Jump to content

Matthew Fleharty

Members
  • Posts

    563
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Matthew Fleharty

  1. This is a great example of confirmation bias - when you go searching for the answer you want, rather than the answer that is right, you're bound to find it...
  2. Yes and many often do, particularly in contingency environments. The "check and balance" is the certificate of appointment. If a CO needs a CS to make sure that the CO doesn't do anything improper, something is seriously wrong.
  3. You should know your people better than anyone here on the WIFCON forums. No one here can accurately answer that question for you (unless your BD people happen to be posters on this forum). Leadership, education, feedback, incentives, accountability, etc. These answers and any others you may receive here are just going to be generic hypotheses out of a leadership/management playbook.
  4. Are you sure that a contractor is entitled to an equitable adjustment? If the Government exercises an option not in accordance with the terms of the contract and the contractor begins performing, can that contractor come back at a later date (but within 30 days) and request an equitable adjustment to the contract? If so, according to what clause?
  5. Based on your latest post, do nothing until you’re in receipt of an Order.
  6. There is nothing cruel or hateful in my remarks @here_2_help
  7. Well there is a Beginner's Forum for that reason - any post outside that section I assume that person should know the basics of contracting. My experiences are anecdotal, but it seems there is a growing tendency to just ask for answers rather than contemplate and critically think. When I see a post that is literally a one sentence question, that screams to me "easy button." The more we cater to that, the more we're going to get those sorts of questions - I think we all should expect more from individuals in this profession.
  8. You want to modify the contract and you didn't think about "consideration?" That's Contracting 101 - "consideration" is found in every single Elements of a Contract list I've ever seen. What I'm seeing more and more on this forum is people aren't thinking - they're just coming here to ask for free advice and for someone else to do their thinking for them. This discussion forum would be much more vibrant and beneficial for all if it wasn't devolving into predominantly simple, half-baked Q&As...
  9. FAR 1.102-4 (e) "The FAR outlines procurement policies and procedures that are used by members of the Acquisition Team. If a policy or procedure, or a particular strategy or practice, is in the best interest of the Government and is not specifically addressed in the FAR, nor prohibited by law (statute or case law), Executive order or other regulation, Government members of the Team should not assume it is prohibited. Rather, absence of direction should be interpreted as permitting the Team to innovate and use sound business judgment that is otherwise consistent with law and within the limits of their authority. Contracting officers should take the lead in encouraging business process innovations and ensuring that business decisions are sound." See FAR 15.201 (e) "RFIs may be used when the Government does not presently intend to award a contract, but wants to obtain price, delivery, other market information, or capabilities for planning purposes. Responses to these notices are not offers and cannot be accepted by the Government to form a binding contract. There is no required format for RFIs." (emphasis added)
  10. Don's correct. In this case, a sample size of 1.
  11. Since you asked, this is certainly one area where you erred @Jamaal Valentine. I wish you well thinking about this issue, but I'm through here.
  12. @Jamaal Valentine don’t escalate your commitment on this one. The two examples you provide don’t work and I have no idea what you may think fits into “etc.” Absent another example this discussion is only going to get more confusing and send readers down the wrong rabbit hole. A fundamental principle concerning options is that they are exercised in strict accordance with the terms and conditions of the contract (so no changes and, therefore, no applicability of 52.212-4(c)). I have no idea what you’re talking about when you mention options governed by 52.212-4(c) via tailoring, but if you have an example you should provide it... As for terminations, your last point is merely that people may disagree as to whether an action is a partial termination (governed by it’s own respective authority, not 52.212-4(c)) or a change (governed by 52.212-4(c)). I don’t see how that adds substantively to the discussion and I think trying to conflate the two will only serve to confuse people. Anchoring is a powerful bias, but you must fight it.
  13. Jamaal, I don’t think that’s the right discussion to have. Are options and terminations governed by 52.212-4(c)?
  14. Looks like someone beat me to it, I’ll try to be quicker on the next one. You know I enjoy them 😁
  15. Lionel, I think you’re putting the cart before the horse...my position, and I think Jamaal’s (though I’ll let him speak for himself) is that if a person has adequate experience and training why does it drive increased risk to give that individual a warrant commensurate with that person’s abilities?
  16. The answer is context dependent. Some requirements and specifications for systems (think aircraft or spacecraft design or quantum computing) require terminology that will naturally reduce readability - I don’t think it is reasonable to assume the Government should write those solicitations at a Grade 7-8 reading level. Ultimately, the Government should strive to be an attractive business partner and readability of solicitations is certainly part of that; however, I think one standard to rule them all would have second and third order effects that could reduce the accuracy of a solicitation in an attempt to enhance accessibility.
  17. @jwomack Your anecdotes don't match the assertion you made. The explanation you provided is about warranting (or giving too high of a warrant to) unqualified individuals...that's a different discussion than warranting qualified individuals above "what's necessary."
  18. This is a claim without any adequate support (factual or logical). Care to elaborate?
  19. What's the law/rule they cited? Or did they cite one? If so, can you provide it here?
  20. Has the SBA cited a rule for this? There are CEOs in the commercial world that earn $1 salaries: https://www.forbes.com/sites/robertwood/2014/04/05/tax-smart-billionaires-who-work-for-1/#317c744edfee
  21. Here we go again with one of @PepeTheFrog's favorite talking points...Next up, negotiation = deception...
  22. Almost, you just have to be careful to enunciate. What about HRFRP (Highest Rated w/ Fair and Reasonable Price)? For some reason four to five letters seems like the limit unless it spells a word...
  23. I've used HTRRP (Highest Technically Rated, Reasonable Price)...it flows a bit better than HTRFRP and still gets the "reasonable price" component in there (whereas HTR, by itself, does not).
  24. Short of engaging in discussions/negotiations (which is a completely different topic) how would assessing higher priced proposals for their technical acceptability result in awarding a contract for a lower price than the Lowest Priced Technically Acceptable offer?
×
×
  • Create New...