Moderator

As always, this topic is being monitored for violation of forum rules. Specifically, 12. No stalking of another poster. This means do not constantly contest posts by another poster from one thread to another.

On June 19, 2018, the Senate passed H. R. 5515 by deleting the House version and substituting the Senate version plus many amendments. Its on to conference somewhere down the road. H. R. 5515 is the NDAA vehicle. Legislation.

It might help to define IFF. I'm guessing it is Industrial Funding Fee. See the following Forum Rule: 16. Abbreviations are to be kept to a minimum--preferably none at all--so that others can interpret a post and respond to it intelligently. You only need to post it like this the first time you use it: Industrial Funding Fee (IFF). That should help getting responses.

Here is another successive bid protest with GAO and 2 Courts. First protest to GAO about 2015, corrective action, protester sent a letter to COFC about its intent to file a protest, agency revised its corrective action, protester dropped its intent, protester filed a 2nd protest to GAO, agency cancelled RFQ, 3rd protest to GAO, protest to COFC in 2016, appeal to CAFC by the government over fees in 2018. 5 trips to a protest forum or 6 trips if you count the fee opinion in COFC. See Starry Associates, Inc.. v. U. S., and Intellizant, LLC, No. 2017-2148, June 22, 2018. I'm listing these successive protests here while I decide what I want to do with them and for those interested.

Here is another successive protest. First protest to GAO in 2015, a corrective action, agency issued a new solicitation a year later in 2016, 2nd protest to GAO in 2017, and now a protest COFC in 2018. See Trans Digital Technologies, LLC.

Here is a article from Journalist's Resource you might find interesting. The cost of the study is $40.

Pepe: Your comments were deleted because they are inconsistent with this forum. However, I didn't feel they required your immediate banishment. Leave it at that. If the 8(a) program is race-based, try it in court. If you are correct, you can make it temporary and then end it. Don't just whine about it. Vern was correct in his appraisal of your knowledge of this issue. This is not a private forum. It is private property but it is open to all who have contracting experience and who abide by its rules.

I hid some language in some posts and hid other posts altogether. However, I did not ban anyone. There are studies on the internet that will either support or not support just about any program in Part 19 of the FAR. If you want to discus these programs, use one of the studies based on factual data to support your case. Don't use your opinons or gut feelings. On 6/16/18, I revisited the posts in this forum. I made more deletions. I anticipate making more.

Vern posted Big Is Beautiful: Debunking the Myth of Small Business, by Robert D. Atkinson and Michael Lind to begin this topic. I thought it would be opinion-based but I think it may be supported by facts. One of the authors is President of the Information Technology and Innovation Foundation. The author has made the book circuit and lists reviews and interviews on the linked page that add information. I found an interview interesting.

Anytime we stray into this area, I must review the discussion word for word as a matter of policy. I will do that at a future date. I am not claiming that anyone wrote anything improper but I will say that my version of strict scrutiny makes the SCOTUS or any other court look like kittens.

There was a discussion dealing with SBA and the FAR from the past. It might be useful hre. FAR trumps SBA Regs? I forgot to add that the discussion was from 2009 when this discussion software used a wacky editor that added its own preferred punctuation. There may be a fairly recent--and important--SCOTUS decision that touches on an agency's regulation too. I cannot think of it at the moment but I posted it here somewhere.

S.2987, the John S. McCain National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2019 was reported out of committee with a written report last week. The report explains the Senate provisions in Title VIII. There are plenty of provisions in Title VIII so I expect the House version will go through changes when this thing is finally passed.

I would not use the memo that the previous poster linked because it is dated June 5. The memo I linked on June 5 for June 6 is now dated June 7. I would use the June 7 memo on the Home Page of this site because there may have been an edit by the issuer.

What does your firm's employment agreeement with its employees say in the area of confidentiality?

This is the NDAA for FY 2019 that was reported out of the HASC.

On May 9 and 10, the House Committee on Armed Services held a markup of its version of the NDAA for FY 2019, H. R. 5515. Below is a blurb from the Chairman's Mark Summary. As you can see, there is a mention of 1947. That is the date of the Armed Services Procurement Act of 1947. To get a sense of what the full Committee reported to the House, you can use the Chairman's Mark and go to p. 110 (numbers on bottom of pages). Look at items listed in the "800" sections. There were some relatively small perfections proposed to the bill by the full committee. They are listed as amendments below. Amendments: Full Committee En Bloc Package #1. Full Committee En Bloc Package #2. Full Committee En Bloc Package #4. Full Committee En Bloc Package #6. Once the bill is debated in the House, its free-for-all starts. This is the beginning stages for the new DoD contracting provisions. The bill, as it was officially reported out of the Committee, will be available in a week or two, or less.

