Jump to content
The Wifcon Forums and Blogs

Search the Community

Showing results for tags 'Dod'.

  • Search By Tags

    Type tags separated by commas.
  • Search By Author

Content Type


Forums

  • Instructions and Terms of Use
    • Terms Of Use
    • Before You Register, Before You Post
  • Contracting Forum
    • Section 809 Panel
    • Polls
    • For Beginners Only
    • Contracting Workforce
    • Contract Award Process
    • Contract Pricing Including CAS & Allowable Costs
    • Contract Administration
    • Schedules, GWACS, MACs, IDIQs
    • Subcontracts & Subcontract Management
    • Small Business, Socioeconomic Programs
    • Proposed Law & Regulations; Legal Decisions
  • Federal Contracting: A New Beginning
    • The Competition in Contracting Act

Blogs

  • The Wifcon Blog
  • Vern Edwards' Blog
  • Don Mansfield's Blog
  • Bob Antonio's Blog
  • NCMAExecutiveDirector's Blog
  • Professor Ralph Nash's Blog
  • Emptor Cautus' Blog
  • Centre Knowledge Blog
  • Leftbrainpro.com Answer Blog
  • SmallGovCon.com
  • Patterns of Procurement
  • Steve Gess

Product Groups

There are no results to display.

Categories

  • Rules & Tools
  • Legal Opinions
  • News

Find results in...

Find results that contain...


Date Created

  • Start

    End


Last Updated

  • Start

    End


Filter by number of...

Joined

  • Start

    End


Group


AIM


MSN


Website URL


ICQ


Yahoo


Jabber


Skype


Location


Interests

Found 10 results

  1. The Section 809 Panel, created in section 809 of the FY 2016 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), is charged with recommending improvements to the defense acquisition process. In January 2018 the panel released their first volume of three, which provides guidance for simplifying the DoD procurement process in ways that could benefit contractors. Their insights shed light on the obstacles contractors face, and pave the road for changes in law to help overcome them. Read the full article at Petrillo & Powell's Patterns of Procurement.
  2. When the Department of Defense (DoD) sought restrictions on bid protests, Congress made them commission a study to validate their case. That study, authored by the RAND Corporation, looks at bid protests during the 9-year period from 2008-2016. The study indicates a significant increase in the number of bid protests over that time period. That trend alone bolsters the DoD’s case. But a further look at the extensive data from RAND’s study suggests otherwise, and provides critical insights for Defense contractors. Read the full article at Petrillo & Powell's Patterns of Procurement.
  3. @Vern Edwards has mentioned the idea of the Department of Defense (DOD) having its own acquisition laws and regulations-- completely separating it from civilian agency acquisition laws and regulations. Maybe you can throw in some other high-dollar, national-security-related agencies like Department of Homeland Security, Department of Energy, and National Aeronautics and Space Administration. The National Defense Authorization Act often includes DOD-specific legislation, so this wouldn't be a revolutionary change. PepeTheFrog hears rumors of the desire to legislate a "Defense Small Business Act" and move all small business contracting laws under Title 10, Armed Forces. This would exempt DOD from Title 15 and the Small Business Act. It would allow DOD to run small business programs with total autonomy and independence from the Small Business Act and the Small Business Administration. (1) What do you think of the political feasibility? Would this cause a fight between the H/S Small Business Committees and the H/S Armed Services Committees? (2) How should DOD shape its own small business contracting and small business programs? The 2018 National Defense Strategy focuses on lethality, rapid acquisition, acquisition reform, and technological innovation from small businesses. (3) PepeTheFrog hears rumor of the desire to let the civilian agencies handle the "breadline" socioeconomic stuff and let DOD focus on getting innovative technology from small businesses, rather than distributing taxpayer money to a specific ethnicity, sex, or economic region. If that happens, the Small Business Act goal of 23 percent will be impossible to meet because DOD spending is usually more than half of that effort. Of course, that would be the point of exemption from the Small Business Act. (4) If you could eliminate any of the small business programs in DOD, which would you eliminate? Which would you keep? Why?
  4. For the last several years, the DoD has bulked up regulations aimed at detecting and preventing electronic counterfeit parts within Government contracts. Two major clauses apply these regulations to defense contractors: “Contractor Counterfeit Electronic Part Detection and Avoidance System,” and “Sources of Electronic Parts.” Here’s a summary of the main points of each clause. Read the full article at Petrillo & Powell's Patterns of Procurement.
  5. VATEP is a new method of acquisition that the DoD announced in April 2016. VATEP, which stands for Value Adjusted Total Evaluated Price, is a variant on best value procurements, and seeks to quantify technical superiority in dollar terms when there is a cost/technical tradeoff. It should, in theory, make it easier for the contractor to understand how much it will be rewarded for offering a technically superior proposal. It should also make it easier for the Government to evaluate such proposals. Read the full article at Petrillo & Powell's Patterns of Procurement to learn more about the advantages and disadvantages of competing for VATEP procurements.
  6. Sometimes the Government seeks the best overall value, and at times simply lowest cost. But even when low price is determinative, the bidder must still meet minimum technical qualifications. In a recent case, Level 3 Communications lost a major contract with the Dept. of Defense to Verizon, whose bid exceeded theirs by nearly $40 million. Level 3 was disqualified for what it thought were trivial reasons. When Level 3 protested, it got no relief from GAO, but the Court of Federal Claims came to their rescue. More at Petrillo & Powell's Patterns of Procurement.
  7. Contracts with the Federal Government represent big bucks for technology companies. According to ITDashboard.gov, government agencies spent a whopping $82.8 billion on information technology investments in FY2016, a number that’s poised to grow in the next two years. It’s no wonder, then, that technology companies take government contracts seriously. So when tech giant Palantir Technologies could not get the Army to consider its commercial IT system, they protested. And ultimately, the Court of Federal Claims decided in their favor. View the full article here.
  8. Just stopping by to share an interesting read (via Politico) regarding the current pricing environment in the Department of Defense. Enjoy and looking forward to the discussion! http://www.politico.com/story/2016/04/defense-pentagon-spending-assad-221776
  9. Fear & Loathing in Contracting

