|
|
 |
|
Moderator
-
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by Moderator
-
-
Court's Conclusion:
QuoteThe Court DECLARES that Defendants' use of the rebuttable presumption violates Ultima's Fifth Amendment right to equal protection of the law.
SBA Releases Interim Guidance to 8(a) Program Participants in Light of Ultima Servs. Corp. v. Dep’t of Ag. ruling.
-
I've noticed that posters believe it is easier to add raw links to posts instead of descriptive links. Take a look.
FAR 13.004 Legal effect of quotations. or https://www.acquisition.gov/far/part-13#FAR_13_004.
To add a link all you have to do is add the text 13.004 Legal effect of quotations Highlight the text with your cursor, dump the text into your post, click the "link" icon, dump the https info into the space, and save.
-
Below is Rule 16.
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.
QuoteThe Procurement Integrated Enterprise Environment (PIEE) is the primary enterprise procure-to-pay (P2P) application for the Department of Defense and its supporting agencies and is trusted by companies reporting over $7.1 billion in spending.
QuoteClause Logic Service (CLS)
CLS is a web-based service that maintains a centralized repository of all FAR and DFARS provisions and clauses that is able to interface with any contract writing system (CWS) or be directly accessed by a user via PIEE. The use of CLS simplifies the contracting officer’s and contract specialist’s clause selection process through a series of questions and answers with hyperlinks to all the related prescriptions.
I've read the Original Post again and it may be that the Procurement Integrated Enterprise Environment (PIEE) and/or the Clause Logic System (CLS) might have a glitch in it.
-
It looks like the OP got lost. This violates Rule 17!
17. Original posters must not disappear after they post a question. Disappearing makes it impossible to provide clarifications of the original post so that others may respond intelligently. It is normal for the original poster to be asked for clarification.
I will lock the Topic shortly.
-
-
Title 15, Chapter 15A, 637(d)( 8 ) states
"The provisions of paragraphs (4), (5), and (6) shall not apply to offerors or bidders who are small business concerns." (4), (5), and (6) are the requirements of P. L 95-507's small business subcontracting program.
Let's see if this link works . It works. You just have to scroll down.
The purpose of a subcontracting plan is to get money into the pockets of small businesses. Since a small business prime is small, why would anyone think that the small business needed a small business plan. It's idiocy.
-
On August 10, 2023, I posted a very large (812 pages) final Davis-Bacon Act regulations. The Department of Labor (DOL) posted it in draft format to their site on 8/8/23. You saw the draft format. When DOL does that, usually they publish it in the Federal Register the same day. I searched the Federal Register back a few days and could not find it. I posted the draft version in case I missed something.
Why the DOL pulls this nonsense, I don't know. Tonight, the Federal Register notes that it will be published on 8/23/2023. If it is published on that date, the 60-day effective date goes into effect.
-
-
Go to the second line from the top here and click "Blogs." You will find 5 blogs from 5 of the top contracting law firms in the United States.
Every day view the Wifcon.com Home Page. You will find all the FAR and DFARS changes that are published that day. You will also find Agency Supplemets to the FAR System when they are published. It has been for 25 years and still is the fastest way to find those changes.
-
-
I don't know but I searched for Unmanned and Small Combatants and found this. Check the Executive Director.
-
The item is from the Navy site. #2 is the way the Navy explained it in the first paragraph of the article which gives the reader some hope. When the Navy wrote the heading of the article it used an abridged version that wasn't as bad as #1. I thought the writer of the article did a decent job of explaining as well as he/she could.
PEO is the only acronym that I recognized.
-
Try this one on:
#1
QuoteThe (PEO USC) announced that the (RCIED) (JCREW) (I1B1) program has achieved full operational capability ahead of schedule.
Maybe this makes some sense:
#2
QuoteThe Program Executive Office for Unmanned and Small Combatants (PEO USC) announced that the Joint Counter Radio-Controlled Improvised Explosive Device (RCIED) Electronic Warfare (JCREW) Increment One Block One (I1B1) program has achieved full operational capability ahead of schedule.
-
Since I visit many sites every night, I've seen this quite a bit from every Administration -- Democrat or Republican-- over the past 25 years. I cannot amend an agency Press Release and that is one of them. Last night, I visited a site that I usually use but couldn't use the entry because it was blaming the Republican Party for something or other--and that was a non-government site. I make judgements on whether content outweighs the political nonsense every night. It's frustrating and it takes me longer to get done.
In the questioned news release, I decided that the statistics outweighed the "Biden-Harris Administration" wording. SBA does it a lot, probably more than others. So, when you see an agency press release like that, you can be assured that I saw it before you and made a judgement that the content outweighed the political baloney. In other cases, you won't see an article, because I judged it offensive to a political Party.
