Jump to content
The Wifcon Forums and Blogs


  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

0 Neutral

About Seeker

  • Rank

Profile Information

  • Gender
  • Location
    United States

Recent Profile Visitors

4,154 profile views
  1. Seeker

    Does MIL-SPEC Constitue Brand Name

    @UGA40 No. Specification of your requirement by MIL-SPEC is not specification by brand name. Brand name specification is specification by brand name. Nor does it violate FAR 11.105, as long as your requirement is valid. By the way: Think! ALL specification limit competition to some extent. The question is whether the specification is unduly restrictive. Here's the key: If anyone challenges your use of the MIL-SPEC as unduly restrictive, you must be able to point out clearly and precisely what your requirement is and why only a product that complies with the MIL-SPEC satisfies that requirement. You must be clear and precise! Keep in mind that many MIL-SPECs are old and out of date inn comparison with current technology, and that a more current specification might not include the very thing that you claim that you absolutely must have. Your technical folks might not be up to date in that regard (although they may insist that they are). In fact, they may have developed their "requirement" based on the MIL-SPEC in question and not on current knowledge and independent anaysis. Be prepared to describe your market research in specific detail to show that you didn't just glom on to the MIL-SPEC without investigation. Magnum Products, Inc. B-265604. For a procurement involving brand name or equal specifications in which the salient characteristics were based on a military specification see Herley Industries, Inc. B-246326.
  2. Z-Mil: That sort of question has been asked for many years: What should a CO do when a regulation is based on a statute and the statute changes? Should the CO act in accordance with the statute or continue to act in accordance with the regulation, regardless of the statute, until the regulation is changed? I think that within the bureaucracy most senior officials would say that the CO must continue to comply with the regulation until issuance of a deviation or publication of a new rule in the Federal Register, because letting COs use their personal judgment would likely result in inconsistencies. That makes senses when the statute requires development of implementation procedures and instructions. But when a regulation just announces the law without imposing special implementation procedures, as is the case of the SAT and the micropurchase threshold, which are merely definitions, it seems silly to continue to apply the old thresholds pending issuance of a "deviation" or an interim or final change to the FAR. My own inclination in this case would be to act in accordance with the statute as soon as the statute takes effect, regardless of the regulation, but management would probably shut me down.
  3. Thank you, Deaner, very much.
  4. Retreadfed, You don't know the answer to my question, do you? If not, why post anything? Yes, I have read those FAR sections, and your response boils down to nothing more than "It's okay if it's okay." What's the point in that? The same goes for C Culham's response. I am researching GSA's website. But if anyone knows the rules for GSA FSS contracts and knows the answer to my question about incremental funding, which is yes or no, then please tell me and provide an information source. I'll appreciate it.
  5. I have read FAR Part 32 many times. The reason I asked the question is because I read Dream Management, Inc. v. Department of Homeland Security, Civilian Board of Contract Appeals decision 5517 from this past April, in which I came across this: "Here, the plain language of the task order indicated that it is a time and materials task order placed against an FSS contract. The task order specifically stated that “[t]his is an incrementally funded, Time & Materials, Task Order against the contractor's GSA schedule contract identified above.” The RFQ also indicated that a time and materials contract would be awarded. The task order incorporated the Time and Materials Payments clause and met the requirements of FAR 8.404." I looked at the current GSA solicitation for the services in question and did not find FAR 52.232-22 or any other incremental funding clause. I never heard of incremental funding being used in a contract for commercial items or in a GSA FSS task order. The sources that you referred me to don't explain how this could be. Did Homeland Security break the rules or is this something that can be done legitimately? And yes I looked at the DHS FAR supplement and it does not say anything about incremental funding.
  6. Can a T&M order against a GSA FSS contract be incrementally funded?
  7. Mr. Hoffman, I downloaded the Army document you linked me to and searched for the words "vote" and "voting." Vote does not appear in the document and voting appears only once as follows: "However, they may not be voting members of the SST or participate in rating proposals or recommending a selection." The chapter to which you referred me makes no mention of voting. However it does say this Meeting of the minds does not sound like voting. How was that document supposed to help me?
  8. Thank you, Retreaded. But that still does not address my questions. But I do have a new one. Can the SSA be a panel of people or must it by law or regulation be one person?
  9. Mr. Hoffman you speak so authoritatively that I'd believe you if I didn't read things. I asked if voting was majority rule. You didn't answer so I have no idea what you mean by voting, and I really don't care about what Merriam Webster has to say. I haven't met him. Your "It can be" is useless. I checked out: http://www.dailykos.com/story/2011/10/7/1023999/- http://www.differencebetween.net/miscellaneous/politics/difference-between-consensus-and-majority-rule/ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consensus_decision-making https://theparticipationcompany.com/2016/11/voting-vs-a-consensus-decision-making-process/ https://treegroup.info/topics/comparison-chart.pdf http://governing.ca/Consensus_Parliamentary.html http://randomactsofleadership.com/why-consensus-doesnt-work/ and many many more comparisons between voting and consensus. So please stop lecturing. I suspect that I know more about the difference than you do. You have not answered my question and if you can't answer my question why bother? I asked because I honestly want to know why there is so much talk of consensus in source selection and yet FAR 7.503 speaks of voting with saying about what or how. I can't find any explanation in any official government publications. Thanks anyway. But I don't want to be talked down to.
  10. One more question: Do you know what items were procured?
  11. What do you mean by "lot actuals"? Do you mean actual costs? Totals, unit? Please be specific and I'll try to find the decision for you. Was the case about defective pricing or something else?
  12. Desparado understands what I'm asking. Do they vote on whether a proposal is acceptable? Do they vote on whether something is a strength? A weakness? A deficiency? Do they vote on factor ratings? Do they vote on tradeoff results? Do they vote on offeror rankings? Do they vote on who is in and out of the competitive range? Do they vote on discussion questions? Do they vote about whether or not to seek clarification? Do they vote on recommendations to a decision maker? Do they vote on the decision itself? All of the above? Are votes bare majority rule? Two-thirds? Does the team chairperson have a veto? Does the contracting officer? If there's voting, why is there so much talk about consensus? The outcome of a vote is not a consensus. Wouldn't some part of the "team" win and some part lose? I looked at some GAO decisions that mention voting members, but I couldn't find one that said what they voted on.
  13. Assume that I know nothing other than whats in FAR, DFARS and the DOD procedures which is why I'm asking.
  14. Thanks, but that doesn't answer my question.
  15. FAR 7.503(c)(12)(ii) says a contractor can't be a "voting member" of a source selection board. What does "voting member" mean? FAR Part 15 does not mention voting members. There is nothing about them in DFARS. The DOD source selection procedures memo mentions voting members of SSAC and SSEB, but does not say what they vote for. So what do voting members vote for? Is the source selection decision made by vote?