Jump to content


Root Admin
  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by bob7947

  1. Joel: Let's stretch this out further and add something more to the Briefing Papers which explains the process. On it's p. 3, the Paper mention's there are 3 BCAs. I know of a 4th - GAO's Contract Appeals Board.
  2. Some news that I posted to the Home Page tonight. Fiscal Year 2020 Reporting Period Extended for Contractor Service Contract Reporting in the System for Award Management.
  3. In the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, the Appeals Court heard an appeal of two claims in which the Court of Federal Claims issued opinions on a bid protest. The Appeals Court sent one opinion on one claim back to the Claims Court for a further look. The protest involved something a bit different (qualified parts list) and deals with the terms "in connection with a procurement or a proposed procurement" and "interested party." The decision/opinion of the Appeals Court and the Claims Court are below. LAX Electronics, Inc. (dba) Automatic Connector, 2020-1498, November 3, 2020. LAX Electronics, Inc.,(dba) Automatic Connector, No. 19-1668C, December 17, 2019.
  4. H-2-H: Is this it. I think it is worth reading. I haven't done a thorough reading of the decision but it appears that the COFC backed down because of a "novel" ruling by the CAFC.
  5. In the Court of Federal Claims: Savantage Financial Services, Inc. v. U. S., No. 19-1805C, October 26, 2020
  6. I'm going to update site now.  You won't see it for a while.

