Jump to content

Vern Edwards

Members
  • Posts

    2,765
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Vern Edwards

  1. Yeah, but it's the Director of OMB, not the Administrator, who decides what will be done under that law. Congress can legislate, but OMB executes. I don't expect anything of any significance to come out of OFPP unless and until we get a presidential administration that understands that it cannot get anything done without contracts and contracting, puts competent people in charge, and gets House and Senate leaders to assign all acquisition policy legislation to a single committee within each house of Congress. That, ain't ever gonna happen. DOD, GSA, and Congress itself won't let it happen. American government today is, and has been for a long time now, very big, very dysfunctional, and getting worse, and it isn't going to get better any time soon, if ever. Sorry for the pessimism.
  2. Instead of that, which doesn't mention DPAS, start with DoDD 4400.01E, Defense Production Act Programs. https://www.esd.whs.mil/Portals/54/Documents/DD/issuances/dodd/440001p.pdf?ver=2018-11-09-111906-183 Then look at DoD 4400.1-M, Department Of Defense Priorities And Allocations Manual. https://www.esd.whs.mil/Portals/54/Documents/DD/issuances/dodm/440001m.pdf?ver=2018-12-11-110803-913 To the best of my knowledge, DPAS ratings are not controlled unclassified information. But check around.
  3. Here is an article from The New York Times of May 28, 1976, about OFPP when it was new. They quote Hugh E. Witt, the first administrtor, a very experienced procurement professional from DOD, and Lester Fettig (they misspelled his last name), who would become the second administrator. Note that Federal procurement, then a paltry 70 billion a year business, is now a one-half trillion dollar a year business. Note, too, the last line of the article. Note Witt's description of his office's powers of review. When DOD revised its acquisition policies last year I doubt that they even thought about OFPP, much less submitted their changes for its review. Of course, I could be wrong about that.
  4. Michael Wooten was nominated on May 7, 2019 and confirmed on August 1 of that year. So, unless something has changed, Gebre won't be in office before 2021. But, who knows, maybe the Senate will make Gebre's nomination a priority.
  5. Who cares? OFPP is dead. It is irrelevant to the issues at hand. He'll speak at conferences, give interviews, launch an "initiative" that will go nowhere, rate a profile in Contract Management magazine, and say encouraging things.
  6. For a long time the fastest manned aircraft was the North American X-15. (I think it still is), but it was a rocket plane, not a jet plane. There is a lot of good free stuff online about the X-15 Program and the rocket plane programs, and some good books. See The X-15 Hypersonic Flight Research Program, https://history.nasa.gov/SP-4219/Chapter6.html and X-15 Frontiers of Flight, https://www.nasa.gov/pdf/470842main_X_15_Frontier_of_Flight.pdf. I like books that focus on the aircraft, but there are a couple that focus on the pilots, like Scott Crossfield, Robert White, and Neil Armstrong. Two interesting such books are: Petty, Beyond Blue Skies: The Rocket Plane Programs That Led to the Space Age and Evans, The X-15 Rocket Plane: Flying the First Wings into Space. They focus on the pilots and the flights.
  7. The blank in 52.216-22(d) is supposed to state a date, not a number of months.
  8. Evaluation of professional employee compensation is a "technical" evaluation factor. See 52.222-46(b): The evaluation must be done for the initial award, but, in my opinion, need not for task orders. Agencies must require submission of an employee compensation plan, as required by the provision, and evaluate the offeror's performance capability accordingly.
  9. Yes, yes, sure. It's kind of an optional "requirement." Please. 🥱
  10. Well, actually, an FSS contract doesn't require the government to buy anything. They can just pay off a contractor by giving them the minimum dollars. That's true of all IDIQ contracts. And, in fact, I think the Federal Circuit ruled some years ago that the government can even terminate an IDIQ contract for convenience without paying off the full amount of the minimum.
  11. Note that in Footnote 8 the board cites the Supreme Court's unanimous decision in Kingdomware Technologies, Inc., v. U.S., 136 S.Ct. 1969 at page 1978 (2016). I think the board may have misunderstood what the Supreme's were saying. Here is what the Supremes said: If I understand Kingdomware correctly, the government ("Department of Veterans Affairs] argued that 31 USC § 8127(d), enacted in 2006, which requires VA set-asides under a "rule of two," did not apply when the underlying FSS contract was awarded and thus did not apply to orders issued under that FSS contract. The court found that placement of the FSS order created a "new contract" and that the rule of two applied to all such new contracts, even though the law was not in place when the FSS contract was awarded. The Supremes then muddied the waters with its discussion of "the underlying FSS contract." It's not clear to me that their "new contract" reasoning would not apply to all IDIQ contracts. But the board has interpreted Kingdomware to mean that orders under FSS contracts are different from orders under other IDIQ contracts.
  12. BTW, the last OFPP administrator told me that AI is going to eliminate a lot of contract specialist jobs. He said that if you can flowchart it you can automate it. Don Mansfield told me that a few years ago. I pooh-poohed it then, but not now.
  13. The decision contains two great quotes, though: There are members of this forum who could benefit from reading that passage. Here is the full quote from General Builders Supply, in context: BANG! Another great quote is: Another lesson learned. Terminology is important, people.
