Moderator

SR-71C “Blackbird” OK, it does have a nickname that I won't mention here. Now, the next and final question is where can you find 2 CIA spy planes resting next to an Air Force reconnaissance plane.

Have you visited the Lockheed SR-71C? It is a one-of-a-kind-airplane and it exists in one place. If you have visited it, please explain what it is. I know what it is and where it is at. I want to see if one of our Members has seen it in person and knows why it is unique.

I visited the OFPP site today and found the following letter from the Director, Office of Management and Budget (OMB): Letter transmitting the FY 2020 Proposals to Streamline and Improve the Agility and Efficiency of Federal Acquisition Processes. It is addressed to the Senate some of it might appears in the S. 1790 - National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2020 or even H. R. 2500 - National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2020 The OMB proposal was dated April 30, 2019.

Originally posted by Daisy DuBose: I am preparing a solicitation with four year option. There are two types of funding associated with each CLIN. There are 4 CLINs. How do I set up the CLINs and Sub-Clins for the base and the 4 option years? This is what I have, but I am not sure it is correct. Base year CLIN 00001 0001AA 0001AB 00002 0002AA 0002AB 00003 0003AA 0003AB 00004 0004AA 0004AB Option Year 1 00005 0005AA 0005AB 00006 0006AA 0006AB 00007 0007AA 0007AB 00008 0008AA 0008AB I proceeded with the remaining option years the same as above. Is this correct? Daisy DuBose

This is a 3-year old topic that should have been locked. I don't know how it was left open. I'll figure something out. It is now locked.

I received this from the OP yesterday. It was sent to a Wifcon e-mail account and provides a little more information.

formerfed: The case goes back to the COFC because The COFC is stuck with that. Then the Circuit Court added the above italicized words for CMS. However, the Circuit Court noted 41 U.S.C. § 3303(a)(2) which reads After the COFC sustains the protest, CMS may try to exclude a source but will have to figure out how to exclude a source and comply with 41 U.S.C. § 3303(a)(2). Then there is the D & F. The Circuit Court talked about why CMS may not have gone that route saying CMS will have to figure it out. Let's assume CMS does figure it out and complies with CICA and the FAR, the Circuit Court added this little zinger After CMS follows the proper procuedures NGS can take on how the workload caps are structured in a future protest. What's the moral of this story? Starting and doing something is hard, Second-guessing is much easier, but Measure your second-guessing by your rank in the hierarchy of second-guessers. In the second-guessing hierarchy in which the Federal Circuit exists, they have only one higer-ranked second-guesser. They took full advantage of their status among second-guessers and took this procurement apart.

My original idea for to look for a conflict between the MAC Statute and CICA that the Department of Justice could use in any appeal to the U. S. Supreme Court. That was dashed by the following agreement--I guess. No back-up plan. I have a date with my dentist who is going to maul one of my teeth so I'm short of time. You have to read the Federal Circuit's opinion. I think it may be saying that the CAPS policy's relative importance was not disclosed in the solicitation. I think the Circuit is also concerned with the exception to full and open used and if one can be used. Read pages 19 and 20. The Claims Court is going to have a good time with this. Rarely does a plaintiff's argument force me to see its attorney. This one did. It's off to the dentist now and the cruel and unusual treatment I anticipate.

Last night, I read a Crowell & Moring LLP entry entitled: Federal Circuit Clarifies Meaning of “Full and Open,” Limits on Government Ability to Manipulate the Competitive Marketplace, and Contours of FAR Part 6. Because of the title, I searched and found the 3 decision of the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, the Court of Federal Claims, and GAO. I copied a highlight from each decision and placed it in a quote box. I thought this might be of some value to you. In the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. National Government Services, Inc. (“NGS”) v. United States (Reversed and Remanded to the Court of Federal Claims) (5/2/19) (p, 24) National Government Services, Inc. at Court Of Federal Claims (pps. 27, 29, 35) Denied (5/8/18) National Government Services, Inc. at GAO Denied (1/29/18)

In questioning the feasibility of a due date for an RFQ, I was reworking the process in my head and deciding what it should look and work like. In that mode, I don't concern myself with the existence of government forms, regulations, or laws. They can all be changed. I realize that is beyond the original posters (OP) intent but the sloppiness of the procurement and GAO's decisions upset me.

I'm still sorting this out in my mind. At present, I'm on the side of accepting due dates for receipt of quotations. However, I may change my mind. Below are two blurbs from GAO decisions which also trouble me. OK GAO, what is the standard? Apparently "requesting" is not strong enough but "must" is. OK, but it could be used as a procurement rule that GAO may pull out of its bag of precedents sometime in the future. If you look at the second case that I used in my post (Advanced Decisions Vectors, Inc. B-412307: Jan 11, 2016,) you will see that the agency warned quoters 3 times aboiut a due date for quotes. That wasn't enough for GAO's attorneys, they decided to support this by using the wrong clause in an effort to make their position stronger. Using the wrong clause with all its citations to offers and offeror in a decision dealing with an RFQ is shoddy workmanship. In government contracting, we all should recognize key words, their meaning, and their differences. When you hear the word bid versus proposal, it means something. When you hear the acronym IFB versus RFP, it means something. When you hear the word shall versus may, it means something, and when you hear the word quote versus offer, it means something. Using the wrong terminology can cost the government money.

