Jump to content

brian

Members
  • Posts

    268
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by brian

  1. . at some point this thread ought to mention Section 886 of PL 110-181, which created 100% set-asides for Iraqi and Afghan businesses. .
  2. . Leo, the idea of letting ANC's create unlimited daughter corporations that were treated as independent for the purpose of evaluating size was the work of the Alaska Congressional delegation. As I recall, Theodore Stevens defended the scam as a way to pay the 14 ANC's back for expropriation of their land by the federal government. The problem that other 8(a) firms have with this ANC loophole, that has since been expanded to Native Hawaiian Corporations and Tribally owned enterprises, is that none of these ANC's are small businesses anymore, but awards to them are counted as being to small businesses. Want an eye-opening statistic ? Look at what percentage of supposedly 8(a) awards go to firms that have annual turnover of more than $1 billion. I've dealt with ANC's, and have been occasionally surprised when I saw an actual Alaska native person involved in the operation. Mostly they aren't. And the level of payback to the native shareholders, $6,500 per individual per year, is pathetic when viewed in light of the overpayment inherent in any noncompetitive situation. Most people working for the NGA are ANC employees. Entire operations centers are handed over to them without thorough assessment of the costs of avoiding competition. So why would an agency go ANC ? To avoid having to conduct a competition, or to ensure the sole source contractor hired the correct former agency employees. What would never have happened if Stevens was still a Senator is the scrutiny of this boondoggle. I don't have a problem with "implied overuse." But I have a problem with sole source awards to billion-dollar companies counting as awards to small business. .
  3. well, this never would have happened if a certain Senator was still in office.
  4. . Former Fed, I read the definition you furnished from dictionary.com, and have to wonder what you are thinking. The definition says "adverse" means "unfavorable in effect." Well, losing a competition is unfavorable, in this situation. And having merely "exceptional" past performance information led to that outcome in the hypothetical situation (exceptional vs. super exceptional.) Thus, for this hypothetical, it satisfies the definition of "adverse" that you furnished. I suspect "adverse" is defined differently in the relevant part of the FAR. That would be a better place to get a definition. .
  5. . Without actually addressing your question, let me remind you that a protest is due not later than when bids are due. This is a patent defect in the solicitation. If you ask the agency a question or comment and wait for a reply, and the deadline passes, you are too late. .
  6. . I defer to the learned one on what most installations require, but I can tell you the situation at Fort Carson. At least, what the situation was 15 years ago. I was the Quality Manager for the contractor with the contract for base operations and maintenance for the Director of Public Works. We maintained real property, from painting stripes on the airfield runways to high voltage distribution to cutting the grass to running the sewage plant. In that capacity, I acted as the Building Official for the post. I checked with the local off-post Regional Building Department, and they had zero jurisdiction on post. Technically that authority rested with the DPW, but I had almost all the inspectors in my shop, except for a couple government QA inspectors. I determined that contractors did not need to have a contractor's license, and the DPW backed me up. However, they still needed any insurance or bonds that their CO determined were appropriate. I gotta tell you, I've done commercial construction with a license, and the toughest part of getting licensed was getting bonding and insurance. The actual license was almost a gimmie, pay a fee and take an open book (ICBO Code) test. But I had to show proof of insurance and bonding before getting the license. I've done 8 or so federal construction jobs without a license, on Army posts, EPA facilities and in Indian Country, and I still needed insurance and bonding. So, if you have bonding and insurance, have a Super take the test for you. What you didn't say was whether or not the Government was requiring a license from a particular jurisdiction. If they are requiring a license from the Building Department of the jurisdiction just outside the post, camp or station where the job is, and if you are not local, this might be an unduly restrictive way to ensure only locals can bid on the job. ........ If this is an RFP, not an IFB, then I think its fair to use licensing as an evaluation factor. More points for having a license, which shows that you also compete in the commercial/ private sector. If its an IFB, and the Government uses the license as a matter of technical acceptability or as a gauge of offeror responsibility, you could always protest and get a definitive answer. But if they are under joint jurisdiction, as Vern suggests, then I think they would be required to require that you be licensed. .
  7. . I don't know the merits of these protests, https://acquisition.army.mil/asfi/justifica...E_EXTENSION=pdf but they sure have benefited the protestor if for no other reason than because the Government has had to extend the earlier contract for 2 years with 3 bridge contracts to have time to answer the protests. .
