Jump to content

Jamaal Valentine

  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Jamaal Valentine

  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.
  15. I think this is generally true about all government law and policy. A recent article quoted Supreme Court Justice Clarence as saying people seemed less attentive to the Constitution than they should be. ""I think we as citizens have lost interest and that's been my disappointment. That certainly was something that bothered Justice Scalia, that people tend to be more interested in their iPhones than their Constitution. They're interested in what they want rather than what is right as a country," he said." He went on to say that "I think we are allowing ourselves to be ruled when we turn all that over to someone else and we're saying, 'Rule me.' Does it mean we get to make all the decisions? No. We have a system for doing that, but a part of that is our role in it, and our informed role in it, not what is said on TV, not what is said by some half-informed person."
  16. You can change jobs without ever relocating. For example, if you go to Los Angeles, you can rotate doing a variety of acquisitions and contracting - R&D, ACAT, SCAT, operational, staff, etc. We would benefit from accepting that a myopic view of leadership is limiting and should be abandoned. Informal leaders play a vital role in (1) getting things done and (2) the growth and development of other practitioners (including new hires). More is caught than taught. In my observations, contracting folks adhere to what is modeled for them. They are influenced heavily by traditions and norms more so than by what they are told or the rules state. Most are practical people and just want to get things done without being admonished by their leadership. Social influence of compliance and conformity is powerful. We can combat or balance some of the negatives of social influence by leveraging informal leaders in new ways (influencers and change agents). After all, look how many people come to this site for information. Why does WIFCON have more influence than some supervisors?
  17. Easy. Change the definition or qualifications for SDB.
  18. A colleague shared this new guidance with me. I think you’ll find it interesting. “…the U.S. Office of Personnel Management (OPM) released guidance regarding the implementation of EO 13932; Modernizing and Reforming the Assessment and Hiring of Federal Job Candidates.”
  19. Couldn’t an interested party make a protest challenging the provision’s reservation prior to the offer due date?
  20. Legal analysis and writing, done well, is a gift. I recently finished a class on legal research, analysis, and writing. Judge Solomson demonstrated many of the tips and best practices I recently discovered. One thing I noticed was that a secondary source was cited. Although the secondary source is not a mandatory authority, it is persuasive. Judge Solomson provided a valuable example of deductive reasoning, analogical reasoning, and policy-based reasoning in action. I will use this case in our training program.
  21. Modifications are where the trail goes cold. I think I can pick back up on the scent now that I am not looking for consideration from each party.
  22. @Don Mansfield, thank you. I don’t know why I’m having so much trouble with this. I feel like I know what consideration is, but I don’t really understand it. @Vern Edwards, thank you for the insights and correction. I am using the student edition of the Restatement. You and Don have graciously provided plenty to dig into. My goal is to better understand consideration to the point I can explain it to others (not just superficially).
  23. @ji20874 There is no particular scenario other than what’s provided. I was just recently having a discussion and reading about consideration. Restatement of the Law, Contracts, 2d ed. has given me a headache. And Administration of Government Contracts, 4th ed. didn’t provide much coverage. I really just wanted to start a dialogue about concepts and principles. Perhaps pick up some nuggets or clarifying points. Do you agree that during (1) contract formation; and (2) contract modification, all parties must generally receive consideration? For example, it’s not adequate for only one party to receive consideration.
  24. Consideration appears to be a two-way street. It seems consideration typically follows the promises or obligations of the parties. For example, the contractor’s promise (obligation) to render supplies/services and, after acceptance, the government’s obligation to pay (return promise). Both parties receive consideration. When a contracting officer modifies a contract, the government must receive consideration if the contractor breached its obligation. Here, the government’s forbearance is consideration to the contractor. In exchange, the contractor provides an equitable price reduction or other consideration. Both parties receive consideration. Now, since a breach occurred, could adequate consideration be the contractor’s new promise to render the same supplies or services at a later date and at the same price? This doesn’t seem right to me under normal circumstances.
  • Create New...