-
Posts
3,371 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Blogs
Events
Store
Breaking News
Everything posted by Don Mansfield
-
Only three votes? Oh, well. The reason I posted was that I thought the clause prescription was remarkably incomplete. The scope of the subpart at FAR 3.900 reads: The clause prescription merely says to insert the clause in solicitations and contracts over the SAT. Nothing about the clause applying to civilian agencies other than NASA or the Coast Guard. Nothing about the clause not applying after January 1, 2017. So much for the guidance for writing clause prescriptions in the FAR Drafting Guide:
-
I think that makes perfect sense. FAR 42.1501(a)(4) includes the contractor's record of "reasonable and cooperative behavior and commitment to customer satisfaction" on previously and current contracts as part of past performance information. However, an offeror's record of protesting is not within the scope of such an evaluation.
-
🤦♂️
-
FAR 3.908-9 states: Assume the following: It is September 13, 2023 You are a contracting officer for a civilian agency other than NASA or the Coast Guard You are selecting clauses to be included in a solicitation for a noncommercial contract expected to exceed the simplified acquisition threshold
-
@Neil Roberts, What do you mean by "authority"? Do you think that a contracting officer wouldn't have the authority to extend a contract when the contractor experienced an excusable delay if the contract didn't contain the Default clause?
- 7 replies
-
- modification
- authority
-
(and 3 more)
Tagged with:
-
32.202-1 - Policy (COTS item question)
Don Mansfield replied to Signal's topic in For Beginners Only
FAR 32.202-1 doesn't apply to your customer. It applies to agency purchases. See FAR 1.104. -
32.202-1 - Policy (COTS item question)
Don Mansfield replied to Signal's topic in For Beginners Only
Is the customer a Federal contractor or a Federal agency? -
Point premiums for socio-economic status?
Don Mansfield replied to vdavez's topic in Small Business, Socioeconomic Programs
It's the other way around. You are to assume it is permissible unless you find otherwise. See FAR 1.102-4(e). -
Small Business and Subcontracting Plan
Don Mansfield replied to NOVA_CO2344's topic in About The Regulations
I'm with Carl on this. That interpretation makes no sense. Why would you include a clause that expressly states it does not apply to small businesses when you are only soliciting responses from small businesses? -
Small Business and Subcontracting Plan
Don Mansfield replied to NOVA_CO2344's topic in About The Regulations
CLS may be requiring you to include the clause, but that doesn't mean a subcontracting plan will be required. See paragraph (a) of the clause at FAR 52.219-9. -
Let's read the definition more closely now. 1. Who can file a claim? Just the contractor? 2. Does a claim have to be monetary? 3. Can a claim be made by electronic means? 4. What is an assertion in the context of the definition? 5. What is a demand in the context of the definition? 6. What does it mean to seek something as a matter of right? 7. What three things could be sought in a claim? 8. What's the difference between a claim arising under a contract and a claim related to a contract? We're only on the first sentence of the definition.
-
Retaining Evaluators' Notes in Light of 44 U.S.C. 3301
Don Mansfield replied to Voyager's topic in Contract Award Process
This discussion prompted me to take some online training on records management offered by NARA: https://www.archives.gov/records-mgmt/training/online-lessons I recommend "Recognizing Records, Non-records, and Personal Files" and the review and practice lesson. The modules are L1.012 and L1.013. This should be basic Federal employee training. The distinctions that some are making in this thread between source selection decision documents, evaluation reports, individual evaluator notes, etc., are meaningless in the context of Federal Records Management policy. The distinction that matters is between records and nonrecords. There's nothing about an individual evaluator "note" scribbled on a scrap of paper that categorically excludes it from the definition of "record". If it meets the definition of "record" it's a record. -
16.505(a)(4) vs 16.505(b)(2)?
Don Mansfield replied to Freyr's topic in Schedules, GWACS, MACs, IDIQs
Agree with Carl. -
Retaining Evaluators' Notes in Light of 44 U.S.C. 3301
Don Mansfield replied to Voyager's topic in Contract Award Process
FWIW, I don't think you said that either. -
Retaining Evaluators' Notes in Light of 44 U.S.C. 3301
Don Mansfield replied to Voyager's topic in Contract Award Process
No, I didn't. I would still consider everything to be a record. That's different than asserting everything is, in fact, a record. The reason I considered everything a record was because I only had a layman's understanding of statutory records retention policy. My attorneys advised me to retain everything, so I did. I didn't feel the need to second-guess them on something that didn't really have anything to do with acquisition. If I had a fellow PCO tell me that they knew better than our attorneys based on GAO case law that had nothing to do with interpreting statutorily-mandated records retention policy, then I hope I would have had the good sense to ignore them. -
Retaining Evaluators' Notes in Light of 44 U.S.C. 3301
Don Mansfield replied to Voyager's topic in Contract Award Process
Wouldn't it matter what was contained in the "notes"? Or is the characterization of the information as "notes" sufficient to conclude that they are not "records"? -
Retaining Evaluators' Notes in Light of 44 U.S.C. 3301
Don Mansfield replied to Voyager's topic in Contract Award Process
Based on the responses you've received, do you agree with the following assertion: