Jump to content
The Wifcon Forums and Blogs

apsofacto

Members
  • Content Count

    316
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by apsofacto

  1. 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.
  2. Still on team Drabkin. Has anyone switched sides since the thread began?
  3. I smell a price realism analysis. Did the solicitation use the word "realism" anywhere?
  4. 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.
  5. 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.
  6. 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!
  7. I hope its not the one with the cannibal hipsters. That's when I quit watching.
  8. 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.
  9. 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.
  10. I don't think you want your company associated with garbage!
  11. 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!
  12. 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?
  13. There appear to be some gems in this oldie: I
  14. 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 . . .)
  15. 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'
  16. 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.
  17. What is the deliverable under the resultant contract? Having some trouble understanding the Government's requirement.
  18. 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.
  19. 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!
  20. 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?
×
×
  • Create New...