Jamaal Valentine

@C Culham thank you ... I believe mentors are essential; however, I do not like formal arrangements. Your post just gave me an idea.

Excellent. Thank you!

Agreed. I think it will always be the individual’s ultimate responsibility. I just need to make sure I create a respectable training environment in the office that matches my beliefs. Thanks, @joel hoffman.

Providing good OJT is one of my main concerns. Outside of the need for just-in-time or specialized training, I prefer learning “the basics” through a linear curriculum that builds on previous learning and follows a logical sequence of government contracting events and activities. I want to create OJT that is structured, repeatable, and can be delivered virtually...A lot of my offices are geographically separated. I remember you writing about starting with FAR Part 7 and FAR Part 2 as a good overview of government contracting. Do you have any recommendations on how I can create, organize,

What are your thoughts on the changes, specifically adopting a single level of certification with foundational training and an examination? https://www.acq.osd.mil/dpap/policy/policyvault/USA000182-21-DPC.pdf Additional related info is available here: https://www.acq.osd.mil/dpap/cpic/cp/workforce_development.html

Have you read FAR 8.004? Informed by who? Did they tell you or suggest FAR requires the use of open market commercial sources? Did you ask them for a reference to a rule?

Admittedly, I haven’t read the other posts in this thread. I know some attempt to distinguish reasonableness as a cost analysis activity and fair and reasonableness as a price analysis activity. The Air Force’s Contracting Officer Study Group goes over it in week 3.

@formerfed I asked because most people I hear use the phrase “technically acceptable” are using it as it relates to stated non-cost/price evaluation factors/subfactors. I was curious if you were using it in that way or in another way (e.g., broader legal acceptability). ”It is well settled that, in a negotiated procurement, a proposal that fails to conform to one or more of the solicitation's material requirements is technically unacceptable and cannot form the basis for an award.“ (Farmland National Beef, B-286607; B-286607.2, January 24, 2001)

Understood; and agree. I’m still interesting in what you meant by technically acceptable in your first post.

What do you mean by technically acceptable?

Are you saying you the the Government must evaluate technical capability, management capability, prior experience, and past performance of the offeror? FAR 15.304(c)(2) says the quality of the product or service shall be addressed in every source selection through consideration of one or more non-cost evaluation factors such as past performance, compliance with solicitation requirements, technical excellence, management capability, personnel qualifications, and prior experience... A single non-cost evaluation factor can be used to evaluate the quality. Given that, we can say somethi

Contracting officers may choose not to include price or cost as an evaluation factor for award when a solicitation, in relevant part, states that the Government intends to make an award to each and all qualifying offerors (see 2.101). “Qualifying offeror, as used in 13.106-1and 15.304, means an offeror that is determined to be a responsible source, submits a technically acceptable proposal that conforms to the requirements of the solicitation, and the contracting officer has no reason to believe would be likely to offer other than fair and reasonable pricing (10 U.S.C. 2305(a)(3)(D)).” (E

Read FAR Subpart 3.6 and direct any questions to your agency ethics official or legal.

Merry Christmas, everyone! Bob, thank you for the gift that is Wifcon 🎁 🎄

I don’t like FAR 13.105(c) as a supporting reference since it redirects you to FAR 13.106-1(b), Soliciting Single Sources. “(c) See 5.102(a)(6) for the requirement to post a brand name justification or documentation required by 13.106-1(b) or 13.501.” FAR 13.104 and FAR 11.105(a)(2)(ii) are ‘far’ more compelling to me.