Don Mansfield

FWIW, I don't think you said that either.

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.

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"?

Based on the responses you've received, do you agree with the following assertion:

I didn't say "everything was a record." I said that I considered everything a record--meaning I retained everything produced by the evaluation team.

A Master Agreement for Repair and Alteration of Vessels is a basic agreement used in ship repair contracting. It's covered in DFARS subpart 217.71.

@joel hoffman, I related what I did--I didn't make any claims about my knowledge of case law or how much smarter I was than my agency attorneys. But since you are asking, here you go: Pitney Bowes Gov't Solutions, Inc. v. United States, 93 Fed. Cl. 327 (2010) "Individual evaluator notes" is undefined. They may or may not be the types of records required to be retained by the FAR. It all depends on what information they contain. A broad assertion that "individual evaluator notes" are, in fact, not records demonstrates a profound ignorance of case law.

Are you going to support your assertion or just insist?

I always considered considered everything a record.

There's no rule against Company A making the invitation. Just keep in mind that the Government folks you invite are generally required to decline such an invitation. An exception would be if the gratuity would not exceed $20 (not $25) and the sum total of gifts received by the Government employee from Company A over the year would not exceed $50. I have attended such events as a Government employee. Funny story, somewhat related. A COR I knew used to go golfing with some of the contractors he oversaw. Of course, he would pay his greens fee because having the contractor pay for it would be accepting a gratuity from a prohibited source. To make the game more interesting, the COR and the contractors would all contribute to a pot of money that would go to the winner. Believe it or not, the COR would win every time. I guess he was just a really good golfer.

I saw that yesterday. The SBA is putting a hold on 8(a) applications: https://fedscoop.com/sba-pauses-applications-for-8a-business-program/

Why do you think it's personal services?

The Fluor case is inapposite. If the contractor is in default, one of the options is to extend the completion date. Free-Flow Packaging Corp., GSBCA 3992, 75-1 BCA ¶11,332

When I used to teach CON 360, I would have to grade essays. Sometimes I would get an essay that demonstrated a fundamental ignorance of contracting concepts. I would wonder how in the world the student was able to get in the class. I felt the same way reading that VAO article.

Also, if the contract already exists, why not see if it includes CAS clauses?

What do you think "treated as commercial means"? I think it means you apply the regulations as if the products or services are commercial. Unless otherwise specified, you don't distinguish between actual commercial products or services and products or services being "treated" as commercial. I don't know how else to interpret that.

Unless these qualifications were written with a specific person in mind, they are absurd.

Just ignore it. If someone calls you on it, explain how it contradicts the regulations.

Why not create a line item for the option?

If you are "treating" the acquisition as commercial, see FAR 12.214.

Why not select offerors using a lottery? Select an offeror, determine responsibility, award. Repeat until agency has made the desired number of awards. Put selection process in solicitation. Have public lottery. Protest-proof and the chances are you will award to contractors of varying quality. Use quality as an evaluation factor when issuing orders. I'm not kidding.

I think that's what he's saying.

Let's think this one through. According to your interpretation, there are two distinct amounts--the "estimated cost in the Schedule" and a "revised estimated cost" that is provided by the contracting officer. The amounts could only be made equal by means of a bilateral modification that revised the "estimated cost in the Schedule." Regardless, the contractor is obligated to continue up to the "revised estimated cost." Assume the contractor does not agree to a bilateral modification that increases the "estimated cost in the Schedule." 1. Would the contractor be required to provide the notification in paragraph (b) of FAR 52.232-20 if they expected to exceed 75% of the "revised estimated cost"? 2. If the contracting officer issued a change order increasing the cost of performance, would the contractor be required to incur costs in excess of the "estimated cost in the Schedule", but less than the "revised estimated cost"? 3. Regarding paragraph (e) of FAR 52.232-20, would termination costs be limited to the "estimated cost in the Schedule" or the "revised estimated cost"?

@joel hoffman, I meant those were the applicable cost principles for educational institutions.

FAR 31.205-46 is a cost principle that applies to commercial organizations. If the contractor is a university, then OMB Uniform Guidance at 2 CFR part 200, subpart E and appendix III would apply. Assuming this is a cost-reimbursement contract, FAR 52.216-7(a) should reference FAR subpart 31.3.