Jump to content
The Wifcon Forums and Blogs

Jamaal Valentine

  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Jamaal Valentine

  • Birthday August 8

Profile Information

  • Gender
  • Interests
    Being good...when I can't be good, being compliant...when I can't be compliant, being liked.

Recent Profile Visitors

11,972 profile views
  1. Being clear about each party’s mission and purpose is a great place to start. Fundamentally, parties team to improve their ability to get what they want (fulfill their mission and purpose). Having a clear understanding of mission and purpose can reveal the overlap where teams can come together. For example, the negotiation game where each party wants all the shrimp, but if you talk you’ll find out one party actually needs the shells and the other needs the meat.
  2. Who has noticed the new embedded ‘definitions tool’ at acquisition.gov? You will notice that certain terms are underlined throughout their online FAR. If you hover over the dotted-underlined terms they will highlight in yellow, but if you enable the ‘definitions tool’ it will also show the relevant FAR 2.101 definitions. So far it has been pretty convenient and definitely helps readers know that a special definition may apply. However, readers cannot rely on the embedded underlining as identifying all FAR defined terms because some terms are not underlined (e.g., FAR part 12 unevenly underlines ‘commercial items’).
  3. Why would FAR 36.204 be more on point? Here’s what the OP asked, in relevant part: The OP is asking about the estimated dollar amount in a sources sought notice - not estimated price range. We don’t know if this is an acquisition of construction services. However, the question could seem to involve an advanced notice (e.g., source sought) although that term is not defined in FAR Part 2, 5, 10, or 36. Releasing the budget and/or government estimate in a competitive acquisition makes sense in many cases. I’m not sure what all the concern is about. We should have more in-depth and candid dialogue with our industry partners.
  4. There is not a general prohibition that I am aware of. What supplies or services is the acquisition for? For example, FAR 36.203(c) discusses specific limitations on releasing estimates for construction contract actions.
  5. I like anything that reduces the evaluation and documentation burden or brings us closer to the concepts for the acquisition of architect-engineer services. The government struggles to adequately document their evaluation, comparison, and ranking of all offers. In my experience, the evaluation team can easily select a offeror and offer they like or deem suitable, but they struggle documenting the rationale - especially priced tradeoffs. The burden increases with number of offers received. How can we further simplify documenting selection of the most promising offer? That is where the government seems to spend a lot of time with varying degrees of success.
  6. Compare each offeror and their offer to each other?
  7. @Vern Edwards Not a general proposition. My major systems experience was on the industry side of things. In my Government and industry experience, change orders—in general—take a long time because of formalizing the changes in writing (changes to specs, drawings, SOW), internal reviews, securing funding and routing it in the financial and contract writing systems. I wouldn’t say that a changes clause isn’t needed; its usefulness likely varies from contract to contract. I know the Air Force used an interagency acquisition under the Economy Act to partner with an agency to develop their latest contract writing system. They essentially change things on the fly via mutual agreement.
  8. It seems like acquisition teams (including the contractor) for systems development contracts would rely on regular interactions (not so performance based). A team could quickly* establish and agree to some parameters to move forward with changes and funded amount; especially if the contract or modification uses a firm-fixed unit prices or a time-and-materials structure. After all, bilateral modifications are used, in part, to reflect other agreements of the parties modifying the terms of contracts. This is in addition to making negotiated equitable adjustments. *relative to how long the Government would take to reach internal agreement on what a change order should look like
  9. @Vern Edwards thank you...that’s what I presumed, but I wanted to be sure.
  10. Does it seem odd because you’re thinking it should be a partial termination for convenience, constrained by fiscal years, or something else?
  11. What do you mean that (2) through (5) are directly related to (1)? The semicolon let’s us know they are related in thought, but independent. I’m not sure why you’re mentioning typical service contract to inspect or repair ... I never raised that and only was seeking to better understand something you stated:
  12. Excludes real property as an item (supplies under paragraph 1), right? Construction is a service. What about the other commercial paragraphs? For example, commercial services under paragraph (5).
  13. I provided a link to it in my earlier response to Joel.
  14. Agreed. FAR Part 36 includes concepts and principles that align with commercial construction.
  • Create New...