apsofacto

Members
  • Content count

    226
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

0 Neutral

About apsofacto

  • Rank
    Bronze Member

Recent Profile Visitors

11,554 profile views
  1. I don't think you want your company associated with garbage!
  2. Thanks to Ji and Vern for resolving! Works better that way. This is now much shorter, but may still meet Jon's needs: Best of luck, Jon!
  3. I think we discussed in another thread about how these breakdown structures can conceal how complicated a sentence can be. My eyes cross a little when I read this: I emphasized and bracketed a period which I frankly do not understand. Are they not capitalizing the following word by mistake? I'll assume not for now. UPDATE: another online FAR has this as a comma, not a period. In sentence form (as opposed to breakdown form) it looks much worse: Noun: Verb: Direct Object:: The Government: authorizes and consents to: all use and manufacture of any invention Is that right?
  4. There appear to be some gems in this oldie: I
  5. I usually try to solve that issue with a parenthesis: Georgetown Law School provides this on their web site- I think it is pretty good: https://www.law.georgetown.edu/academics/academic-programs/legal-writing-scholarship/writing-center/upload/punctuationtips.pdf (Full disclosure, I'm and inveterate ellipsis abuser . . .)
  6. This case is in the news. This is about interpreting a state law, but gives support to the pro-Oxford Comma crowd. Another complex list gone bad. To paraphrase Boy George: 'Comma comma comma comma comma-chameleon'
  7. If you have an order lined up, or reasonable expectation of one, I'd steer clear of the Requirements contracts. Also, seconding Vern, the whole contract (past the minimum) is optional. Unless you find the process at FAR 17.207 enjoyable, options in these contracts serve no purpose. If you are cursed with a management which thinks options are a budget control tool as I am, you may be stuck with it, though.
  8. Bigly, Gordon. Bigly.
  9. What is the deliverable under the resultant contract? Having some trouble understanding the Government's requirement.
  10. I noticed that the breakdown is great if you have to cite a piece of it at the other party. Thanks also Don for that article. It stands to reason, I guess, that spoiling the category of a list with an item outside the category screws everything up. I can see this creeping into any document created by committee. I too have a joke with a list: Cannot post here. Will PM.
  11. Thanks- breakdown describes this much better. I wish I could take full credit for the hot messness, partial credit goes to the National Defense Authorization Act! If my project officer generated that content, I would send back something like this: Still improvement to be made I'm sure, but better. Not exactly sure why the breakdown format conceals (somewhat) these problems. I think we assume each element of the breakdown is a non-divisible unit, which isn't true. Thanks as always, Vern!
  12. This is not a contest, just a question about how to interpret lists which has been on my mind. I rely on complex lists to convey complex ideas with multiple conditions. Here is an example which I think is a bad one: This example is patterned after a legislative passage I was having a hard time with here. Does the format of a list affect how the passage is interpreted? Here it is as a paragraph: The passage is a *hot mess* as a paragraph. For example, does the requirement to repair with OEM parts apply to the red tag and Rebuild Report engines? Or just to the ones verbally directed? There are a lot of ambiguities here. It seems so much clearer as a list! Question: Does the list format resolve ambiguities of this nature? Or is it just a format which is a hell of a lot easier to read, but conceals these problems?
  13. Pure speculation: It could be a "Requirements" contract a la FA16.503 where the consideration is the promise that the Gov't will fulfill all requirement through Sig Sauer. I did not see a "Contract Type" clause at the link Bob Antonio provided, so I'm curious how one would tell for sure. I am unfamiliar with DOD solicitations, though, so this might be more of a "beginner" type question. I may have just scrolled past an missed it.
  14. Absolute agreement! Proposals cannot be evaluated in that way.
  15. Very useful to explain how this is different from the Qualifications-based engineering style procurements. Prices come in with the proposals, they are actual offers. Appreciate that distinction very much . . .