Jump to content
The Wifcon Forums and Blogs

Don Mansfield

  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Don Mansfield

  1. The exception to what Retreadfed quoted would be if the contract contained FAR 52.233-1, Disputes, with Alternate I.
  2. Yes, what about it? I don't know about the entire document, but I do think some parts are (e.g., Enclosure 4 (Standardization in the Acquisition Process), Enclosure 12 (DIDs), and Enclosure 14 (Qualification)). FAR 11.102 refers to the guidance in the Manual when prescribing a policy for selecting requirements documents, so I think that is a matter related to contracts.
  3. If they want to play that game, then tell them you consider the failure to notify law enforcement a lack of good faith. See FAR 52.245-1(h)(1)(ii).
  4. Did they report the matter to law enforcement?
  5. The Court references the procedural requirements of the Administrative Procedures Act (5 U.S.C. § 552) in its discussion. However, I don't see how that's relevant. 5 U.S.C. § 553(a)(2) exempts matters relating to contracts from the APA's rule making requirements. That's why we have 41 U.S.C. 1707 (to require publication of procurement rules).
  6. For what purpose are you trying to categorize an exchange of information in a FAR subpart 8.4 procurement?
  7. I should have said a FAR deviation. FAR 52.204-2 requires compliance with the NISPOM. Having said that, I don't think it would have been a deviation to remove the solicitation provision requiring facility clearance at the time of proposal submission.
  8. The article gives the example of rules for a flock of birds:
  9. I'm surprised the Air Force fought this. Why didn't they just process an individual deviation from the DFARS as a corrective action?
  10. @Vern Edwards According to this article: "Complex Adaptive Systems are systems that use simple rules to generate complex behaviours." What are the simple rules used by the Federal Acquisition System?
  11. In addition breach damages and bad CPARS, if you were T4Dd then you'd have to mark "has" at FAR 52.209-5(a)(1)(ii) for the next three years.
  12. The CDRL should be identified in a line item. Do you have a DD 250 or something equivalent showing the Government accepted what was provided under that line item?
  13. Assuming you are referring to Strategic Services and Solutions, JV, the solicitation didn't say that award would be made to all qualifying offerors. According to the decision: That doesn't seem to comply with the statute permitting award without considering cost/price, but that's what they did.
  14. So the solicitation would say that award would be made to all qualifying offerors and that only 3 contracts would be awarded?
  15. That's the question I raised to @Dave Murree, stated differently. If an agency used the authority at FAR 15.304(c)(1)(ii) and the solicitation included FAR 52.215-1, I think offerors are on notice that they could be eliminated for purposes of efficiency notwithstanding the solicitation stating that award would be made to all qualifying offerors. I think you would have to interpret the solicitation in a way that gives meaning to all terms and conditions.
  16. Yes. Yes. It doesn't. Yet, despite the application of logic, I think the implication in the FAR is that use of FAR 15.304(c)(1)(ii) would still be a competitive procedure. Wouldn't you agree?
  17. I don't think the blog entry supports that, but that's ok. If the FSS solicitation process is considered a competitive procedure, then why wouldn't the use of FAR 15.304(c)(1)(ii) be considered a competitive procedure?
  18. I think there's a disconnect between your concept of competition and what passes as "full and open competition" under the FAR. The Federal Supply Schedules solicitation process does not require offerors to contend against one another for a prize that they cannot all win, yet that procedure is considered competitive under the rules. Your argument that use of FAR 15.304(c)(1)(ii) would not constitute "full and open competition" needs to account for this fact.
  19. So, if that's a competitive procedure why wouldn't using the authority at FAR 15.304(c)(1)(ii) be a competitive procedure?
  20. As I understand it, solicitations for Federal Supply Schedules similarly invite companies to qualify for award. Would you also say that is not a competitive procedure?
  21. Do the task orders contain all the information required by FAR 16.505(a)(7)?
  • Create New...