Moderator

This topic was closed, modified, and an account deleted. The account was deleted because it was created and used as a bogus multi-user account. The rule on the Wifcon.com Forum is: one account, one individual user. I will be adding that to the list of rules later today.

Years ago, I posted something like this as the first rule of the original forum. "1. No personal attacks on another individual user. Personal attacks DO NOT include a disagreement with another poster's views. Users understand that professional disagreement and professional argument are a part of the learning process. Personal attacks include such things as calling a poster ignorant, unprofessional, etc. These posts will be removed as soon as they are seen." ************ Early in this thread there was a disagreement between two posters. I'm sure everyone learned something from the posts that passed between them. Its a nice way to handle a disagreement. A little later, one poster told another that his position was wrong. Saying someone is wrong is a direct way of communicating. In my view, there is nothing abusive about telling one that they are wrong. Of course, if someone said I am wrong, and I believe I'm correct, I am going to defend my position with facts, figures, examples, precedent, laws, etc. If I cannot, I probably am wrong. I'm not satisfied that this thread is complete so I will reopen it. If I get the gist of the current argument, one position is that a Requirement under a program that has been abolished by law cannot be aquired under an IDIQ contract that currently exists. I find that appealing but show me the proof. The other position is that the original IDIQ contract can be used. I find that appealing too but show me an example of a program that was killed by law and an existing IDIQ contract was used to buy things under the program. Now, if I have the gist of it wrong, remember, I'm just a retired dumb auditor. Plus, its after midnight.

When I posted that, I read the article to see whether it was a contractor or employee. Here is what I saw from the article: "The indictment alleges that at the time of the stabbing, Brehm was working as a contractor for DynCorp International LLC, a U.S. Army contractor in Afghanistan." Since the article did not say that the stabber was an employee, I assumed he was an individual contractor. Maybe I should have put subcontractor but that is not what is in the article.

The Ike Skelton National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2011 was pushed through the 111th Congress at its very end--on December 22, 2010. In January 2011, a document appeared on the Library of Congress website entitled: "Joint Explanatory Statement of the Senate and House Committees on Armed Services on H.R. 6523." This document is a good roadmap for Ike's Law. It has been added to the Wifcon.com analysis of the law's sections and additional explanatory information added. You can see it here.

Section 865 provides an example of how a defense authorization act can affect all federal agencies covered under the FAR. As you can see, the following excerpt from Section 865 directs the Secretary of Defense to evaluate the FAR--consulting with the Administrator of OFPP. It is up to the Secretary to "consult" other agencies he considers "appropriate." I assume it is written this way to work around any jurisdictional issue of the defense committees. "The Secretary of Defense, in consultation with the Administrator for Federal Procurement Policy and the heads of such other Federal agencies as the Secretary considers appropriate, shall review the Federal Acquisition Regulation and the Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement to ensure that such regulations include appropriate guidance for and references to services acquisition that are in addition to references provided in part 37 and the Defense Supplement to part 37." Remember, the House changed leadership. That filters down to any Committee and Subcommittee. When leadership of a Committee or Subcommittee occurs, the former majority staff, who may know what the legislation meant, are usually purged in the changeover and sent scurrying for a job. The former minority staff, some of whom are the new majority staff, might be able to help but they probably will be cautious. If any part of ISNDAA is unclear as what to do, well, good luck.

It is H. R. 6523, the Ike Skelton National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2011. Congress thought so much of it that it finished the bill in about 7 days. It is at the White House waiting for a signature. A major part of the bill is the Improve Acquisition Act which includes several sections on the Defense Acquisition Workforce. Also, there is at least one provision that will affect the Federal Acquisition Regulation. Since there is no explanation for the bill from Congress in the form of a report, it is set up on Wifcon.com a bit differently from past years. To understand this legislation, I explained how it is set up here. Here are the contents.

It will be on Wifcon.com by January 3, 2011, at the latest.

There is an area under the protests page that might be useful. http://www.wifcon.com/pdcg21_8e.htm Or you can look at the subjects yourself. http://www.wifcon.com/pdbyforum.htm

Those That Mattered by Barbara Angle. By a friend I haven't seen in over 30 years.

I posted a GAO report on this topic on the Home Page. I thought someone might find worth commenting. The title is: Defense Contracting: Enhanced Training Could Strengthen DOD's Best Value Tradeoff Decisions.

I'm always reading about a new contracting requirement. One example of waste is the collection of data from contractors and suppliers that is not used. I know there are a lot of dumb, wasteful, or junk requirements out there--and you deal with some of it every day. Let's see if we can identify several items that are either worthless or near worthless but they are done because it is the rule.

Another rush job through Congress before recess. Please see the post at Wifcon Blog.

Wow. Over 10 years. I've been at this for over 12 years. Next July, this site will be a teenager.

Any kind of information that you search for in regard to contracting. I'm trying to improve the small business page and make it more relevant. Thanks.

To small, minority, women-owned, veteran businesses, etc.; in regard to contracting; what type of information do you search for on the internet? Thanks.

Parity is now a done deal. The bill became law today. See Parity Is Here.

This one caught me by surprise. I am still searching for when the small business contracting subtitle was added but I believe it was done in the Senate during the last 10 days--in a hurry. Without looking at it closely, I assume it was a wishlist of items. Because of politics, this bill was moving quickly and was sure to pass. As a result, it was decorated with various items. The defense authorization bill, where it would normally end up, has been delayed and/or endangered because of politics.

Parity is almost here. See Section 1347 of H. R. 5297.

Posted for lkinser: "Would like to know if a RFQ goes out Open Market and the quotes all reference a GSA Contract for services but Open Market for equipment how should this be handled? The RFQ went out GSA with no quotes to start with."

I hope John found it on wifcon.com. Its been here since last October. http://www.wifcon.com/dodauth10/dod10_lpna.htm#smallbusiness

Vern: I feel for you. Fortunately, I have none of those distractions here.

rdy2retire: Over the years, I had the GAO liaison at agencies pull contract contract files out of storage. So, there is life for contract files after closeout.

It does. I don't have it used based on experience.

I am adding this for Albrightken I am new to contracting and have been assigned a case study. The case deals with a $3 million FP supply contract. The contract has been delegated to DCMA. The COR is now reporting nonconforming items, and deliverary times. What are my options, if any?

Posted for vmatthews Question on the SF 30, block 3, how does effective date relate to funding of supplemental agreements? On the reverse of the SF 30, it states that "for a supplemental agreement, the effective date shall be the date agreed to by the contracting parties." I have researched the issue of available funding and effective date, but I can't find any discussion. For example, the supplement agreement adds $10,000. During January, the contracting office received certified funding of $8,500 Block 3, effective date is 1 Feb. The remaining funds are received on 10 Feb, the contractor signs the mod on 10 Feb and the contracting officer signs the mod on 11 Feb. Question: For a supplemental agreement that adds funds to the contract, when should all funding be certified? On or before the effective date or before the contracting officer signs the mod?