-
I am writing a series of blog entries on my 3 Months in Huntsville, Alabama helping to review the source selection for the Space Shuttle's Solid Rocket Motors. I have finished Part 3 entitled Lockheed Propulsion Company, Thiokol Corporation, B-173677, June 24, 1974 - Part 3: Selling the Program. I should be done Part 4 in a week or two -- depending on how much anger I can hold back while I write Part 4. When you read the excerpt I took from the RFP, you should have an idea of where I am going with it. That requirement will be a highlight of Part 4.
I'm not asking you to read the article so it gets views. I'm asking you to read Part 3 and then Part 4 - when its done -- to get you angry and try to prevent it from ever happening again.
-
-
Years and years ago there were 3 central suppliers. In the 1990s or thereabouts, Congress had an idea to perfect federal contracting further and allow GWACS, MACS, and anything else that rhymes with quacks. Congress also allowed additional agencies to act as central suppIiers. I complained about it on this forum and my complaints are in the Forum archives. The protest below is an example of Congressional contracting perfection. Note the B-numbers.
-
-
I am attaching this OFPP Directive on interagency acquisitions for further use. The title is Development, Review and Approval of Business Cases for Certain Interagency and Agency-Specific Acquisitions.
-
For FY 2022, the Congressional Budget Office said that the U. S. spent:
Quote"In fiscal year (FY) 2022, the government spent $6.27 trillion . . ."
Iif we project the same amount in FY 2023, then NIH's annual contract amounts of $2 trillion under that procurement would cover 32 percent of the amount that the U. S. spent for everything and more than the discretionary money for FY 2023. CBO defines discretionary funding as
QuoteDiscretionary spending is determined by the President and Congress each year in the budget and appropriations process and includes spending for most defense, education, and transportation programs.
With those contracts NIH could cover the entire discretionay funding for FY 2023. "An electronic chcken in every pot." That makes me feel warm and fuzzy.
-
Quote
The solicitation states that the agency will award approximately 305 to 510 IDIQ contracts
Why 305 to 510 awarded contracts? I haven't checked any previous procurement but I expect a lot less than that number of contractors ever getting work to do.
QuoteEach awarded contract will have a maximum ordering value of $50 billion. Id. at 50.
I admit my math could be better. However, 305 to 510 contracts with orders of $50 billion could exceed $20 trillion. Who's kidding who?
Now, for a true story. A contracting agency had about 6 IDIQ contracts with maximum order limits of $50 million each. One contractor was going to exceed the $50 million limit because it received most of the awards. The other 5 contractors received next to nothing. The contracting agency believed that increasing the maximum order limit for the one contractor would be improper and get the other contractors to take legal action. What to do? All 6 contractors had their original contracts maximum increased to $50 million even those who never received any business. That reminded me of the $50 billion number.
-
-
Quote
The RFP anticipates the award of multiple contracts, each of which will have a base period of performance of 5 years and one 5-year option. RFP at 38. The solicitation states that the agency will award approximately 305 to 510 IDIQ contracts, including as relevant here, 20 to 40 contracts to 8(a) small businesses. Id. at 143. Each awarded contract will have a maximum ordering value of $50 billion. Id. at 50.
400 contracts x $50,000,000,000 (billion) = $20,000,000,000,000 (trillion)
I've never been great at math but I estimated the number of contracts at 400 with a maximum of $50 billion. Possible 10 years = $2 trillion a year. Is my math correct? Does the solicitation state that all contracts awarded could be worth $20 trillion?
-
Keeping the GAO Protest Unit busy with 311 protests under Solicitation 75N98121R00001 Department of Health and Human Services, National Institutes of Health Chief Information Officer-Solutions and Partners (CIO-SP4).
Notice the GAO's protest number under Infotrend Inc., B-419956.301, May 11, 2023.
QuoteNIH issued the solicitation on May 25, 2021, seeking proposals to provide IT solutions and services in the areas of health, biomedical, scientific, administrative, operational, managerial, and information systems requirements. Req. for Dismissal (RFD) at 2; RFD, exh. 1, RFP at 7. 2 The purpose of the CIO-SP4 contracts is to “provide government agencies a mechanism for quick ordering of IT solutions and services at fair and reasonable prices, to give qualified small businesses a greater opportunity to participate in these requirements, and give government agencies a mechanism to help meet their socio-economic contracting goals.” Id. at 7.
The RFP anticipates the award of multiple contracts, each of which will have a base period of performance of 5 years and one 5-year option. RFP at 38. The solicitation states that the agency will award approximately 305 to 510 IDIQ contracts, including as relevant here, 20 to 40 contracts to 8(a) small businesses. Id. at 143. Each awarded contract will have a maximum ordering value of $50 billion. Id. at 50.
The Kace Company, LLC, v. U. S. and Cellebrite, Inc., No. 23-387C, August 23, 2023.
in Proposed Law & Regulations; Legal Decisions
See The Kace Company, LLC, v. U. S. and Cellebrite, Inc., No. 23-387C, August 23, 2023.