Jump to content
The Wifcon Forums and Blogs


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by PepeTheFrog

  1. PepeTheFrog

    Overriding the evaluators

    @lotus Do you sew your own clothes? Grow your own food? Did you build your home? Did you manufacture your car? Does the President of the United States have full expertise and knowledge and unlimited time to research and decide on issues of justice, agriculture, war, and education? Does the Secretary of Defense have full expertise and knowledge and unlimited time to research, evaluate, and decide on issues of war? Does a CEO perform every task in the entire company? delegation specialization of duties hierarchical staff If the selection process didn't have a single SSA, and instead made decisions by committee vote, you'd be complaining there is no accountability.
  2. What are your thoughts on GSA's announcement to consolidate all 24 GSA Schedules into a single GSA Schedule? How will this affect industry contractors? How will this affect contracting officers and the contracting process? https://www.gsa.gov/about-us/newsroom/news-releases/gsa-announces-transformation-of-multiple-awards-schedules https://federalnewsnetwork.com/acquisition/2018/11/long-overdue-reforms-coming-to-gsas-schedule-program/ https://www.federaltimes.com/acquisition/2018/11/27/gsa-to-consolidate-24-multiple-award-schedules-into-one/ https://fcw.com/articles/2018/11/27/gsa-consolidates-award-schedules.aspx
  3. Correct. The FARSite is maintained by Hill Air Force Base, so DOD deviations apply to its most important users-- the Air Force. The FARSite includes the DOD deviations (which apply only to DOD) within the FAR (which applies generally) strictly as a matter of convenience for Air Force and DOD users. http://farsite.hill.af.mil/
  4. PepeTheFrog

    Why all the "Award without discussions" talk?

    C Culham, PepeTheFrog wouldn't get rid of LPTA. When PepeTheFrog said "non-commercial/fungible supplies," PepeTheFrog meant that commercial items and requirements that can be definitively specified do not (generally) need negotiations. I.e. computer laptops, gallons of oil, precisely defined widgets. Those requirements are ripe for the use of LPTA with no negotiations on anything other than price. As far as doing away with the current dichotomy of sealed bidding or competitive: absolutely get rid of it and reform it. It's stupid and outdated.
  5. DOD finally caved and issued a DOD Class Deviation, also: https://www.acq.osd.mil/dpap/policy/policyvault/USA003103-18-DPC.pdf
  6. PepeTheFrog

    Why all the "Award without discussions" talk?

    As a larger issue, the existence of this thread and the fear or reluctance to negotiate is a clear signal that the system is broken. The idea of a company or individual shopping around for competitive offers for a million dollar investment in services or non-commercial/fungible supplies, and then not discussing any terms or negotiating with anyone, especially the best two or three, is insane.
  7. PepeTheFrog

    Why all the "Award without discussions" talk?

    Good points all around. PepeTheFrog's opinion is: less work less protest risk fear of screwing it up Also, @Jamaal Valentine has it right. You reserve the right to award without discussions so that you keep your options open and to signal to the offerors that you will keep your options open. Theoretically, that can place offerors on notice to provide their best offer, knowing that they might not get a chance to revise it. If there is no need to negotiate, you can simply award on the basis of the proposal (no discussions). Or, you can enter into negotiations (discussions).
  8. PepeTheFrog

    Readability of Federal Solicitations

    PepeTheFrog agrees with Jamaal Valentine and Matthew Fleharty. The technical specifications (SOW or "PWS") will necessarily be at a higher level, but everything else should be dumbed down as much as possible to the minimum level of 7-8.
  9. https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/lynnwood-man-tried-to-use-a-home-dna-test-to-qualify-as-a-minority-business-owner-he-was-denied-now-hes-suing/ The article is about a man using DNA tests to qualify for race-based or ethnicity-based contract preference programs. How soon before these questions pop up for the woman-owned small business (WOSB) program? What if a man decides he will self-identify as a woman and, as a total coincidence, win more federal contracts? What if more business owners decide to rely on small percentages of ancestry or even choose to self-identify as a part of favored races or ethnicities? Would the SBA Office of Hearing and Appeals decide such questions? Has anyone heard of specific thresholds (percentage ancestry) to qualify for the various race-based or ethnicity-based federal contracting preference programs?
  10. The above discussion is one of several reasons why intelligent, industrious, and ambitious frogs almost NEVER stay in the federal government.
  11. @Sunstrider Is it true that your question is about the warrant authority, not the validity of a $1 IDIQ contract award? If so, can the question change to: "Can a CO with a $10,000 warrant award an IDIQ contract with a minimum of $5,000 and a maximum of $100,000,000?"
  12. What are the standard FAR clauses and federal government policies to deal with contractors traveling on federal government-owned vehicles, including both (a) government-owned aircraft and (b) government-owned (motor) vehicles? Travel would be to carry out federal government contracts (meetings, site visits). Does anyone have general experience or advice on this topic, including how the government would approach things like liability, insurance, indemnity, etc.
  13. You play attorney on your own and research Title 5, Part 2641 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), but Don Mansfield's advice is wise, as usual. This matter is unquestionably something that should come (in writing if possible) from your agency ethics attorney (agency ethics official). They're waiting all day for calls like yours, give them a ring. This is important stuff that can result in a ruined career or crimes.
  14. PepeTheFrog

