apsofacto

Hello, NavyBuyer,

I'd happily torch a few acres of rainforest to get a few laws repealed and corresponding regulations removed

ApsoFacto loves District of Corruption.  Also nominates District of Collapse to PepeTheFrog.

We use D&B, but I thought D&B was primarily self-reported, and therefore could be gamed.

In our situation, access to Consumer Reports would make more sense given the amount of knick-knacks we purchase (though not for responsibility purposes). Don't know if that would be useful to you, though.

These problems affect other more high-profile areas (e.g. taxation, war-fighting, private sector hiring, land use, etc.), and we may benefit as free riders from whatever progress they make in those areas.  People in other areas are generating ideas like the House of Repeal.  Such a thing, were it to come to pass, may help us here. 

(Thought I should offer *something* hopeful since I'm a Pollyanna at heart).

Quote

I'm reading books about bee-keeping and thinking of writing a horror novel.

These are two diverse interests just begging to be merged together!  Some of this field has already been plowed, though unsuccessfully.

I never submitted announcements to the GPE (fedbizopps at that time) personally- never had an account with it.  I only submitted announcements to our in-house computer system.  However, our in-house system had an account with the GPE and provided those announcements to the GPE. 

Could this language be a needlessly fussy way to describe that scenario?  I honestly don't think so, but I thought I should float that trial balloon so that it can take heavy fire . . .

Hi, H2H,

Also unrelated: I recently read Call of Cthulu by HP Lovecraft.  Does not work as a campfire reading-to-the-kids horror story.  Good story, though.

In my younger days I enjoyed Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas.  And Paradise Lost which was not as hard to read as I thought. 

Apparently 150 is the magic number.

We had some excellent contracting officers who were woodwind players prior to me coming on board at my agency.  I think they paved the way for me to be hired.  I worked out as well!  Unfortunately, we did not have enough players for a woodwind quintet.  We were always short a bassoon and a clarinet.  The HR people wouldn't let us put that requirement in the job announcements

Too bad, it would have been fun.

Wrestling is compelling in that way.  There is no score: you just get beaten. 

There is still a ref, though.  Do you like the javelin throw or track?  Not much subjectivity there.

I was a Fine Arts major.  I may have ruined it for you.  They may have been more desperate back in 2001!

The article says there is a four minute deadline to provide the written protest.  I'd love to read one!  Just an accusation that there is a foreign substance in the judge's eye?  (By foreign substance I mean feces)

Pepe, I thought of the same quote.  Do you think Walt Whitman needed an exorcism? 

Hi, Matthew,

I noticed some glossed-over disagreement between some panel members- specifically the DHS representative (who I seem to be picking on) seems pretty down on mandatory contracts.  Says they don't work.  I think there was a move from GSA to mandatory specifications in IT for computers.  That may be what was eating at the DHS person.  I'm not a Fed anymore so I'm fuzzy on this too, but others around here know for sure.  She didn't bring that up specifically since there was a GSA person a few feet away and the conversation was polite.

I think it's the mandatory *specification* in the mandatory contract that causes the trouble.  Wrangling everyone into fewer specifications seems like the hard part, right?  Nobody bristles at not being able to use their favorite inspection and acceptance language.  Strategic Sourcing is a requirements definition headache above all else.

That being said, I think this takes it too far:

"I didn't come into this business to write contracts, I came into this business to support a mission" (1:06:20)

Hi, Vern,

As you say, the value of the task order was $50M.  The technical proposal page limitation was 30 pages.  The Air Force dinged one proposer for " [not] discuss(ing anything specific to the Structures support such as items listed in PWS paragraph 3.3.4.8.2".  It sounds like they wanted longer and more detailed technical proposals.  $50M is also lot of money, perhaps worth slogging through a 100 page proposal.

I'm also not comfortable with LPTA for engineering and professional services.  Actually, I thought you could not do that (Brooks Act).

I'm sure you have other misgivings, but those are the issues that jumped out at me.

If Air Force folks are reading, please feel free to set me straight.

The recent examples have involved animals for some reason:

• Kid gets into gorilla exhibit at zoo ->gorilla gives kid concussion-> responsible adult shoots gorilla-> trial by media-> week of hatred toward responsible adult
• Dentist shoots lion in corrupt country-> trial by media-> week of hatred toward dentist

Prior to those:

• Scientist lands probe on a comet-> wears goofy tee-shirt with scantily clad women at press conference-> Scientist pilloried and forced to grovel by know-nothings .
• Mozilla CEO gives money to Prop ###-> Activists destroy his life.

These are happening more and more often and I honestly can't keep up.  This doesn't even include university-run show-trials that can occur when two people get drunk and have intercourse.  This is obviously not as bad as the Reign of Terror but we have to crawl before walking.

I work at home once every two weeks and I use a virtual desktop interface which allows me to keep absolutely nothing on my home computer.  It's the only remaining place I can get any writing done peace.

I don't think we hate the French that much.  

I appreciate efforts to revive the French Reign of Terror here at home (with our own spin on it).  We even have show trials!  

I thought of Betsy as more of an employee than an external contractor.  But if she was not an employee, there was an offer, it was accepted, and she was probably paid.

As noted earlier, there was no US Government, so I guess the arrangement was between two individuals. 

I have never heard of that.

At least the FAR is written in English, and not translated from Greek.  We have that going for us.

Thanks, Ji!

Yes, that looks like the FAR section corresponding to that quote. 

The three-firm rule makes good sense in the file-cabinet context, in that it can be complied with easily.  However, we don't operate that way, and it sounds like the OP doesn't either (though he will correct me if I'm wrong). 

We issue a synopsis/announcement/RFQ asking for qualifications and are therefore dependent upon the kindness of strangers to provide at least three responses.

I suppose my question is: If we are soliciting openly for an A-E requirement and not going to the file cabinet described in Sec. 903/FAR 36.603, does the three firm rule apply? 

I'm putting this question out there in hopes that HoosierDaddy will include it in his list of questions to Corps of Engineers chain of command.  Or . . . Joel probably knows the answer

Hello, Hoosier!

If you receive an answer from them please let us know.  I've had a similar situation, but was operating under a state law without the three-firm requirement.  The purpose of the law was to ensure public safety by not low-bidding engineering work, so it seems odd that the application of the law would lead to the relaxation of safety standards.

Separate question: Does your agency have a file cabinet of statements of qualifications handy?:

Quote

"REQUESTS FOR DATA ON ARCHITECTURAL AND ENGINEERING SERVICES "Sec.903. In the procurement of architectural and engineering services, the agency head shall encourage firms engaged in the lawful practice of their profession to submit annually a statement of qualifications and performance data. The agency head, for each proposed project, shall evaluate current statements of qualifications and performance data on file with the agency, together with those that may be submitted by other firms regarding the proposed project, and shall conduct discussions with no less than three firms regarding anticipated concepts and the relative utility of alternative methods of approach for furnishing the required services and then shall select therefrom, in order of preference, based upon criteria established and published by him, no less than three of the firms deemed to be the most highly qualified to provide the services required.

We have no such cabinet, and I'm curious if we should.

I may be slow, but I don't understand the difference between "safeguarding" and "information security" after reading the answer. 

I gleaned that "safeguarding" is a verb and "information security" is not, and that they are trying to establish "information security" concerns data availability and "safeguarding" does not.  However, that sounds like information security is the narrower term, not the other way around.  Do you think there was a mix-up?

Second.