|
|
 |
|
C Culham
Members
-
Joined
-
Last visited
-
No problem. My response was quick based on "what I think" on what I encountered over the years. Admittedly old school I have retained GAO decisions over the years that helped make me think. I dug out the file after I responded. Here is a link to a paper copy of GAO decision I found in my file. Not spot on but helps with thinking your questions through in my view. https://www.gao.gov/products/b-411760.2
-
/2. Not in my view. Intent is to acquire the services that are found in substantial quantities in the commercial marketplace If services required are specific to a military standard suggests they are not services found in substantial quantities in the commercial marketplace. Again the market research would hopefully tell why it is thought the services are commercial when inclusive of specific military regulations.
-
I guess I would have to see the solicitation and even the market research. Not going to defend 300 pages but I might defend adding some sideboards. Using a simple example I contract for a lawnmowing company. I do not simply let them loose to do lawn mowing at my place with out some sideboards. Even if my sideboards are not what they normally do but can still give me a market price for them. I wonder why the agency took the step considering the RFO at the definition of commercial service says this "Services, including construction,"?
-
While now rescinded and supposedly enhanced OFPP Policy Letter 97-01 was issued by Kelman. Having experienced the era of its release and the evolution to OFPP Policy Memo 05-01 your expressed view regarding source selection seems to apply. Workforce quality and management has not been successful because "its primarily because of the way it's being done, not the rules that govern its conduct."
-
This statement brings Performance Based Service Acquisition up in my mind. A reform driven by three statutory edicts as I understand - Government Performance and Results Act of 1993, Federal Acquisition Streamling Act, and the National Defense Authorization Act of 2001. It might be the poster child for (non)measurement of success via a data driven/quantative analysis.
-
Wow, this made me think. In the context of the original post and its two questions as applied to the above question I had to go back and look at where I was in my career as an 1102 when CICA came into play. Fragmented memory of "back then" but I do think CICA did produce chaos, churn and confusion in the beginning but in time it's mandates became a part of the process. I do not think it made things simplier, faster, easier, As to success the adage "in the eye of the beholder" comes in to play. For those contractors that complained about an inability to participate in the Federal sector, yes. For those within the Federal bureacracy having to get things done in a timely manner, no. As a catalyst that promoted quality and cost-effectiveness these views were and are still debateable to this day. Full and open is not as it doesnot achieve timely, cost effective effort. A bureaucratic quagmire. This is evident in all kinds of ways. As to producing quality results I have not seen where there is overwhelmning evidence that the CICA in and of itself has. I believe any quality gains came not only with possible CICA advantages but with inroads in depending on the commercial marketplace's own efforts. As the argument goes if say the three chosen are similiar to that of the current Brooks Act process, which works, why would it not work for other procurements as well.
-
In my lifetime the part of FASA regarding commercial item was a success. In my view churn while it existed was not great, complexity moderate (the definition part) as well as confusion in applying was moderate. I would rate the reform when codified into the FAR as successful, simpler, easier and faster.
-
Okay but is there a citation that one can depend on? It would appear that RFO 24.2 might be in direct conflict with your statement wherein agencies shall determine application of FOIA. As it went with the FAR and now the RFO one size does not fit all, ergo FAR supplements. By example the DLAD FAR supplement at 1.691 (understanding that it does not address FOIA per say). This said redaction is a slippery slope is it not? Who will decide the redaction process (such as DLAD in a legal review) and what I will call it's hygiene? As I noted the FOIA folks did not always get it right in my book. Now per your suggestion we have folks who will redact without possible knowledge of the slippery slope it creates. Line out of document with a Sharpie does not give adequate consideration to say the underlying meta data of the final evaluation where disclosure of something that should have redacted was in fact not. And to clarify my concern about redaction originally voiced. I am in no way saying the government should not be as transparent as possible. I am concerned that without the clarification that I am attempting your post could be interpreted that providing of a redacted final evaluation and source selection decision is required and that such effort could be done by a level higher than the CO in a hands off fashion.
-
The idea is right minded but redaction will create its own nightmare. By experience, albeit dated, the dance with the Freedom of Information officials of an agency will create delays and quite possibly further conflict when redaction is not appropriately applied. A "time will tell" regulatory change.
-
-
Well I have not been involved in efforts related to contract management for quite some time but my recollection is that your #4 is the answer to all. Is it not proper contract administration process to modify the contract to remove the unexercised option which in turn adjusts the Total Contract Value in FPDS? Done in real time so to speak or at contract closeout.
-
Always following. A couple of thoughts - I think the reporting via electronic systems will stymie trying to find an example. Too bad as it would be helpful as the authority to do so gets legs.... Oh but wait is there really regulatory authority to do so (tongue in cheek), afterall the RFO says... 16.507-2(3) "Blanket purchase agreements. If authorized in the multiple-award contract according to 16.504(f)(8)..." but if there is not 16.504(f)(8) how can a BPA in a multiple award IDIQ be authorized? Or in other words seems like one more correction coming to the RFO!
-
"The more tasks AI executes for us, the more we unveil what it can not do, which is what will define us as humans. It can free us to answer life's greatest questions – liberate our soul and the human spirit." Quote by Gil Luria, Gil Luria, Head of Tech Research D.A. Davidson & Co.
-
-
More with less and time savings seems to be the end result right now as I read your entire post. So my question is what about quality and success? Or in other words are the acquisitions being measured beyond the PALT as to their success such as less modifications, disputes, timely completion, etc?