Vern Edwards

That "requirement" is too vague. What do you want the contractor to do? What does "supporting" mean? An "evaluation factor" is an attribute (feature, quality, or characteristic) of the thing being evaluated (a company, a product, a service, or an idea) that contributes "value", i.e., usefulness in the pursuit and achievement of the government's acquisition objectives. In order to chose one or more "factors" (that is, attributes) you must determine what is needed to pursue and achieve the government's objectives. So what do you need from a contractor? You must evaluate (a) the prospective contractors and (b) what they promise to do or deliver.

There are many things that could be done in order to prepare for the return, when it comes. But everyone is so discouraged and unhappy. What is happening now is truly terrible, and no end in view. But it will end. Hang in there. Endure.

Back in 1996 I wrote an article entitled, The New Rules for Multiple Award Task Order Contracting, in which I said: I had no idea. The Iron Law of Bureaucracy: Any rule designed to reduce bureaucracy will ultimately increase bureaucracy.

Yes. Probably next week or the week after. We're taking a long look at the overhauled Part 15.

I am fascinated by the amount of discussion about this topic! My initial reaction was that the topic is mundane. It tells me something about our acquisition processes, but I'm not sure what.

I think the current draft of Part 15 is badly organized and badly written. Frankly, I'm shocked by what they have produced. And it reflects many missed opportunities. If I had to choose one, I would choose the failure to adequately address the concepts and rules about discussions (now called "negotiations") in competitive procurements. No. I know they are reviewing their draft and want comments. (You should send some.) The version that will be published in the Federal Register will likely reflect their review and some of the comments they receive. But at this point, and given their deadline, I doubt we will see major changes. Keep in mind that they were charged with deleting stuff from the FAR, making it shorter, not making it better written and easier to understand. They were not given an easy task. I have believed from the start that FAR Part 15 would be the ultimate test of their success. But, let's be hopeful. There is still time. Not much, but some.

I believe that the biggest and singularly most important acquisitions, the ones that account for big dollars, competitive and noncompetitive, are not commercial. FAR Part 15 is crucially important to the big picture.

@Voyager Have you read the overhauled FAR Part 15? Do you think it solves anything?

On September 7, The Wall Street Journal reviewed a book entitled, Breakneck: China's Quest to Engineer the Future, by Dan Wang, a scholar at Stanford's Hoover History Lab. According to the review the author asks: According to the review, the author's thesis is: Any thoughts? Is the author's thesis reflected in the acquisition process? In the source selection/contract formation process? In the bid protest system? If so, will the revolutionary FAR overhaul make things better?

Hang in there! This won't last forever.

Because GSA is into gimmicks. They call them innovations.

Those questions can be answered only by reading the contract. There are no standard answers. In any case, there should never, ever be an "Other Direct Cost" CLIN. CLINs are supposed to specify "deliverables." Costs are not deliverables.

The government shutdown is inexcusable. It is a failure by all who contributed to it, regardless of position, party or opinion, regardless of whether by act or omission. I know that the last nine months have been chaotic and hard on almost everyone, whether in government or in industry, and very discouraging. I say to all that are bearing the burden of firings, furloughs, work without pay, and business disruptions, that you are very much appreciated. Hang in there, and let's hope this madness is curable before it's too late.

I have been in government contracting for more than 50 years. In all that time I have never seen a memo such as the one at the end of the above link.

Read the headlines. There is widespread uncertainty and confusion in government at every level, Federal, state, and local. And current Federal policy is to reduce the size and activity of the Federal government. So... . I don't know that there is a widespread "sharp drop" in awards right now, but I suspect that almost every contractor's business is off, unless they're selling weapon systems or ordnance. We are living in interesting times, and will be for the foreseeable future.

What do you mean by "funding roadmap"?

Most of the people involved in government contracting are trapped in 19th Century ways of thinking about contracting. We need is a revolution in thought before we can have a real revolution in regulation.

I think the economic concept of "price" is inapplicable to many government jobs undertaken when the future is uncertain and both parties expect that there are likely to be discoveries or events that will require renegotiation of the original contract dollar amounts. The notion that there can be a "price" or "market price" or "fair and reasonable price" for construction, even just kitchen or bathroom remodeling, or for any long-term or complex services strikes me as nonsense. There can be an initially higher or lower bid or proposal dollar amount, an estimate or a budget, but not a "price" in any economically meaningful sense of the word.

See FAR 15.406-2(c ):

It appears to be an undefinitized modification of an undefinitized letter contract (i.e., the delivery order) issued under a requirements contract. Might be an unpriced spares order. No biggie in the DOD world.

I’ve been away and am not sure whether this question has been answered. The answer is: If the contract is written in the Uniform Contract Format, then Part I. Fee must be stated in Section B, the contract line item(s). See FAR 4.1005-1(a)(5)(ii). As a general matter , there is no “overall contract amount” in a cost reimbursement contract. As a general rule, payments of fixed fee should be based on percentage of work completed, not on percentage of estimated cost incurred.

Shipley Associates. https://empower.shipleywins.com/courses/advanced-ai-topics-and-techniques-for-proposal-development?activecontentid=6eba97f9-b72d-454d-91c6-cfbbb4335747&meetingtime=null&utm_medium=email&utm_source=nwsl_09_09_25&utm_campaign=sai&utm_content=nwsl_pr_st The AI essay-writing contest. It's heeeere!!

@Retreadfed Actually, I think you have shown me that I am wrong to think that the release is consideration for the mod. I'm beginning to think that since no clause requires a release, and since making an equitable adjustment after issuance of a change order is a pre-existing duty of the government and something to which the contractor is already entitled, the government's request for a release is what requires consideration. 🤔😳😵‍💫

The CO could just do it. What's to prevent? It would not be binding on the contractor, because without a release of claims the contractor could submit a supplemental claim for more money. An upward unilateral EA would give the contractor some money pending resolution of supplemental claim(s).

The parties have not settled the issue until both have signed the mod. Prior to that they only have a tentative agreement, which may be subject to approval by higher authority on both sides.