Jump to content

Jamaal Valentine

Members
  • Posts

    985
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Jamaal Valentine

  1. Hopefully those parties can work something out. I’ll share that the original author has a lot to offer on other acquisition topics. In the end, I’m sure this is temporary and cooler heads will prevail.
  2. Defense Acquisition University offers “a generalized order of events in the acquisition contracting process.” It looks more like an island-hopping campaign through FAR. Click here: Contracting Subway Map Also, the Department of the Army uses a similar tool called Contracting Compass. It doesn’t indicate a chronological arrangement to FAR either. Hopefully these tools will be useful to some readers. Thanks for the participation!
  3. @here_2_help I recall reading similar opinions and callouts of the “1961 Planning, Programming, Budgeting, and Execution (PPBE) process still in use today.” This NCMA article previously posted to Wifcon comes to mind - Anatomy of a Renaissance. I know the Congressionally mandated Section 809 panel had some commentary on the budget process.
  4. I don’t think we have to say the FAR has no coherent structure. I think everyone could agree that FAR is arranged by topic (and includes chronology). For example, if you look at and within the subchapters you see the topics and subtopics. This includes some logical sequencing as highlighted above. However, many topics include pre-award and post-award activities once you actually get into the parts, subparts, sections, etc. (e.g., FAR part 4 governs closeout of contract files). This breaks the chronology. I don’t believe FAR is arranged to be read from front to back. For me, FAR is not ordered in a chronological sequence by definition. Reading FAR front to back wouldn’t start with the earliest and follow the order in which an acquisition occurs. I wouldn’t choose to defend or die on this hill. (This poll is because I’m interested in seeing if there is any consensus)
  5. Again, @bob7947, you and your albatross are National Treasures. Thank you!
  6. I recently read a surprising assertion, which promoted this poll. For context see https://www.linkedin.com/posts/mark-hijar-39545a27a_i-guess-i-thought-this-was-common-knowledge-activity-7146522977218551808-sOdC?utm_source=li_share&utm_content=feedcontent&utm_medium=g_mb_web&utm_campaign=copy
  7. Thanks for the read and interaction. I would love to clarify this statement for you; however, I’m not exactly sure what you want to be clarified. I think you are trying to reconcile the statement’s ’may’ with FAR 9.104-1’s ‘shall.’ I hope this provides the context you need. First, the statement was written to offerors. Now, offerors should be aware that even in the absence of an evaluation factor in the solicitation, agencies may separately evaluate the offeror’s general standards of responsibility. Finally, FAR 9.102 lets us know that responsibility determinations are not always required. Thus, the general standards under FAR 9.104-1 aren’t always mandatory. This aligns with the statement that “agencies may….”
  8. Hi Minnen, IDIQs, including single-award IDIQs, can be solicited and awarded under Simplified Acquisition Procedures (SAP). What specific evaluation factors are you asking about? While you’re at it, what do you think is coming from FAR part 15?
  9. Since this isn’t the beginners forum, I believe the poster deserved a yes or no response to their close-ended question. After all, that’s what they requested. And maybe they haven’t come back because they already received their answer regarding the possibility of exercising all options at the same time. Nonetheless, there is a lesson in all of this: “When answering such a question, start with the governing rule or official guidance, if any...If the question is grounded in regulation or policy, start by citing any pertinent regulations and official policy and guidance, THEN add commentary of your own IF you've got something informative to say.”
  10. The original poster asked a closed-ended question. They asked if something was possible. The answer is yes [it’s possible]. For example, if you’re very satisfied with the contractor, you can exercise all options at the time of contract award under FAR 17.208(b); or you could exercise all options to increase quantities under FAR 52.217-6 and 52.217-7. “In yes-no questions, an auxiliary verb typically appears in front of the subject—a formation called subject-auxiliary inversion (SAI).” Here, ‘can’ is the auxiliary verb indicating possibility. Answer this: is it possible for the government to exercise all options at the same time if they find they are very satisfied with the contractor? I believe your answer will be ‘yes, if….’ However, I suppose you can say no. I just think a negative response can be more misleading given the polar question.
  11. @joel hoffman Can is an auxiliary verb used to indicate possibility. Yes, it is possible. That’s all was trying to convey. The question is about possibility. It doesn’t matter if you want to add ‘yes, and,’ ‘yes, if,’ or ‘yes, but’ to cover additional conditions that must be met. Given the question, as written, your only other responsive choice is to say ‘no,’ meaning it is not possible under any circumstance. Now that I think about it, maybe the answer should be no. For example, no because the government must also satisfy X, Y, and Z. I can see multiple arguments. Thanks for getting me to rethink my position.
