Gordon Shumway

On 2/22/2018 at 9:42 AM, Vern Edwards said:

Let's brainstorm, so no critiques.

@Vern Edwards Perhaps I read too far into your post last night.

LOL!!

This is by far the best troll post of the year.

@Vern Edwards My apologies, I didn't mean to break the rules. I was interested in hearing more about FrankJon's position... wasn't trying to critique.

20 minutes ago, FrankJon said:

My point is that there is an opportunity for agencies to change the prevalent - and I say ineffective - "cradle to grave" practice through policy change.

@FrankJon  what's wrong with the "cradle to grave" practice?

Don, this is great!!

Terms matter in contracting... they have specific meaning, so be aware of what exactly you are saying to potential offerors/quoters when borrowing the language.

Agree with FrankJon.

Wage determinations are a “floor”, not sure how you are linking that to the price reasonableness of a proposal in a competitive procurement...

That's a nice article, does give some hope.

I starting in a contracting shop (1102), moved to the program side (343), and now do federal strategy consulting (both contracting and program office projects)... it's been very eye opening to say the least. I love learning about contracting, but my view of the profession has gone down hill in the last 5 years.

14 minutes ago, dacaan said:

I think the rationale for the purchase is unlawful as stated "the purpose of awarding this contract is to build the industrial base" in the hopes that the awarded vendors will become sophisticated enough to compete with a vendor that has historically been awarded sole source contracts for this requirement. 

How is this unlawful?

The term you are trying to define is completely subjective.

You haven't provided anything to support your opinion for us to analyze. The information you have provided for your client is also insufficient, as Matthew stated.

Nah don't just go with the flow. Tell your client that they do not have a legitimate need, based on your opinion (supporting details not needed).

Report back and let us know how it goes.

1 hour ago, Gordon Shumway said:

Why don't you seek advice from your competition advocate or someone more senior in your organization?

Why don't you seek advice from your competition advocate or someone more senior in your organization?

6.302-3 -- Industrial Mobilization; Engineering, Developmental, or Research Capability; or Expert Services

"Build industry" is very vague, is the above what they are referencing?

@Don Mansfield hahahahahaha that comment made my day

14 hours ago, Desparado said:

So I guess... yes... I would recommend it, but know that you have as much of a chance to going to a worse situation than you do a better one. 

100% agree. Also, a worse situation can sometimes yield a great learning opportunity.

13 hours ago, PepeTheFrog said:

Read as many SES (or other positions you want) bios as possible, pick the ones you think you want to be, and notice the commonalities. Then, try to emulate them.

Moving around helps your credibility, experience, and salary (both public and private sector). 

Pepe, as always, is spot on.

This was an interesting read...

@PepeTheFrog "alexa, write me a task order!"

it's all about who you know

Latvian Connection is at it again. This time GAO dropped a 2 year ban on ol' Keven. Next up, according to the decision, could be a permanent ban.

http://www.gao.gov/products/B-415043.3

So two or more distributors are competing for your business...

2 minutes ago, FrankJon said:

  Is this what you're saying?

Basically yes, my initial thought was that you are changing the rules at a point where the rules are set.

From SMALLGOVCON:

http://smallgovcon.com/naics-code-appeals/naics-codes-task-orders-underlying-contract-controls/

9 minutes ago, FrankJon said:

The initial competition was unrestricted.

Yeah, based off of an analysis of small businesses (or lack thereof) under NAICS 123456.

Question to your question @FrankJon , can you change the order NAICS in your contract writing system?