Jump to content
The Wifcon Forums and Blogs

Contracting Pirate

Members
  • Content Count

    15
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

0 Neutral

About Contracting Pirate

  • Rank
    New

Profile Information

  • Interests

    Federal Swashbuckling

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. Have any of ye land lubbers had experience using this method? Would a contractor actually be willin' to accept eatin' the $73k doubloons in Scenario A and $91k in Scenario B? I may be cynical due to me sole-source encounters with dodgy contractors.
  2. Well said @PepeTheFrog, accountability of the responsible authorities tis' the best solution, yarr.
  3. Correct in yer first assumption. Not sure about the rest of it. I'm just a lowly scallywag followin' orders.
  4. Yarr, Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Navy (Acquisition and Procurement) "The DASN AP serves as the Navy's Competition Advocate General, and advises the ASN on Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR), Defense Acquisition Regulations System (DFARS) and Navy-specific acquisition regulations and policies."
  5. Also received confirmation from DASN(AP), stick to the DFARS.
  6. Results: Although legal were the ones originally raising this concern, they have since deferred to giving the DFARS precedence. The Policy Team also agreed. Common sense has won the day!
  7. Avast ye, I'm submittin' an Acquisition Plan for a cost-type contract well over $50M for approval. The 2017 NDAA Section 829 requirement "Use of Fixed-Price Contracts" requires Cost-Type contracts over $50M to be approved at different thresholds than previous years. It calls for this change to go into affect on 1 OCT 2018. Its currently still being vetted for approval in DFARS case number 2017-D024. While awaitin' a response from Legal, me question to ye is whether I should be beholden to approval from the DAR council for inclusion in the DFARS or if the failure of the Gov. to include the NDAA change by the specified date in Section 829 does not excuse me from adhering to the NDAA requirement.
  8. While I agree with ye meesage, me thinks yarr, "being a bit too hard on the Beaver." Ye can't discount the pressure on the contracting office to speedily get things on contract for the land-lubbin' program office. In me experience, schedule takes precedence above all else a little too often as a result. Avoidin' a protest at all costs may have ye partin' with a few more doubloons but it keeps ye on schedule. All me experience is sole-source so I may be jibber-jabbin' out of me swim lane.
  9. Shiver me timbers, I'd give me other leg to Davey Jones if I could go 100% digital. The death of Hard Copy's can't come soon enough. I've been hornswaggled out of enough of me time messin about with such things. I'd prefer to drown at sea, not under paper in me cubicle. Yo Ho Ho for Computer Science!
  10. @joel hoffman Its good to see another seadog like meself on deck. Great background on the utility of the DAC. Seems to have lost some of its luster of late.
  11. @joel hoffmanA scallywag like meself needs the DAC to er're have a chance at promotion, Arr. Much to do about nothin if you ask me.
  12. I Just joined the Defense Acquisition Corp but I'm strugglin' to see what the DAC actually represents other than some meaningless title. I be intuitively assuming t'is to make yourself look better for promotion but the requirements for joining be the same requirements ye be needing for promotion beyond GS-13 in the first place. Is thar something me missing or is this really just a waste of government resources to even offer?
  13. *Slow Clap* Yarr. brings a tear to me eyes.
×
×
  • Create New...