Jump to content

Jamaal Valentine

Members
  • Posts

    985
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Jamaal Valentine

  1. Are you referring to using extrinsic evidence/knowledge during evaluations?
  2. FAR11: Could you get the understanding you want using an oral presentation? The presentation could identify the processes they used, the soundness, and if it was executed pursuant to the outlined process or any other requirements.
  3. I recently read an article on award terms, and the power of continuing relationships, that disputes the assertion that profit (money) is the main motivator for company's. Overall the assumption is likely accurate, but on an individual basis it may not be true. Companies adopt various strategies and rationale for competing for awards. GAO report number GAO-06-66 states "...profit is not the contractor's only motivation. Other considerations, such as securing future contracts with the government, can be stronger motivators than earning additional profit. More recently, research on award fees revealed that while these fees are an intuitively appealing way to improve contractor performance, they do not always operate that way in practice. Contractor respondents in one study stated that award fees motivate performance to some extent; however, the consensus was that they do not in and of themselves increase performance significantly. Research has also pointed to recurring disconnects between the intent and the administration of award-fee contracts...". Other reports offer more specific arguments. The above report was discussing incentives and fees.
  4. Based on the comments so far, I would like to revise my question. Provided that the two agency's respective contracting officers agree, does an agency require express authority to issue a joint, multi-agency, solicitation? Would 10 U.S.C. § 2311 provide such an authority? If yes, is there reason to believe this authority is retained at the Agency Head level? styrene described the scenario in post #3. Seems it could possibly fall under a acquisition assistance at FAR 17.500[2].
  5. I don't know the answer to the original question, but I wonder if negotiating a suitable contract type with applicable inspection/acceptance clauses and including a standard or non-standard liquidated damages type clause would give the desired results (e.g. 52.211-11, Liquidated Damages -- Supplies, Services, or Research and Development).
  6. Sir, you run a mighty fine site! Thank you.
  7. GAO website provides a list of the "Significant Bid Protest Decisions...by the Office of General Counsel, Procurement Law Division." Here is what I believe is the current version: FY 2013 - http://www.gao.gov/assets/670/665549.pdf Link to a summary of the most prevalent grounds for sustaining protests during fiscal year 2015. Also includes, Comptroller General's report to Congress for each instance in which a federal agency did not fully implement a recommendation made by the GAO in connection with a bid protest decided in fiscal year 2015 and data concerning overall protest filings for the fiscal year. http://www.gao.gov/assets/680/674134.pdf
  8. Adding "Tailored" to the clause title isn't found at Subpart 52.1. Solicitations vary in page count and content. It makes sense to have a consolidated listing of provisions and clauses that were altered. 52.252-3 & 4 fulfill that purpose.
  9. Drew: Glad you got what you needed. Could the offsetting commas identify the GAO statement as a nonessential element? https://owl.english.purdue.edu/owl/resource/607/05/ If the GAO statement was read out of the sentence it would make sense and be consistent with the statue (31 U.S.C. 1558) it implements. FAR 33.102[c] In accordance with 31 U.S.C. 1558, with respect to any protest filed with the GAO, if the funds available to the agency for a contract at the time a protest is filed in connection with a solicitation...such funds shall remain available for obligation for 100 days after the date on which the final ruling is made on the protest.
  10. Drew: Do you think the FAR reference ji20874 provided 'only' covers protests to the GAO? If so, why?
  11. See if these provide what you need. I'm away from a computer. https://www.jagcnet.army.mil/Sites%5C%5Ccontractandfiscallaw.nsf/0/0244ADEF69125C7C85257C1B00744665/%24File/KFAB%20IP%20(06%20Nov%202013)%20-%20Availability%20of%20Funds%20following%20a%20protest%20or%20other%20challenge.pdf https://www.jagcnet.army.mil/Sites%5C%5Ccontractandfiscallaw.nsf/0/0244ADEF69125C7C85257C1B00744665/%24File/KFAB%20IP%20(06%20Nov%202013)%20-%20Availability%20of%20Funds%20-%20Appendix%201%20Sample%20QA%20(4).pdf
  12. napolik: That site is where I first heard and read about Racal factors and the Racal case. Solid recommendation.
  13. Duty of Good Faith and Fair Dealing and Differing Site Conditions - see Metcalf Construction Co., Inc., 742 F.3d 984 (Fed. Cir. 2014). http://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/opinions-orders/13-5041.Opinion.2-7-2014.1.PDF How about the Racal case, which stated sealed bidding is required when all elements enumerated in the Competition in Contracting Act (CICA) are present? See FAR 6.401. Racal Filter Technologies, Inc., B-240579, 90-2 CPD Edit - noting the first reference is not a GAO case
