Jump to content


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

About ricroy

  • Birthday June 10

Profile Information

  • Gender
  1. I don't think that an evaluator acting in good faith should look at a Termination for Convenience on a vendor's record and conclude that the vendor did anything inappropriate.
  2. I looked in the Acquision.gov archives at an earlier version of the FAR. At that time, 13.105 stated: (a) The contracting officer must comply with the public display and synopsis requirements of 5.101 and 5.203 unless— ... (ii) The GPE is used at or below the simplified acquisition threshold for providing widespread public notice of acquisition opportunities and offerors are provided a means of responding to the solicitation electronically This language is quite similar to that currently found in 5.202(a)(13) and my interpretation is that the FAR Council contemplated that as long as the solicitation is posted on GPE and responses can be made electronically synopsis is not required. I'm of the opinion that email is an electronic means of responding. It seems to me that over time the original intent has been lost and people are wasting a lot of time (15 day posting period) on what is intended to be a simplified process. As I am also interested in what is actually happening in the field, I've posted a Poll on the topic and hope people will respond.
  3. Intrigued by the current discussion in the "For Beginners Only" forum, FAR 5.201(a) Requirement to Synopsize and SAP I'd be interested to know what people are actually doing in their day-to-day work.
  4. FAR Case 2016-002 / FAC 2022-06 shows an effective date of May 26, 2022. There are two clauses which indicate a May update. There are: 52.204-8 Annual Representations and Certifications. 52.212-3 Offeror Representations and Certifications—Commercial Products and Commercial Services. As of May 31, neither of these clauses are updated in Acquistion.gov? Am I missing something, or is someone asleep at the wheel with the long holiday weekend?
  • Create New...