Jump to content
The Wifcon Forums and Blogs

Don Mansfield

Members
  • Content Count

    2,686
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Don Mansfield

  1. I think that an argument can be made that the CAS clause in the parent IDIQ contract should only apply to orders that would otherwise be CAS-covered. By operation of FAR 52.216-18, the terms and conditions of the IDIQ apply to orders issued under the IDIQ. If a contractor receives an order under a parent IDIQ contract that contains FAR 52.230-2, then that clause applies to the order. However, the requirements of the clause are premised on whether or not the contract is exempt. The clause begins with: We know from the Kingdomware decision that a task or delivery is a "contract" as defin
  2. @ji20874, That doesn't answer the question of whether a fair opportunity notice is a request to submit offers or quotations to the Government, does it? You passed on answering that question, so Ibn Batutta helped you out. You should thank him.
  3. Let me get this straight. You make the following claim: Wondering how you reached that conclusion, I ask a simple question: You dodge the question multiple times, then wonder why I haven't responded to you? Is this you being intellectually honest? By "meaningful and professional dialogue", do you mean we can make whatever claims we want without having to bear the burden of proof? And this is the direction we should move in?
  4. Is a fair opportunity notice a request to submit offers or quotations to the Government? YES or NO
  5. Then you should just answer the question. Your claim was: Is a fair opportunity notice a request to submit offers or quotations to the Government? YES or NO
  6. Is a fair opportunity notice a request to submit offers or quotations to the Government?
  7. No, I think that's the way it is. A former colleague of mine at DAU went through the trouble of making a single file for the entire DFARS in pdf. It used to be on the DFARS landing page on the FARSite, but that site no longer exists.
  8. What if the company didn't do what they said they were going to do, but performed well? I think the responses to those questions would be verifiable. The offeror would report facts. That could yield useful information in predicting an offeror's performance. However, that's different than: If you request this information, you will get unverifiable nonbinding statements about the future. The offeror will have to invent responses instead of report facts. This information is not as useful in predicting how an offeror would actually perform. As Matthew wrote, this introduces no
  9. You mean contracts awarded under the SDVOSB and HUBZone programs, correct? The clause would apply to an SDVOSB or HUBZone SB that won a small business set-aside.
  10. @ji20874, I don't know what you mean by technical proposal. Do you mean a description of what an offeror plans to do if they awarded a contract? No promises, just plans and other statements of intention?
  11. 1. What assurance would you have that the "approach" presented in response to the SOO would be the "approach" that the offeror would use in performing the contract? 2. What evidence do you have that a person stumbling through an oral presentation with poor answers correlates to poor software development? Developing software and providing oral responses to technical questions are not the same skills. I would not expect software developers to impress at an oral presentation. I would expect them to be more like Elliot Alderson. 3. What assurance would you have that the people answering
  12. To the extent that you will be evaluating verifiable information, I agree. However, by "approach" I assume that you will be evaluating an offeror's statements about the future, which are typically nonbinding and inherently unverifiable. It's marketing material that the Government traditionally believes correlates to the capability of the offeror.
  13. Take a look at the Agile Contracts Primer. There are pricing arrangements starting on p. 25. Chapter 3 covers contract models. The primer is not specifically written for Government contracting, which is one reason I like it. The Government publications that I've seen on contracting for agile software development don't seem to fully let go of the traditional Government contracting mindset. "Soundness of approach"? Please. (No offense formerfed). Here's a must-read account of the realities of IT acquisition: https://medium.com/@EricHysen/lessons-learned-from-the-governments-biggest-attempt-
  14. 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!
  15. Check here: https://asc.army.mil/web/career-development/mentoring-resources/
  16. @Me of Little Faith, I can understand the request for labor rates for pricing purposes, but I don't understand the need to "incorporate" them into the contract. Well, at some point they will ask you to sign a modification. At that point you can see what you'd be agreeing to.
  17. What's the significance of incorporating the labor rates in the contract? What would you be agreeing to?
  18. I think either way you would effectively be amending the solicitation (waiving the issue for everyone would be a constructive amendment). However, FAR 15.206 requires that you issue an amendment to affected parties and that the amendment contain certain minimum information. It's a procedural requirement.
×
×
  • Create New...