Jump to content
The Wifcon Forums and Blogs

Don Mansfield

  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by Don Mansfield

  1. 5 hours ago, Megan G said:

    Without going too far into the weeds, has anyone successfully petitioned the Government to ignore the prior legends as permitted in 252.227-7013 and 252.227-7037? My understanding of these DFARS is the Government may ignore or, at the Contractor's expense, correct or strike a marking (7013) or may cancel or ignore the restrictive markings (7037). There is a choice how to handle the unjustified markings.  There are 1000+ drawings which included restrictive legends consistent with the data rights we asserted. The burden of removing the legends is labor intensive and an expensive endeavor; I also don't see the contractor updating the drawings to remove the legend as a remedy provided under the DFARS.   

    Is the Government requesting that your company correct the markings?

  2. 1 hour ago, formerfed said:

    As Ibn said, this is like a social media site. At least that’s the way the bulk of members think.  It’s a water cooler as Ji said.  In today’s time, there’s nothing wrong with that.  That’s the way people gather information and don’t have the patience to do extensive research and want long, detailed response.  Quick information that’s maybe 80% correct is the norm.  People are accustomed to answers that aren’t alway correct and know they need to sort through multiple responses and decide what’s needed for them.

    You can't really say what the bulk of members think, but I think that it's fair to say that members expectations differ. Some want to be able to assert whatever they like without having to engage in any sort of substantive discussion. Others desire argumentation. By argumentation, I mean "the act or process of forming reasons and of drawing conclusions and applying them to a case in discussion." At one time I would have described the Wifcon forum as a community that valued argumentation, but maybe formerfed's description is now more accurate.

    Perhaps there should be a "Water Cooler" forum for those members that want to give and receive responses to questions that are ~80% accurate. Nobody would have to respond to any differences of opinion or explain what they mean. Then there could be another forum where argumentation would be the norm. Participants would have to give reasons for their positions, provide evidence, be cooperative when challenged, etc. Posters can choose to post their question in either forum--they could even post in both. 

  3. On ‎2‎/‎2‎/‎2020 at 9:37 AM, Unauthorized commitment said:

    From a career perspective, I am eyeing to eventually transition to a role which offers project management opportunities on the program side.

    My advice would be to put your question to those who are or were recently in that role. I wouldn't put much credence in a contacting professional's perspective.

    I've been supporting a program office over the last year and my experience continues to teach me how little I knew about program management and how narrow my perspective of acquisition was.

  4. I think you should try to understand everything in the plan, even the technical stuff. Understand to the point that you could write it yourself. Then ask if you can write one. Then get really good at writing them. Then teach other 1102s how to write them. Or develop a robot that writes acquisition plans using artificial intelligence with minimal or no human input. Name your robot 11-02. Then patent your invention. Then use your robot to sell acquisition plans as-a-service to the Government. If you don't do it somebody else will. Then there would no longer be a need for you to draft or review acquisition plans. 

  5. Yes. See FAR 15.303(a):

    Agency heads are responsible for source selection. The contracting officer is designated as the source selection authority, unless the agency head appoints another individual for a particular acquisition or group of acquisitions.

  6. 24 minutes ago, Guardian said:

    I would draw your attention to FAR 1.108(a), Words and terms, which states, "Definitions in part  2 apply to the entire regulation unless specifically defined in another part, subpart, section, provision, or clause. Words or terms defined in a specific part, subpart, section, provision, or clause have that meaning when used in that part, subpart, section, provision, or clause. Undefined words retain their common dictionary meaning."



    That convention would apply to the use of words or terms in the FAR. Ibn is asking ji what he means when he uses those words. I don't think ji has explained what he means--he merely provided examples of the use of "subjective". But his answer may satisfy Ibn. 

  7. @ji20874,

    If you truly want to continue this discussion, intellectual honesty demands that you defend your initial claim:


    A fair opportunity notice is not a solicitation within the construct of the FAR

    Whether or not something is a "solicitation" depends on the whether it meets the definition of "solicitation" at FAR 2.101.


    “Solicitation” means any request to submit offers or quotations to the Government.

    To bear the burden of proof you must provide evidence that a notice of fair opportunity does not, by definition, request quotations or offers. If you cannot do that, then your claim can be dismissed by operation of Hitchen's Razor.

    quod grātīs asseritur, grātīs negātur ("What is asserted gratuitously may be denied gratuitously")

    Just because someone questions your claim does not necessarily mean they oppose it.

  8. ji's argument only holds water if a notice of fair opportunity, by definition, does not request quotations or offers from the Government. He presents no basis for that other than he would not put the Bankruptcy clause in a notice of fair opportunity. A "solicitation" is defined as:


     “Solicitation” means any request to submit offers or quotations to the Government.

    Why can't a notice of fair opportunity request quotations or offers? Maybe some do and some don't.

    ji has avoided answering the question of whether a notice of fair opportunity requests quotations or offers from the Government because a "yes" answer would undermine the distinction he's trying to make. A "no" answer would require him to explain why that is necessarily so, which he cannot. 

    Further, ji believes that the FAR Councils came up with "notice of fair opportunity" to distinguish it from "solicitation" when developing FAR 16.505 procedures. The evidence presented is that "solicitation" does not appear in FAR 16.505. That's an interesting theory, but there's not enough evidence for a reasonable person to draw such a strong conclusion. Certainly not enough to claim "A fair opportunity notice is not a solicitation within the construct of the FAR" as a matter of fact. Or to accuse others of being sloppy. Some of what has been posted in agency supplements seems to contradict that theory.

  9. 54 minutes ago, ji20874 said:

    I actually like the construction — it combines both “notice” which is what it really is/what the FAR calls it and “solicitation” which is what some people think of it as when they’re in a hurry, so everyone is happy and no one is offended.  It helps reinforce correct principles, and is a good compromise for a document where the purpose is meaningful learning rather than pedantry.

    Not surprised you like it--aren't you one of the PIL team members?

    In any case, I didn't say I didn't like it. It's just someone who wrote this in another thread:


    A fair opportunity notice is not a solicitation within the construct of the FAR, even though it may be informally (sloppily?) referred to as such within our community.

    A pedant like that might take issue with your document.

  10. 4 minutes ago, Retreadfed said:

    What marketplace, the marketplace of government contracting or the commercial marketplace?  52.212-4 says remedies available at law.  Thus, the question is what remedies are available at law for buyer to exercise against a contractor that is terminated for cause.  Therefore, my question is simply is what legal remedy allows a buyer to recover reprocurement costs from a seller that has been terminated for cause. 

    Breach of contract damages.

  • Create New...