  14. I spend a sizeable amount of time doing data input (memoranda, minutes, determinations, CPARS, FPDS-NG, etc.). The USD (AT&L) recently wrote an article that included this statement - "Data should drive policy. Outside my door a sign is posted that reads, 'In God We Trust; All Others Must Bring Data.'" People want data. Why? Convenience. To operate in a task saturated life people often rely on data, generally, created by others. Outside of metrics and measurements of quality, look at the source selection process for example: The SSA gets a summary of a lot of data, with a recommendation, and makes a decision (a decision that must be summarized into another data point). Who hasn't used something like Consumer Reports, CNET, hotel ratings, etc? As our reliance on generated data increases so does risk. Ever read a favorable review only to have a terrible experience? Maybe you didn't understand how the data was generated. How about, when people get overwhelmed and take shortcuts, which degrades the usefulness of the data? Not knowing anything about how data is generated reduces its usefulness in my opinion. What is the processes (what was done), structures (how the work was organized), in relation to generating the data. I think this is further troubled by task consolidation (Jack of all trades, master of none). Empowered by data (good or bad), people are tasked with making decisions on things they may have little to no understanding of.
  15. I recently read an article in the current edition of AT&L Magazine entitled "Better Buying Power Principles.", written by Frank Kendall, USD AT&L. It is interesting to read about a senior leader's thoughts and ideas. The article can be found here - http://dau.dodlive.mil/files/2015/12/DATL_JanFeb_2016.pdf
  16. Does anyone have any info on or know of different agencies issuing individual contracts from a single, joint, solicitation instead of one agency awarding a multi-agency contract that both agencies would use? Example - Air Force and Navy issue a joint solicitation, evaluation, and award decision, but each agency issues their own independent contract. Anything precluding this type of interagency transaction?
  17. I don't have an authoritative reference, but I have seen files that use 52.252-3 to highlight modified or tailored provisions and clauses. I've never received any instruction on how to use it and haven't read anything about it. I would answer your first two questions yes; and any provision or clause that's modified or tailored (less fill-ins) respectively. I don't really understand your third question, but, given their text and prescriptions, those provisions and clauses seem pretty straightforward (see prescriptions at 52.107[e] & [f]). Hopefully you get a reference or return with anything you find on your own.
  18. Looks to me like the government can request past performance information for any period, but shall use PPIRS information that is within three years. Two different sources of information, two different sets of rules. Would you read "Agencies shall use the past performance information in PPIRS that is within three years..." to mean you cannot use PPIRS information over three years?
  19. I should have clarified that the definition came from internal sources. I participate in a small group of junior personnel attempting to train. The general question was presented here primarily to get other thoughts and inputs on factors to consider.
  20. This helps for internal discussions/training. The routine water cooler talks debate whether definitions define what something is, but not necessarily what it isn't...or if 'includes' is a limiting statement (English says no, but some argue yes), etc. Example (ignoring that this could/should be reworded): The government will evaluate recent past performance. Past performance includes current and previous contracts performed within three years of solicitation issuance. Would you read this as defining (limiting) recent as within 3 years?
  21. Vern: Things to watch out for when reading - verbal constructions
  22. FAR 1.102[d] and 1.102-4[e] provide if a specific strategy, practice, policy, or procedure is not addressed in the FAR, nor prohibited by law, Executive order or other regulation that the strategy, practice, policy, or procedure is permissible. What are some common or uncommon FAR limiting or prohibiting statements? Examples - shall not, must not, up to, within, but not exceed(ing), etc. How about should not or may not? Here's a working example for consideration: DFARS 217.204[e][A], May be for any period up to 5 years
  23. Agreed! I know thank you doesn't pay the bills, but Thank You!
  24. I'm still trying to resolve this passage from the Davis Precision Machining decision cited above: Once the contractor has substantially performed under the option, however, that contractor has accepted the Government's offer and a supply contract exists, because the supplier has proceeded with the work to the point where substantial performance has occurred. Acceptance under FAR Part 13 is the completion of substantial performance. What is the significance, if any, between Accepted vs. Acceptance; and Substantial performance occurred vs. Substantial performance completion?
  25. I'm equally interested in Retread's clarification. This could alter the substantial performance rule.
×
×
  • Create New...