Jump to content

C Culham

Members
  • Posts

    2,900
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Reputation

0 Neutral

1 Follower

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Not Telling

Recent Profile Visitors

17,735 profile views
  1. My read of the regulation suggests a CO may question the representation at anytime so Joel's suggestion to contact the CO might work. Truly a egregious representation. Maybe the agency OIG? Maybe your congressional representatives?
  2. I apologize I just saw this. My thought is this... Leaving the decision to the CO is trouble some. Many COs and the contract writing systems they use have trouble getting the right clause in a contract. Imagine having to review a statue to determine application. Examples. Does not this wording make SCA applicable - 41 U.S.C. chapter 6702. ". .applies to any contract or bid specification for a contract, whether negotiated or advertised, that..." Likewise The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, by my recollection (did not research) had a requirement that any project private or public that used its fund must use USA steel.
  3. Interesting view when you consider that the DoD OTA guidance states this on page 10. Seems management has not adequately defined the "who" for a successful OTA effort. ""AOs need not be Contracting Officers, unless required by the Component’s appointment process. Each Component is responsible for determining the Defense Acquisition University (DAU) and/or Component provided courses AOs are required to complete. DAU has offerings online as well as virtually led by instructors on OTs for members of the Government team. BEST PRACTICE: As the Standard Form 1402– Certificate of Appointment cites the FAR as the authority for a warrant, it is best practice to either edit this certificate for AO warrants or create a custom letter type document." I guess by "Component" they mean as defined by 2 CFR 1125.937 and if so think of the confusion! But who knows?
  4. I believe no one can answer your question without seeing the task order AND the parent contract under which it has been issued. My suggestion is that you get the parent contract read it completely. I suspect doing so will answer your questions.
  5. Quick read article with link to DoDs OTA Guidance. https://federalnewsnetwork.com/contracting/2024/02/dod-dispelling-lingering-myths-about-otas/?readmore=1
  6. Yes! I hope no one uses this statement as market research as I would suggest it really depends on the company, and even for a individual company it might depend on the employee and purpose of travel.
  7. None. Reread it it please. It was a offhand remark to Don's post that Government folks should be allowed to fly business class.
  8. Well as the thread has departed from the original post I might as well respond to @Don Mansfield lastest comment on business class travel. I find it interesting that the lead sentence of the regualtion (Title 41 CFR 301-10.103) regarding other than coach applies a "prudent person" standard yet the following paragraphs to the sentence do not support such a standard. Afterall I as a prudent person in doing personal business do consider comfort on any flight I take. Comfort is not allowed in bureaucratic terms it seems. "301-10.103 When may I use other than coach class accommodations? You are required to exercise the same care in incurring expenses that a prudent person would exercise if traveling on personal business when making official travel arrangements. ..."
  9. @joel hoffman @here_2_help I had this additional thought. It probably has no nexus to travel, and I do not want to open another can of worms, so I will offer my thought as quickly and concisely as possible. Application of Service Contract Act. Again no conncection to travel but it is interesting to me that those that calibrate equipment can be exempted from SCA. FAR 52.222-51. Same basis of thought as expressed by here-2-help or just some labor thing that has made its way into the USDOL regulation, I did not research so who knows. Yet extending the line of thinking to travel if business travel is a market or catalog thing could not the ideal of 52.222-51 help justify as to why, if I was still a CO, a contractor's travel policies, especially if a stipulated catalog price or a confirmed market price , help support the business travel. Dumb comparison or not it would not stop me from putting this conclusion in a fair and reasonable price determination and then leave it to higher up legal or court of opinion to decide it it was dumb or not.
  10. I am not sure if you agree, or any one else for that matter but here is my view. The notwithstanding language also relates to the discussion in FAR part 12 with regard to "tailoring" or in otherwords the indirectly referenced. Specifically FAR 12.302(c) and the tailoring of a clause that could be done or should not be done. ( I hope I am making sense!)
  11. The discussion in this thread began with an article that provided observations and conclusions regarding use of acquisition processes for a commercial product and services. I already raised wonder about market research which in truth appears to be unknown. The thread then morphed to debate over training regarding commercial acquisition. Your revisit to market research as a premise on your part is but one element that could be an added observation and/or conclusion. In truth I see it as further support that training helps breed excellence not the single factor that creates the excellence of a commercial acquisition.
  12. Wouldn't it be post judge? You are changing the landscape. I never argued perfection. I would argue training would support tailoring, use of UCF, etc. No procurement is perfect. Training leads to excellence.
  13. Well I will upack just a little for you. Commercial Item yet use of the Uniform Contract Format. I think FAR 12.303 has a "shall" in it. SF-26? And both 52.215-1 and 52.212-1 in the solicitation the latter not tailored. I stopped there...... Agreed as my case is made and I will leave it at that.
  14. Not mentioned in your post is FAR subpart 44.2 and its applicability to the procurement. If applicable have you considered the guiding principles in the subpart?
  15. Are you therefore saying they are adequate with regard to commercial product or service? If yes my view differs and is supported by the lack of a specific training regarding FAR part 12. To reinforce, yours and FormerFed's position seems to suggest everything is fine and dandy and those that have been trained are not applying professional study, intiative, experience, etc. But it has not by specific examples offered and as such leads to my conclusion regarding training Remember my comment and continued comments are aimed at the "Team" not just the 1102 yet inclusive of the 1102, along with the 1105, 1101.
×
×
  • Create New...