Vern Edwards

@joel hoffman So could I say that you used ratings to summarize and simplify more complex information?

@General.Zhukov Georgy, As a favor to you, the webmaster has posted OMB Circular A-109, Major System Acquisitions, 5 April 1976, to the Wifcon Bulletin Board in downloadable pdf format under the heading Rules. Vern

@joel hoffman Why did you assign ratings to the MEAT of the evaluation? What did the ratings do for you that the MEAT didn't do??

@formerfed I don't mean to quibble, but it seems to me that there is a difference between refusing to pay and deducting.

FFP contracts come in both lump sum and unit priced. The FFP LOE contracts described in FAR 16.207 are lump sum contracts, not unit priced. Failure to deliver the LOE is breach of contract, and the government is entitled to a remedy. Firm-fixed unit-price (FPUP) is unit-priced. FPUP specify either a firm quantity and or an estimated quantity with a ceiling price. You pay the unit-price for every unit delivered. You pay only for what you get. No need for deductions. But if the quantity is firm and if the contractor fails to deliver the full quantity, then the contractor has breached and the government is entitled to a remedy. It's a well-recognized type of FFP contract going back decades. Used for both supplies and services. In the words of Bob Dylan, the ASBCA judge's knowledge and experience was "limited and underfed".

That's not true. I had a discussion about it with a DAU professor not too long ago. It has been mentioned in the Federal Register twice since 2021. To the best of my knowledge OMB A-109 has never been rescinded. In 2000, OMB proposed the "recission" of A-109, see 65 FR 51045-01, August 20, 2000, but apparently did not follow through. In 2006 the FAR councils confirmed the continuing applicability of OMB A-109: 71 Fed. Reg. 38238-02, July 5, 2006.

It's not hard to find. You just have to know how and where to search. Google Books: Hearings on Office of Management and Budget Circular A-109, Major system Acquisition Policy, before the Research and Development Subcommittee of the Committee on Armed Services, House of Representatives, Ninety-Fifth Congress, First Session, November 2, December 1, 1977, Second Session, April 6, 10, and 14 and September 18, 1978. https://books.google.com/books?id=6Gvef5JFImUC&pg=PA545&dq=hearings+on+OMB+Circular+A-109+major+systems+acquisition+policy&hl=en&newbks=1&newbks_redir=0&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwiRnafZgs6MAxVpATQIHct2IaoQ6AF6BAgIEAM#v=onepage&q=hearings%20on%20OMB%20Circular%20A-109%20major%20systems%20acquisition%20policy&f=false The full text of the 15-page circular begins on page 4. I thought everybody knew that. 😂

Don't know.

@TakeAWalkontheFARSide I agree. Hopefully, no one expects the FAR to be rewritten so that only masters can be effective. (Masters are more than just effective.) Most of the people on the DAR Council and the Civilian Agency Acquisition Council are not maters. I had a friend on the DAR Council, now dead, who told me that there was not a person on the DARC who could write a decent English sentence. But the FAR should be written so that journeymen can effective. But I would like to think that all contracting officers with unlimited warrants are masters, though even that is expecting too much from the government. I'm working on an article about mastery for publication later this year. I hope it will be posted at Wifcon. It's an interesting topic.

@formerfed Do you mean a firm-fixed unit-price contract?

Don, This blog post is incomplete. You say why you wouldn't use ratings, but you don't say why you would. Why would you use ratings, if ever, and what kind of ratings would you use? And if you would ever use ratings, how would you use them?

So... If the contract was not FFP Level of Effort, what type was it? So... If the contract was not FFP Level of Effort, what type was it?

In light of your answers, I like the contracting team's sole source approach. You had a competition and didn't get any real (effective) competition despite negotiating. So why not go sole source? Why go through another time consuming competition?

I'll bet there aren't ten people in this Forum who can say and explain. Interesting.

Why speculate? Why not wait for guidance from FPDS?

Question: Do you know why you did not receive any technically acceptable proposals? Was it because: there are no capable offerors anywhere, or the solicitation was not open long enough for the preparation of acceptable proposals, or the solicitation was not open long enough for capable firms to discover it and respond, or the solicitation was in some way defective (poorly written, confusing), or the terms of the solicitation were unacceptable to capable firms, or the requirement was too difficult for any firm to satisfy, or some combination of the above, or some other reason or set of reasons? It seems to me that you should try to find out why you didn't receive and couldn't obtain any technically acceptable proposals from the responding offerors before you make a plan about what to do next. Or... Are you really asking whether the fact that cancelling would give the incumbent a chance creates a risk?

The automation of some key 1102 functions is inevitable. You will have to be a master in order to survive and prosper.

AI is well-suited to decision-making and will get better. It may already be better at making decisions than humans. Look at the history of human decision making. The Kennedy, Johnson, and Nixon administrations were staffed by some of the best foreign policy and military minds in the world, and yet they decided to make war in Vietnam, even though some very experienced military advisors told them it would be mistake. And they decided to stay there for years, even after they realized by 1967 that we could not prevail militarily with the means we were willing to employ. Ask the dead about the quality of human decision-making. AI for source selection? Piece of cake.

In an interesting decision by the Armed Services Board of Contract Appeals, IVA'AL Solutions, Inc. ASBCA 63430, February 12, 2025, the parties disputed the contractor's entitlement to payment. One question was whether the line items at issue were firm-fixed-price or something else. In Part I.A. of the decision, pages 11 -12, the board ruled that the line items at issue were firm-fixed-price level-of-effort. Was the board right about the contract type of those CLINs?? https://www.asbca.mil/Portals/143/Decisions/2025/REDACTED%2063430%20IVA'AL%20Solutions%20(Final%20Decision).pdf?ver=ojJsTXHl_Vt7qeejJwCHNg%3d%3d

What's especially interesting is the list of 12 questions they want commenters to answer.

As of early this morning there is no more news about FAR 2.0. However, today's Federal Register contained an announcement by the Department of Transportation seeking public input about--- One can get an idea of how one group of regulatory reformers are going about their business. Interesting. Entitled, "Ensuring Lawful Regulation; Reducing Regulation and Controlling Regulatory Costs," the announcement appears at 90 Fed. reg. 14953 (April 3, 2025). https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2025-04-03/pdf/2025-05557.pdf

Some group has formed a political action committee (PAC) dedicated to Government contracting. From their website:

It ain't me babe, NO, NO, NO, It ain't me babe, It ain't me you're lookin' for babe!

Here is today's list of presidential nominations. The White HouseNominations Sent to the SenateNOMINATIONS SENT TO THE SENATE: Marc Andersen, of Virginia, to be an Assistant Secretary of the Army. Gregory Autry, of Florida, to be ChiefTo the best of my knowledge the president has not yet nominated anyone to be Administrator of Federal Procurement Policy.

I presume that your lawyer is worried about a "scope of the competition" protest against a modification to add the correct wage determination.. You are agonizing too much. You can: (1) terminate for convenience and recompete or (2) modify the contract and wait to see if you get a protest. That's about it. Why not make a decision and get on with it? Corrective action will not get easier with the passage of time.