Vern Edwards

Yes, unless you promised not to release their identities. See FAR Subpart 5.4, Release of information. l do not know of any statute, regulation, or policy that prohibits disclosure of the names of firms that have merely expressed an interest in an upcoming procurement. FOIA exemption 4 does not preclude the release of such information. https://www.justice.gov/archives/oip/foia-guide-2004-edition-exemption-4#:~:text=Exemption 4 of the FOIA,government and submitters of information.

Actually HHSAR 307.105 says: It doesn't explicitly say it has to cover "everything" in FAR 7.105. Just address the topics pertinent to the acquisition.

Since the OP appears to be with DOD, they might want to discuss DFARS PGI 215.406-1(b) with their supervisor. H2H's post might be interpreted to mean that the CO has discretion to negotiate a rate higher than the FPRR. That might not be the case in all offices at all times. ACOs and auditors can be touchy about agreements and object to those, including agreements about billing rates, that exceed their recommendations. While the CO has the final say on paper, that might not be the case in fact.

The language "incidental to the place of performance" was added to FAR 45.000 by FAC 2005-56, 77 FR 12937, March 2, 2012, effective April 2, 2012. The change was accompanied by the following comment and response:

I wouldn't think laptops would be "incidental to a place of performance," since they exist to allow the user to operate from almost anywhere. This would especially seem to be the case if the contractor employees are allowed to travel with the laptops and to take them home. It is unclear to me whether "administrative property" is a subcategory of property "incidental to the place of performance" or a distinct category. But whether the contractor must maintain a property record for laptops may depend on whether the government has established a "previous accountable property record." If it has, then it seems to me that the CO should require the contractor to maintain a property record. Then again, laptops are generally cheap (unless it's a MacBook Air or a MacBook Pro). But there is this: Emphasis added.

No. So you'll have to fact-find, develop an objective, and then negotiate.

@C Culham What leaders of the Forum think that? Good job finding the DOD instruction. The OP could have, and should have, found it for himself.

Yeah. Something goes wrong when I try to copy the link. Go to Google Books and search for Armed Services Procurement Regulation Manual for Contract Pricing 1975 and scroll until you reach a downloadable version. The 1969 and 1986 versions are also available at Google Books. They are still good reference works.

It's available for download in pdf at: [Dead link removed.]

ASPR?

You found a typo in the article. Kelman was Administrator from 1993-1997, not 1973-77.

No.

Yes. No.

I am. But at least I get paid for doing it. This was a headline in yesterday's Washington Post: "Sixth consecutive year." We must all accept as fact that the federal government of the United States of America is no longer fully functioning and has not been fully functioning for quite some time. Many presidential appointments are unfilled. And even when filled, they are often filled by unqualified persons. This is true all the way up to the cabinet level. The federal government is not fully competent. We cannot expect the best from our government right now. I wonder if we will ever be able to expect the best again. This should be a matter of grave concern to all citizens, but I do not think it is. I think most citizens have little if any direct contact with the federal government, or only infrequent contact, and do not know much about it. But every person I know who knows the federal government and has known it for some time thinks the situation is grave and getting worse, and that it's getting worse just as the challenges we face are becoming ever more serious. All each of us can do is the best that we can.

Never apologize for editing your posts. Edits are signs of thoughtfulness.

And just think: Boeing filed a protest to win that contract.

Emphasis added. It might seem strange to some, but don't generalize too broadly. For one thing, "unsatisfactory past performance" may be nothing more than a statement about the past that has no bearing on the offeror's present condition in light of corrective action.

I haven't "seen" it, but see Mine Safety Appliances Company, B-266025, January 17, 1996: Emphasis added. I assume that similar reasoning would apply with respect to the evaluation of past performance in a competitive negotiated acquisition. I can see an offeror being awarded a contract despite poor past performance when it has shown persuasively that it has taken effective corrective action. Much would depend on how the agency described the past performance factor in its RFP and how it would be evaluated. In short, poor past performance is not necessarily fatal.

