Jump to content

Jamaal Valentine

Members
  • Posts

    968
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Reputation

0 Neutral

1 Follower

About Jamaal Valentine

  • Birthday August 8

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Interests
    Being good...when I can't be good, being compliant...when I can't be compliant, being liked.

Recent Profile Visitors

13,807 profile views
  1. I actually liked the explanations and think this could be useful for training and education.
  2. Did it really take around six months to re-evaluate IFBs (Jan 27 -Jul 28)? I guess FAR 6.401(a)(1) assumes sealed bidding takes longer.
  3. @C Culham Collectively, we have given the OP some things to consider. This is one of the greatest benefits of Wifcon in my opinion. It’s a place to get varying opinions and perspectives. Juried information is some of the best information.
  4. @Don Mansfield Yes. I think that is a fair and accurate statement.
  5. @joel hoffman, Would you recommended evaluating prices on a multiple-award contract (e.g., multiple-award-task-order contract) for various construction services? Or is it generally preferable to price projects at the task-order level?
  6. What thread? Where is under SAT mentioned in the original post?
  7. A price or cost evaluation factor is not always required. See FAR 13.106-1(a)(2)(iv). The subdivision in the original post seems to simply say keep SAP simple.
  8. This question is about regulatory interpretation so I encourage you to read Interpreting Regulations, Kevin M. Stack, 111 MICH. L. REV. 355 (2012). Available here. Based on the guidance for regulatory interpretation, I stopped at the plain words and plain meaning of the imperative sentence. That is, keep simplified acquisitions - simple. This aligns with my perception of the regulatory purpose of FAR part 13 - implement the law streamlining how the government procures products and services. Keep SAP simple.
  9. Hopefully those parties can work something out. I’ll share that the original author has a lot to offer on other acquisition topics. In the end, I’m sure this is temporary and cooler heads will prevail.
  10. Defense Acquisition University offers “a generalized order of events in the acquisition contracting process.” It looks more like an island-hopping campaign through FAR. Click here: Contracting Subway Map Also, the Department of the Army uses a similar tool called Contracting Compass. It doesn’t indicate a chronological arrangement to FAR either. Hopefully these tools will be useful to some readers. Thanks for the participation!
  11. @here_2_help I recall reading similar opinions and callouts of the “1961 Planning, Programming, Budgeting, and Execution (PPBE) process still in use today.” This NCMA article previously posted to Wifcon comes to mind - Anatomy of a Renaissance. I know the Congressionally mandated Section 809 panel had some commentary on the budget process.
  12. I don’t think we have to say the FAR has no coherent structure. I think everyone could agree that FAR is arranged by topic (and includes chronology). For example, if you look at and within the subchapters you see the topics and subtopics. This includes some logical sequencing as highlighted above. However, many topics include pre-award and post-award activities once you actually get into the parts, subparts, sections, etc. (e.g., FAR part 4 governs closeout of contract files). This breaks the chronology. I don’t believe FAR is arranged to be read from front to back. For me, FAR is not ordered in a chronological sequence by definition. Reading FAR front to back wouldn’t start with the earliest and follow the order in which an acquisition occurs. I wouldn’t choose to defend or die on this hill. (This poll is because I’m interested in seeing if there is any consensus)
  13. Again, @bob7947, you and your albatross are National Treasures. Thank you!
  14. I recently read a surprising assertion, which promoted this poll. For context see https://www.linkedin.com/posts/mark-hijar-39545a27a_i-guess-i-thought-this-was-common-knowledge-activity-7146522977218551808-sOdC?utm_source=li_share&utm_content=feedcontent&utm_medium=g_mb_web&utm_campaign=copy
  15. Thanks for the read and interaction. I would love to clarify this statement for you; however, I’m not exactly sure what you want to be clarified. I think you are trying to reconcile the statement’s ’may’ with FAR 9.104-1’s ‘shall.’ I hope this provides the context you need. First, the statement was written to offerors. Now, offerors should be aware that even in the absence of an evaluation factor in the solicitation, agencies may separately evaluate the offeror’s general standards of responsibility. Finally, FAR 9.102 lets us know that responsibility determinations are not always required. Thus, the general standards under FAR 9.104-1 aren’t always mandatory. This aligns with the statement that “agencies may….”
×
×
  • Create New...