Moderator

I've locked this thread for the time being while I look at the posts and respond to posters.

I'm not sure what the OP means when he/she uses the term government property. However, if we set that aside for the moment, we are dealing with a I Believe Ibn suggested the best way to go at this point The H-T-H added And then retreadfed added Everything else seems premature until there is more information. However, the OP left and we will not get any further information.

FrankJon: Thank you for documenting it. I will link your references to the NDAAs since many do not realize they are available here.

Don: Are you familiar with way back then?

Wow. I have that on a different computer.

Shortly after the close of each calendar, I update the Top 10 Articles on the Articles Page that Wifcon.com users viewed the most. Each of the 10 articles were viewed in excess of a thousand times during 2019. Some of the articles have been on Wifcon.com for many years and some articles have been viewed hundreds of thousands of times on Wifcon.com.

Shortly after the close of each calendar, I update the Most Viewed Protest Pages by FAR section and GAO protest procedure to show what protest issues Wifcon.com users viewed the most. Each of the 15 issues were viewed thousands of times during 2019. In 2019, I expanded the list to the Top 15 from the Top 10. These protest issues remain fairly stable year after year with few changes.

One of the conference report sections mentioned the 809 panel and then shrugged it off. It is a long blurb that I looked for last night. I didn't find it because I was tired of looking at all the sections.

Atta-Ibn! I have one more annual update and then I go back to writing for Wifcon.com.

Ibn: Your wrote I've just counted the reading statistics for the articles posted on Wifcon.com's Articles page for 2019. Articles written nearly 2 decades ago and posted here are still being read thousands of times each year--including in 2019.

GAO didn't even know it bit anyone.

Retread: That pamphlet deals only with GAO's relationship with its meal-provider, Congress. It was first written in 2000 after GAO received its 1/3 cut in personnel. During that time, GAO was being jerked to attention by Congress. That pamphlet is one clear example of GAO trying to make amends with Congress and setting down on paper how it handled requests. What is in there deals only with Congress and GAO, no-one else.

Joel: You added: The directed study and report were in lieu of the legislative prosion not adopted. GAO hates to see mandates that are required by law because they take priority over everything else. The more work required by law, the fewer people can be assigned to anything else. There aren't enough GAO'ers to go around for all requests that arrive. GAO published an item called GAO’s Congressional Protocols. In part, that is published for Congress to explain to individual members why their request will never get done. On p. 8 of the pamphlet, GAO explains its priorities. I quote it below. An NDAA Conference report has precedence over senior congressional leaders. Conference reports, as in the NDAA of 2020, may include mandates beyond what is included in the actual law. They theoretically take priority over something requested by the senior congressional leaders. Take a look at who they are. Let's go back to the 1990s for a moment. In that decade GAO's staff was cut by one-third because one political party took over the Congress from another political party and the winning political party was angry beause it thought that the previous controlling party was getting too much attention from GAO. The current Comptroller General remembers that because he was there. In reality, GAO walks a political tightrope. OK, back to your issue. I don't know how GAO would deal theoretically with a request that appears in a section of a conference report that explains a section of a bill that was defeated in conference. However, to find out, I would send you before the Chairman and Vice Chairman of a powerful committee to explain why you are doing a request that never made it's way out of conference instead of their request which they both believe is of the utmost importance. After you wash their spit and the heat of their breath off your face, you would probably have an answer.

That is one of the legislative provisions not adopted (LPNAs). I noticed there was a lot of verbage about a report. However, it is not associated with a part of the law. The LPNA also requires GAO to report within 6 months. It takes GAO longer than 6 months to get started. There are other late sections of the law that request GAO to report on labor laws.

Joel: Do you know the section?

I thought I remembered one section requiring intellectual property--of some sort--as an evaluation factor. I did a quick scan of the sections and the LPNAs and could not find it. Maybe I was having a nightmare. If you find something like that, please point it out. That seemed an especially bad idea to me. If I find it in the next few days when I do a 100% review, I'll point it out. I do have the wrong title of the Law on one of the pages.

I've added the draft 19th annual Wifcon.com analysis of the National Defense Authorization Act to the Home Page. It is draft because I haven't proofed all the textual mistakes and haven't finished the LPNAs, etc. Also, I haven't checked other parts of the law to see if there are other contracting perfections in the other titles of this wonderful piece of legislation. It's about 80 congressial perfections to defense contracting. Some perfections have perfected other annual perfections, etc. There is something for everone to love in it, I'm sure. Look at the bright side, there are over 30 more near-perfections that didn't make the cut. See the unfinished LPNAs.

