Jamaal Valentine

Members
  • Content count

    449
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

0 Neutral

About Jamaal Valentine

  • Rank
    Silver Member
  • 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

6,984 profile views
  1. Joel: If the particular passage is unclear to some, the contracting officer is responsible for the action --under FAR conventions-- unless another party is expressly cited. (FAR 1.108(f))
  2. This goes back to my original question: does a ratifying official have to be a contracting officer (warranted or otherwise have designated contracting authority)? Is there consensus that a delegation of ratification authority effectively provides authority for purposes of ratifying an unauthorized commitment covered by that delegation (warrant or no warrant)? *I originally said warranted or otherwise because in some agencies, high level officials are designated contracting officers solely by virtue of their positions. Note, contracting officers below the level of a head of a contracting activity shall be selected and appointed under FAR 1.603. *** I would like to thank all who took time to comment. I think this information can help a lot of people.
  3. This was one of the points I raised during the discussion. If there is an unauthorized commitment outside of SAP … well, for my agency, it is not going to be solved within the office and must be elevated above the chief of the contracting office. Thanks for the background info as always. Seems ratification training will be deeper than originally anticipated.
  4. I was having a discussion at the office, today, and would like to open it up to the forum. Does a ratifying official have to be a contracting officer (warranted or otherwise have designated contracting authority)? Example, a Chief of the Contracting Office does not have a warrant, but is delegated as a ratifying official. How does a ratifying official enter into a contractual commitment without complying with CICA? Example, a non-competed unauthorized commitment that exceeds the micro-purchase threshold. (Note: FAR requires that the resulting contract would otherwise have been proper if made by an appropriate contracting officer.) What are your thoughts?
  5. I would love for the FAR to be a stand-alone rulebook or simply refer to rules covered by other agencies in other places in the CFR. Just pick one methodology. Either will do. I prefer FAR eliminate duplicative text by reference for the reasons mentioned above, but also because FAR and the FAR Council seem to provide conflicting guidance on the application of rules. For example: FAR 1.602-1( b ) states "[n]o 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." FAR Council has stated "[c]ontracting officers under the Executive Branch are required to follow the FAR. In cases where there are inconsistencies between Title 13 (SBA regulations) and Title 48 (FAR) of the Code of Federal Regulations, contracting officers follow the FAR." Separating the DARC and CAAC could "streamline" FAR by allowing the two entities to move independently at their own speed without regard for coordination with the other. All that said, I am convinced what they really want is "streamlined" acquisitions. And that is a result of the FAR, as written, being applied in overly burdensome ways - not necessarilly FAR itself.
  6. Thank you, Bob, Joel, and Vern. If not for the three of you …
  7. 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.
  8. Can you provide an example where an RFQ was issued under FAR Part 15?
  9. 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
  10. 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.
  11. 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
  12. 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.
  13. 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.)
  14. See also, Don Mansfield's blog post on IDIQ funding, here: myth-information-obligating-the-minimum-in-idiq-contracts