bob7947

The advertisers, whose ads Wifcon.com displays, pay for the operations of Wifcon.com. Without them there would be no discussion board; no Wifcon.com--period. Wifcon.com must recover its costs through these advertisements. As a result, I request that you refrain from commenting on the ads and advertisers in your discussions.

Far Fetched: Prepare a folder in your e-mailer and place the CO's name on that folder. Place the Co's e-mail in this folder and be sure you can find it on a "rainy" day. There are venues where that e-mail would be helpful to your cause. When the time comes, print the e-mail out and place it in an obvious place so the person you want to find it can find it. That CO stepped in it. Some day you might be able to quietly place what the CO stepped in around the CO's head.

You may wish to look at H. R. 4118, the Small Business Procurement Improvement Act of 2012, on the Legislation page.

. In her prime.

Wifcon.com presents its 12th annual section-by-section analysis of contracting provisions in the NDAA for FY 2012.

IP Board Documentation by Invisionpower.

I'm posting this for a new poster. I originally had "Construction" contracts in the title. It should have been "Service" contracts. Who has experience in Payment Bonds related to Service Contracts? My background is in Construction Contracts so am asking if anyone has required Payment Bonds related to Service Contracts. Your help and advice is appreciated.

I am posting this for pabner. Hello All New to this forum so here goes it... I have a question on appropriations during Continuing Resolutions: Can funding be obligated by the CO (contract officer)beyond the CR period when the gov't is under CR? Simple yet complex for me

Check what version of internet browser State uses.

My backup computer uses IE 7. I can access the Pricing Guides using IE 7 and other https sites. When using IE 7, you get a screen notifying you of a "certificate" issue. However, if you click "go to the site" you get to acc with no problem. If you have downloaded IE 8, you will encounter a different screen leading you to believe the https site is a dead link. I suppose that is MSFT's version of progress. That is where I am at with my primary computer. I have tried the "solutions" for the IE 8 problem offered by MSFT and they haven't worked. I could risk added danger and download IE 9 but I already know it is a monstrosity. Since my only interest is to check for dead links, I can use my backup computer and IE 7.

I think the key is in what you don't use--IE of any version. I think the answer is in testing different browsers. Apple's browser is claimed to work on PCs.

Joel: What browser are you using? Is it MSFT? If so, are you using IE 7 or IE 8?

In this case, I am not getting the certificate warning. I'm just getting the "no connection" page. MSFT is pretty tricky. They keep one guessing.

It is possible that this is being caused by the internet browser that a computer is using. It may be caused by a setting in the browser's "tools" section. So far, I have no idea what is preventing my computer from accessing it. On this computer I am using IE 8. I hate to think what IE 9 would do. MSFT has this little thing with making their past programs obsolete and then providing a "compatibility" mode. Eg. MS Word. If anyone has found that it is a "browser" issue, please let us know here.

Good for you! I cannot.

web-based is fine. Do you have the link?

That is an https site. I suppose these are classified as super-secret documents now.

Does anyone know where a government public link is for the Contract Pricing Reference Guides?

For contratos: I need information on how to negotiate and award T.O.s under LPTA. My agency does it in accordance with FAR subpart 15.3 even though the FAR states that this part does not apply to task orders. Could you share other business practices across DOD?

Somone mentioned liquidated damages this past week. I found a nice opinion on it--K-Con Building Systems, Inc.--today at the Court of Claims.

Members: This post has languished for a week. I don't know why. It would seem to me that the effort made to write this deserves a thoughtful response.

Thanks Vern. You made me laugh.

The FAR at 3.501 defines "buying in" as "Buying-in," as used in this section, means submitting an offer below anticipated costs, expecting to? (1) Increase the contract amount after award (e.g., through unnecessary or excessively priced change orders); or (2) Receive follow-on contracts at artificially high prices to recover losses incurred on the buy-in contract. Considering (2), it is too early to conclude whether this is "buying in" or an investment. However, I like the term investment better. So investment is fine with me. I like the idea of taking target price (target cost + target profit) and adding the government's share from target cost to PTA as a negotiating position, and finally a FFP contract. That is what we have now, of course, after the bogus FPIF structure was pointed out. I think it can be justified in a negotiator's memorandum, or whatever they are calling it now. It would have excluded any costs that would have exceeded the ceiling price of the bogus FPIF. DoD management now admits that the contractor made a commercial "investment" decision and submitted an offer below cost. Since upper level management only knows what it is told by the workers, we must assume that the individuals responsible for the bogus FPIF structure knew it was bogus. It may not have been a typical scam, there may not be any real overruns, but it was dishonest. And that is the real problem, it was dishonest.

Joel: You could assume that it was a buy-in.

Vern: I was just getting ready to eat when a voice from my past said "the contractor bought in, what did you want me to do, negotiate a higher price for the government." The voice was from a contracting officer who had negotiated a contract price on a buy-in many years ago. Assume that the contractor bought in on the tanker procurement. Can you think of any way the government could have negotiated a realistic FPIF structure on the buy-in? Maybe that is the situation that the government was in.