Moderator

A new article from The Nash & Cibinic Report, June 2025, about the futility of FAR reform has been posted to the Bulletin Board: https://www.wifcon.com/discussion/uploads/pages_media/NCR_39_6_31wbox.pdf?_cb=1748886086

CLICK HERE for the podcast.

Deleted.

A new article from The Nash & Cibinic Report, May 2025, about the FAR reform project has been posted to the Bulletin Board: https://www.wifcon.com/discussion/uploads/pages_media/NCR_39_5_26.pdf?_cb=1746558027

Wifcon guests, including Ralph Nash, Jim Nagle, Don Mansfield, and Vern Edwards, discuss the White House's executive order on "Restoring Common Sense to Federal Procurement."

@overmyhead Please do not use abbreviations like FCL. We presume FCL means facility clearance. If that is not the case, please tell us what it means. The answers to your questions are: No. Read your contract. It should include the clause at FAR 52.216-22, Indefinite Quantity (OCT 1995). Read paragraph (d). Ask your customer if they can and will. Ask your customer.

In light of recent comments in this discussion, a pdf of OMB Circular A-109 has been posted to the Wifcon Bulletin Board.

In our September issue, Ralph wrote about the Armed Services Board of Contract Appeals' decision in the matter of Red Bobtail Transportation, ASBCA 63771, 24-1 BCA ¶ 38,591, 2024 WL 2873960. See Performance Incentives: Follow the Rules, 38 NCRNL ¶ 50. That case involved a firm-fixed-price “performance-based” contract for transportation services in Afghanistan that was awarded in 2014 by the United States Transportation Command (USTRANSCOM). Please Read: Postscript: Following The Rules About Performance Incentives

I found the SCOTUS case too. UNITED STATES ex rel. POLANSKY v. EXECUTIVE HEALTH RESOURCES, INC.

I found this blurb a few moments ago. Case No: 8:19-cv-01236-KKM-SPF

You may also want to read: Truth, Lies, and O-rings.

In the July issue, we told of a U.S. Army procurement of grounds maintenance services in which the agency conducted a simplified acquisition for commercial services, set aside for small businesses, to mow less than two acres of grass 18 times a year for one year with four one-year extension options. The work will include edging, trimming, pruning, and general cleanup at a small Army facility in suburban Virginia. We told how in order to do that the Army issued a 90-page Request for Quotations containing 105 Federal Acquisition Regulation and Defense FAR Supplement solicitation provisions and contract clauses and incorporating a 525-page Army grounds maintenance regulation as the standard of quality. See Simplification, Reform, Streamlining, and Innovation: The Government Is Immune to Those Things, 38 NCRNL ¶ 44. Please read: Postscript: Simplification, Reform, Streamlining by Vernon J. Edwards

This article appeared in the September 2024 issue of Contract Management magazine, published by the National Contract Management Association. Used with permission. Much is being said these days about the importance of lifelong (continuous) learning in the contracting profession. That’s a good thing, but what does it mean, and how should one go about it? Please Read: Lifelong Learning, Cultivated Curiosity and Self-Interrogation - By Vernon J. Edwards

Rule 17 violation.

Rule 17 violation.

Rule 17 violation.

A Primer on U.S. Defense Procurement, 2 Upphandlingsrätt Tidskrift 87 (2024) Daniel Schoeni, Space Systems Command; George Washington University - Law School, June 28, 2024 U.S. defense procurement is fiendishly complex; this article demystifies the system. It provides an introduction for nontraditional suppliers who may be reluctant to participate. To this end, it outlines the mechanics, details the legal framework, and assesses the system’s viability. The penultimate section advocates greater transatlantic participation, discusses barriers, and suggests how foreign suppliers can engage more effectively. If more robust competition is achieved, the potential payoff is immense for taxpayers, contractors, and not least the warfighter. A Primer on U.S. Defense Procurement, 2 Upphandlingsrätt Tidskrift 87 (2024)

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.