Jump to content

Jamaal Valentine

Members
  • Posts

    865
  • Joined

  • Last visited

1 Follower

About Jamaal Valentine

  • Birthday August 8

Profile Information

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

Recent Profile Visitors

12,922 profile views
  1. DOD Class Deviation 2014-O0011 requires application of FAR 15.404-1 techniques. But as you stated, FAR 8.405-4 governs ‘price reductions.’ https://www.acq.osd.mil/dpap/policy/policyvault/USA001004-14-DPAP.pdf
  2. This is essentially the vector I was looking for. Thank you. @joel hoffman, were you an 1102? Construction and A-E contracts used to be written by 1102s. (Tongue-in-cheek)
  3. Nope. However, I am currently a law school student. I’m focusing on government law and policy since I’m chasing that GS-15 procurement analyst position Vern recently posted about. Aside, I am more interested in the [writing] call to action generally. For that reason, I’ll reach out to the venerable Mr. Edwards.
  4. Message received. I’ll reach out to you, outside of here, for a vector.
  5. If you believe contracting officers are decision makers, yes. Many attendees are members of the acquisition team including contracting officers. The quantity of contacts combined with the opportunities to network could be considered a lot.
  6. Yes. And we know or should know that the Christian Doctrine has a narrow application. Thus, my next question for @Retreadfed or others would be this: Does the Christian Doctrine apply to clauses such as FAR 52.222-41? It seems @Retreadfed believes the answer is yes. But can he prove or make a persuasive argument for it? *FAR 52.222-43 is incorporated by operation of law in any event pursuant to the "Christian Doctrine." Appeal of Costar III, LLC , 2011-2 B.C.A. (CCH) P34,830 (A.S.B.C.A. August 17, 2011).
  7. Please clarify this in light of FAR 1.104 ”The FAR applies to all acquisitions as defined in part 2 of the FAR...” And ”The FAR applies only to federal agencies, while the contract applies to both the agency and the contractor.”
  8. “…nor was it required to specifically label its concern as a “significant weakness,” as Wolf Creek claims.[15] See Grunley Constr. Co., Inc., B‑407900, Apr. 3, 2013, 2013 CPD ¶ 182 at 8.”
  9. I believe one may describe the problems without labeling them. This belief isn’t grounded in substantive research. Rather, without doing research outside of the FAR, I simply believe this ‘labeling’ is shorthand for the full definitions at FAR 15.001; an optional convenience. I am not aware of anything within FAR that mandates the use of the terms. Here, under certain conditions the contracting officer must, indicate to, or discuss with, each offeror still being considered for award, deficiencies and significant weaknesses to which the offeror has not yet had an opportunity to respond. FAR 15.306(d)(3). Now, using the terms would likely increase clarity and brevity, but I don’t read that their use is required. I won’t be surprised if this question is already settled elsewhere (e.g., in a FAR supplement, policy, or case law).
  10. @Guest AS, well, the first page of the SF-1442 describes it as a performance period (See SF-1442, block 11).
  11. @Portland1102 @MarkusJ FAR 52.203-3 goes away when you filter for SAP actions because the SAP applicability is blank...FAR 12.301(d) and DFARS 212.301(f)(i)(A) only address the commercial aspect, not the SAP aspect.
  12. Thank you. The information you and Don provided in May was extremely helpful. I’ll keep this additional pro-tip in mind as well.
  13. Here’s some information I was thinking about when I started this thread. The first quote is what lead me to believe consideration went both ways. It also states that requirement of consideration applies to modifications. The second quote and third quotes speak to potential exceptions for the consideration requirement. “Inasmuch as gratuitous promises generally are not enforceable, the existence of a valuable consideration on the part of both the offeror and offeree is an essential element of a contract. Where there is lack of consideration and mutuality, there is no contract. The requirement of consideration is equally applicable to supplemental agreements or contract amendments. The general rule is that in the absence of a statute specifically so providing no agent or officer of Government has the power to give away or surrender a vested contractual right of the Government. 22 Comp. Gen. 260 (1942); cf., 41 id. 134 (1961).” (Italics added) “Normally Government contracts entail numerous promises and obligations by each party. However, consideration to support the agreement may also be furnished by the waiver or forbearance to exercise a legal right. 41 Comp. Gen. 7.30 (1962). In this regard, the parties to a Government contract may by mutual agreement release each other from executory obligations. Savage Arms Co. V. United States, 266 U.S. 217 (1924).” “The requirement of consideration does not apply to extraordinary relief granted under Public Law 85-804, 50 U.S.C. 1431. The Comptroller General also has ruled that new consideration is unnecessary to renew a debt barred by the statute of limitations. B-162293, September 29, 1967.” https://www.gao.gov/assets/088867.pdf
  14. If the government plans on issuing a timely cure, show cause, or termination notice, it probably wants to leave the original delivery date. But see, FAR 12.403(c) for commercial acquisitions. Generally, if the government is going to accept the late delivery or change the delivery date for the contractor’s benefit, the government must receive consideration (statutory exceptions may apply - e.g., extraordinary relief granted under public law). As stated in a previous post, consideration comes in many forms. Maybe the contracting officer terminates and re-procures at the contractor’s expense. Maybe the contracting officer issues a claim against the contractor and makes a final decision on a discount that the contractor could appeal.
×
×
  • Create New...