Jump to content

joel hoffman

Members
  • Posts

    7,051
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Blog Comments posted by joel hoffman

  1. Bob, your article jogged my memory concerning government contracts with ( I think), John Ericsson for Monitor Class ironclads, later during the Civil War. As I recall, the terms were rather draconian in some respects. I think the article was in "the American Heritage of Invention and Technology Magazine that I subscribed to for a long time. After reading your article, I looked up some really interesting stories about Ericsson and the Monitor. Although there are conflicting dates and timeframes involved, the Monitor was built in response to spy leaks from loyalists working in the shipyard that was converting the salvaged hull of the USS Merrimack info the ironclad steamer gunboat CSS Virginia during the summer of 1861. The USS Monitor story is very interesting. The actual construction period was very short, depending upon which source one reads. The design was so radical that the terms of the contract included a clause that essentially required perfect performance or zero pay. But the U.S. was facing probable Naval Blockade disaster that could have allowed the Confederate Navy to directly attack Washington DC. Times were extremely tenuous for the Union during this period...

    Thanks for your article.

  2. Relevancy can be considered in both factors. Check out the DoD two step procedures for evaluating past performance. As part of the first step, the government determines the relevancy of past experience to the instant task or contract scope. In the second step, in evaluation of past performance information, they assess the level of "confidence" that the firm will successfully complete the contract. Past performance on projects with more relevance to the instant project are weighted more than those with less relevance.

    Thus a fantastic baker may not necessarily make a fantastic ship builder in a ship building contract.

    Project experience should still be a separate factor.

  3. Perhaps the most interesting term is one I elected not to use, "procuring contracting officer" (PCO), which appears only once in the FAR (i.e., FAR 3.104-4(d)(1)(I). That makes it one instance out of 5,465. According to FAR 2.101, the correct term is "contracting officer," unless you need to specify either "Administrative contracting officer (ACO)" or "Termination contracting officer (TCO)."

    Procuring Contracting Officer is defined in the DAU Glossary of Defense Acquisition Acronyms and Terms and is used in the DoD Procedures, Guidance and Information in several instances and in numerous Defense Agency supplements or other publications. Without taking the time to research my old DFARS, I'd venture to say that the PGI language was probably in DFARS before they moved it to PGI. (Jan1, 1997 DFARS at 204.201 uses it, for instance).

  4. Bob, thanks for fixing the link I tried to send you a message to let you know but your profile says you cant accept any more messages. At any rate, I wasn't trying to critique, just let you know that the link wasn't working. I figured that something had changed or was broke at the web site.

    Please also note that the link to the Blog on the WIFCON Home Page refers to "A little Christian Doctrine for you", even though the latest article is the above, not the Christian Doctrine. Keep up the good work! Thanks.

  5. Bob, I can't get the link at Thomas F. Neenan, as Trustee of the Thomas F. Neenan, Sr., Revocable Trust, v. U. S., No. 11-733C, August 22, 2013, to work.

    I'm getting the following :

    "Page Not Found

    Sorry! The page you were looking for no longer exists. We redesigned our site and many of the pages have changed.

    Please visit our Website and Technical Issues page for more information on about the United States of Federal Claims website, or use the search box on the left side to locate the webpage that you were linked too."

  6. Bob, WIFCON.com has been my home page since you you volunteered to offer a forum after an old DoD forum site disappeared or notified that it was going to disappear. I check the home page every morning, then my email - sometimes the other way around. But WIFCON has always been the first Internet site I go to. Generally scan the Home page for news and good stuff then hit the Forum button. You have ammassed a wealth of daily news, data and contracting knowledge at WIFCON.com. At this point in my life, WIFCON is the primary and one of only a few sites I still go to. I'm addicted.

    We haven't always agreed on everything. But this is STILL the best site to keep up with federal contracting news and issues. You are fantastic and I thank you from the bottom of my heart. As another 64 year old, I applaud your continued dedication to WIFCON and your self-less service to our Nation. Thanks again, Bob.

  7. vecchia, the Army has been using this pricing scheme for at least 25 years for Job Order Contracting ("JOC" contracts). And JOC contractors have been complaining about it for almost that long. There are some provisions for pricing non-covered work, which contractors have also tried to maximize the use of. In addition, I'm not positive but the contractors often but not always propose the quantities of unit priced work to be performed. You can do a search under "army job order contracting guide". At one site you can view a video that a friend of mine at USACE made back in 1987. It is mostly still applicable today.

    Someone told me last week that one of my old USACE organizations is using a similar method to contract for ID/IQ's for the Air Force, using the Means Estimating Guides instead of the Army's source estimating book. I think that the USAF also uses Means for their SABRE contracts. I didn't look it up this afternoon to verify. Busy...

  8. Bob, I want to say that I really appreciate you and your efforts over the years. You seem to be uniquely qualified and dedicated to develop and maintain this outstanding site. As I have told many folks, if you are involved with federal contracting, this ought to be your Homepage. I know that I have complained to you several times over the years, but I applaud you and appreciate the high quality of the site! Happy Sails! Joel

  9. Don,

    Why not add a subpagraph (iv) to FAR 15.403-4(a)(1) something similar to:

    "?Unless an exception applies, cost or pricing data are required before accomplishing any of the following actions expected to exceed the current threshold or, for existing contracts, the threshold specified in the contract:

    "(iv) The issance of a task or delivery order under an indefinite-delivery, indefinite quantity contract, where the price is negotiated."

    Or better yet, add the clarification to (i):

    "(i) The award of any negotiated contract, including task or delivery orders under indefinite-delivery/indefinite-quantity contracts (except for undefinitized actions such as letter contracts)."

    I realize that the existing language may be based upon the TINA statutory language, but why can't the FAR council add clarifying language, assuming that the courts and boards "commonly understand" that task and delivery orders are considered to be contracts for this specific purpose?

    I dont think that it would be wise to simply directly add task and delivery orders to the definition of a "contract" at 2.101, because there are instances where the base contract already covers or complies with certain FAR requirements applicable to "contracts", that dont have to be repeated each time a task or delivery order is issued.

×
×
  • Create New...