    travel on GOV by contractors

    Defense (DOD) contract contractors would only be passengers, not controlling or driving, just along for the ride aircraft not in possession of contractor as far as fixed price versus cost contract, assume a cost contract, although exploring other options looking for the "standard way" to handle it on a DOD cost contract before exploring potential of other options, including contract vehicles not subject to standard procurement regulations
  15. Tesla and SpaceX founder Elon Musk allegedly smoked a few puffs of cannabis ("weed") and drank whiskey with Joe Rogan during a live-streaming interview on the "Joe Rogan Show," which is a popular podcast hosted by former Fear Factor host and current Mixed Martial Arts (MMA) commentator, Joe Rogan. https://www.businessinsider.com/nasa-launches-safety-review-of-spacex-after-elon-musk-smoked-weed-2018-11 SpaceX (and Boeing) have big contracts with NASA. This behavior prompted NASA executives to request a "safety review" of SpaceX (and Boeing). What might this safety review entail? PepeTheFrog assumes at least some part of this review would be targeted towards any possible illegal drug use of contracted employees at SpaceX (and Boeing). What FAR or NASA clauses would this review rely upon? If SpaceX or Boeing refuses, what could the government use to demand compliance? Under which FAR clause would the safety review's initiation and execution be premised upon? FAR Subpart 23.5, Drug-Free Workplace FAR 52.223-6, Drug-Free Workplace
  16. PepeTheFrog

    space cowboys, weed, safety, and NASA

    Any managers reading this should announce, during the next company-wide or targeted pee test, that it is merely a "cultural assessment study."
  17. PepeTheFrog

    Advice on Job Offer

    If you move to the D.C. area, right when you step off the airplane, they will hand you a GS-14 just like they hang a luau (or whatever that flowery necklace is called) on your neck when you arrive in Hawaii.
  18. PepeTheFrog

    Advice on Job Offer

    Classic short-term versus long-term decision. DOD: larger agency more future positions higher grades more funding for training and travel more prestige better training opportunities potential to obtain or retain security clearance VA: GS-13 practically guaranteed (assuming your offer is for GS-12 in a GS-13 target or terminal position) no security clearance required absolute disgrace of an agency PepeTheFrog usually advises frogs to always go with the higher grade, all things being equal. But things are not equal in this circumstance. It sounds like you will still have to wait at least one year to get to the target or terminal GS-13 position at the VA, correct? Do you have 365 days of experience as a GS-12, i.e. are you eligible to accept an offer and start as a GS-13 immediately?
  19. PepeTheFrog loves it
  20. flitzer, play dumb and ask your colleagues about this "policy." Try to extract a law, written policy, regulation, court decision, GAO recommendation, etc. Say you want to share the reasoning with a colleague in a different agency who has the same problem, and is asking for the underlying, written, official reasoning. Or, say you're compiling it in your written notes of contracting wisdom. Use your judgment, but often people like this, who make stuff up, get very defense when you question anything about it. So, be careful. If your office colleagues cannot come up with anything, there is your answer. It's just how they like to do it.
  21. You should adopt a medium-term goal of leaving behind your office to find another job. They sound like dunces. Sometimes a significant spread of price quotes can indicate: (a) quoters do not understand the work (b) government did a poor job of describing the work (c) a little of column (a), a little of column (b) If the quotes are technically acceptable, this is commercial, LPTA, and under simplified acquisitions, you are dealing with pants-on-head dunces. PepeTheFrog assumes your office did not give you any rationale or reason based on statute, regulation, policy, or court decision. They just told you how they "feel" and what others have said or done in the past. These are not people you want to shape your career, education, and training.
  22. Thanks to all for responding. PepeTheFrog now understands and agrees with all the frogs who are saying that the form of the contractual agreement should not matter (i.e. new contract award versus modification to an existing or expired contract) as long as the underlying work it contemplates does or does not violate CICA. PepeTheFrog's point is not that it cannot be done, but that by focusing on the new work as essentially a new contract, the issues of CICA are clearer. PepeTheFrog was driving at the opposite stance of what Lionel Hutz explained well, which is that "if a direct award of a stand-alone contract would violate CICA, why would a direct award of a contract via modification of an expired contract not violate CICA?": Well said. PepeTheFrog agrees that this should be the focus of the analysis, not the form of the contract (new contract versus modification), but rather the substance of the new work (or work within the scope of the original contract). PepeTheFrog said this, not Retreadfed. Retreadfed agrees with you, jwomack. Retreadfed was quoting PepeTheFrog.
  23. PepeTheFrog does not think that your suggested paraphrasing is accurate. CICA requires full and open competition through the use of competitive procedures unless there is an exception (listed in CICA) or there is a different statutory authorization, for example, "Other Transactions" under 10 USC 2371. CICA is "the default," unless you can find statutory authority to not use CICA. CICA also expressly names the FAR to implement what "competitive procedures" means. The BAA process is listed as a competitive procedure at FAR 6.102(d)(2). The BAA process is not an "exception to CICA." The BAA process is a competitive procedure available to fulfill the requirement for full and open competition (i.e. CICA). What is your point? Are you referring to this language in subsection (c): "(B) to establish or maintain an essential engineering, research, or development capability to be provided by an educational or other nonprofit institution or a federally funded research and development center"? CICA "§253. Competition requirements (a) Procurement through full and open competition; competitive procedures (1) Except as provided in subsections (b), (c), and (g) of this section and except in the case of procurement procedures otherwise expressly authorized by statute, an executive agency in conducting a procurement for property or services- (A) shall obtain full and open competition through the use of competitive procedures in accordance with the requirements of this title and the Federal Acquisition Regulation; and (B) shall use the competitive procedure or combination of competitive procedures that is best suited under the circumstances of the procurement."
  24. The Competition in Contracting Act (statute), which the FAR implements, requires full and open competition for new work or work that is outside the scope of the original contract, hence the discussion in this thread about where the line is drawn and whether a J&A is required. What is your point?
  25. No. In this scenario, "expired contract" means when the delivery date, completion date, or period of performance is exhausted and there are no available (pre-negotiated) options that can be exercised according to the original terms. "End of the road" as far as dates to perform or deliver or options to extend.