Vern Edwards

No, they haven't! It's just that they haven't had a lot of competition in that market, and never will.

See, for instance, Libertatia Associates, Inc. v. U.S., 46 Fed. Cl. 702, 707-08 (2000):

@GuardianHas it occurred to you that maybe they (or some of them) left their jobs because the government was a pain in the *** to work for/with? I know of some instances in which that has been the case. 🤔

For an account of the relationship between Boeing's commercial aircraft business and its military aircraft business in the context of the tanker competition, see Sweitzer, The Boeing 767 Tanker Boondoggle: How the Corporate-Sales-Pitch Procurement Regime Lost Its Parent and the U.S. Economy International Billions, Penn State International Law Review, Oct 2004. https://elibrary.law.psu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1628&context=psilr

@Fara FasatI'm sticking with my response to the OP question. And that is my response to all further queries in this thread.

@Fara FasatThe OP is with a prime contractor. Presumably, the prime is negotiating prices with a supplier for something that will go into something it is going to sell to the government. If the prime must provide certified cost or pricing data (CCPD) to the government, and if it must provide subcontractor (CCPD) to the government as part of its proposal, then it must certify that the subcontractor data are accurate, complete, and current as of the date of price agreement with the government. It doesn't matter when the prime reached a price agreement with the sub. Do you think the prime should certify that two year old subcontractor data are accurate, complete, and current as of today, or do you think the prime should ask the sub to update those data?

@here_2_helpHave you read Flying Blind? I don't think the 737-MAX was the beginning of Boeing's troubles. It seems to have been the result. The troubles seem to have started with the 1997 merger with McDonnell Douglas. But what do I know?

DD Form 1423 is an exhibit. See DFARS 204.7105 and DOD PGI 204.7105. It is used to collect individual data deliverables (data items) under a single contract line item rather than establish a separate line item for each data deliverable. It is an administrative convenience. When using DD Form 1423 the CO must establish a contract line item for data, then refer to the DD Form 1423. In Block A you insert the contract line item number for data. So, you might have: CLIN 0001 - Performance in accordance with Section C, Statement of Work for the X Program. CLIN 0002 - Exhibit A, DD Form 1423, Contract Data Requirements List (CDRL). On the DD 1423, in Block A, you would insert "0002."

@joel hoffmanLook at the OP: What he wants to know is whether he should get new (updated) certified cost or pricing data. The answer is yes.

@here_2_help @Matthew Fleharty Read Air Wars: The Global Combat Between Airbus and Boeing (2021), by Scott Hamilton. H2H, what doesn't Matthew understand about the interplay between Boeing's commercial division and its government division? I'd like to know if I understand.

You do what marketing tells you to do.

No, it's not. Aside from the notification requirement in paragraph (b), the key provision of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission clause is this: Now, what right does that give the government that it does not already have under the inspection of services clause, the T for C clause, and the T for D clause? Aside from the notification requirement, the clause is just typical government clutter. And if the government team is worth their salt, they won't need the notification requirement.

No, no, no! What would that be? Some kind of liquidated damages? A penalty? What if performance is unaffected by a departure?

Read the OP! Guardian's issue is not whether or how to evaluate proposed key personnel. The issue is how to ensure that key personnel stay on board for the duration. The answer is to require offerors to enter into fixed term employment contracts with key personnel under which the key person promises to stay with the contractor throughout the period of performance. Such a contract is not an absolute guarantee, but it is more of one than a stupid "letter of commitment." Such employment contracts would be subcontracts of the prime contract. A former employer required me to enter into such a contract on an annual basis. They are not uncommon. https://www.rocketlawyer.com/gb/en/quick-guides/fixed-term-employment-contracts Letters of commitment are products of government idiocracy.

Yes.

@GuardianRequire the contractor to enter into a subcontract with the employee under which the employee promises to stay on the job until the contract is physically completed.

In 1926, Congress enacted the Air Corps Act of 1926, 44 Stat. 780. The Act created the Army Air Corps and authorized the Army and Navy to buy aircraft through the use of design competitions instead of sealed bidding. The story of that development is told in Holley, Jr., Unites States Army in World War II, Special Studies, Buying Aircraft: Materiel Procurement for the Army Air Forces (U.S. Army, 1964). Here is how the author describes the military services' experience with design competitions, on pages 113-114.: And on pages 139-140: Peck and Scherer, in The Weapons Acquisition Process: An Economic Analysis (Harvard, 1962), p. 364, the authors say: The same could be said for IT program proposals. The same could be said of almost all technical proposal/soundness of approach competitions.

According to the GAO report: Boeing won the fixed-price incentive (firm target) contract in 2011 after a FAR Part 15 source selection, in which the competitors submitted detailed technical proposals that described their proposed "approach" to design and development. They won it after winning a protest against award to Northrop Grumman and Airbus. https://www.gao.gov/assets/gao-08-991t.pdf https://www.gao.gov/assets/b-311344%2Cb-311344.10%2Cb-311344.11%2Cb-311344.3%2Cb-311344.4%2Cb-311344..pdf https://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/25/business/25tanker.html#:~:text=In a surprise twist to,company that builds Airbus planes. Boeing won a follow-on contract last year. https://www.flightglobal.com/fixed-wing/boeing-wins-21bn-for-15-more-kc-46a-tankers-points-to-battle-communications-role/142077.article#:~:text=Boeing has won its second,Boeing says on 21 January. I hope this result shows people that (1) "technical proposals" that describe a distant, imagined future are not, and never have been, reliable bases for contractor selection and contract formation, and that (2) gimmicky contractual incentive devices simply do not work and never have. But it won't show people. I guess nothing ever will.

