Jump to content

brian

Members
  • Posts

    268
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by brian

  1. Paul,

    sorry to take so long to reply.

    I sometimes forget to check this site out for months.

    The start of Alzheimer's, maybe.

    I assumed that Rodolfo was Italian because the two sentences in Question 1 have a perfectly sensible sentence structure that is rarely used in English, putting the verbs in places I didn't expect. He also assumes and omits filler words that a native English speaker usually adds for flow.

    His English is excellent, but not native.

    I speak a couple of European languages, one better than the others.

    I even got pro pay as a soldier for being a supposed "linguist" when I was an E-5, probably before you were born. It made up for the jump pay I lost when I went overseas.

    Rodolfo's English is better than my Chermin ever was.

    What say you, Rudy ?

    Obrigado. Prego.

  2. Didn't mean to be secretive, I just didn't want to ask folks to do research that I should do my own darn self.

    I was looking for hints about where to look or how to research, other than what I had thought of myself.

    Your first response - just ask them - was right on target.

    When I did ask, and was told that I was too late to ask even that general a question, I felt that I already knew the answer: not covered.

    The protection afforded to offerors by the FAR is a baseline of fair dealing.

    As I see it, the basis of this website is that those FAR protections are not necessarily obvious or straightforward, but they are adjudicable.

    Well,

    even if the FAR doesn't apply to a particular acquisition or a particular agency,

    and CICA doesn't apply,

    I think that the agency CO will make an effort to show my offer was treated fairly.

    And if not,

    I assume I still have an avenue for redress of grievances.

    But that all depends on me finding out what happened, which the FAR requires (debriefing,) but the protest fora do not.

  3. Taking a closer look, the solicitation did not include any references to the FAR except for the two places on the SF-33 where the FAR is mentioned, Blocks 8 & 13.

    No clauses or provisions were IBR (except on the SF-33;) everything in full text appears to be lifted from the FAR, without indicating the source.

    Prior to closing, I asked about whether the FAR applied, and the response was that I had missed the cutoff for questions.

    I guess I already know the answer as to whether the FAR applies.

    Assuming it doesn't, I still think that the agency is bound by Comp Gen and COFC guidance.

    I hope to hear back on the outcome.

    Thnx all for providing UR input.

  4. while the Edwards answer above is excellent, I restate parts in my own words for clarity.

    I deal daily with folks for whom English is a foreign language, like Rodolfo, and sometimes they benefit from hearing the same thing two different ways.

    Q.1. Reasonable fees can include attorneys, expert consultants, and even a typist to put the letter in the mail.

    Q.2. Even if you lose, the Government cannot make you pay their costs.

    About 6 years ago, DOD asked the HASC to look into allegedly "frivilous" GAO protests and to consider slapping such fees on losing protestors as a way to discourage aggrieved bidders from seeking accountability.

    The Chairman asked Comptroller General Walker to testify.

    I assume the Chair didn't like the idea, because Walker's stance on accountability was well known.

    It was predictable that this Rumsfeld initiative would get shot down.

    The hearing transcript shows GAO telling the Committee that protestors and their protests are good for the system, acting as "private attorneys general."

    GAO also said that they didn't want to create a new, additional "frivilous" test, when the current system didn't have any problem dealing with protests where the merits were not clear.

  5. This is new to me:

    Contractors have to register with dnb.com for a DUNS number in order to register in SAM, which is required in order to get a government contract.

    CCR, and now SAM, allow an entity with a single DUNS to add 4-digit suffixes ("DUNS+4") to create multiple accounts within CCR/ SAM for different contracts.

    DUNS+4 can help businesses segregate funds and manage contracts.

    A small business was recently contacted by DLA, who assigns CAGE Codes, and was told that they could no longer use the DUNS+4 numbers that they registered in CCR.

    Each DUNS+4 number gets a separate CAGE Code, and DLA is rationing these Codes - after they were already issued.

    This SB has a current Kt awarded through CCR using an old DUNS+4, and now has to get the CO to mod the Kt to show their basic DUNS (without the "+4" extension) and corresponding CAGE Code.

    Separately,

    they also have an offer pending with a different agency that was submitted using another DUNS+4, and I advised them that they need to notify the PCO to change both DUNS and CAGE.

    The DUNS+4 and associated CAGE Code that were put on the SF-1449 no longer show up in SAM.

    Why is DLA doing this ?

    Are they running low on electrons ?

  6. I mentioned TECOM only as an example of corruption in Air Force contracting.

    I scanned the THE CLAUSE article, and if I understood it correctly, the authors agree that in every case the COFC reversed the GAO, the GAO had decided the case wrongly.