I've been troubled with this topic--not the responses by any member. Assume that the agency intended this to be an RFQ. Then why is FAR clause 52.212-1 in this solicitation with all the references to offer and offeror? I shave my head so I can't pull my hair out. Forget that any possible protest is late for now. Earlier this week, I viewed this page in the protest section of Wifcon.com and found this: You will find something similar near this blurb on that same page but I didn't look further. I focused on the expressly providing part of the first quote I highlighted and wondered what that meant. Then I went back to this topic and read the original post with the reference to the wrong clause for this procurement. I did a search at GAO using RFQ and wrong clause. Voila. This popped out first. FAR clause 52.212-1(f)(2)(i). (emphasis provided) Advanced Decisions Vectors, Inc. B-412307: Jan 11, 2016 (I did not correct the font in the quoted text above because GAO had it indented and I didn't want to indent it myself. So you may have to squint to read it.) OK GAO. Three times in the first paragraph of the quoted text above is enough for me to accept that it is expressly providing. We need a hybrid where an aspect of a quote uses offer rules and I am the correct person to come up with a new term for such a hybrid quote/offer. It is Quofer! That's better than contracting mongrel. I'm thinking about a defintion in FAR Pat 2 and sending it to the FAR Councils. Now we move to the second part of the quote. GAO quotes FAR Clause 52.212-1 since it was in the quofer. Doh, GAO.

I noticed a memorandum from OFPP today. I added it on the Home Page and I am adding it here because it is nearly a month old. It is "Myth-Busting #4" - Strengthening Engagement with Industry Partners through Innovative Business Practices.

Recently, I've noticed that posts are made hours before a member is approved. In short, you may have successfully posted to the forum before you are approved. It just won't appear until you are approved. I approve each request for membership at different times during the day.

On May 1, 2019, H. R.2450 - Military Base Operations and Infrastructure Innovative Management Act, was introduced. I read it twice and did not notice any restrictions--yet--on contracting to accomplish the goals of such a demonstration program. In fact, the stated purpose of the bill includes testing the feasibility and benefits of using innovative technologies and systems. We have many contracting members that are involved in base operations around the world. The 2 sponsors of the bill are mid-ranking members of the House Defense Appropriations committee. I have no idea if either of them can influence the House Defense Authorizing committee and I saw no companion bill in the Senate. Assuming that this bill can attach itself to the annual National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) and it is interpreted as including contracting, can you figure out a way you can use it to solve a problem in base operations contracting? I updated the Legislation page and remember adding some bills that may interest you. H. R. 2500 is just a placeholder at this point. I think the Buy American revisions may make their way into the NDAA this year because there are both bills in the House and Senate.

I've been reading some discussions from the Contracting Workforce Forum. As some of you know, I abhor the use of management phrases like "cool kids organizations." What the hell is a "cool kids organization?" Is it an excuse for something? I spent my working career listenting to the latest meaningless phrases like that. I was around when the words Human Capital became popular. The words Human Resource preceded it. If you look at the definition for capital and resource, you will see they are much the same. Perhaps it is my own personal perception but I always hated the thought of being considered an inanimate object by some stiff holding a management position. Why not get rid of the words capital and resource and just treat each other as human? That leads me to a story about a so-called manager--think Senior Executive Service--who clearly had risen beyond his abilities within an organizaion and one of his unfortunate underlings. The manager wanted to fire the underling because the manager claimed that the underling lacked any initiative. Oh, how things can go so wrong for an incompetent manager. I remember the manager's face as having a permanent scowl and marching around looking like that. He must have been permanently constipated. No one wanted to work for the manager because he was an asshole and he screamed at people. All I can remember about the underling is that he reminded me of one of the Mario Brothers because of his mustache. One morning, the underling was standing on a crowded subway platform waiting for a train. The signal showed that the train was approaching the platform when a woman fell onto the track. To save the woman on the track, someone had to quickly jump down onto the track--avoid electrocution by the 3rd rail--and lift the woman to the platform. There was no time to hesitate. Only one person jumped onto the tracks that morning to save the woman. He didn't have time to think about what to do, he didn't have time to change into a Superman outfit, he just did it within seconds. The moment that he saved the woman and climbed back onto the platform, the underling was hailed as a hero. I can still see the newspaper article in my mind describing the hero's actions. How do you fire a hero because he lacked initiative? You don't. You pull the paperwork that the manager was planning to use to fire the underling and you make sure it never finds the light of day. And, that's what happened. Years later on the day I retired, I remember seeing the hero in the GAO lobby. He still had that mustache. The manager went no futher in GAO and was no longer there. So what's the moral of this story? Its obvious. You'll figure it out.

Thank you.

I've updated it through FAC 2019-2. of this week here. .

I have to update them.

I posted the new Circular to the Home Page.

You can contact members in private by going to the upper right of this page and looking at the letter icon. That is the messenger. It goes between those involved in the message. One caveat. The person you have a private message with may be an interested party. You may want to get a feel if the party is involved in the procurement by asking some questions of him/her.

I will keep the thread open for a week after the orignal poster's second post. On Monday, I will close it unless there is a response to the questions.

here_2_help: I think I may have found a solution by using a different government service. If so, I think I can begin updating them this weekend. When dealing with the federal government, one must know "the workaround." If I can, I will deal with it.

BigBob and rsherbondy appear to be the same poster.

In past years, updates to the Legislation Page were posted to the Home Page on nearly every Monday. However, that is when the Government Printing Office (GPO) and Congress.gov updated legislation in about 2 or 3 days after the legislation was introduced. That has changed dramatically. Currently, GPO and Congress.gov now update legislation 2 weeks or more after it is introduced. To counter the agencies' tardiness, I tried to find online Press Releases issued by the sponsors of the legislation that explains the legislation. However, the Press Releases have dried up. As a result, I still update the Legislation page every 2 weeks but don't post that it has been updated because I never know if and when the GPO and Congress.gov will update the legislation.