Yesterday, I noticed another two-timing protest at GAO--Pinnacle Solutions, Inc.--so we may have another three-timer soon if they protest to COFC. The top note here is about Pinnacle Solutions, Inc.. I didn't look to see if the protests were related.

I forgot to post another successive protest case this weekend. It is a little different that earlier ones, in that, the original GAO protest was from 2 unnamed protesters whie the 2nd GAO protest and the COFC protest was from Technik. Details are below and the COFC case is Technik Inc. v. U. S. and VSolvit LLC. January 12, 2017 - RFQ issued, Summer 2017 - first GAO protest from 2 unsuccessful offerors, GSA took voluntary corrective action and canceled award to Technik, GAO dismissed protest August 30, 2017 - GSA issued second RFQ, December 7, 2017 - GSA awarded second RFQ to VSolvit December 15, 2017 - Technik protested to GAO, March 22, 2018 - GAO denied Technik protest, April 6, 2018 - Technik protest to COFC April 20, 2018 - COFC denied Technik protest

Vern: OK, you've got me started. I believe all contracting law needs to be rewritten and converted to congressional objectives and goals. What does Congress want from contracting. I already wrote a blog entry somewhere about it and I suggested creating new Senate and House committees to do it. Specifics can be written by the FAR Councils--OFPP is an MIA. The Fools on the Hill are too ignorant to participate in the specifics of contracting. Congress can maintain oversight of its goals and objectives for contracting by holding hearings. When we get to agency contracting, every requesting activity (program) must show how their requirement relates directly to their program's goals and objectives as they are stated in their strategic and annual plans. That of course should be tied into the agency's budget supported by the agency's annual report. There was a member here from Rocky Flats who was able to tie DOE's clean-up activites at Rocky Flats directly into the various clean-up plans.

Vern: I was just yapping about congressional intent a bit because Jamaal asked a question. I remember that I was on the steps at Rock Island Arsenal leading to the contracting office when I was told that Congress passed the bill that would become P. L. 95-507.

Vern: Within it at Chapter 2, Section 211 that amends 8(d), 92 STAT. 1767. The Small Business Subcontracting Program. That came from the Manadatory Small Business Subcontracting Test managed by OFPP in accordance with the COGP recommendation. I was looking for CICA last night and it was in The Deficit Reduction Act of 1984. I have to go now.

Jamaal said: Years ago, when P. L. 95-507 was born, I asked a small business committee staffer about the congressional intent of the law. He laughed and explained there was no intent, no one knew what was voted on. (BTW, 95-507 was based on a mandatory small business test recommended by the COGP) However, in December 1972, the Commission on Government Procurement (COGP) issued its report. Congress rerquired GAO to follow-up on the acceptance of the COGP recommendations, arguably, the best study on government contracting. GAO did that for years when it finally got Congress to let them end its following-up. Many of the changes for the next 20 years had a basis in the COGP report. That is why I stress the importance of procurement history. I did a complete legislative history on CICA in the 1980s. I remember CICA bills starting in the late 1970s being sponsored by Senator Lawton Chiles, from Florida. CICA became law in 1984. I probably looked for why the blurb about consideration of sealed bidding was done but nothing sticks out in my memory. Recommendation 3 of the COGP is in the quote box below. That probably explains it as well as anything. Just remember the times and Formal Advertising = Selaed Bidding. I found a Naval Postgraduate School paper that might be of some value--I may skim it this weekend and see if he knew what he was writing about.

Jamaal: Does your agency buy items using detailed government specifications?

Vern: Unfortunately, that is never going to happen as long as politicians write the laws. How can we disagree? CICA is now over 30 years old. You voted to keep the absurd hoop jump created by Congress to get to negotiations and that is how your vote is recorded.

Both Civilian and Defense agencies are required by the Competition in Contracting Act to consider the sealed bidding method of contracting before using the negotiation method of contracting. These provisions using the word shall are below: 41 USC 3301(b) (1) (A) 10 USC 2304 (b) (1) (A) This requirement is fulfilled in FAR Part 6.401(a) as: Since CICA requires consideration of sealed bidding before you use negotiation, your contract file should show that you considered sealed bidding, if you are using negotiation. If your contract file does not show you considered sealed bidding, this may open your procurement to a bid protest for failing to follow CICA. This question is simple, do you want CICA to be amended so that sealed bidding and negotiation are placed on an equal footing and there is no required consideration of sealed bidding before you use negotiation. Such a change in law might look like this: This change would remove the historical preference/consideration for advertising/formal advertising/sealed bidding and simply state that they are both acceptable and the contracting officer should decide which method to use. I will not vote on this poll.