Jump to content


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Recent Profile Visitors

3,096 profile views
  1. Navy is experience the same asset management policy, but I think the AF is ahead of the game. FIAR is a huge focus now. It will be interesting to see how it evolves and if it makes it way into acquisition regulations. This is an interesting post. Thanks for sharing. Please keep us posted on the strategy you take.
  2. Vern covered this politely in his last post, and I am surprised he did.... By this rationale, a contractor can enter into a FFP arrangement with the Government, for an agreed to price, then switch every labor category on which that FFP was based. Also, by this rationale, as long as the contractor is conforming to any labor mix within the SCA WDs, they can request a price adjustment to the contract without previous CO review and approval of the deviations. I don't think that's a good business deal for the Govt, do others? Please let me know if I am off here! I'll own up to it.
  3. Do you consider the added labor categories out of scope of the contract or the original competition?
  4. Thanks Vern. Would another example of standards, taken from the DOD Source Selection Procedures, be relevancy of past performance (p.27) ? The standards for relevancy being : Very relevant; relevant; somewhat relevant; not relevant (setting aside your opinion of the document) Ref: https://acc.dau.mil/docs/DoDSSP/Source%20Selection%20Guide%20and%20Memo%201%20April%202016%20ljm.pdf
  5. Just a note: other observers are interested on how ji20874 is executing past performance evaluation without standards in his office. A method was mentioned by another post, but I think it is worth further discussion. Thanks.
  6. Olga- What does the CPFF CLIN state? Are the estimated costs and fee specifically identified?
  7. If you are talking about not awarding immediately after the 5PM posting ? Yes, I have heard of that.
  8. He is an O-10. I'm pretty sure he understands how acquisition works. Army's Program Managers are O-5s. We have a requirements problem. Again.
  9. “We are not talking about nuclear subs or going to the moon here. We are talking about a pistol.” Said the General (the requirements lead)
  10. $365 M, for what appears to be a commercial item, and two years of testing? Terrible.
  11. The solicitation states LPTA for award of multiple contracts? Or the task orders will use LPTA procedures?
  12. I don't think its a good defense, but I am just posing a question to what the defective pricing clause states. It must state total cost, and not total price, as an invalid defense for a reason? Why not total price or total cost? It's a FAR based question. I get all the answers- all good. Good discussions. Thanks.
  • Create New...