honeybus

Members
  • Content count

    15
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

0 Neutral

About honeybus

  • Rank
    Copper Member

Contact Methods

  • ICQ
    0
  1. Well, your language seems confrontational so I will accept: "based upon a deficient proposal which doesn't comply with all material solicitation requirements." Perhaps "based upon a [deficient] proposal which doesn't comply with [all] even a single material solicitation requirement." "When the courts and GAO say that it a fundamental principle in federal acquisitions . . ." I guess I look to the courts and GAO for [fundamental??] principles of law. "What exactly is it that you cannot understand about the information that I referenced/cited for you in your similar thread the past few days? " I am sorry, but it might take unacceptable time, space, and bandwidth to explain "What exactly [is it] it is that [you] I cannot understand ..." Especially the EXACTLY part... And please put whatever definition you care to on my use of the term 'unacceptable'. Question is taken as rhetorical. "Good God, Almighty! " Ok, but I usually say "Good God, Almighty, thank you for the food and for your gifts . . . " I found it does not help to yell to the Good God, Almighty! since the Almighty is not noted for hearing impairments. Vengeful - yes; hearing impairments - no. Barry sends PS- I am not legal, though I must interact with legal counsel, nor am I contracting rated, yet I have to 'share knowledge and insights' with contracting. If I could only ask the right question here, there would be a better chance for me to get the right answer. Too bad the NEWBIE forum was placed somewhere where a newbie [me] can?t find it. Hey!! A little light humor?!?! OK. "Sometimes you eat the bear; sometimes the bear eats you. 10 to 1 is NOT an acceptable ratio, for either the bear or for you."
  2. Sorry - Joel, thanks for setting me straight. Barry sends
  3. Thanks, Mr Edwards. but please keep my self-definition for 'deficiency' in mind: a 'deficiency' does not make a proposal 'unacceptable', it just makes the actual creation of a contract [meta]physically impossible. That is, a 'deficiency' is a condition which makes a contract creation impossible (missing an element of contract). The FAR part 15 description (definition?!?!) for a 'deficiency' DOES cover my condition within its first item, but DOES NOT cover my definition is its second item 15.001 -- Definitions. As used in this part ? ?Deficiency? is a material failure of a proposal to meet a Government requirement or a combination of significant weaknesses in a proposal that increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance to an unacceptable level. ?Proposal modification? is a change made to a proposal before the solicitation closing date and time, or made in response to an amendment, or made to correct a mistake at any time before award. ?Proposal revision? is a change to a proposal made after the solicitation closing date, at the request of or as allowed by a contracting officer, as the result of negotiations. ?Weakness? means a flaw in the proposal that increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance. A ?significant weakness? in the proposal is a flaw that appreciably increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance. Deficiency, as shown in FAR Part 15, is NOT A DEFINITION , but an EXAMPLE. it should read; ?Deficiency?, examples of which are (1) a material failure of a proposal to meet a Government requirement or and (2) a combination of significant weaknesses in a proposal that increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance to an unacceptable level. Of course, (1) is a true example because it shows no meeting of the minds, but (2) is NOT EVEN a true example, since it does not prevent a contract from being created / awarded. Since these definitions are really only applicable to this FAR Part 15, and not the real world, I am not concerned. What the FAR Part 15 is defining as 'deficiency' is only applicable to this section. I become concerned when the proposal presents a condition which the Government cannot accept. I call this a DEFICIENCY. It prevents the creation of a contract (for example, the Govt cannot perform; Offeror proposes that Govt is to do something which is not within contract law). I find this category of contract interesting: aleatory contract : a contract in which either party's performance is dependent on an uncertain event Barry sends
  4. Thanks for all your help. I wish to close out my request. Joel, these did not fulfill my search, but are intreresting in themselves: Matter of: Systems Management, Inc.; Qualimetrics, Inc. File: B-287032.3; B-287032.4 Date: April 16, 2001 DIGEST Protest is sustained where the procuring agency improperly relaxed for the awardee a mandatory solicitation requirement that the weather observation system be certified by the Federal Aviation Administration, yet did not notify the offerors of its changed requirements, and the record evidences that the protesters were prejudiced because they could have proposed different systems if they had been apprised of the agency?s actual requirements. Matter of: Cortland Memorial Hospital File: B-286890 Date: March 5, 2001 DIGEST Protest of agency?s source selection is sustained where contemporaneous documentation does not establish that the selection was consistent with the solicitation?s evaluation criteria. DECISION Cortland Memorial Hospital protests the award of a contract to Cayuga Medical Center under request for proposals (RFP) No. 670-05-00, issued by the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) for a community-based outpatient clinic (CBOC) to serve VA beneficiaries. Cortland essentially contends that the agency?s award decision was based on an unreasonable evaluation of proposals. We sustain the protest. and a footnote: Because we recommend that the agency reevaluate proposals, we need not address the other issues raised by Cortland.