I have a small business set-aside

I would not download the FAR or any supplement at all due to the contant changes in the regulations. I would use the Electronic Code of Federal Regulations (e-CFR) You will see in red "current as of December 31, 2019." Let's check a recent change to an agency supplement to see if the e-CFR updates. Go the the Home Page of Wifcon.com in the left column about half-way down. You will notce this change published in the Federal Register: You now know the GSAR has been changed. The hard copy you downloaded a couple of weeks ago, is outdated. If you look at the 12/19/2019 FR, you will see that GSAR Part 536 has been changed. Is the e-CFR current? Let's check. Go back to the e-CFR. Look for GSA. Ah, it is in chaper 5 of the FAR System. Click it. We're looking for Part 536. First mentally bracket Part [5]36 like this. That's to remember we are dealing with the FAR System. Scroll down to Subpart 536.1 and click it. Notice 536.102 xxx. You will see notification of the 12/19/2019 change as a link. Click the link. It shows you the change where it is supposed to be in the GSAR which is part of the FAR System and tells you when it is effective. The DFARS was modified on 12/31/2019 as the Wifcon.com Home Page shows. I am not aware of any more recent change to the FAR System. That is probably why the e-CFR says current as of 12/31/2019. An added advantage of the e-CFR is that it shows latest FR change in brackets at ends of sections. Over the past 2 decades, I've seen the FARsite and acquisition.gov grow to their current forms. I've also seen agencies, who once published their own supplement on their contracting pages, link to the e-CFR as I do. I am quite sure that the e-CFR has a direct link to the FR so it can update immediately. This is the electronic age (and my terminology for this age may be outdated too) and the e-CFR is the best that I've seen on the internet. Nothing compares to it. Everything is at your fingertips according to the FAR system. It's always there with you. You can check it on your desktop, your laptop, your note pad, your phone.

Contractor Team Arrangement (CTA)

This is GAO's rule, repeated over and over during previous decades to justify cancelling a solicitation. There is a difference for IFBs and that is included elsewhere. an agency concludes that a solicitation does not accurately reflect its needs. a lack of funding justified the decision to cancel offeror's protest--and the attendant stay of contract award and performance--caused the agency's requirements to change. the agency reasonably determined that it should cancel the RFP and resolicit after clarifying its tiered evaluation process. when none of the proposals received were evaluated as technically acceptable. The record shows that the agency is considering whether the cleaning and janitorial services required under the soliciation should have be procured from an AbilityOne vendor. the PWS requirements focused only on the functional capabilities of the software, and failed to capture the agency’s needs regarding ease of use. the possibility of increased competition generally provides a reasonable basis for an agency to cancel a solicitation. the record indicates that the agency intends to refine the SOW and the solicitation to increase the likelihood that vendors other than the incumbent can prevail in this competition The agency has demonstrated that the cancellation occurred after the agency identified flaws in the solicitation that reasonably could be expected to limit competition. Because the RFQ failed to state salient characteristics that equal products must meet, VA had reasonable basis to cancel the solicitation. the solicitation did not clearly apprise vendors whether the procurement was being conducted on a sealed bid or negotiated procurement basis. GSA discovered after contract award that the RFP did not include a mandatory DFARS clause requiring the contractor to use a U.S.-flag vessel, and therefore the solicitation did not comply with the requirements of the Cargo Preference Act. the solicitation because the basis of award set forth in the solicitation did not reflect the agency’s intended procurement approach. If an agency cannot purchase at a "fair and reasonable" price, as required by the FAR, then cancellation is warranted. the uncertainty surrounding the future need for the services provided a reasonable basis upon which to cancel the solicitation. Correcting [errors] to allow for a fair and equal competition provides a reasonable basis for canceling the solicitation. an agency's cancellation of a negotiated procurement after receiving proposals where the agency determined that the solicitation overstated the agency's requirements and the agency would seek enhanced competition by relaxing its requirements. [agency's] technical needs have changed, increasing beyond what the contract award would have provided, and that the statement of work (SOW) also no longer reflects the government's needs. The management of an agency's funds generally depends on the agency's judgment concerning which projects and activities should receive increased or reduced funding and a contracting agency has the right to cancel a solicitation when, as a result of its allocation determinations, sufficient funds are not available. Since QSSI's task order was issued under a solicitation that did not accurately reflect the agency's minimum needs, but instead was more restrictive of competition than necessary, and thus may have deterred some firms from competing or submitting a more advantageous quotation, we conclude that HUD properly terminated QSSI’s order. reducing maximum quantities can allow further competition from firms unable to perform at the originally stated quantities, but with the ability to perform at lower quantities. You can probably double the variety of examples by researching here.

Here is an example of an award fee plan. Some things to ponder. 5.3: Award Fee Score. Look at Good and "51 - 75" What do you think about score for good? A more thorough grading scale is provided in Attachment C. Is a good rating consistent with the description provided in Attachment C. 5.1: Performance Areas and Evaluation Criteria. There are 3 areas. The first 2 areas have a weight of 80% of award fee. In those 2 areas, there are 18 subfactors to be evaluated. What do you think of having 18 subfactors for 80 percent of the award fee. Is the effectiveness of the award fee diluted?

Here is an Air Force Award Fee Guide. It looks as though it may have substance. To be effective, the award and base fee must meet the needs of the requirement. It is rare to find a good one.

Each year about this time, I read an editorial by Francis Pharcellus Church that was published in The Sun on September 21, 1897. The editorial is in response to a letter written by eight-year-old Virginia O’Hanlon. Now, this entry is not about the contents of the editorial but I will add my favorite part of the editorial: Mr. Church's prose is beautiful. He died in 1906 and Virgina died in 1971. Check out the brief description of the two in Wikipedia. In her letter to The Sun, Virginia printed her address as 115 W. 95th St. Does it still exist? Yes, see 115 W. 95th St. Between 113 and 117 you will see 115 in the center above the windows. To the left of 115, you will see The Studio School at the entrance. The Studio School is a private, elementary-middle school and was founded in 1971, the year Virginia died. In 2009, The Studio School honored Virginia by attaching a plaque to 115 which you can see on the Google Maps image. What does the placque say? You cannot read it on Google Maps but I've added the contents as the final part of this entry.

You can research by going to FAR 15.206 (e): Cancellation of solicitation.