Jump to content
The Wifcon Forums and Blogs

apsofacto

Members
  • Content Count

    316
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by apsofacto

  1. I was focusing on his point about how the 'neither favorable nor unfavorable' FAR language doesn't make sense from a practical standpoint (which I read as the main idea of the posting). I read Emptor's "Ignore it" advice as a tongue-in-cheek, or an inevitable bizarre result the 'neither favorable nor unfavorable' language taken to its logical end. It was the "The Comptroller General does not necessarily seem to see it my way" that brought me to that conclusion, but as always, I could be missing something. You seem worried that some CO may actually try this. I learned in college that if you c
  2. Hello, Physiocrat, I thought that was what Emptor was getting at. The neutral rating is weaker than the favorable rating.
  3. You are correct, of course. A 'neither favorable nor unfavorable' rating is a *relative* weakness in any competition where a competitor has a favorable rating. Isn't the neutral rating requirement designed to allow firms to break in to new areas of business? If it fails, should it be scrapped entirely? As an aside, there is a lot of discussion at Federal Computer Week about past performance . . . though not this issue.
  4. Hi, Boof. I'm researching this myself- the first step seems to be that you just acknowledge that you will never be able define your requirement sufficiently in advance, and are therefore paying your Contractor by the hour (or on a cost reimbursible basis). I don't understand why the normal procurement process can't accomodate this- it seems very simple. There is probably an art to packaging the work via task order that I'm not fully appreciating, but again, nothing that the current processes cannot accomodate. There are also some claimed efficiencies in consolidating the deliverables (e.g. a
  5. I'm not addressing the legality of anything here, just floating a trail ballon. The cost realism analysis seems like a thin reed which is required to support a whole lot of weight. They require a lot of knowledge from the Project Management side as to exactly how the Contractor will perform the work;They are very subjective; andAre therefore susceptible to pressure from within and without the contracting office; andThey are performed for requirements which, by their nature, are difficult to get a handle on (hence the CPFF contract type).I'm sure there are many good cost realism analyses floa
  6. I think Best and Final Offers is one of these as well, though there is a rogue reference to it in FAR 22.404-2. I keep trying to say Final Proposal Revision but it's not easy fighting habit. Still, it doesn't appear to bother the GAO folks: http://www.gao.gov/search?search_type=Solr&o=0&facets=&q=%22Best+and+Final+Offer%22&adv=0&criteriaCounter=1&shownCriteriaCounter=1&referenceSearch=1&adv_begin_date=mm%2Fdd%2Fyyyy&adv_end_date=mm%2Fdd%2Fyyyy
×
×
  • Create New...