    Anyone familiar with Alpha Contracting?

    I am pretty involved with several Alpha Contracting efforts here at Department of Army. Anyone else out there ever involved in Alpha Contracting? Thoughts? Observations? Good experiences? Bad Experiences? Would love to have anyone's 2 cents on the topic.
  10. So I am seeking opinions, and hopefully evidence. I want to consider the DFARS definition of consolidation of requirements only, and not to even discuss bundling, my scenario is OCONUS and FAR 19 for the most part doesn't apply and neither does bundling. However, DFARS part 7 does apply and there is debate regarding how to apply the definition of consolidation to construction requirements. DFARS -207.170-2 Definitions. “Consolidation of contract requirements” means the use of a solicitation to obtain offers for a single contract or a multiple award contract to satisfy two or more requirements of a department, agency, or activity for supplies or services that previously have been provided to, or performed for, that department, agency, or activity under two or more separate contracts. Furthermore, the DoD Office of Small Business Programs further defines bundling and consolidation in their Guidebook dated Oct 2007. http://www.acq.osd.mil/osbp/news/Bundling%20Guidebook%20October%202007.pdf in this guidebook the definition of consolidation states "As recently defined in statute, for a consolidation to exist, the proposed acquisition must be combining two or more requirements that were previously provided or performed under separate contracts." It also gives a definition of consolidation and "new work" in that it says a previously performed requirement combined with "new work, i.e., work that has never been performed under contract." is still consolidating. So how would these definitions ever apply to construction? The argument is that Agency XYZ has previously built a Dining Facility at Fort Fairy Tale. So when you go to build a Dining Facility at Fort Dumbo you have a previously performed requirement under a separate contract. I disagree with that interpretation, they are totally separate requirements because they are totally separate locations with different environments, site conditions, etc. In conclusion I don't see how consolidation definition can ever apply to construction. I can see how bundling could apply to construction because that has to do with limiting small business participation. But I believe consolidation strictly applies to supplies/services. For those who know construction, there are individuals that believe if you combine two facilities, you are "consolidating", and then those who think only when you combine separately appropriated Project Numbers it is considered "consolidating". I have yet to been given any evidence supporting these claims, just passing along the info I've been given, and not saying there isn't evidence either. Agree? Disagree? Have any evidence? Let me know. Thanks!
×