    Don't get me wrong:

    I can see how eliminating the ability to get a GAO Decision reviewed at a higher level benefits Agencies and successful contractors, which is good for the "expeditious" prong.

    But not eliminating it is even more gooder for the "accountability" prong.

    And "uncertainty" over possibly having bad decisions overturned isn't even a prong.

  7. @ Brian R --

    605 days for COFC to decide a simple question ?

    Hard for me to believe.

    Give me the Docket Number, and I bet I'll find that Agency attorneys have been raising Motions and Objections and contributing plenty to the length of time.

    My cursory review suggests to me that the Court can publish a decision 60 to 120 days after an appropriately filed Motion for Summart Judgment. I haven't done any analysis for cases that went to trial.

    Note: if you want to check your own darn self, because you don't trust me to admit if I 'm wrong, then get yourself a PACER account and you can check. Or ask your attorney.

    @ Vern --

    I don't always agree with what you write, but I always read it, and always find it interesting.

    Thanks for the detailed response to my questions above.

  8. Some of the thinking here is just hard for me to comprehend --

    unless I try to see things from a Government point of view.

    Then things become more clear.

    The idea that industry would voluntarily concede yet more unfettered discretion to CO's because walling off COFC means contractors have fewer avenues for recourse .... exactly HOW is that supposed to appeal to industry ?

    I've been on both sides. I worked directly for the CO responsible for the TECOM decision (USCOFC No. 00-475C, 27 June 2005.)

    He told the Contractor he didn't care WHAT the Contract said, that they better do as he said or they would get terminated for default. Maybe I've seen more corruption (abuse of discretion) by CO's that the rest of you. Maybe you've seen just as much but didn't recognize it. whatever.

    The GAO Bid Protest forum exists to maximize competition. It's authority comes from CICA. Try reading a protest decision from that forum where the protestor argues that the Agency improperly failed to restrict competition as allowed, such as in not making a SBSA when the FAR says to.

    GAO bounces it, saying that CICA isn't meant to restrict competition.

    In fact, COFC is better able to handle protests than GAO.

    GAO believes their duty is to back up CO's and Agencies unless that is completely impossible. Look at the standard to show bad faith, e.g.

    Vern is just wrong about fairness. He knows better than me why a society needs courts. Maybe he forgot. He is older than me, after all. By the time I became an All American (that's a genre of soldier,) he had already figured out that USAF aircraft weren't all that unsafe, and landing in one COULD be lived down.

    Look at the COFC Docket:

    dozens of federal inmates suing for $ millions for violations of their civil rights, a smattering of takings cases, some tax cases, and the vaccine cases. Occasionally Military pay, Civilian pay, Wrongful imprisonment, Patents, copyrights, Native American and oil spills. Japanese Internment.

    If folks are thinking that the COFC Judges don't see things the way a CO does, and the way GAO does, and aren't loyal to the federal agency "home team," yer darn right. As it should be.

  9. Acquisition Don sez:

    "It would be nice if [GAO] adopted a practice where they would dismiss a case if their decision would have contradicted a COFC decision."

    Don,

    I've read in these pages (WIFCON Discussions) where Vern has disparged COFC Decisions as the whims of a single Article I Judge. Here, he even cries out for an appeal to an Article III bench. I assume that Vern has a history there, and I don't know the details.

    The Procurement Law Control Group at the GAO evidently sees themselves as the defenders of the

    caprice discretion of federal contracting officials. Maybe the site owner could weigh in on this.

    The COFC has a completely different purpose.

    Vern knows better than anyone else here how the COFC came to have the jurisdiction it now has. It's purview is different than the jurisdiction of the Comp Gen in important ways. E.g., GAO's current charter flows from CICA, and is strictly to maximize competition.

    COFC has a broader view, acting to protect the integrity of the system.

    Vern,

    as you call for an end to one of these fora,

    perhaps you could explain which one you want extinguished, and why.

  10. H2H,

    I'm gonna have to look up the latest on GTSI.

    I remember when, as a BUDS (Small Biz Advocate) for a DOI Bureau in ~2005,

    I checked out GTSI's 10-K Report on Edgar, and read where they were warning their stockholders that, due to something they had not anticipated, they no longer qualified as a Small Biz, and worried that the US Govt would stop them from getting any more SBSA work.

    I told the Bureau Procurement Exec and asked if we could stop all SBSA and FAR 8.4 SB awards to GTSI. It took about 6 months for that to be approved.

    Boy, were the buyers unhappy with me.

    Most couldn't care less if an "other than small" biz was stealing from SBC's,

    and GTSI was known for furnishing swag to buyers.

    Vern,

    U right about dat.

