Jamaal Valentine

  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

0 Neutral

About Jamaal Valentine

  • Rank
    Silver Member
  • 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

6,812 profile views
  1. Thank you, Bob, Joel, and Vern. If not for the three of you …
  2. Depends on what you plan on doing with the quote(s) received. The FAR applies to all acquisitions. “Acquisition” means the acquiring by contract with appropriated funds. Acquisition begins at the point when agency needs are established. If it's not prohibited, which I don't think it is, yes.
  3. Can you provide an example where an RFQ was issued under FAR Part 15?
  4. I was waiting for the original posters to respond, but I never seen FAR 1.602-1[ b ] - or 1.602-2[a] referenced. Maybe I just missed it but, here is the relevant part: "No contract shall be entered into unless the contracting officer ensures that all requirements of law, executive orders, regulations, and all other applicable procedures, including clearances and approvals, have been met." *Edited to acknowledge Retreadfed's post highlighting the same
  5. I will have to study this thread, but I am having trouble reconciling the statement above. In review: it appears that the application of cardinal change principles require the contracting officer to consider whether or not the change is within the scope of the contract. A subset of this is if the change is within the scope of the competition conducted to achieve the original contract In determining the materiality of a modification GAO and presumably COFC consider whether the solicitation for the original contract adequately advised offerors of the potential for the type of changes during the course of the contract. Do have it right so far? If yes, do you know of any unforeseeable changes that were determined, by GAO or COFC, to be matters of contract administration? *I think by unforeseeable changes, I mean changes not covered by a clause or doctrine.
  6. Below is a few excerpts from The Fiscal Times' article discussing a new executive order aimed at reducing regulation and controlling regulatory costs. I am interested to see where this requirement goes concerning government contracting ... View the full article here
  7. I always found this language interesting. I understood it as services being concerned with cost of performance incurred not actual performance of work, per se. Seems, under the old method, this could easily be manipulated by increasing employee wages. If the contractor was facing a penalty - it could make sense in many SAT procurements. Now I know the SBA is moving from the labor-cost calculation to an amount-paid calculation, but what if the cost of the contract performance incurred exceeds the contract total? (Amount to be paid by the government) I assume the only amount that matters is the contract amount.
  8. Focus: The Hidden Driver of Excellence by Daniel Goleman To Sell is Human by Daniel H. Pink (negotiation related) Negotiation Genuis by Deepak Malhotra and Max Bazerman (TBD - if anyone has read this, what is your take? I just checked it out from the library.)
  9. See also, Don Mansfield's blog post on IDIQ funding, here: myth-information-obligating-the-minimum-in-idiq-contracts
  10. For clarity -- All evaluation factors other than cost or price, when combined, are (significantly more important than; approximately equal in importance to; or significantly less important than) cost or price. Personally, I think price could still be significant in your scenario. (Just not significantly more important than the other factors combined) I think you raise valid questions those in the field are likely to face.
  11. Are the large business' capabilities, that the sources sought is inquirying about, known by the requesting office?
  12. One of the greatest benefits of this decision is the clarity it provides regarding our ability to evaluate in phases … e.g. non-priced factors first; and then price and price related factors from a smaller pool. This has been widely rejected in some offices. The general belief was that price had to be considered in all phases.
  13. Agreed. We always include a price fair and reasonbleness determination.
  14. I am wondering if this is similar to our best-value-for-budget or build-to-budget efforts. Essentially, we award to highest rated offer (technical solution) that is affordable. I will do some in-depth reading and thinking soon. (On travel)