apsofacto

I think if they are technically unacceptable, they by definition are not in your competitive range. Then you have to do some mail-merging to generate 100 rejection letters, but you shouldn't have to do a cost analysis on those proposals. Shoot, a simple price analysis ought to be sufficient. Am I comprehending your question?

I'll make an attempt to answer these questions in red: Also here: I hope this helps. I think the good news is that if mapped correctly, then you should be OK with whatever the answer turns out to be. Good luck!

We had to pass the executive order to find out what is in it.

I looked at the decision, it says that A-127 (with which I am not familiar) drags FAR Part 6 into the issue: Don't know if this clarifies anything, or just muddies the waters even further. I don't know if a KO could point to this decision and say "well, I don't have a JOFOC but all of the information is in the file!" Perhaps the word "generally" makes this concept not applicable to the work we do.

I looks like they are reaching all over the file for bits of the JOFOC and piecing them together. Also the bolded requirement now sounds non-protestable?

I have heard reports that Ashley Madison doesn't confirm those e-mail address, which gives their "clients" some measure of deniability.

OK- Thanks Desparado. I was worried using GSA unit rates to fix price a specific piece of work would render that line item an open market item. I trolled through some GAO decisions, but did not turn up a result which supported that notion, so I should re-think. I assume the schedule holder reimburses if there was an underrun on the actual hours incurred- is that correct? If the OIG detects that more labor hours were consumed in performing the work, does the Government owe the schedule holder more money? I think I'd rather write a D&F to use T&M rather than interact with my OIG in any way, but I was a little skeptical of the T&M=EV&L formulation. T&M=riskier, but not evil and therefore prohibited. Probably unfit for service now . . .

We were scoped out by the Calyptus Group. Since we were the victim auditee, I'm not sure whether my recommendation would help or hurt.

Thanks, Vern and Joel. I haven't run into nearly the volume of issues Joel describes, but we often find employee misclassifications and struggle getting timely certified payroll. I think we do not even allow the use of apprentices. Our *ahem* political climate may be much different in this part of the country, though no one is immune to that type of thing. I mentioned the Cato objections to DBA Ver links to above to our lead Davis Bacon Compliance officer, who would by virtue of his background take a special interest . It was news to him.

Are there fixed price line items in the GSA schedule holder's schedule? Does that still matter?

Hi, Joel, Why the more active role for DBA? I have taken that active role myself on occasion, but never dealt much directly with the SCA.

I always figured he was talking about a space battle as he was manufactured for that purpose. I need to see that movie again . . .

I view this as a transaction cost reducing phenomenon- I don't think they add value in performing the work either. I think it will exist as long there are many FBO-like websites for various states, cities, etc. The upselling is natural, and does not seem predatory. Maybe lame but not sleazy. The fraud and ill-performing contractors are a problem, but I don't think you can get away from not responding to those companies. As Vern states, you don't have to give them 5-star customer service, but a basic response is in order . . .

If what they offer is superior (for offerors) to FBO and they get you bidders/proposers, why not respond?

I know that if the performance is bad enough to default the contractor, you should not have to perform another competition. I don't think allows you to add the $6M, though. If you didn't have to obligate the $6M, just $4M, you could go right out and find an 8(a). Does the requireer have a compelling sole source justifiation? I apologize if these questions no longer pertain, my knowledge of the SB program has grown a little stale. This is a thinly veiled request for instruction on my part, I suppose . . .

I assume it explains proper tackling and various blocking schemes. I think playbooks may also be used in football.

Why do you need people overseas now, and did not before? What can they do over there which they could not do in the CONUS? You may have been told that the nature of the work has not changed, but I would be skeptical. I suspect the contractor's personnel will be doing different things over there, I would try to find out what those things are . . .

I had a music degree, and they let me in. I think I can still resolve a French augmented sixth chord if I had to. DreamChaser, if I could get in you should too.

Hello, contractor 2589 If this is were the case, why not explicitly require the feature? It's possible they may not be familiar with what is out in the marketplace. Can't help you much as you can't really get into detail. Could you propose the software as an option? Not advising that, just curious what folks think about that . . .

The distinction Vern describes above is good to keep in the back of your mind if you operate in a FAR-based environment. If you move out of that FAR-based environment, then you will be confused (as I was for a while) when leave to work for an employer who uses the general law definition.

I don't understand why people use these weird screen names. Oxford dictionary says in addition to the negative connotation: 1.1 (also prodigal son or daughter) A person who leaves home and behaves recklessly, but later makes a repentant return. [With biblical allusion to the parable in Luke 15:11–32] I should add that there is nothing worse that a prodigous prodigal progeny.

Do you specs/contract articles address who owns the float?

CDS is correct, but do you need to terminate an order under that IDIQ which is not yet completed?

The advantages of seeing what you are buying are that you will have superior knowledge of that product/service. That is also an advantage of Category Management as discussed here: http://www.wifcon.com/discussion/index.php?/topic/2954-category-management/?hl=%2Bcategory+%2Bmanagement I don't know if a hypothetical Category CO would get to actually physically inspect the product/service being purchased, since they would be purchasing on behalf of multiple agencies. Would their innate knowledge of product/service overcome this disadvantage?

Enough candy puns, Smarties! I'm just happy F&F got their just desserts.