Jump to content

Verbose Nonsense

Members
  • Posts

    2
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Reputation

0 Neutral
  1. I'm intentionally inserting a statement that does not directly address any questions or answers. However, it is in keeping with one of the few logical statements of the FAR. FAR 1.102(d)"...In exercising initiative, Government members of the Acquisition Team may assume if a specific strategy, practice, policy or procedure is in the best interests of the Government and is not addressed in the FAR, nor prohibited by law (statute or case law), Executive order or other regulation, that the strategy, practice, policy or procedure is a permissible exercise of authority." Every last CO should have immediately implemented actual sound business judgment in having the appropriate FAR Clause 52.204-24, 252.204-7016, and 252.204-7017 checked off by the quoter/offeror/vendor/contractor. Then doing nothing more. What a ridiculous burden the Government puts on small businesses. It is not in keeping with sound free market business principles nor does it actually help small businesses in any way. To audit your supply chains for yet another Government requirement makes no sense. Does anyone think that if you ask your suppliers from the Asian region, "Hey does your widget violate Section 889?" that you will get an actionable/meaningful response? We operate in good faith or we do not. No clause on CTIP, 889, etc. will ever change that. This is exactly the kind of thing that leads to a $2M dollar bathroom, https://www.hsgac.senate.gov/subcommittees/fso/media/flushing-away-tax-dollars! For DoD, upload these two memorandums to your file if it's not an IT purchase. http://thecgp.org/images/08-12-20_Memo_DNI-Response-to-DoD-Waiver-Request_20-00733_U-FOUO_SIGNED-....pdf; https://thecgp.org/images/Memo-20-00823_DoD-Request-for-Section-889-Waiver-2.pdf
×
×
  • Create New...