Jump to content
The Wifcon Forums and Blogs

apsofacto

Members
  • Content Count

    276
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

0 Neutral

About apsofacto

  • Rank
    Member

Recent Profile Visitors

12,289 profile views
  1. Thanks C, Cannot speak for the others, but I always gravitate toward GAO because their decisions are just so much easier to read, and I know how to use their search engine. Not the best reasons! However, I have noticed they weigh in on this one contract admin issue on the occasion when a disappointed firm sees a contract modification they do not like on a contract they lost (as with your example). I remember seeing this more with contract mods that add a chunk of work, so its nice to read your example because it is new to me. I thought this passage from your link was also worth reading: There may have been a different outcome had the Contractor floated up this bad-boy for first article testing- would have been one Valhalluva big change to the original contract specs and performance requirements:
  2. Can you think of any areas in the solicitation other than the scope? Q&As not incorporated into the solicitation leap to mind as a possibility.
  3. Thanks, Ji, I'll continue then. Appreciate your insight about the Government reviewers. Anyone- I seem to spend a lot of time reviewing SOWs lately, and I don't think I'm the only one. This seems like a challenging area for beginners so please feel free to post any advice as a comment or as a new post. Folks will be interested. I'll do another one about Background sections later.
  4. There are times in a man's life when he has to look hard in the mirror, spit mouthwash at his own reflection, and decide for himself whether or not something is a cardinal change. We have learned on the message boards over the years there is now hard and fast rule for determining this answer, there is just a judgement of whether or not the instant change to the SOW, the contract price, or the schedule deviates from the original purpose of the contract. I have found myself adding these types of sentences to SOWs as both cardinal-change-battlespace-preparation. (Also seems useful to describe what the higher-rank folks think this Contract is for): These are fictional examples, but you are welcome to google. Example 1 is vulnerable to price increases (e.g. security is ramped up after a security event). Example 2 is vulnerable to both price and period of performance increases if the construction phase of the project drags on. Example 3 could be vulnerable to all three: price, period of performance and scope changes. Is this a waste of time? Is it accomplishing my goal of cardinal change battlespace preparation? Or is this sort of thing just superfluous?
  5. It sounds like you will not be able to split this into smaller, more manageable chunks. Can you pick the most likely scenario, evaluate those options, and force the requiring activity to provide sole source justifications for deviations? I assume they are foisting this on your office somehow, so you should inflict as much suffering upon them as you can. Looking forward to hearing better responses that this, just getting the ball rolling. Best of luck to you, General.
  6. I vote for (2), though sometimes CORs and I rewrite SOWs together. I hope it helps them, but they write this way so infrequently it's unlikely. Endorsed. Division of labor is good.
  7. This is exactly what I would say if I was replacing all of you with aliens.
  8. Life. Wow, man, Life. It's really strange you know? We make these plans to receive your proposals and then Life happens and we can't. We can't even issue an amendment to our solicitation! Could be plague, could be invasion, could be we just totally flaked out that day. But chill. We'll take it when we get back. We won't trip about Life. Cuz. Life. Trips. Us. Man. All of us. Can you pass that stuff over here?
  9. If the receipt of proposals is prevented by unforeseen circumstances, then the Government will receive proposals at the same time on the first day of normal operations unless the solicitation is formally extended.
  10. Hi Joel, Thank you- I think all those reasons make sense! But those can't be the reasons the FAR default to award without discussions, right? Those are all very local, case-specific decisions, so they couldn't explain the system-wide default position.
  11. Vern asked an interesting during this discussion: This is the question: I thought it was a good enough question to deserve its own thread- it was discussed mostly in the context of protest risk aversion in the other thread, but there may be more to the story. My notion was that the Government does not want fake prices in initial proposals, we want hard offers that we can use as a basis for excluding proposers from the competitive range if applicable. Awarding without discussions is a threat that we will hold the slippery proposer it its initial prices. I don't know if my notion is true, though. Even if true, there are likely other reasons I don't know about.
  12. Pepe and flitzer, I find it useful to blink a lot with an blank, innocent expression on my face. Actual example: "I couldn't find the prohibition in our purchase card policy against buying that particular item, but I'm probably looking in the wrong place. Can you point me in the right direction?" (blinks innocently) If you try to hear church choir music in your head while doing this it really helps you carry It off. Since I hit my 40s I feel I'm really coming into my own as a performer.
×
×
  • Create New...