Jamaal Valentine

Any commentary on the $4M limitation at 10 U.S.C. § 2862(a)(2)? I am trying to locate some background information on why it exists and any potential exceptions to it. (Other than the obvious design-bid-build or two-phase design-build) The definition of repair project (10 U.S.C. § 2811(e)) seems to be at the facility level, not necessarily the contract level (value). For example, if you have a contract that repairs several programmed projects that are under $4M each you have not exceeded the limitation. Thoughts? I think FY 2015 NDAA amended the law to add the $4M limitation.

Deleted

Yes, thank you, let's. Some of us newer guys/gals need to learn how to answer questions effectively. We can't expect you and a select few others to teach forever. Again, thank you.

Since this is a beginners forum I think it is worthwhile to clarify that this statement is not exactly true. CICA--10 U.S.C. 2304 and 41 U.S.C. 253 [3301]--applies to FAR Part 13 (SAP), but provides exceptions that only require the head of an agency to promote competition to the maximum extent practicable. (41 U.S.C. 1901, and 3305; and 10 U.S.C. 2302b)

Let's take the last offer and get started. Like was said earlier, we can refine on the way.

Maybe we should outline the duties and qualifications. (Personnel does seem like a strange place to start since we haven't defined the system they'll operate [within].)

Yes to both. Place competent people in the system and hold them accountable for staying within that framework.

There would likely be more participation if we crafted a new set of rules that govern contract formation and contract administration processes and procedures. Analyzing the current rules and how they should be changed is perhaps a bit more likely to spark change, but few have the tools or know-how to facilitate participation. If we created a new set of rules the Statement of Objectives could be: (1) Satisfy requirements in terms of cost, quality, and timeliness of the delivered product or service; (2) Minimize administrative operating costs; (3) Conduct business with integrity, fairness, and openness; and (4) Fulfill public policy objectives by -- (i) Maximizing the use of commercial products and services; and (ii) Maximizing the use of small businesses, that have a track record of successful past performance or who demonstrate a current ability to perform, when reasonably expecting at least two will submit offers and that the award can be made at affordable prices that offers best value given any other factors. Whatever's decided, hopefully we can avoid the Pentagon Wars - link to video.

Bob, et al.: I was recently thinking about the different ways the government goes about getting things done when it believes the current laws and regulations that apply to government contracts are too burdensome. The government has relied on expanded SAPs, OTAs, etc. If the government can spend taxpayer dollars using SAP; or Other Transactions (OTs) using a 39 page guide, we should be able to create a contracting process guide from scratch. Services can spend up to $250M using OTAs and over $250M with approval. OTA Guide 17-Jan-2017 5 minute video on recent OTAs: Pathways to Commercial Innovation and Other Transaction Authority ( OTAs) Reportedly, OTs can allow for much greater speed, flexibility, and accessibility in promoting the engagement of non-traditional and small business contractors to design and implement innovative business models that would not be feasible or practical under FAR-based contracts. This can include instances where specific clauses within the FAR would create unnecessary burden on the government or contractor. This article tackles some of the beliefs surrounding OTs: Other Transaction (OT) Authority Mythology: Reflections on the Cure-all of DEFENSE Procurement*

This seems to say that the government can consider supplies--that are made to government specifications--commercial products if those type/kind of products are ordinarily produced to non-governmental customer specifications and use the same workforce, plant, or equipment. Conceptually, computers, automobiles, and real property* come to mind. These things are ordinarily made to customer specifications using the same workforce, plant, or equipment. *I know that real property is not a commercial item under current rules

Would this new forum be used to discuss the federal contracting process as-is, or how we would like it to be? Either way, I think starting with the end in mind is a good place to kickoff. For example, what is the purpose of having a/the process? What are the goals and objectives? Define (the problem), Ideate, Prototype

Speaking of contract negotiations and hostage negotiations, here is a book from a man who has done both and discusses the similarities: Never Split the Difference Regarding making a deal involving false assumptions: if you value a relationship, and/or want to actively manage the risk you should clarify the situation. Did the assumption involve an ambiguity in our offer? If yes, what type? A lot of what we do is clearing up ambiguities. I'd rather have a meeting of the minds than strike a deal that involves a false assumption. Accepting their assumption (counteroffer) involves an assumption on our part and may lead to the disputes process and a third party's version of principles for contract interpretation. It would be interesting to know if the counter-offeror's false assumption was reasonable and what that changes, if anything. For example, could it be argued that no contract exists?

Don, You may want to reach out to the folks at DLA. DLA is reportedly awarding 3K orders per day through automation that includes an automatic evaluation system.

I am interested in this.

You may want to review FAR 10.001 and 11.002(a) for the policy on identifying and describing agency needs. Remember, the use of vague or ambiguous requirements documents potentially impedes effective competition. So ask yourself, how 'broad' can you be while still conducting an effective competition.