's cost, schedule and type of work do not change much, so it sounds encouraging from the description.
  4. Still on team Drabkin. Has anyone switched sides since the thread began?
  5. Is this bad, though?
  6. I smell a price realism analysis. Did the solicitation use the word "realism" anywhere?
  7. Hi, Joel, Rent seeking, or good idea? Or both?
  8. I noticed there was an entry about reverse auctions for construction work. We are required by state law to solicit construction via sealed bidding, so reverse auctions are not so outlandish from my perspective. My perspective could be warped, though.
  9. Has this D&F become harder to write over the years? I don't remember it being too much of an obstacle, there was copious parroting of FAR 16.601.c. I know the Obama Administration wanted less T&M.
  10. We have a policy of no supervisor/subordinate relationships on our technical evaluation panels. I'm not aware of a requirement in law for that, and I don't think it was an actual problem before. We make policy by crackpot complaint, though, and that's how that rule was established. If there is more meaningful guidance on this issue I'd like to hear it as well. Thanks, sjst1!
  11. I hope its not the one with the cannibal hipsters. That's when I quit watching.
  12. If they gave an assumed contract start date in the solicitation, perhaps they'd assume that date to be correct when evaluating your sliding scale? Don't know if you'd get a consistent result across the whole Government.
  13. I think this is the GAO protest the article references: http://www.wifcon.com/cgen/412746.pdf The article states the GAO did not have a complete administrative record when they generated this decision. The following CoFC decisions are here: http://www.wifcon.com/cofc/16-784.pdf https://ecf.cofc.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/show_public_doc?2016cv0784-113-0 Thanks as always to Bob for curating these decisions for us.
  14. I don't think you want your company associated with garbage!