Jump to content
The Wifcon Forums and Blogs

Jamaal Valentine

Members
  • Content Count

    726
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Jamaal Valentine

  1. Disciplinary action on the employee is a separate issue that government officials can’t seem to separate from unauthorized commitments. There isn’t enough information here for me to decide or make a recommendation on how this should be treated; I simply raised another solution that overcomes the Agency’s argument for not being able to ratify. The Agency appears to think they can’t ratify...I didn’t read that they don’t want to.
  2. Since this is related to or arising from a contract, the Agency could potentially settle the claims involving unauthorized commitments pursuant to FAR Subpart 33.2 instead of FAR 1.602-3(b)(2) and (c). (Ref. FAR 1.602-3( b )(5))
  3. It’s invaluable if you really want to understand source selection more deeply and broadly. It’s a gateway to streamlining and innovation that many offices want. I’m not aware of anything similar. The course content is great, but the instruction and dialogue may be even better. (Vern was the instructor when I took it.) It’s usefulness may be limited or delayed by organizational norms and traditions that prevent or discourage students from applying what they learn. In my experience contacting offices can’t be changed from the bottom up. This course should be required for contracting o
  4. What law? Do you think inclusion of service clauses in leases is addressed in FAR or prohibited by law or some other rule? I don’t read but four clauses FAR 8.1104(e) says to exclude. Many (most) leasing of vehicles is going to be a commercial acquisition so the service vs supply clause set argument is moot. Nonetheless, in exercising initiative, Government members of the Acquisition Team may assume if a specific strategy, practice, policy or procedure is in the best interests of the Government and is not addressed in the FAR, nor prohibited by law (statute or case law), Executive o
  5. Depends on the purpose of categorization, right? For example, if the purpose is for application of the non-manufacturer rule, 13 CFR § 121.406(b)(4) states that “[t]he rental of an item(s) is a service and should be treated as such in the application of the nonmanufacturer rule and the limitation on subcontracting.” Then the PSC Manual, Defense Acquisition Guidebook, and SBA regulations state equipment rentals/leasing are services. FAR Part 37 gives a definition for service contract for the purposes of that part (e.g., clauses, policies and procedures). FAR 8.1104(e) is si
  6. @bob7947 Great catch...guess I better start calling you the Wizard of Wifcon and not just an oracle.
  7. Seems to be some variation in FAR 2.101: Agency head or “head of the agency” means the Secretary, Attorney General, Administrator, Governor, Chairperson, or other chief official of an executive agency, unless otherwise indicated, including any deputy or assistant chief official of an executive agency. Head of the agency (see “agency head”). Executive agency means an executive department, a military department, or any independent establishment within the meaning of 5 U.S.C.101, 102, and 104(1), respectively, and any wholly owned Government corporation within the meaning of 31 U.S
  8. I think risk-aversion is derived from basic human motivations for safety and security. In that sense, it is rational behavior. Under rules-based contracting, a term I’ve coined, the minimum is the maximum. Know what the rules (statutes, case law, regulations, policy, etc.) require; and satisfy those requirements. This concept relies on professionalism and competence and provides maximum flexibility and discretion to get things done within the rules (including grey areas and loopholes). My belief is that competent professionals can and should use the minimum force appropriate to the s
  9. Since debriefings are hotly contested they are often less useful than they could (should?) be. Notifications and debriefings are uneven from office to office and contracting officer to contracting officer. For example, some offices/contracting officers won’t provide the successful offeror’s past performance rating and some will. The variation comes from inconsistent beliefs on whether or not the rules permit release of the rating.
  10. You might want to start with the DoD FMR if you are DoD. (See pages 8-13 and 8-14 for definitions) https://comptroller.defense.gov/Portals/45/documents/fmr/current/03/03_08.pdf Principles of Federal Appropriations Law, also known as the Red Book, is a good place to look for civilian agency employees. (Chapter 5?) https://www.gao.gov/mobile/legal/appropriations-law-decisions/red-book
  11. Both. Read it as either or. In other words, it’s required if either condition or both conditions are met.
  12. FAR 15.503(b)(1) states that notifications to unsuccessful offerors shall include, in general terms, the reason(s) the offeror’s proposal was not accepted... FAR 15.506(d)(2) postaward debriefings include the overall evaluated cost or price (including unit prices) and technical rating, if applicable, of the successful offeror and the debriefed offeror, and past performance information on the debriefed offeror... What are your thoughts on providing the past performance rating (e.g., Past Performance Confidence Assessment Rating) of the successful offeror on either document?