  7. Send me a PM above where the envelope is at. Fill in your previous display name and e-mail addresses. I'll see if I can figure it out.
  8. Steve Schooner posted an article on the SSRN entitled Brand Name or Equal: Without "Equal," It's Not Competitive. I think you may find it of interest.
  9. I found this: GSA’s Take on Implementation of Section 889 from SheppardMullin.
  10. Joel: I looked at the Author's post when it was originally written. At that time, I believed that it was a question to the workforce for their opinion about an issue. I also considered whether it should be in the contract award forum. I felt that it was a general question to the workforce and left it in this forum. I understand your point and appreciate your efforts and have adopted many of your suggetions. However, this time I believe it is where it should be.
  11. Jamaal: Using the general definitions provided by the FAR an Wow! The Secretary of Defense, Deputy Secretary of Defense and an Assistant Secretary of Defense are agency heads. If they knew they were all the boss, we may be defenseless. I understand what they mean but it can be interpreted a different way. With the existing junk laws, some dating back to the 1700s; the annual perfections to those laws; the minor deletions, I guess the FAR Councils are having trouble keeping up with all the perfections and have no time to go back and read any of the regulations that are meant to implement law. It's so much easier being the Wizard of Wifcon hiding behind a curtain.
  12. The initial post mentions Section 889. I must assume that is the John S. McCain National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2019. Public Law - 115-232. In Section 889 which is the Prohibition on certain telecommunications and video surveillance services or equipment. Section 889 specifically contains paragraph (f) which defines Exeutive agency as "The term “executive agency” has the meaning given the term in section 133 of title 41, United States Code. " Below is Section 133 of Title 41, USC. that defines Executive Agency as Section 889 authorizes waiver authority to only 2 individuals. The head of an executive agency, and The Director of National Intelligence. Since the FAR is subordinate to Section 889, I would assume that the FAR is incorrectly written if its head of an agency is below the head of an executive agency. I cannot imagine the Executive Branch of government trying to subvert the will of the citizens as expressed by the Congress.
  13. Retread: This current discussion software, like many other softwares and web sites no longer supports Internet Explorer (IE). If you use IE to view this discussion forum, it may not look nor work as it is intended. Here is Microsoft's instructions. Lifecycle FAQ - Internet Explorer and Edge. I do not use IE because it no longer is maintained for my systems. Use a browser version that is continuously and vigorously supported and defended by it's owner. The internet is a War Zone. It is as simple as that. A good deal of my time is spent defending my spec of the internet.
  14. Joel: OK. I just noticed the one-month later response. I also see the expand button in long posts.
  15. There have been 2 major upgrades to the software within the past 10 days. I saw Joel's post and could not figure out what happened. I deleted it. I also note that in TimB's last post, there is the word author in the right hand top which should not be there. Below that and Joel's post there is something that says 1 month later... I cannot access those words nor the word author as the administrator. After Joel's post with the gibberish there was the second upgrade that I installed last night. I don't know if that upgrade did anything that matters or what. I could not replicate the gibberish that was posted in Joel's post. Please let me know of any other odd things you see in future posts so I can collect them and send them to the developers to fix.
  16. H_2_H: Thanks for reminding me. I have it on the Home Page and the Analysis page but forgot to post it here too.
  17. Vern provides us with this article: In the last month or so we have seen a number of articles about Michael Wooten, the Administrator of Federal Procurement Policy, and his ideas about “frictionless acquisition,” which is his metaphor for reducing administrative lead time and speeding up the buying process. See the article at: FRICTIONLESS ACQUISITION: A New Initiative By The Office Of Federal Procurement Policy.
  18. Formerfed: The history of the A-12 has so many potential diversions that it was difficult to focus on the main story. For example, the Soviet Union and the U. S. were competing about everything. When Johnson found out about the A-12 in 1964, he wanted to let the Soviet Union know that we had the fastest airplane. So on February 29, 1964 he had a press conference to announce our achievement. He used design A-11 in his press release instead of design A-12 so not to technically violate its secrecy. Then he mentioned that the A-11 was being tested at Edwards Air Force Base instead of Groom Lake--or Area 51--where the A-12s were. He did mention the fabrication of the airplane using titatnium which was germane to my article so I used that and skipped the funny part of the story. The funny part was that there was no A-11 being tested at Edwards so when the press would show up to see it or talk about it, it wasn't there. There was a YF-12A interceptor at Groom Lake along with several A-12s. I'm quite sure there was only one YF-12A that could fly at that time. As cover for Johnson's statement, there were 2 or 3 A-12s at Groom Lake and the one YF-12A available for a quick trip to Edwards. So, the airplanes took off for Edwards and flew directly into a hangar at Edwards. They were so hot when they were in the hangar that they set off the sprinkler system in the hangar. Now, the A-12s were classified so they couldn't admit what they were and I cannot explain why the YF-12A was or wasn't. However, they used the name YF-12A while at Edwards as cover for the secret A-12s that flew from Groom Lake. It doesn't end there. The Soviet Union wasn't going to take news of an A-11 without a response. So, they flew one of their MIGs in a speed contest set up by some international organization. The MIG's speed was about 1,600 mph, if I remember correctly and the MIG's speed was made public. President Johnson didn't want to be shown up when he knew that he had a 2,100 mph cruiser at Groom Lake. There are about 2 or 3 unclassified memos at the CIA site that discuss the U. S. concerns about entering a YF-12A in the contest. They were worried about the secrecy issue and finally Lyndon Johnson was convinced not to enter the YF-12A in the test. Since the YF-12A was a derivative of the A-12, it was only a little bit slower than the A-12. What really set the A-12 apart from everything else was its J-58 engine which could fly continuously with the afterburners engaged. Then the real power was developed by the spikes in front of the nacelles. When functioning as designed, they allowed the exact air pressure to enter the J-58 at its peak of performance.
  19. "Many years ago, as a teen, I noticed a magazine on a barbershop table with an incredible black airplane on the cover. Huge engines on each side of a delta wing and a long thin fuselage with a cockpit near the front. I never forgot that airplane, it was an SR-71 Blackbird. Now, 55 years later, I'm writing a brief article about the first Blackbird -- the A-12. It's the fastest and highest flying jet airplane that was ever built. Everything about the A-12 was incredible. Imagine this. A requirement is developed to: make an airplane so fast that nothing can catch it, make it fly so high that nothing can reach it, and make it nearly invisible. Add to that the fact that no one knew how to do it, the materials didn't exist, and it had to be done quickly. How about a few names for good measure: Groom Lake, Area 51, Kelly Johnson and his Skunk Works . . . That's the story of how the A-12 was conceived, finally built, and then flown. Before I write about the A-12, I need to provide some perspective on the times in which it was born." I added the above article on the A-12. I've worked on it-off and on- for over the last 18 months and its time to publish it. It is Faster Than A Speeding Bullet, Three Times Higher Than The Tallest Mountain. I've added a number of links in the article and at the end of the article. To access a link, you have to put your cursor on the link, click the ctrl key on your keyboard and click the link. Its easier that it sounds. The A-12 first flew in 1962. However, a few of the pilots are still alive. The first flight of the A-12 is on YouTube and the link is at the end of the article.
  20. As you know, the current Requirement is in FAR Subpart 4.8 - Government Contract Files. I started reviewing contract files in the early 1970s, years before the FAR. I remember mulitleaf folders with the solicitation, contract etc. on one side and supporting documents on the other. Other relics here remember the same. I always marveled at the consistency of different agency contract files. The laws and regulations before the FAR were the: Armed Services Procurement Act of 1947, Armed Services Procurement Regulation (ASPR), later the Defense Acquisition Regulation (FAR). Federal Property and Administrative Services Act of 1949 and the subsequent Frederal Procurement Regulation (FPR) for civilian agencies. Sometime in the 1980s, and prior to the FAR in 1984, there was something called the FAR Crosswalk produced. The Crosswalk showed where the old ASPR, maybe the DAR, and FPR sections ended up in the FAR. I'm sure FAR Subpart 4.8 - Government Contract Files could be crosswalked from the ASPR or DAR, and FPR. The requirement might have been in the 1947 and 1947 laws. I no longer remember. Now you can do some research and find your answer.
  21. I was updating the Home Page on Thursday when I found this CBCA Case: S & DF Properties, LLC, CBCA 6809, August 13, 2020.
  22. A contractor appeals a contracting officer's final decision and wants to settle it by using an alternative dispute resolution (ADR) at the Civilian Board of Contract Appeals (CBCA). The government does not want to settle the dispute using ADR. Since the contractor wants to use ADR, must the government agree to use ADR at the CBCA?
  • Create New...