Don Mansfield

1 hour ago, ji20874 said:

Perhaps the DoD ban is too burdensome?

DoD didn't ban local clauses, they just created more red tape for the military departments and defense agencies. Also, DoD was just trying to implement 41 U.S.C. 1707.  

Let's suppose that you're right. What do you think is preventing people from putting needed contract text in Section H? Assume the needed contract text is a local clause that doesn't describe any particular work.

46 minutes ago, ji20874 said:

I don't know for certain, but I suppose people are trying to support their organizational missions as best they can.  If they cannot put needed contract text in Section H (or similar approach for non-UCF contracts), they might put it in the SOW.  

Is that an explanation or a justification?

1 hour ago, Metal Marc said:

Don, that's a great blog post right there!  You're a man after my own heart: don't complicate SAP.  These were 13 great points you made.👍

Thanks @Metal Marc!

13 hours ago, Jamaal Valentine said:

Love this!

Thanks, Jamaal. Where you been?

Everyone who voted got it correct. The untailored version of FAR 52.212-1 incorporates the firm bid rule (FAR 14.304(e)) in (f)(5):

Quote

Offers may be withdrawn by written notice received at any time before the exact time set for receipt of offers.

FAR 52.215-1 incorporates the rule about withdrawal of proposals (FAR 15.208(e)) in (c)(3)(v):

Quote

Proposals may be withdrawn by written notice received at any time before award.

FAR 52.212-1 was written to accommodate both invitations for bids and requests for proposals. However, the firm bid rule doesn't apply to contracting by negotiation. Fortunately, you can tailor FAR 52.212-1 to remove the firm bid rule if you are using the provision in an RFP. 

12 hours ago, ROD said:

Thank you Don. I am so happy to know you still around. You was my instructor for CON 090 back in 2014 in Utah ..."I think 2014"...and later I saw you again for FAR Bootcamp 2016 in Kuwait.  Great times! I appreciate all your teaching and more. 

ROD

 

 

I remember the class in Kuwait. That's the only time I ever taught in a tent. I also remember the classroom was freezing. I would step out in to the desert heat on breaks to thaw out.

Hope all is well!

On ‎12‎/‎5‎/‎2019 at 1:26 PM, ROD said:

Kind of late for the party, however I will like to know if the program was actually created or what to follow. I need some time like this for my office. We have few new civilians and 51C and again looking completely lost.  

 

ROD

Check here: https://asc.army.mil/web/career-development/mentoring-resources/

Quote

One foundation of federal contracting is agency regulations that set the limits for the contracting landscape. These regulations are governed by the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) rule making process

Incorrect. The APA does not apply to the Federal Acquisition Regulations System (Title 48 of the CFR). Congress adopted an APA-like procedure for acquisition regulations that is codified at 41 U.S.C. 1707.

I don't see the "automatically exempt" part in the clause.

I said B, too. 

Expected Price of A = $71 + (.69)($41) = $99.29

Expected Price of B = $65 + (.79)($41) = $97.39

Expected Price of C = $59 + (.96)($41) = $98.36

2 hours ago, Whynot said:

I presume that we can make our own assumptions with regards to orders vs units (i.e. 1 order for a 100 units or 100 orders for 1 unit each) and for the number of customers placing orders (i.e. 1 customer with 100 orders or 100 customers with 1 order each) and that on-time probability applies to the entire order and not to an individual unit within an order; and that what is best for the government means what is best for any one individual customer’s cost or budget.

You may be making things too complicated. I suggest you just work out the problem for 1 unit.

16 minutes ago, ji20874 said:

Here's my initial understanding of the problem--

• Supplier A = $112/ea for on-time delivery, or $71/ea for late delivery, with about a 1-in-3 chance of late delivery;
• Supplier B = $106/ea for on-time delivery, or $65/ea for late delivery, with about a 1-in-5 chance of late delivery; and
• Supplier C = $100/ea for on-time delivery, or $59/ea for late delivery, with about a 1-in-25 chance of late delivery.

Am I understanding correctly?

Yes.

@Jamaal Valentine, @jtolli, @lotus, @PepeTheFrog, @bentley78, @dgm, @apsofacto, @FAR-flung 1102, @marcconcilio,

I have attached the results of my evaluation. You have one week to review and challenge. 

Plain Language Evaluation Sheet.xlsx

15 minutes ago, apsofacto said:

Life.  Wow, man, Life. 

