Jump to content
The Wifcon Forums and Blogs

Seeker

Members
  • Content count

    93
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

0 Neutral

About Seeker

  • Rank
    Copper Member

Contact Methods

  • ICQ
    0

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Female
  • Location
    United States

Recent Profile Visitors

3,717 profile views
  1. 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?
  2. 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?
  3. 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.
  4. One more question: Do you know what items were procured?
  5. 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?
  6. 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.
  7. Assume that I know nothing other than whats in FAR, DFARS and the DOD procedures which is why I'm asking.
  8. Thanks, but that doesn't answer my question.
  9. 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?
  10. Unreasonable Price

    Not necessarily. FAR says "In some agencies, a relatively small number of high level officials are designated contracting officers solely by virtue of their positions. Contracting officers below the level of a head of a contracting activity shall be selected and appointed under 1.603." I don't think a higher level official has to be a contracting officer in order to be empowered to authorize a contracting officer to make an award despite an unreasonable price. Is the DOD director of pricing a contracting officer? I'm not going to continue in this topic. Some people demand proof in order to avoid the logic. What would the proof be? There wouldn't be case law. Is the absence of express authorization proof that something cannot be done? There is no proof of anything on either side. The only basis for interpreting FAR 15.405(d) is a combination of logic and common sense. Some of the thinking here is not practical and is very frustrating to read. I'm with Jamal Valentine's instructors, trainers, leaders, contract specialists and contracting officers. Their thinking is consistent with my training and experience.
  11. Unreasonable Price

    Why do you think FAR 15.405(d) tells COs to refer the matter to higher authority? Is it just so higher authority can say, Yes, the price is unreasonable or No, the price is reasonable? Or is it to authorize purchase even though the price is too high. It is astonishing to read people say that at a level above the contracting officer a government official cannot authorize purchase at an unreasonable price even if there is a valid need, no other choice and no other source. Prepare a memo explaining the situation and what will be done to avoid having to be in the same position in the future then get on with the purchase. Really, what if you just have to have it? What if mission or lives depend upon it and the only source won't reduce its price? To think that higher authority cannot determine that the government will pay the price demanded though unreasonable is to render higher authority helpless in the face of dire need. When the government wanted to avoid the circumstance in the past it resorted to price controls and price renegotiation. We no longer have those laws. The government ordinarily doesn't tell people what they can charge. And it can't tell people in foreign countries what they can charge. What would you prefer, a lie that a price is fair and reasonable when it's not or a memo to file saying we got stuck this time but we're going to take steps to avoid getting stuck in the future? Is this kind of thinking common out in contracting offices?
  12. Increasing Rights in Software--> In-scope Change?

    There is no scope issue as I already explained. If the software is noncommercial use the authority in 252.2027-7014(b)(4) on sf 30.
  13. Increasing Rights in Software--> In-scope Change?

    There is no scope issue. The mod will not acquire supplies, services or construction. It will obtain additional rights to software (property) you already have. Thus it will not be an acquisition as defined in FAR 2.101. CICA applies to acquisitions of contracts for supplies, services and construction. FAR 6.001 and 6.002. Thus CICA does not apply. You do not need a J&A. What rights clause is in the contract? DFARS 252.227-7014? If so did you read (b)(4)?
×