Jump to content

Don Mansfield

Members
  • Posts

    3,371
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Don Mansfield

  1. 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:
  2. 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.
  3. I don't understand what you can conclude about an offeror's ability to perform a contract based on the volume of protests they have filed. What does one have to do with the other?
  4. 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
  5. I think we would need a case first. I'm not sure how one would come up, though. I guess DoL would have to attempt to enforce a penalty for not meeting a goal. Less likely, in my opinion, would be a protest of a solicitation for notifying offerors of the goals.
  6. @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. Yes, I know. I thought you maybe had a novel interpretation of FAR 16.505(b)(1)(iv) and I wanted to know what it was.
  8. Are you saying we shouldn't call the "notice" an "RFP" to avoid FAR part 15 baggage? Or are you saying the notice need not request proposals above $6 million?
  9. FAR 32.202-1 doesn't apply to your customer. It applies to agency purchases. See FAR 1.104.
  10. Is the customer a Federal contractor or a Federal agency?
  11. They should have argued that what they delivered late was not a proposal revision--following STG International.
  12. What did the contract say about when the Government could exercise the option?
  13. It's the other way around. You are to assume it is permissible unless you find otherwise. See FAR 1.102-4(e).
  14. 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?
  15. 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.
  16. 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.
  17. 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.
  18. 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.
  19. 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"?
  20. Based on the responses you've received, do you agree with the following assertion:
×
×
  • Create New...