bob7947

So, you think that Other Trasactions are exempt from bid protest jurisdiction at the Court of Federal Claims? Not so fast. I posted this protest opinion on the Home Page on Friday. If you handle Other Trasactions, you may want to take a look at the Opinion at Independent Rough Terrain Center, LLC v. U. S. and Taylor Defense Products, LLC, No. 24-160, July 16, 2024. Independent Rough Terrain Center, LLC v. U. S. and Taylor Defense Products, LLC, No. 24-160, July 16, 2024.

This is now and in our future. Watch: Unknown Killer Robots on Netflix. If you still think The Magnificent Seven is only a cowboy movie - you have some catching up to do. Also see Whoever leads in artificial intelligence in 2030 will rule the world until 2100

How's AT&T doing?

Yes! I've been doing this for 26 years . . . before some of you have been born.

In addition to adding SCOTUS cases, there were changes to the Home and Forum Pages this past weekend. Do you know what the changes were?

The reason I posted these 3 cases was to let you know that these cases exist and that they may affect contracting rules in the future. Percipient may go away because it was issued by a 3-judge panel and all the circuit judges may want to take a look at it themselve (en banc). At least you are aware of the now. I served my purpose.

Here is a bunch of stuff from SCOTUS. Maybe you can find where the money came from. Also, why is it in federal court before a federal jury prosecuted by a federal prosecutor, etc. Snyder Docket During the one year period ending October 2016, the City of Portage, Indiana, received benefits in excess of $10,000 under a Federal Program involving a grant, contract, subsidy, loan, or other form of Federal assistance. p. 1.

Yes, he was convicted by a federal jury for accepting a gratuity. He appealed his conviction and the conviction was upheld by a court in the 7th circuit. I assume the firetrucks were federally funded or partially federally funded. Again, I assume that prosecutors used the gratuity provision to convict him because they didn't have enough to convict him of bribery. I am not aware of any state court that went after him for either bribery or gratuity. This is a 10-year old case from Northern Indiana. The Chicago papers did cover the case but they want users to pay for a view. This was about $13,000. As I mentioned, I believe the threshold for making this federal is too low.

In simple terms, this opinion deals with interpretation of law. Earlier, agencies that adminstered a law were authorized to interpret unclear parts of a law. This opinion shifts legal interpretaion back to the courts and not agencies. We know that agencies such as SBA, USDA, DOE, and EPA write regulations to implement laws for contracting. How will that affect future regulations? I don't know. I added a blog entry that may help explain. This entry is by Morrison Foerster LLP and entitled The End of Chevron Deference: What It Means for Government Contractors.

Joel and Neil: Thank you for participating in this discussion.

One of the things I do before posting any press release on the Home Page is to check if it involved federal funds. If it doesn't, I may not post it unless the case threatened the United States or it angers me for another reason. 18 U.S. Code § 666 (a)(1)(b) states When you take funds from the federal government you follow the federal government's rules. However, I think that $10,000 seems too low a threshold to be brought up on federal charges. Maybe it should be $100,000 or much more. 18 U.S. Code § 666 (a)(1)(B) states I disagree with the opinion of the Court. In my opinion, the law includes gratuities. Again, look at the $5,000. I woud raise it to $50,000 at least and we would never have heard of Portage, Indiana. James Snyder was convicted by a federal jury, On appeal, the 7th circuit upheld his conviction.

This case involves James Snyder, who is the former mayor of Portage, Indiana. In 2013, while Snyder was mayor, Portage awarded two contracts to a local truck company, Great Lakes Peterbilt, and ultimately purchased five trash trucks from the company for about $1.1 million. In 2014, Peterbilt cut a $13,000 check to Snyder. The FBI and federal prosecutors suspected that the payment was a gratuity for the City’s trash truck contracts. But Snyder said that the payment was for his consulting services as a contractor for Peterbilt. A federal jury ultimately convicted Snyder of accepting an illegal gratuity in violation of 18 U. S. C. §666(a)(1)(B). The District Court sentenced Snyder to 1 year and 9 months in prison. On appeal, Snyder argued that 18 U. S. C. §666 criminalizes only bribes, not gratuities. The Seventh Circuit affirmed Snyder’s conviction. On June 26, 2024, the U. S. Supreme Court Justices, Kavanaugh, Roberts, Thomas, Alito, Gorsuch, and Barrett. reversed the judgment of the U. S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit. Snyder v. United States, 603 U.S. ____ (2024)

Variety may be the spice of life, but in the law—and for trial courts, litigators, and anyone having to comply with particular legal rules—we crave uniformity, consistency, and predictability. Judges also try their best to get the correct outcome, although at least one party is almost certain to disagree that such goal has been achieved in any particular case. Since 2006, I have been on a journey to get the “interested party” standing question right. This is a threshold issue in so-called “bid protests” before our court. But my effort to understand and apply the law, as of late, has resulted in what one might call judicial whiplash. If you're guessing that my most recent source of neck pain is Percipient.ai, Inc. v. U.S., ——— F.4th ———, 2024 WL 2873163 (Fed. Cir. June 7, 2024), you're right. The winding road to our jurisprudential destination—and where are we, precisely?—is worth retracing as it illustrates the uncertainty the bench and bar often face when a U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit panel decision breaks new ground or heads off in an unexpected direction. Please read: Take it to the Banc: A General Plea for Increased Consistency and Clarification by Hon. Matthew H. Solomson, Judge, U.S. Court of Federal Claims.

