C Culham

Do some homework and maybe these thoughts can help with legal. In the end 22.404-9 provides for an "or" so you might not win legal over but........ First, does the new determination even increase the SCA required wage and if so have you determined that it would in turn increase the GSA MAS hourly rates for the contractor that was awarded? By example if the GSA MAS rate is already above the previous determination and the new determination then are you sure adding it would suggest an equitable adjustment? Just becasue the SCA goes up or down does not suggest that the contractors proposed rates have to especially for higher SCA is their labor rates are already higher. Have you discussed the issue with the contractor? Has the contractor told you their pricing does not comply with the most current SCA determination noting that they are a GSA MAS contractor and should have considered. Bolstered by the post by ricroy that the right "refresh" may be in the parent GSA MAS. Likewise remember compliance with SCA is the contractors responsibility so for a sophisticated GSA MAS contractor, again their pricing may have considered being compliant with SCA and what is most current. Finally, and again in consideration that the competition was with regard to a GSA MAS has legal considered the parent GSA MAS, the refresh, the responsibility of a contractor to comply. All the above also revolving around when was "notice" of the new wage determination? My personal view is that an order under a GSA MAS competition presents a different landscape regarding "violate the competition" than what I will call full and open competiton and depending on how the above sorts out I could see where one could modify the contract and I could also see where one would not. As to viloate the c ompetion

The debate will be if AI is it a change of revitalization based on new standards how things are being done or something regressive. My hope is, with the caveat of waiting to see what the changes are, they are good but the test will be putting the changes in to effect and then see.

Thank you

Solely agents of Congress? Are not the agencies agents of the President in that they assist in the President's effort via Article II, Section 3 of the Constitution to "take care that the laws are faithfully executed"?

Our perspectives I think align even though we may be debating. I know one can argue what is good and what is not from an industry standpoint but then I wonder. The quick examples. The Changes Clause, industry standard or government created? Davis Bacon not socio-economic? The discussed and cussed use of FAR part 12 for construction? 30,000 foot views that I know have history like that of FAR part 15 that Vern has mentioned but then I start wondering......to this I would offer that I think even with the FAR it is of sorts all over the place today. In the end I wonder if history counts? FAR 2.0 is the forward look and it will be interesting to see where it plans to take Federal contracting in total.

Yes, but the FAR helps with that above and beyond the private sector ones. That socio-economic thing I mentioned. I guess industry was crazy before Federal contracting came along as I imagine every private contract was all over the place. I will just use Vern's most recent post to support that case law has an impact on the wording of FAR provisions and clauses. Dumb me but I found the original FAR fun to a point and then it became an exasperation as it grew. What won't make 2.0 any fun is that it will be based on systems, AI and the like to alleviate the continued shrinkng workforce. I for one think that the inability to lace ones boots up AS A CO, and head out to the field (as used in the broad context) will be the detriment to even 2.0. But my idea of fun is different than that of others such as playing golf on a couch with a controller versus roaming (and I mean roaming) around a real golf course.

I am all in from the responsibility aspect. Like many that is why you see my name in this Forum. What would need to change is accountability of responsibiluity of those that would have their names stated. I suspect their phones might ring off the hook as in this day and age give anyone a minute and they will find the contact numbers for Arthur, Jane, Janet and Tom. And usually that "finding it" it is to raise hell not compliment them on a great product. It takes "broad shoulders" to be a civil servant.

The purpose of the FAR as a regulation is to provide uniform policies and procedures for acquisition so that one who is within the Executive Branch of the Federal government can comply with a statute and keep within the sideboards of case law. Dare I say "Federal Contracting for Dummies" even in light of the complications of the socio-economic ideals of Congress that have been woven into the statutes that govern Federal acquisition. My simple view.

I have read other places that the "100 page FAR" is being confused with the official FAR rewrite (aka FAR 2.0). I am not sure what is what but the confusion makes sense. From my seat I am waiting for the 2.0 to hit the streets whether it be for comment or is just it, something again that is being debated. Just a thought as the airways are cluttered with a lot of jet streams right now.

My simple anedotal view of what is going on based on experience. The current FAR. When it was brought forth I was a young and energtic contract specialist. I spent hours reading and sent comments regarding its wording. I had a very seasoned 1102 supervisor who told me that I was wasting my time on my efforts because the FAR would never happen. It did but in my humble opinion the history since, fostered by the thinking of the never ending line of seasoned 1102's, has turned it into something more cumbersome than what was ever intended via supplement, policy and additional guidance. A long history of disappointment. Rarely in my career had I ever seen a FAR part 12 procurement include a "tailored" provision and clause , FAR 52.212-1 and FAR 52.212-4 respectfully, that took much of the paragraphs in each and turned them into dust to follow what happens in the commercial world. (And I was an offender myself.) Even to today it still seems so. Too bad a tool that was not used to make everyones life easier. My first simple answer in this thread still stands - I hope the current effort is one of revitalization, with the added hope that the current workforce embraces it as such and works very hard to make it the revitalization it can and should be.

Generally yes one file. I do suggest a read of FAR subpart 4.7. Additionally however you decide to file your compliance with the noted clause 252.244-7001 is of the upmost importance and you must beable to demonstrate your filing system accomplishes the intent of the clause.

Have you read FAR 22.404-9?

I did not know where to post this thought but it seems that by deed some agencies already believe there are common goods and services. By example picking up on the discussion in WIFCON regarding "Are Competitions for Part 13 BPAs "Contract Actions"?" presents an interesting dynamic. If one were to do a deep dive into one of the solicitations referenced in the aforementioned discussion regarding BPA's this is a statement found in the RFQ (emphasis added)- Seems like the subject BPA presents a case that items priced in the intended award of something like a possible 850 BPA's are pretty common for "any" Federal, state, County and local agency!

Just seeing this I have no experience which caused me to do some research. In a quick look I would suggest that while incorporating any OTA required terms and conditions the effort would be very similiar to how the private sector approaches either effort. Maybe you can get an assist through this organization with regard to design build - https://dbia.org/

I hope it it is revilatized.