Jump to content

Evaluation Team Guidance


Recommended Posts

4 hours ago, Vern Edwards said:

I was swimming with whales before you knew how to dog paddle.

Now, now I think you have forgotten history.  I was swimming with whales, inclusive of you and many others, in the early years.   Your migration was admittedly far reaching but that does not mean that the route I took was any less.  You want to deem it so but in the end I was in the pod whether you acknowledge it or not.   And by the way I think there are many in my pod that would acknowledge that appropriate credit to you was acknowledged in my migration.  Too bad you feel a want to stomp on it being so every chance you get.  Swim on!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Carl, you should know by now that you won’t get the last word in…🤪

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Vern Edwards said:

@joel hoffmanWhat's amusing about this is that my first comment in this thread was to agree with him.

But then he went overboard with "After all you hedge your bets all the time," and "jump in the pool you will like it."

You would think there is a pool of his writings and other contributions to the field.

He can have the last word.

Darn it Vern you bait and bait and bait.   Read the posts, read them!  You do hedge your bets just like editing your most recent post.  You see I screen shot what I see and that makes me react.  You changed it and you know it but you still left it worded to bait me.     Overall it is the third in a line of snide remarks made to others but aimed at me when all that I did was politely answer your question and then you started with the crap.   Reading the posts will clearly show the trail.       Your gamesmanship is backhanded and I just won't just sit by and let the stream at me.   

There are a million ways to contribute to the pool and I have done so!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I guess I discredited you with "Hear! Hear!"

As for editing my post, yes.  I thought things through and changed my words. I do it all the time. (Like just then.) Is that what you call hedging my bets? If so, you should try it.

And Carl, you discredit yourself by taking extreme positions. You made your best point in this thread with your first post. It's still a good point. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Vern Edwards said:

And Carl, you discredit yourself by taking extreme positions.

It is not extreme.     In this thread I have simply suggested that for a hypothetical whose very subject is a simple commercial item procurement that the CO should have two TEPs. They can but I disagree on the basis of the following and the rest of the guiding principles of the FAR which suggests doing so is not commensurate with the guiding principles and possibly not a permissible exercise of authority. 

 

"The Federal Acquisition System will-

           (1) Satisfy the customer in terms of cost, quality, and timeliness of the delivered product or service by, for example-

                (i) Maximizing the use of commercial products and commercial services;

                (ii) Using contractors who have a track record of successful past performance or who demonstrate a current superior ability to perform; and

                (iii) Promoting competition;

           (2) Minimize administrative operating costs;

           (3) Conduct business with integrity, fairness, and openness; and

           (4) Fulfill public policy objectives."

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

25 minutes ago, C Culham said:

In this thread I have simply suggested that for a hypothetical whose very subject is a simple commercial item procurement that the CO should have two TEPs. They can but I disagree on the basis of the following and the rest of the guiding principles of the FAR which suggests doing so is not commensurate with the guiding principles and possibly not a permissible exercise of authority. 

That's extreme. The FAR  guiding principles suggest no such thing. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Vern Edwards said:

That's extreme. The FAR  guiding principles suggest no such thing. 

 The how and implied why  to evaluate a simplified acquisition (both non-commercial and commercial) is stated in the FAR. The very "Purpose"  of which is to promote efficiency and minimize burden.  "(T)two TEP's" for a "Quote" for mowing and sprinkler maintenance is not efficient and is burdensome on contractors and the agency and therefore questionable exercise of authority.  Heck the very fact that there was a post regarding the hypothetical proves the point. 

If the OP wanted to simply ask if a CO can do anything they want when it comes to establishing TEP's that is whole different story, and yes that question has been answered and one which I do not disagree with and have stated same in this thread.  The OP did not do that, their hypothetical subject for asking was a quote.

 

2 hours ago, Vern Edwards said:

I guess I discredited you with "Hear! Hear!"

You know where you did!  At the above quote I did not utter a word.  I did  when you started with your subsequent posts and you know which ones.  So to be clear I saw the Hear Hear post, read it, did not respond to it and appreciated it.   The extreme was started by you after I responded, again respectfully, to your question.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...