Moderator
Root Admin
-
Joined
-
Last visited
Everything posted by Moderator
-
In a letter to industry and other stakeholders dated February 10, the Department of War asks for ideas about how to reform defense acquisition: See the attached. LETTER-TO-DEFENSE-INDUSTRIAL-BASE-AND-ACQUISITION-STAKEHOLDERS-SEEKING-REVOLUTIONARY-FAR-OVERHAUL-PHASE-2-INPUT.pdf
-
In light of today's emphasis on acquisiiton speed, especially by the Department of War, we think this is an urgent matterr that Wifcon members ought to discuss: In CWTSato Travel, Comp. Gen. Dec. B-423181,2, Dec. 19, 2025, the GAO denied a protest GSA's award of an order for commercial travel agent services against a Federal Supply Schedule. The decision is attached. In a procurement for the Marine Corps, GSA issued a request for quotations in accordance with FAR 8.405-2 on August 19, 2024. Here is what the quotes were to include, as described by the GAO: The GAO described the evaluation factors as follows: There were the final evaluation results for the protester, CWTSato, and the awardee: CWTSato Omega Factor A Pass Pass Factor B Good Good Factor C Very Relevant / Limited Confidence / High Risk Relevant / Substantial Confidence / Low Risk Factor D Acceptable Acceptable Factor E - POS Pricing $18,366,418 $24,701,978 Factor E - MSF Pricing $18,366,418 $24,702,974 According to the GAO, the contracting officer decided to pay the higher "price" based on the evaluations of past performance. It appears to have taken the GSA more than a year to complete its commericial FSS selection/award process, which was clearly based on the FAR Part 15 process model. See https://www.wifcon.com/anal/analcomproc.htm Some questions: Did anything in FAR 8.405-2 require GSA to use such a procedure? Could they have asked for experience and past performance information and price, without the other stuff, selected Omega on that basis, and then negotiated performance plans and procedures one-on-one with them before making the award, without further communications with CWTSato? If not, why not? Would that have taken less work and time? If so, why do you think they conducted the procurement the way they did? GAO B-423181.2.pdf
-
The Future Role of the Contracting Officer, Maldonado, DAU (2020) The Future Role of the Contracting Officer.pdf
-
NCR_40_1_3.pdf
-
The original poster has not been heard from in almost two weeks. This thread will be closed if they do not respond by Wednesday.
-
-
NCR-THE OVERHAUL OF FAR PART 15 - A REVIE.pdf
-
From The Nash & Cibinic Report, November 2025 "The Revolutionary Overhaul of FAR Part 15: A Review" The Revolutionary FAR Overhaul of Part 15.pdf
-
Several posts have been deleted because they were off topic.
@Anthony03 By HSE are you referring to Health, Safety and Environment?
What are the advantages?
This thread is locked due to negative comments made about a named public official in a response to the opening post. Such comments are not permissible. Appropriate inquiries and comments relate to contracting concepts and procedures.
A new article from The Nash & Cibinic Report, August 2025, about risk management in the revolutionary FAR overhaul has been posted to the Bulletin Board: https://www.wifcon.com/discussion/uploads/pages_media/NCR_39_8_46_wbox.pdf?_cb=1753899926
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
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