  12. Here is the question in full — It’s a closed question - yes/no. There is no maybe about it. The answer is yes.
  13. Yes. However, that answer may not be useful or applicable to the options you are contemplating. Nonetheless, the technical answer is - yes.
  14. You have a contract. How are the base travel CLINs setup? How are the option travel CLINs setup? I presume they are priced and were evaluated at award. Maybe they are undefinitized or under an unpriced indefinite-delivery contract. Answers to these questions could help shape the situation and a way forward. Bidding on CLINs, including options, doesn’t make sense at first blush.
  15. @ax12901, Would you mind sharing the contracting activity that posted it? You can send me a direct message or post a reply.
  16. FAR 52.212-1(l) starts with “If a post-award debriefing is given to requesting offerors, the Government shall….” This doesn’t create an obligation to provide a debriefing nor an entitlement to receive one.
  17. FAR part 12 definitely applies to many actions under FAR subparts 8.4 and 16.5 so I don’t understand this, but that’s okay. I hope you aren’t saying that FAR part 12 doesn’t govern actions under those subparts. If so, see CGI Fed., Inc. v. United States, 779 F.3d 1346 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (FAR Part 12 applied to the requests for quotes under the Federal Supply Schedule).
  18. This is great advice and should be coupled with the financial impact to the taxpayer. Considering all of the voices of key customers will lead to a more persuasive advocacy. For example, taxpayers may not see the current protest scheme as something they would be willing to pay for if they had an accurate idea of what they were getting in return.
  19. Rather than limiting solicitation challenges to the agency head or HCA, I would like the CO to be an option similar to your revised procedures for protests against the award decision. If the protestor and CO can’t reach an agreement then the agency head or HCA implement the revised process above. Happy holidays!
  20. Are you saying responses to FAR 13.106-3(d) requests are debriefs? Why refer to them as debriefings when debriefs are covered under FAR 15.505 and 15.506?
  21. GAO generally gives little or no weight to reevaluations and judgments prepared in the heat of the adversarial process. Noble Supply and Logistics, B-410788.4, B-410788.5, B-410788.6, B-410788.7: Jul 29, 2015 (citing Boeing Sikorsky Aircraft Support, B‑277263.2, B-277263.3, Sept. 29, 1997, 97-2 CPD ¶ 91 at 15).
  22. Hmmm…your use of ‘sound’ is echoing the definition of correct. Similar to you echoing my FAR references, a full day later. This suggests you and I agree. I definitely agree with regard to true innovations. While the OP may not be as experienced as others, they may have more knowledge, skills, and abilities than their colleagues. Experience is only an opportunity to learn - not an a measure of competency. Thus, the OP must study to show themselves approved. We can help the OP by being clear that their thinking and decisions should be correct (or sound - to use your term). I’m not sure that’s in dispute. And it surely doesn’t mean nor imply that there is only one solution…let alone a single path to a solution. In that capacity, we may decide to follow the wise words of Vern: “If the question is grounded in regulation or policy, start by citing any pertinent regulations and official policy and guidance, THEN add commentary of your own IF you've got something informative to say.” In this case, the FAR System has a lot to say about line items.
  23. Newbies and seasoned professionals should remember that the burden of proof lies with whomever is making a claim. But since we can rarely be certain of anything, we must assign value to any claim based on the available evidence and process used. For example, was the process used to arrive at the belief sound? Professionalism and practicality necessitates that practitioners learn how spot logical fallacies and how to research, interpret, and apply the rules of government contracting. Thus, categorizing things as correct or incorrect seems appropriate. It’s at least a natural byproduct of decision-making, reviews, and approvals. A writer once wrote to “[d]o your best to present yourself … as one approved, a worker who has no need to be ashamed, rightly handling the word of truth.”
  24. I think a reasonable person could infer that your comments (e.g., below) imply that correctness is not essential or that you were more concerned if it works.
  25. I have no problem with anyone exercising discretion that has been given to them. The key is remaining within her/his authority. If you mean that contracting officers should fully embrace FAR 1.102(d) and 1.102-5(e), I agree. After all, “[c]ontracting officers should take the lead in encouraging business process innovations and ensuring that business decisions are sound.”
×
×
  • Create New...