  13. In reality, there is a discrepancy, but there are deviations (that came much later) to resolve them. For purposes of this poll, just respond to the question based on the information and scenario provided and add commentary in the comments. No different than many standardized WIFCON quizzes, polls, etc. that are framed. Don’t read into it, overthink, or over-complicate it with extrinsic information (Deviations). (If it helps, consider what you would have done during the years there weren’t any class deviations)
  14. Both; however, the poll relates to the regulatory language (without consideration of the DoD Deviation or CAAC Letter). It’s a single, scenario-based, question asking what people would do ‘as framed’. I fully expected commentary and discourse in the comments. It’s WIFCON.
  15. Why? The poll isn’t about the DoD’s deviation nor the CAAC Letter. The question stands alone. If that’s hard to understand, just consider the years there was no deviation; think about future cases such as FAR Case 2016-002, Applicability of Small Business Regulations Outsidethe United States. This was and is a post to talk through appropriate responses to conflicting regulations.
  16. @ji20874 in the past the FAR council has stated that contracting officers should follow FAR. I recall that the case law doesn’t necessarily support their statement, but I’m with you, the solution is just a deviation away. Unfortunately, many (most) contracting officers don’t have easy access to deviations authorities. One would think that class deviations would be appropriate considering it’s taking several years to process the open FAR Case (2016-011).
  17. —Poll Question Is Above— FAR 19.505(c)(5) Exception to the nonmanufacturer rule. The SBA provides for an exception to the nonmanufacturer rule when— (ii) The cost is not anticipated to exceed $25,000; vs. 13 CFR §121.406(c) The performance requirements (limitations on subcontracting) and the nonmanufacturer rule do not apply to small business set-aside acquisitions with an estimated value between the micro-purchase threshold and the simplified acquisition threshold (as both terms are defined in the FAR at 48 CFR 2.101).
  18. You’re likely going to get tied up with more than SAM — 4.1804 Solicitation provisions and contract clause. (a) Insert the provision at 52.204-16, Commercial and Government Entity Code Reporting, in all solicitations that include– (1) 52.204-6, Unique Entity Identifier; or (2) 52.204-7, System for Award Management.
  19. I moved across the globe and started a new role as a Division Chief and have been spending most of my time at work or doing work related tasks. I’ve finally got a full staff and some stability at most of the seven locations so I should be active again.
  20. Remember, if you use FAR Subpart 17.2 for A&E—like many do—you may be required to follow FAR Subpart 17.2 procedures. “While FAR Subpart 17.2 by its terms does not apply to construction contracts, we conclude that the agency is bound to follow the procedures of FAR § 17.208 once, as here, it incorporates either clause (FAR §§ 52.217-4 or 52.217-5) providing for evaluation of options. See Foley Co., B-245536, Jan. 9, 1992, 92-1 CPD ¶ 47 at 4 n.2.“ It’s best you write your own option clauses if you don’t want to be bound to the Subpart.
  21. To be clear, despite being labeled as a simple question, the question is missing several key pieces of information. For example, the dollar value, subcontracting opportunities, and World Trade Organization Government Procurement Agreement or a Free Trade Agreement applicability could drive the answer. See also, FAR 5.301(b) for a long list of other possible drivers (exceptions).
  22. The phrase award announcement is not found in FAR Part 5 so I am not sure what you are really looking for. Maybe FAR 5.303(a)(1) or 5.202(a)(4)? (I am not sure of either because you have already read FAR Part 5...is the question about posting to FBO specifically, public announcements, synopsizing contract awards, synopsizing contract actions...?) Based on your own experience it doesn’t appear to be the same everywhere. Did you read FAR Subpart 5.3? What’s your opinion; “do you need to post in FBO an 8(a) award announcement”? Why or why not? What has your research led you to bel
  23. @Constricting Officer There are several references that provide exceptions for SAT/SAP. For example: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/10/2304 CICA is covered in several places in the U.S.C.
  24. Where is 'fiscal year' mentioned in the option language or in the post for that matter? The option clause gives a timeline for a preliminary written notice (at least 60 days before the contract expires). What does within 5 days mean, biases aside, based on the clause as written above? Within 5 days of what? (we both know what training and experience says it's supposed to mean) Logical: expected or sensible under the circumstances.
×
×
  • Create New...