It's really strange you know?  We make these plans to receive your proposals and then Life happens and we can't.  We can't even issue an amendment to our solicitation!   Could be plague, could be invasion, could be we just totally flaked out that day. 

But chill.  We'll take it when we get back.  We won't trip about Life.  Cuz. Life.  Trips. Us. Man.  All of us. 

Can you pass that stuff over here?

😂Someone just took the lead in the humor category.

1 hour ago, ji20874 said:

I like your paragraph allowing for an extended deadline for emergency or unanticipated events.

I suppose your working assumption is that the text can be improved?

I took the paragraph from FAR 52.215-1( c )(3)(iv). My assumption is that the text can be made more readable. The Dale-Chall Readability adjusted score is 11.1. That corresponds to "Grades 16 and Above (College Graduate)", which is the highest level on the scale.

21 hours ago, lotus said:

From the seller's perspective, at a 90% probability, I'd consider it a sure thing and price it assuming 100% of the costs would be incurred.

That's exactly what the seller did in the problem.

5 hours ago, Contracting Pirate said:

Have any of ye land lubbers had experience using this method? Would a contractor actually be willin' to accept eatin' the $73k doubloons in Scenario A and $91k in Scenario B?  I may be cynical due to me sole-source encounters with dodgy contractors.

The contractor doesn't have to eat the loss. They could buy insurance, right? 

Winner!

2 hours ago, here_2_help said:

could the CO use Part 15 procedures for the others but use Part 12 procedures for the NTDCs?

help,

It's a popular misconception that FAR part 12 procedures are for commercial items and FAR part 15 procedures are for noncommercial items. When acquiring commercial items, the CO will typically use one of three contracting methods:

Quote

 

12.203 Procedures for solicitation, evaluation, and award.

Contracting officers shall use the policies unique to the acquisition of commercial items prescribed in this part in conjunction with the policies and procedures for solicitation, evaluation and award prescribed in Part 13, Simplified Acquisition Procedures; Part 14, Sealed Bidding; or Part 15, Contracting by Negotiation, as appropriate for the particular acquisition.

 

 As such, I think what you're asking is if, when acquiring noncommercial items on a competitive basis, the CO should prepare one solicitation for NTDCs (containing commercial provisions & clauses) and one for others (containing noncommercial provisions & clauses). That's a good question. I don't know.

On 3/31/2018 at 9:14 AM, C Culham said:

1. The DoD does market research.

2. DoD determines not to set aside and it is a procurement that does not use Commercial Item acquisition procedures.

3. The DoD also determines that adequate competition will not occur and includes DFARS Clause 252.215-7070.

4. A small business responds and states it is a non-traditional defense contractor and states that it is not providing certified cost or pricing data.

5. The CO treats the supplies/services of the non-traditional defense contractor as if they are commercial items and agrees that cost or pricing data is not required. 

In the first scenario I think I have it right but what about the second one?   It seems that DoD has forgotten or has on purpose failed to give the “may” option to CO’s with regard to DFARS Clause 252.215-7010 as there is no exception available to the CO if the offeror is a non-traditional DoD contractor.

I think you have it right in the second scenario, too. The solicitation will also include DFARS 252.215-7013. I don't understand your last sentence.

On 4/1/2018 at 12:08 PM, here_2_help said:

I would correct your statement to read "ALL small businesses are non-traditional defense contractors..."

That's not necessarily true. Remember that it's possible for a contractor to be small under some NAICS codes, and not small in others. So, it's possible that a contractor that is small under one NAICS code has performed a CAS-covered contract under a different NAICS code. Also, it's possible that a contractor was not small when it was awarded a CAS-covered contract, but is small now. That's why I used "most" in the blog entry.

6 hours ago, policyguy said:

Seems to me to be a technical correction that does not require public comment.  On what basis do you assert that this requires public comment?  

I base it on 41 U.S.C. 1707(a), which clearly states:

Quote

 

§1707. Publication of proposed regulations

(a) Covered Policies, Regulations, Procedures, and Forms.-

(1) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U9t-slLl30ERequired comment period.-Except as provided in subsection (d), a procurement policy, regulation, procedure, or form (including an amendment or modification thereto) may not take effect until 60 days after it is published for public comment in the Federal Register pursuant to subsection (b) if it-

(A) relates to the expenditure of appropriated funds; and

(B)(i) has a significant effect beyond the internal operating procedures of the agency issuing the policy, regulation, procedure, or form; or

(ii) has a significant cost or administrative impact on contractors or offerors.

 

A change like that requires public comment. 

How about here.