  8. . I met with him once in Denver to ask about his help on a legal matter. It turned out that his client list included some folks who had conflicting interests, so he couldn't help. I learned that I couldn't have afforded him, anyway. He tossed me some nuggets of wisdom that helped me understand the scope of the challenge I faced. .
  9. Here 2 help, I was pleasantly surprised to see Herb Fenster mentioned. I didn't realize that he was involved with the A-12 case. The guy is a national resource, much like Vern.
  10. Peggy, this comes out of FAR Provision 52.212-1, Instructions to Offerors: ... (i) Availability of requirements documents cited in the solicitation. (1)(i) The GSA Index of Federal Specifications, Standards and Commercial Item Descriptions, FPMR Part 101-29, and copies of specifications, standards, and commercial item descriptions cited in this solicitation may be obtained for a fee by submitting a request to? GSA Federal Supply Service Specifications Section Suite 8100 470 East L?Enfant Plaza, SW Washington, DC 20407 Telephone (202) 619-8925 Facsimile (202) 619-8978. (ii) If the General Services Administration, Department of Agriculture, or Department of Veterans Affairs issued this solicitation, a single copy of specifications, standards, and commercial item descriptions cited in this solicitation may be obtained free of charge by submitting a request to the addressee in paragraph (i)(1)(i) of this provision. Additional copies will be issued for a fee. (2) Most unclassified Defense specifications and standards may be downloaded from the following ASSIST websites: (i) ASSIST ( http://assist.daps.dla.mil ). (ii) Quick Search ( http://assist.daps.dla.mil /quicksearch). (iii) ASSISTdocs.com ( http://assistdocs.com ). (3) Documents not available from ASSIST may be ordered from the Department of Defense Single Stock Point (DoDSSP) by? (i) Using the ASSIST Shopping Wizard ( http://assist.daps.dla.mil /wizard); (ii) Phoning the DoDSSP Customer Service Desk (215) 697-2179, Mon-Fri, 0730 to 1600 EST; or (iii) Ordering from DoDSSP, Building 4, Section D, 700 Robbins Avenue, Philadelphia, PA 19111-5094, Telephone (215) 697-2667/2179, Facsimile (215) 697-1462. (4) Nongovernment (voluntary) standards must be obtained from the organization responsible for their preparation, publication, or maintenance. ... Does that help at all ? I think G Joru was suggesting this same information may be available on-line. I've never looked for MIL-SPECS or Government Specs there, but its worth a look. Another place to look might be an old solicitation for the product you offer. Search fbo.gov. .
  11. . Peggy, I didn't understand what you're asking. If you want more of a reply, explain why you mentioned DOE in the title but not the question, and explain what you mean by "driver." If you are looking for an existing government spec, say so. .
  12. . this sounds a little familiar. Is the former incumbent the employer of the COR's spouse ? .
  13. . Tom, my IP experience is limited to NDA's I had with employees who were already disposed to be loyal to me. Piece of cake. Your situation is much trickier. This is a case where I recommend asking an attorney for help, not as a way to CYA, but because she or he will either have expert knowledge, or can get it. And if the Program Manager has already promised the World, good luck in negotiating for less. .
  14. . Even with the exclusions in FAR 19.1304, the mandate for HUBZone has always been strong. "19.1304 Exclusions. This subpart does not apply to? (a) Requirements that can be satisfied through award to? (1) Federal Prison Industries, Inc. (see Subpart 8.6); or (2) Javits-Wagner-O?Day Act participating non-profit agencies for the blind or severely disabled (see Subpart 8.7); (b ) Orders under indefinite delivery contracts (see Subpart 16.5); (c ) Orders against Federal Supply Schedules (see Subpart 8.4); (d) Requirements currently being performed by an 8(a) participant or requirements SBA has accepted for performance under the authority of the 8(a) Program, unless SBA has consented to release the requirements from the 8(a) Program; (e) Requirements that do not exceed the micro-purchase threshold; or (f) Requirements for commissary or exchange resale items." I don't recall ever going back to read the actual law, but this is looking like another case where the agency responsible for writing the FAR (GSA) has written it in a way not faithful to the underlying law in order to protect their FSS scam. There is no basis in law that I know of for the part of FAR 19.502-1(b ) that exempts FSS buys from the requirements of Part 19. That is just an unneeded agency feathering its own nest at the expense of good business practice. Under law, Small Biz preference should apply to "optional" FSS (and mandatory FSS.) Having GSA responsible for the writing of the FAR evokes for me images of foxes protecting egg-laying operations. .