  5. To show [say] that a government contract was awarded, where the Government recognized that the proposal had a deficiency, and the deficiency was recognized by the Government at the time the Government made the award. I mentioned to my supervisor that I came across such a case [protest], and my supervisor appropriately responded, "show me." Now I cannot find the example. All of the referenced cases and points which were graciously - previously mentioned are solid. I am searching for an aberration, something which should never have been allowed to happen, and yet did happen. An award was made in light of an existing and true proposal deficiency. Barry
  6. Great!! That's what I am seeking - Vern, can you reference THREE cases for me. I have been searching for at least 15 manhours, and I cannot find. Agreed, that if I awarded a contract on the basis of a proposal which contained a deficiency, and if I got a protest, I would lose. Please ignore 'informational deficiency', and I am looking for a negotiated procurement using FAR Part 15 My position is that, given my understanding of deficiency, it is not possible to award a contract. 'Deficiency', to me, describes a condition where one of the elements of a [valid] contract is missing. With out that missing element, then a contract is not a contract. OK, just three GAO or COFC cases where the Govt Contracting Officer did award a contract, and it was put down by protest (or even ignored due to lack of standing or jurisdiction or what-ever). Many thanks. Barry
  7. I am searching for a GAO or COFC case (protest) (1) where a federal contract was awarded [as evaluated under FAR Part 15] when there was a 'deficiency' in the proposal, or (2) where the proposal was declared 'unacceptable' by evaluation [evaluated as unacceptable, yet was the least unacceptable proposal] Thank you Barry
  8. This site: http://www.acq.osd.mil/dpap/dars/opencases...casenum/far.pdf This case: 2006-034 Revise FAR to reflect SBA's interpretation of the Small Business Act and SBA's interpretation of its regulations regarding the relationship among the small business programs. This status: 09/24/2008 The DARC requested that the case be placed in a "hold" status while resolving issues identified during review of the draft final rule, including issues raised in a decision by the Comptroller General. This quest: I want to learn about the 'issues identified during review of the draft final rule', and I want to ID and get the refererenced 'decision by the Comptroller General' to see the issues there. And, if possible, who is 'resolving' these issues. Many thanks Barry sends 2/9/2009
  9. Thank you all for your very valued input. Sincerely. I forgot to consider my own personal guidance: When I am asked a question, I do not answer the question unless I am absolutely clear on how, or for what purpose the interrogator will use my response. So often when I am asked a question, I ask 'why do you ask that question; what will you do with my answer?' If I am not satisfied with the question presented, I will say 'Let me rephrase your question so that I can give an answer.' Apparently my question had twists and turns which I had not considered, and for receiving that insight I am thankful. Here's a ditty I like to sing - "Ask the RIGHT question and you will get the RIGHT answer. Ask the WRONG question and you will get - - - - - the RIGHT answer - - - to the WRONG question." [Yes, a little strange person sitting at this keyboard.] Barry sends 2/9/2009
  10. Person Year / Man Year. I see figures like "200,000 Labor Hours, based on a 1980 LH Man Year equates to XXX FTE (Full Time Equivalents)" I then ask "Why do you use 1980 LH to equate to a FTE, and not some other figure?" I question the 1980 as without rationale since 1980 LHs equals 49 weeks, 2 days, and 4 hours, i. e., 49.5 weeks. It is an awkward figure. 1984 is better, (though ominous), and 1920 is more reasonable yet, considering 2 weeks holidays and 2 weeks leave. Perhaps the 1980 figure is in some regulation or guideline, or is in common use. I don't know. Barry sends
  11. What is the most popular figure to classify a Person Year? 2080 is full time, 40 hours per week, 52 weeks per year. 2000 considers the 10 national holidays. 1980 is the figure that is being used in the acquisition which I am supporting. I questioned the rationale of using 49.5 weeks (1980/40) as a Person Year because it not only breaks a week in half, it breaks a day in half. What number of hours would you use, as a general matter. Thanks. Barry sends