bob7947

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 Where a number of dismissed or withdrawn protests complain about a similar issue, GAO (if the courts are eliminated) could consider whether a potester or protesters actions undermine the integrity and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.

The online notification is what I was trying to find. It should work because it ends up with GSA. When I notified GSA of a mistake in the FAR for correction, it was done by the next FAC. I did that in the 1980s. I suspect it would be corrected in the same way in the Technical Amendments area.

In February, Ralph asked what purpose the protest process served. See The Protest Process: What Purpose Does It Serve?, 38 NCRNL ¶ 10. In this Postscript, I ask what damage it does. My answer is that it is a drag on an essential activity of our Government, the procurement of goods and services. Our Government relies on contracts and contractors and the goods and services they provide, and the protest system is an impediment. It impedes procurement in three ways. First, protests are expensive from the standpoint of total system cost. Second, protests delay procurements, which affects agency operations. Third, fear of protests and attention to protest “case law” stupefies the procurement workforce and encourages them to adopt inefficient procurement practices. Please Read - Postscript: The Protest Process.

Vern: I did a search for the word acquisition in Public Law 96-83 and found the above. Apparently, Congress decided to move FAI to OFPP and directed by the Administrator, OFPP.

Joel: No. It was an effort to fuse the Defense Acquisition Regulation (DAR) with the Federal Procurement Regulation (FPR). I remember checking similar parts of the 2 regulations and commenting on how OFPP had put the two together. Today, the Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (DFARS) may be larger than the FAR.

Vern: I happened upon a hearing from May 1979 on H. R. 3763, to amend the Office of Federal Procurement Policy Act. I assume the Bill went nowhere but it gave Congressman Jack Brooks, one of the Major Players in government contracting, a chance to sound off. At the time of the Hearing, OFPP was trying to consolidate the FAR. That was a mess but it was finally done. OFPP also was trying to follow up on the Commission on Government Procurement's many recommendations. GAO issued several reports following up on whether OFPP was following up on them. Those efforts finally died a quiet death. I copied an excerpt from that hearing showing one low prority issue and how it was handled. For those who don't know, Elmer Staats was the Comptroller General of the United States.

This is subject to Rule 17 and will be locked this weekend unless the OP returns.

The Federal Government primarily categorizes its acquisitions as supplies, services (other than research and development), research and development (R&D), and construction. The Government acquires services because it has chosen to rely on contractors to do much of the work it must do for the American people. According to the Federal Procurement Data System (FPDS), services accounted for the largest categorical share of the Government’s contract obligations in Fiscal Year 2023, and professional services other than research and development accounted for the largest single share of service obligations ($108.6 billion).1 But while the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) provides general definitions of supplies, construction, applied research, and development,2 it does not provide a general definition of services. See Contracting For Services: Part I—Conceptual Definition And Model by Vernon J. Edwards

This is subject to Rule 17. There are several questions and no response by the OP. I locked the topic.

Years ago, I spotted an error in the FAR and reported it to the Regulatory Secretariat. They quietly corrected the error in the next FAC. The Claims Division maybe the Transportation and Claims Division sat on the 5th floor of the GAO Building which was a wretched and ugly space--more wretched and ugly than the other parts of GAO. GAO was able to get Congress to ship Claims to the Executive Branch. When I was in Huntsville in 1974, I worked with a fellow from the Transportation part of the Claims Division. He was a true expert in his field. -------------------------------------- Addendum: Look at this correction form. From before the electronic age. submit via mail or facsimile Oh C'mon. Make it east Secretariat. Make it a fillable online form that you can click and send the corrction to you. Geeesh!

Joel: I was counting on you.

OK, I revised the poll and added I have no clue. Now you have to vote.

Without searching, do you know the N. S. Savannah?

Rule 17. Locked

CIO-SP3 and CIO-SP4

Maybe I should sell Wifcon-Wheelbarrows for it.

Global K9 Protection Group LLC, vs. U. S. and American K-9 Detection Services, Nos. 23-210, 23-311, April 11, 2024. The Long and Winding Road Now, after four years, two remands with related remand extensions,1 two formal re-solicitations,2 two injunctions,3 three re-awards splitting the contract into two procurements,4 and approximately 34 total dog years,5 this case has finally reached its end. Judge Ryan T. Holte There is a companion opinion on the Home Page.

Thank you.

The only way that laws can be streamlined and abolished is by Congress itself. That is why you need committees assigned to propose it and to stop new bad laws from getting out of committee. The first competition rule was passed in 1792 so the committees will take years finding all the nonsense. Of course, they would still have to go through the full Congress to get their recommendations passed. In the end, Congress should state in law what is best for government contracting. It's their responsibility. They shouldn't end up writing unnecessary "design" laws. They should state the goals they want achieved. The "FAR" councils should write regulations to achieve those goals and accomplish the goals through the efforts of the "career filed." Congress, through the committees, would maintain oversight of the work of the "FAR" councils and the "career field" in achieving the goals it sets." Executive Orders are a different thing. However, they are more general and the future "FAR Councils" will write the regulations for them. The Councils can work within the Executive branch to work out the regulatory details.

The item above is from Subpart 1.1 of the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) in case anyone is new to Federal Contracting. This week The Coalition for Government Procurement has a blog entry called Happy 40th Birthday to the FAR, but has it Gone too FAR? I think it is important to read it and see the mess you are given that directs much of your work. In the article the Coalition talks about appointing a FAR champion to fix it. That won't work because that would be treating the symptom and not the disease. The DISEASE is the United States Congress and its committees that have jurisdiction over each and every one of the government agencies. If they have jurisdiction over a goverment agency they have juridiction over the agency's contracting even if they have no idea about government contracting. That's ridiculous. Here's my opening salvo to the contracting mess of laws, GAO decisions, and court opinions. When you look at the FAR, remember, it is based on laws, GAO decisions, court opinions and who knows what else. Create one Senate and one House committee that have complete jurisdiction of all government contracting laws and regulations. And that is all they do. Each of those two committees creates a subcommittee dedicated to reviewing ALL contracting laws for the purpose of streamlining or abolishing them. Each of those two committees creates a subcommittee with total jurisdiction over defense contracting and a subcommittee with total jurisdiction over civilian agency contracting. After the laws have been dealt with the FAR system can be overhauled. There no longer will be title VIII 8s of the National Defense Authorization Acts since the Armed Services Committees will not have jurisdiction over any contracting.

There is a list of rules posted. I searched for NAVSUPINST 4200.99D and could not find it using Google. GPC? Government Purchase Card? Green Procurement Compilation? CH??????