  15. . Rory, I don't understand the question. Can you be more specific ? Most of the FAR, as you know, amounts to "regulations for Government compliance." Can you state what the new regs concern ? .
  16. . Tom, it would be foolish to take advice from me on IP. But that never stopped me from giving it. I would counter the idea that they get a free ownership stake in the IP by suggesting that the sub can only claim ownership of IP developed under the effort if the costs are borne jointly, and that they have to tell you ahead of time if they intend to bear any of the costs, because your firm thinks that you are paying for the entire effort. Pin down the cash or in-kind investments that they think they are going to make. That may help illuminate for them why you don't think they should get an ownership stake in the IP that is produced. To help you understand where they're coming from, if you don't already, consider that in many prime contracts with the Government small r&d outfits get paid to develop IP, and then get an ownership stake, and it doesn't cost them a dime. They may be thinking they can get the same deal with you if they think that only they can do the work. Did you say anything that might give them that impression ? Is it true ? .
  17. . I assume now that Orion posted this question concerning FAR 32.112-1. They posted another question that specifically mentioned this clause. When I gave an opinion above, I thought that the questioner was referring to a clause / provision from Part 52. I was wrong. My answer above is withdrawn. .
  18. . for what its worth, on my recent awards, going back a year, the date in Block 3 appears to be when the award recommendation was made by the Contract Specialist and the SF 1449 prepared for signature in the PD2 system, and the signed date in block 31c is a day or two later. To me, if I get a verbal notice to proceed, I treat the day I get the phone call or email as the award date, otherwise I go by the date in 31c. .
  19. . Orion, now I understand your question about a FAR clause that is not in the contract. My response to that thread supposed that you meant a clause in Part 52. Disregard my earlier answer. .
  20. . Orion, now I understand your question about a FAR clause that is not in the contract. My response to that thread supposed that you meant a clause in Part 52. Disregard my earlier answer. .
  21. . Not only are they the only clauses enforced, they are the only clauses in the contract. I get the feeling that there's a clause not in the contract that is in the FAR that you wish was in the contract. Sorry, no dice. If you were under the impression that all FAR clauses apply in every case, then let me point out that some clauses actually contradict each other. For example, depending of the type of contract, and who the contractor is, there are several different choices of clauses for how government property is managed. .
  22. tell her to take it down to Staples and use it to buy stuff for the office.
  23. Thomas, plan on being asked to provide input for the Agency Report that may be required, if the adverse information is overlooked and award is made to the offeror who has otherwise concealed his apparently unfavorable track record from your office. If you are comfortable saying that the adverse information you saw was not credible, and you didn't bother to send an email to ask the relevant state agency about it, because it seemed so sketchy, that is your call. But you now know that which has been alleged. We are out of the realm of "close at hand" and into the realm of personal knowledge or awareness, whether that knowledge (awareness) is accurate or not. If the bidder who submitted the adverse information becomes a disappointed bidder, there's a good chance that they will not only go to the trouble of protesting, they may also also tell their attorney to win, regardless of whose feelings are hurt. It's a little off the topic you raised, but check out the GAO report on so-called "frivolous" protests. It's on the WIFCON Front Page, issued 9 April. Somewhere in the middle it says that the beauty of the current protest forum is that it enables bidders who think they've been treated unfairly to act as "little attorney generals." The first line of defense against fraud or error in contracting is the professional contracting workforce. The second line is the professional management in contracting offices. But when those two fail, which is an unusual occurrence, the third line is the disappointed bidder. . NOTE: I am not an expert here; I've still got a lot to learn about contracting. The experts will weigh in tomorrow. But if it were up to me, I'd check the info out. Then I'd let the contractor have a chance to explain it, just like a bad PPIRS report. Past Performance is an important consideration, but it needs to be assessed as a whole, and one bad job needs to be taken in context. In assessing performance risk, I think you are better off knowing more about your bidders, rather than less. .
  24. la bella Napoli - you da man! thanks. This was an EDM requirement.
  25. . Can anyone tell me if DAPS Defense Automation Production Service really is a mandatory source ? I've checked DFARS 208 and it doesn't say so, compared to FAR 8.8 which says GPO is mandatory for printing. The DAPS website does not say they are a mandatory source, but that they are a preferred source. Also, this is for electronic document services, not printing. Does that make a difference ? thanks. .
×
×
  • Create New...