Oh, for Pete's sake. It's a personal decision. If you can't or don't want to move around, THEN DON'T. Criminy, Joel! Way to go from a big idea to a small one!

Emphasis added. @Voyager Okay. Fair enough. By "personal commitment" I mean, among other things: taking personal responsibility for knowing what you must know and being able to do what you must do in order to be not just competent, but expert; taking inventory of your knowledge and skills and making lists of topics to study and skills to improve, especially basic knowledge and skills; seeking and reading books and articles pertinent (in the broadest sense) to your work and to the work that you hope to do and studying them; taking and maintaining well-organized study notes (see How To Take Smart Notes, 2d ed., by Sönke Ahrens) and reviewing them; practicing skills, such as reading difficult material and writing clearly; getting up early and staying up late to read and to write (you must do both in order to learn); never letting anyone know more about your work than you do; being ambitious for recognition by superiors and colleagues as knowing and being good at what you do; seeking the "hard" tasks (volunteering to "take point"); not settling into a specific job, but moving around in order to gain broader and better experience; working long and hard to do well for yourself, your colleagues, and your organization; and, finally, deciding whether you want to be a professional or just an employee. In short, it means that if you want to be a professional you must devote yourself to your profession. It means wanting and pursuing more than a "modicum baseline" and "just enough." Is that tangible enough, Voyager?

BTW, here is a quote from Johnson's essay, the third paragraph, which might prompt some thoughts about today's contracting rules: Now think about the requirements for certified cost or pricing data and for full and open competition.

I am especially interested in new hires aged 20 - 35. Those aged 36 and up, if properly educated, would not need my advice. By the time I was 36 I already knew I was hopelessly ignorant. I'm 75 now, and still hopelessly ignorant.

@Voyager I do not share your views. I think a professional needs more than a "modicum" and "just... enough." We are not in agreement. Not even close. And I hope that your views are not widely shared by others. If a young contract specialist were to ask me for a reading that would help them on their way to competence, I would tell them to read and study Samuel Johnson's essay, "'Rules' of Writing," written in 1751, or Plato's "Gorgias." You would probably ask what either of those has to do with being a procurement professional. I would say, "Everything." But I don't think you would understand.

@formerfedInteresting that you should say that. I just emailed my next Nash & Cibinic article to the editor and I said much the same. Although I did not always agree with Steve (performance-based contracting), I think he was the best Administrator we've ever had. As for presidents, I think most have been clueless about the effect of procurement policy on their ability to get things done, although the current one has discovered the Defense Production Act. Presidents won't be remembered by improving procurement policy. That's why they don't care who they appoint to be Administrator and whether they are confirmed. Although presidents are "chief executives," they don't think of themselves as the managers of the Executive Branch. But, to be fair, they're just politicians, so what can you expect? Yes. And the way to get that is to improve professional education, training, leadership, and selection. The sad thing is that the government hires some very good people, then disappoints them. @Voyager Experience alone does not create competence. Educators, trainers, leaders, experience, and personal commitment are what create competence. It's a cyclic process. It's never done, and it must never end.

I think you have described the problem perfectly. And I think it's foolish to believe that an acting head of OFPP can solve it. As a country, we no longer seem to believe in the concept that in order to achieve something important you need someone who knows what they're doing and has been given a clear mission and a mandate to do it and to fire anyone who won't or can't follow orders and contribute. I can think of of two persons who exemplify, "I'm in charge. I'm accountable. And you're going to do what I say and get it done or you are gone." And they both achieved a great thing for our country when our country needed it. General Leslie Groves, who was in charge of the development of the atomic bomb, and who hired Robert Oppenheimer to do the science despite opposition to his appointment. Admiral Hyman Rickover, who was in charge of the development of the nuclear submarine, and about whom there is a new biography. There are others of their ilk, military and civilian, who achieved great things, less deadly things, but those two stand out for me, because they were up against it and simply could not fail. But I don't think America believes in such people any more. They are too tough for us as we are now. If you think that having a first-rate contracting workforce is not important, you don't understand the nature of our contracted-out government.