  14. It's my impression that OMB has closed OFPP in all but name. To the best of my knowledge the new president has not nominated a new administrator. The last president didn't get around to it until about two years into his term. It is a very low priority appointment. The executive branch does not understand that our government is helpless without contracts and contracting. Procurement policy and procedure are not important to presidents unless one of them or Congress wants to use procurement dollars for social program purposes. And DOD, the big buyer/spender, does not want anyone else making procurement policy for them. The OFPP Act has been subverted. Forget the OFPP. It's dead. Anyway, why take a class if you want to learn about AI? Just buy a book. But if you simply have to take a class, MIT is offering one online for only $3,600 or so. Starts tomorrow. Lasts six weeks. "Artificial Intelligence: Implications for Business Strategy." Ask your agency to pay for it. (You can read a good book about AI in less than six weeks.)
  15. According to GSA, https://www.gsaelibrary.gsa.gov/ElibMain/home.dohttp:/www.gsaelibrary. gsa.gov/ElibMain/contractClauses.do?scheduleNumber=MAS&contractNumber=47QTCA19D00KZ&contractorName=AVINT+LLC&duns=079953992&source=ci&view=clauses, the following clause is included in FSS contracts:
  16. That quote provided by Carl is from Immarsat Government, Inc. GAO B-419583, 2021 CPD ¶ 215, May 21, 2021. The following is from the first page of the decision. GAO sustained the protest. For a case in which an agency inadvertently disclosed proprietary information after receipt of proposals, see Kemron Environmental Services, Inc., GAO B-299880, 2007 CPD P 176, September 7, 2007: The first paragraph quoted by Carl has appeared, with some variation, in five GAO decisions going back to 2007, including Kemron. Inadvertent disclosure of various kinds of information under various circumstances has been an issue or mentioned in 54 GAO decisions going back to 1963. I did not find any Court of Federal Claims protest decision that involved inadvertent disclosure of either a competitor's proprietary information or of the government's evaluation of a competitor.
  17. @Neil RobertsIf you mean that it would be the right thing for Cliff's company to notify the competitor that the CO sent the government's assessment of its proposal to them, I disagree. Cliff said: He did not say that they had received the competitor's documents, documents containing proprietary markings. He did not say they had received the competitor's property. What he described receiving was the government's property, its observations and opinions. The right thing for Cliff's company to do was to notify the CO, which Cliff says they did, and follow the CO's instructions about what to do with the government's documents. The other right thing for them to do is tell Cliff to discuss such matters only with company counsel, not with the world. Hopefully, we will not hear from Cliff in this thread again.
  18. @Neil Roberts That was a case of massive industrial espionage. It was not a case of a contractor receiving information mistakenly provided to it by the government. Referral to it in the context of this thread is misleading. See: Zucker, The Boeing Suspension: Has Increased Consolidation Tied the Department of Defense's Hands, 2004-APR Army Law. 14, esp. the section entitled, "A Case Study: The Boeing Suspension." Here, from the article, is a quote that briefly describes what happened: There are extensive materials available online about Boeing's misconduct in the Evolved Expendable Launch Vehicle (EELV) acquisition and the prosecutions and private litigation that followed. See, e.g.: https://www.justice.gov/archive/criminal/cybercrime/press-releases/2003/branchCharge.htm If you want to read about inadvertent disclosure of source selection information, see the DOD IG's Report on the JEDI Cloud Procurement, DODIG-2020-079, specifically, pages 6, 39-40, and 82-90.
  19. And you do that by starting a thread at a widely-read social media page that you entitle: "Major error by contracting officer" and by identifying the acquisition as being one for a large construction job in which discussions are currently underway, and in which the agency used the device known as an "EN" (Evaluation Notice), which is not a FAR term and is not used by all agencies. And you say that the information you were given "identifies some key characteristics of the competitor's strategy" and "and other procurement sensitive information." And at one point you related to the world the CO's instructions to you (which you have since deleted). That's helping the CO get out of a bind? Brilliant. At least "Chris" is not your real name. Right?
  20. No. I would ask, but they may not know. This kind of thing happens. Make a record of it, follow the CO's instructions, document that you did, and go on about your business. Just continue to compete as best you can. I don't think you need to consult an attorney, but do as you please. You asked for advice. Here is some. You are talking too much in public. That's unintelligent. Publishing your story here won't make friends for your company in the agency. Do you really think no one knows who you are, who your company is, and who the agency is? How will this help your company? And in your opening post you called yourself a "cheater." Stupid.
  21. Prime's total estimated cost (which includes the sub's estimated cost and fee) for the specified level of effort + Prime's fee (limited to 15 percent of prime's total estimated cost) = Total contract estimated cost and fee. Keep in mind that the prime is obligated only to make its best effort to deliver the specified level of effort within the estimated cost, so see ji20874's FAR reference to fee payment if the prime is unable to deliver the total level of effort within the estimated cost and the government decides not to fund a cost overrun.
×
×
  • Create New...