    But I assumed, with the opening post, that acquisition of a SB was under consideration as a way for SI Corp to tap into SBSA work that SI couldn't pursue openly. And you know what they say about assumptions -- everybody has one.

  11. H2H,

    I haven't looked at SI's profile in the SBA's Dynamic Small Business Search, or whatever it's called nowadays.

    But I did look at their website, and they present themselves as the market leader.

    Recalling the definition of "small business," and that it had something to do with "not dominant in its market segment," SI is not a small biz.

    Jeffro's initial post sounds like SI is trying to compete for SBSA work through acquiring a legit SB.

    I've seen SAIC, Lockheed, and several other "other than small" firms try the same trick.

    This is especially offensive because in SI's principal market, there is no transparency in acquisition.

  12. Why do you need a regulation to tell you what to do? What's up with that?

    This isn't hard. The proposals belong to the offerors if you're not going to consider them. They sent them to you in the expectation and on the condition that you would use them in order to decide which to accept. You're not going to accept any of them. What right to you have to use the information in them for "market research"? That would be unethical without the permission of the offerors. You would violate confidentiality for your own ends.

    Keep the proposals unopened, contact each offeror, and ask if they want their proposal returned or destroyed. Get permission before you use the information in them for purposes other than you represented to the people who sent them to you. Document the file.

    NOTHING of substance to add.

    I just have this for Vern:

    SALUTE!

    what a great answer.

  13. I may be missing something --- I often do ---

    but this appears to be pretty simple to answer.

    The US-located daughter concern obviously makes a substantial contribution to the US economy if it employs anyone in the US who pays US federal and state taxes, American or legally admitted to work here. It is OBVIOUSLY a qualified small business.

    But here's the bigger point:

    The Mother corporation back in Germany ALSO QUALIFIES as a legit small business.

    The German Corp ought to do the bidding, register in CCR, etc.

    Why wouldn't a German company, or a Canadian company, or an Australian company, or a Pakistani company, be allowed to bid on and win US Government contracts ?

    Joel, the Corps awards contracts to foreign firms ALL THE TIME. Much of that is for work in their own country, of course.

    But US businesses DOMINATE defense procurement for most of our allies. Turn about, fair play, and all that ?

  14. late to the party - can I come in ?

    ...

    The first thing that occurred to me: since a non-profit cannot qualify as a small business, they cannot bid on a SBSA.

    So, are you NOT setting this aside for some category of preference-eligible small business ?

    At a minimum, if these services are limited to one geographic area, like a metropolitan area or a county,

    this HAS to be set aside.

    In the Fort Hood area, for example, I know of 3 small businesses who can do this sort of work -- and I don't even live in Texas.

    So,

    a non-profit cannot bid, and a non-profit cannot win the contract.

    _________________________

    In response to Mr. Edwards' query, no, this contract is not (necessarily) for the services of ordained ministers. At most Army posts, these services are provided by lay people.

    ______________________

    for me, the most problematic part of your situation is the conversion of NAF to personal property.

    Yer Chaplain is a crook.

    You are obliged to report this to the Criminal Investigators on base.

  15. in general (but not always,) using a sole source procurement reflects a failure by the Contracting Office, in one way or another.

    Failure to educate the requiring activity, in many cases. Failure to understand the market in others.

    The purpose of the GPE is to let the market know when you are thinking about subverting competition, so that other vendors who can do the work besides the requiring activity's preferred vendor get to notify you of that gap in your market research.

    What's the benefit of using a sole source ?

    Eliminating offers from vendors you prefer not to deal with ?

    Protecting you from learning more about other potential sources ?

    If you are ashamed of your work, and suspect you are not complying with the law, by all means try to conceal that.

    But if you are looking to do the best you can for both your end user and the poor slob who's paying the freight, the taxpaying public, then consider supporting the guiding principles for the Federal Acquisition System enumerated at FAR 1.102.

  16. I believe that there are actually 50 Parts, plus 3 that are "reserved" (20, 21 and 40). Does anyone know why these were reserved or what they were reserved for? Were they originally designated for something that was deleted or reorganized under other Parts?

    seems to me, one of 'em was for the "Indian Preference" Program.

    maybe I'm hallucinatin'.

  17. Army Regulation 5104.502 states: ... Has there been a policy change and it just hasn't been posted yet?

    Joyce,

    if you are a Ktr, the best way to clear this up is to file a protest.

    I assume you missed out on an opportunity because the Army didn't follow their own Reg.

    Well, get USALSA on the case. They would be happy to research this for you.

    And if, by some chance, you uncover a systemic abuse or violation, they will thank you for bringing it to their attention.

×
×
  • Create New...