Recently, I read another example of courts expanding their involvement in the contracting process. When I went back to post it here, I could not find the opinion. Here is the gist of it. It may have been the CAFC reviewing an opinion by the COFC. Anyway, the court concluded that to protest a debarrment action, a protester must use a federal district court. I didn't have time to check the judge's reasoning. My position is that all courts must be removed from the federal contracting process. That is going to require sifting through the words in the Tucker Act, etc. I believe there should be an opportunity to appeal any decision or opinion after we eliminate the courts from the process. In the case of a GAO initial bid protest decision, it would go to GAO for reconsideration as an appeal - by another procurement attorney. I the case of a dispute, if goes from a contracting officer's final decision to one of the Boards of Contract Appeals for any appeal--and that's it. Yeah, there is more than two BCAs but that's ok. We don't need courts searching for more work for other courts. Once we get rid of the courts, we can put page limits on decisions/opinions.

It is a longstanding belief that effective competition yields best value contract pricing and quality. And it is generally believed that clear communication between buyer and prospective sellers is essential for effective competition. If those beliefs are true, then we must question whether the Government is getting effective competition and best value in its procurements. Let's consider a simple case. Please Read: Simplification, Reform, Streamlining, and Innovation: The Government Is Immune To Those Things by Vernon J. Edwards

I'm surprised this opinion has not drawn much attention here. It's 59 pages and is from the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. From an entry by Blank Rome LLP that explains the above opinion. Open the Floodgates: Divided Federal Circuit Panel Expands Access to Court of Federal Claims.

I found nothing to support the above. However, I wasn't born yesterday.

If anyone can find the contract that is expiring early, please let me know. I'd like to see the justification for ending it. Thanks. _____________________________ 6/29/24 The new solicitation provides for a 1 year base period and 9, 1-year options. With that in mind, I assumed that one of the options on the current Maximus contract was not exercised. Apparently, that is correct. In the current solicitation, there appears to be a Q and A for offerors on the current solicitation. Q and A #70 states: Q and A # 72 Q and A # 73 Q and A # 90 Q and A # 91 Q and A # 92 Q and A # 93 Q and A # 94 Q and A # 95 Q and A # 96 Q and A # 97 Q and A # 98 Q and A # 99 It appears that the current Maximus contract may be: # 75FCMC22C0038 I assume there must be an explanation somewhere why the options were not exercised. If someone can find it, please post. I'm going to check the remaining Q and As now. Also, it would be interesting to see the latest award fee report on Maximus. The contract type is a CPAF.

This is the current solicitation. 75FCMC24R0010 This is Maximus' current protest. The LABOR HARMONY AGREEMENT is at H-16 or p. 64 of the solicitation.

I've read this article twice. In my opinion, it is a poorly written something trying to reach a conclusion with hearsay supporting allegations of something or other.

Under Review.

This topic is now subject to Rule 17 and will be locked on 6/14 unless the OP answers questions posed.

Did you see some contracting effort that was well done? Tell us about it. Did you see some contracting effort that was done badly? Tell us about it and tell us how you would make it better. Did you see some contracting effort that was done so ugly that you hope you never see it again? Tell us about it and be a hero and improve it. In the title of your Topic (post), state wheter it is Good, Bad, or Ugly so we can tell how you feel about it.

Formerfed: GAO lists 360 "actions" against that solicitation. I assume that those actions are protests and many of the protests were sustained (I seem to remember over 60 sustained protests.) The solicitation was a GWAC which requires OMB approval. I can think of two ways for GAO to deal with all these protests. 1. Where a number of dismissed or withdrawn protests complain about a similar issue, GAO (if the courts are eliminated) could consider whether a potester or protesters actions undermine the integrity and effectiveness of our process and suspend the protesters from submitting protests in the future. 2. Since this is a GWAC approved by OMB and there are so many sustained protests GAO may wish to recommend that OMB withdraw its GWAC approval from the issuer of the solicitation.

1. The Clinger-Cohen Act of 1996 authorized Government-wide Acquisition Contracts (GWACs) through section 5112(e) of the act, which is 40 U.S.C. 11302(e). GWACs are contracts for information technology (IT) that are established by one agency for use across the government. They are pre-competed, multiple-award, indefinite delivery, indefinite quantity (IDIQ) contracts that agencies can use to buy IT products and services. Once we had 3 central suppliers: GSA, DLA, and VA. Now it's a free for all. Of course, OMB must give GWACs its blessing and they've given out many blessings. 2. On that GWAC, the COFC is now hearing claims. In the past week, a COFC opinion was being held up by a District Court. Recently, I seem to remember a case involving other transactions. I've always considered protests and disputes as adminstrative actions. It's time for Congress to take action and ban federal courts from hearing anything that deals with a procurement contract or something that looks like a procurement contract. I agree with Vern. 3. From a GAO decision: It's time for GAO to meet with it's Congressional bosses, explain this procurement, and show some guts. PS: Please do not name the protest that the above quote comes from. I left it blank intentionally.