Jump to content
The Wifcon Forums and Blogs

Don Mansfield

  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited


About Don Mansfield

  • Birthday 11/04/1972

Profile Information

  • Gender
  • Location
    San Diego, CA

Recent Profile Visitors

79,696 profile views
  1. Ok, if we're talking SAP, quote FAR 13.106-2(b)(1).
  2. Is the KO the source selection authority?
  3. How are you going to compare the test group to the control group? What are you going to measure? I think that one thing you have to account for in the test group is the effect a predetermined fee % would have on a contractor's cost estimates. It's possible that cost estimates would become more pessimistic (i.e., higher estimated cost would mean higher fixed fee). The time saved by foregoing fee negotiation may be spent on negotiating estimated costs.
  4. As I read it, the bottom line of the report is that agencies should just dictate fee percentages in their BAAs and R&D RFPs. The cost of negotiating fee is not worth it. Ok, let's test the hypothesis. Conduct a pilot, collect data, and report back. Maybe the hypothesis is correct. Right now all we know is that the contractors interviewed consider factors other than fee when deciding whether to respond to a solicitation.
  5. I think in Federal acquisition, an "entity" has a unique entity identifier, which is defined at FAR 2.101 as: "a number or other identifier used to identify a specific commercial, nonprofit, or Government entity." Contractors in the United States and its outlying areas would also have unique Commercial and Government Entity (CAGE) codes. In United Valve Company, the GAO relied on CAGE codes to determine the identity of the offeror. Here's an excerpt: So, if segments have different unique entity identifiers or CAGE codes, then I think that they could be considered distinct entities.
  6. Obsolescence management is a big deal in the DoD. That's why Diminishing Manufacturing Sources and Material Shortages (DMSMS) management is a thing. Since you're new, I recommend familiarizing yourself with SD-22. Come back if you have any questions.
  7. I don't interpret the question like that. I'm assuming that the parent has multiple segments--some with CAS-covered contracts, some without.
  8. Careful. The Federal Register notice for the final rule contained the following:
  9. Good question. There's no definition of "entity". If we assume that means "offeror" and the offeror is the segment, then I think it would be possible.
  10. It depends what the solicitation says. FAR 15.305(a)(2)(iii) says the past performance evaluation "should take into account past performance information regarding predecessor companies, key personnel who have relevant experience, or subcontractors that will perform major or critical aspects of the requirement when such information is relevant to the instant acquisition." Some agencies will attribute a proposed subcontractor's qualifications to the offeror, some won't. Either way, the solicitation should state the agency's intention. I think it's reasonable to attribute a proposed subcontractor's experience to the offeror if that experience was gained performing a past subcontract with the offeror. If the offeror never worked with their proposed subcontractor and was "using" their experience to win a competition, then I don't think information about the experience of the proposed subcontractor would have that much predictive value.
  11. I may be hurting my reputation as "The Deviation Guy", but I don't think what Vern is proposing would constitute a deviation. He would just be notifying offerors of a possibility despite the Government's intent.
  12. Jamaal, There's series of courses on Wondrium (used to be The Great Courses) called "Law School for Everyone". The course on Contracts has a 30-minute lecture on consideration. It's the best explanation (and critique) of consideration that I know of. https://www.wondrium.com/law-school-for-everyone-contracts
  • Create New...