Jump to content
The Wifcon Forums and Blogs

Don Mansfield

Members
  • Content Count

    2,468
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

0 Neutral

1 Follower

About Don Mansfield

  • Rank
    Contributing Member
  • Birthday 11/04/1972

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    San Diego, CA

Recent Profile Visitors

73,874 profile views
  1. Another thought--if the used oil is worth something, why wouldn't the Navy want to sell it to the highest bidder?
  2. I don't think what you're describing meets the definition of "acquisition" at FAR 2.101, because you wouldn't be using appropriated funds. If that's true, then the FAR doesn't apply. I'm not saying it couldn't be done, just that the contracting would not be regulated by the FAR.
  3. Acquisition/Contracts Specialist, Mid Key Role: Support by leveraging available resources review, draft, and revise contracting and acquisition documentation independently, including provide researching federal, DoD, and Navy preaward and postaward contracting procedures and policies. (See remainder of opening by clicking link.)
  4. I think that's perfectly fair. However, I don't get why there would be a fill-in for "(e)(1)(iii)(D)": I see the fill-ins for (1) and (2) in the clause, but why would there be the first "None" fill-in?
  5. You could even put the periods in white font so they are invisible. Like this . and this . or you could put in Easter eggs instead of just periods like this: .Be sure to drink your Ovaltine.
  6. I direct your attention to 41 USC 1707: 1. Are agencies adopting a policy, regulation, or procedure to disallow G&A on travel? 2. Does this policy have a significant cost or administrative impact on contractors or offerors?
  7. joel, I think you've been misinterpreting me. I don't have a position on whether subcontractor bonds are included in FAR 52.232-5(g). My point is that the definition of "bond" at FAR 28.001 is not relevant to making that determination. ALAL suggested that it was and that's why I threw the flag for misapplication of FAR definitions.
  8. Maybe someone should report the supervisor for not reporting the "ADA violation".
  9. No, the Government created an obligation of $500K regardless of what the computer spit out. If the agency's books reflected an obligation of $800K, then that would violate the Recording statute--not the Anti-Deficiency Act.
  10. @joel hoffman, Nothing that you've cited dealt with the issue of whether the definition of "bond" at FAR 28.001 is the applicable definition for interpreting "bond" as used in FAR 52.232-5(g). In that respect, your citations are inapposite.
  11. @joel hoffman, Nothing you posted proves that the definition of "bond" at FAR 28.001 is the applicable definition when that word is used at FAR 52.232-5(g). You continue to ignore FAR 1.108(a) and the Definitions clause. The Definitions clause specifically makes the definitions at FAR 28.001 applicable to clauses prescribed in FAR part 28--not other clauses prescribed in other parts (like FAR part 32). You continue to write that contracts must be read as a whole, but your reading excludes the Definitions clause.
  12. That does not make the definition at FAR 28.001 applicable to FAR 52.232-5. Try again.
  13. joel, That's not how definitions work. A word or term used in one clause does not necessarily have the same meaning when used in a different clause because the two clauses are in the same contract. You are ignoring the clear rule in FAR 1.108(a): Thus, the definition of "bond" at FAR 28.001 only applies to FAR part 28. If a contract contains the Definitions clause, then that definition extends to clauses prescribed in FAR part 28. FAR 52.232-5 is not prescribed in FAR part 28, so there's no basis for your assertion that the definition of "bond" at FAR 28.001 applies to FAR 52.232-5. I think this thread is a good example of what can go wrong when we lack intellectual humility.
  14. I think you should take a closer look at LBM. The issue was that the requirement was subject to the rule-of-two analysis because it wasn't within the scope of the competition of the IDIQ contract it was being transferred to. That's still good law. We discussed LBM here (you participated): Delex was the case where the GAO said the rule-of-two applied to task and delivery orders. That's no longer good law due to subsequent statutory and regulatory changes @ji20874 discussed in his post.
×
×
  • Create New...