What this thread and others like it have made me realize is that we lack good textbooks about our business. I think it is next to impossible to explain the SCA in this forum to someone who apparently knows next to nothing about it. If you know enough background and do enough web-crawling you might be able to cobble together enough information to learn something, but that's no way to teach people. Once upon a time practitioners in our business wrote books or pamphlets of instruction. Those days are over. It's hard to find enough knowledgeable and skilled writers to sustain a periodical. Everyone must learn what they can by visiting websites and piecing things together. The greatest authors in our business are either gone or very old, and there are no replacements on the horizon. Procurement lacks good writers, meaning people who both know the business and can write a decent paragraph. It is a very sad, bad state of affairs, especially since the business gets more complicated with each passing year.

I just tried it. It worked for me.

@Jamaal ValentineThe under-does-when approach takes some thought. I don't think it would be suitable for "quick" questions. For those not familiar with the under-does-when (or under-when-does) approach to presenting a legal issue, see https://law.utexas.edu/faculty/wschiess/legalwriting/2007/05/issue-statements-under-does-when.html. Also see https://law.utexas.edu/faculty/wschiess/legalwriting/2007/05/issue-statements-whether-style.html. Note that the author says, "This [under-does-when] style is better than the 'whether' style because it is a complete sentence. But it still produces long, complicated sentences." One must think long when crafting a long sentence. Also, one of the problems with Wifcon questions is faulty "setup," which happens when the OP does not provide clear, sufficient, and relevant background. There are two approaches to setup: 1. Here is my situation. Here is my question. I like this approach when the background can be provided in one or two short sentences. Here is my situation: I am a CO getting ready to conduct my first source selection, for along-term complex service contract. Here is my question: Under FAR Part 15, does the government have to conduct discussions when it receives more than 10 proposals? and 2. Here is my question. Here is my situation. I prefer this approach when the background is long and complicated. Here is my question: Under FAR Part 15, does a CO have to conduct discussions when the RFP said that award would be made without discussions, the government has received a large number of proposals, and a contract specialist engaged in an unauthorized exchange of information with one of the offerors? Here is my situation: I am a CO conducting my first source selection. Our RFP said that we were going to award without discussions. We have received and evaluated 10 proposals. A contract specialist working for me contacted one of the offerors at the request of the SSEB but without my permission to ask for clarification of its proposal. The offeror emailed the contract specialist a five-page explanation and "clarification," which I have not yet provided to the SSEB. Our lawyer is on leave until the end of next week. I am under pressure to keep the source selection moving because the requirement is urgent. FAR does not address this situation. We really don't want to conduct discussions.

@joel hoffmanI have noticed that when Patrick3 has written an opening post he has opened with "Quick Question." A quick question about contracting is almost invariably a lousy question. That's because contracting is complicated, and so are the issues and the questions. And I have noticed, as have several others, that Wifcon Forum is infested with lousy questions. Why is that the case? How can we teach people to craft good questions? (Note the word "craft".) It has become an obsession with me. One of the most important skills a contracting practitioner must master is the ability to craft good questions. The ability to craft good questions is essential to almost every facet of contracting. It is essential to statement of work preparation, proposal evaluation, contract pricing, contract formation, interpretation of regulations and contracts, contract quality assurance, analysis of requests for equitable adjustment and claims, dispute resolution, you name it—a practitioner must ask questions. Lawyers know that, and they get some practice in law school if they have good professors and fellow students. They get more practice during their associate apprenticeship. But contracting people get no training in the craft of question-design. Why not? There are literally hundreds of books and articles about asking questions, maybe thousands. But except for books about developing questions for social science survey instruments, I have found relatively few that teach the general principles of question design, which involves more than just writing an interrogative sentence. I have thought about writing an article or even a short book about it, but I've been afraid of making a fool of myself. It's a difficult subject. I know only that when I want to ask a question in a formal setting I spend a lot of time thinking about what I want to know and how to communicate that to the person I'm asking. I also think about what context to provide to the person I'm asking, and how to provide that information as clearly, completely, and concisely as possible. (Which requires putting myself in that person's shoes.) In order to know what context to provide I may have to research the subject of the question. (In the course of doing that I might answer my own question.) But the internet and websites such as this one encourage "quick questions" from the clueless and thoughtless. Asking a good question ain't an easy thing to do. It takes skill. Ye shall be judged by your questions, so don't be quick.

Rude? By telling you how to find the funds to pay the bill? Time wasted, because you completely mischaracterized the situation in your opening post. You ought to be embarrassed.

@ji20874Don't say anything. Just count to 100 and consider this thread dead.

@REA'n MakerMaybe, but I don't buy it. If you are providing an incentive to get vaccinated, and if a person is exempt, then they don't qualify for the incentive. I don't see that as improperly discriminatory. But I don't know much about EEO law and regulations. So you might be right.