WifWaf

Why can't the competition just be binding for one or so Firm-Fixed-Unit-Rate priced line item(s) integral to the whole MATOC? Proper pre-award requirements analysis could lead to this being solicited in the IDIQ Section B and described as "binding for the life of the contract" in Section L.

Here is a new method of implementing an idea that I called for long ago, in a post far, far away (actually, my O.P. is linked below). https://www.regulations.gov/deregulation The website says, "Possible reasons for rescission include, but are not limited to: (1) the regulation is inconsistent with a statute; (2) the regulation is inconsistent with the Constitution; (3) the regulation’s costs outweigh its benefits; (4) the regulation no longer reflects the current state of technology; or (5) the regulation is bad policy, unreasoned, or unsound. If this is a final rule, you should respond to any relevant and timely comments. If there are other requirements for repealing a rule, please address those here." Contracting professional: free yourself, via negativa.

The deregulating continues. Have your AI of choice summarize for you what each of these notices and proposed rules say: Federal RegisterCost Accounting Standards Board Meeting AgendaThe Office of Federal Procurement Policy (OFPP), Cost Accounting Standards Board (CAS Board) is publishing this notice to advise the public of its recent and upcoming meetings. The meetings are closedFederal RegisterIncrease of Monetary Thresholds and Other Matters Related...The Office of Federal Procurement Policy (OFPP), Cost Accounting Standards Board (the Board), is publishing this notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to elicit public comments on proposed increases toFederal RegisterConformance of Cost Accounting Standards to Generally Acc...The Office of Federal Procurement Policy (OFPP), Cost Accounting Standards Board (the Board), is releasing this notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to elicit public comments on proposed changes to th

This got me thinking about IQ versus Emotional Intelligence,@Vern Edwards, and reminded me that there is another way to learn: to achieve a state of flow. “Flow” is achieved when the mind is optimistic, focused, and unstressed while being pushed to just the apex of its abilities. That apex then goes a little higher the next day. Scaling this up to an office where flow is an everyday occurrence would equate to, and could even outdo (through higher grit), those offices with a high median IQ. If only our workflows and ops tempos could always be structured this way, you would get your wish of workforce improvement. At least you would in a dumbo like me.

The clause at DFARS 252.246-7008, titled Sources of Electronic Parts, begins like most other DFARS clauses: the big buyer in a monopsony makes an explicit demand because it assumes no market forces will implicitly make sellers meet the requirement. Statute requires this, and there is no way around it: the demand must be made explicit to sellers to protect the government's interest. Cheap parts exist in the market, and Warfighters can't have their plywood huts burn down when they plug junk parts into the generator. That is the "why" behind DOW requiring this, but my question is how should DOW do it? Should it keep being explicit and ham-fisted, or does that somehow stifle a marketplace? The clause is required by prescription in commercial contracts.

Found a related RFI: https://sam.gov/workspace/contract/opp/18575cee90e74b11bbe963d7750408d8/view Here you go, 1102s, have at it:

In honor of the late Bob Antonio, founder of WIFCON and its former moderator, I am posting the following updates to the Procurement List made by the Committee for Purchase From People Who Are Blind or Severely Disabled. I suspect Bob had a heart for these individuals. Federal RegisterProcurement List; Additions and DeletionsThis action adds service(s) to the Procurement List that will be furnished by nonprofit agencies employing persons who are blind or have other severe disabilities.Federal RegisterProcurement List; Proposed Additions and DeletionsThe Committee is proposing to add products) to the Procurement List that will be furnished by nonprofit agencies employing persons who are blind or have other severe disabilities, and delete product(sFederal RegisterProcurement List; ChangeThis action changes service additions to the Procurement List that are furnished by nonprofit agencies employing persons who are blind or have other severe disabilities.For further information, search the RFO or the current FAR, Part 8, for "Procurement List". Bob must have caught every one of these notices on the Federal Register. He would always put them on the front page.

In many markets, the government cannot obtain robust market research from outside. Even when it does obtain it from outside the market, its result is program people describing requirements with which they have little recent experience. When requirements writers do not have great experience doing the work, they ask for approaches and understandings, so that they can make their evaluation decisions more binary (strength or weakness). If you must gain research by actually entering the market, you might try this newly described FAR Part 15 source selection approach.

Would anyone like to challenge me on this? Allow me to show my work. I am looking to sharpen it up. We know a cost is allowable only when the cost complies with all of the following requirements: (1) Reasonableness. (2) Allocability. (3) Standards promulgated by the CAS Board, if applicable, otherwise, generally accepted accounting principles and practices appropriate to the circumstances. (4) Terms of the contract. (5) Any limitations set forth in FAR Subpart 31.2. We know the negotiation of a contract type and a price are related and should be considered together with the issues of risk and uncertainty to the contractor and the Government. FAR 15.405(b). At time of award, then, these five factors determining allowability plus all issues of risk and uncertainty known to be possible (by at least one party) produce a price. The "something for something" nature of a quid pro quo exchange that occurs, therefore, is only sustained so long as both parties' "somethings" do not substantially change in any of the five points. Likewise, so long as they do not change in any risk not inherently assumed by contract type. When one changes substantially, the affected party may be equitably adjusted with a new price, or else the price may no longer be fair and reasonable. Think of the example of a cost accounting change. Here allocability has changed, therefore the government explores the magnitude of it and makes a materiality determination and seeks recovery of a cost impact. That’s also FAR 52.230-6 terms of the contract.

Price = an estimate of allowable costs + a construct of risks justifying profit. Price is a package presented quid pro quo by an offeror in exchange for an award.

To that I will. Because: From practice alone, my working definition of price flows mainly from the “meeting of the minds” necessary element of a contract in contract law. This is why in my noncommercial contracts I seek incorporation of offer elements to the maximum extent practicable. In addition, I dissuade COs from making a PCO-to-ACO handoff, as the foreknowledge and any verbal agreements are lost in transition. Can we keep it practical like this?

Can you expand on this statement?

That’s disingenuous to the discussion. We were talking about holding a human decision maker to his promises, not holding an atom to its law. We are on matters of the mind, not matter in physics.

I contend that the majority of contracts that are firm-fixed-price at a lump sum unit of measure today could move to fixed unit-rate and we would see immediate savings and improvements in quality. But it’s not described or instructed enough in the FAR and not trained outside of construction, so it doesn’t come up in acquisition planning.

The evaluators are human beings and we humans have always had a saying: "My word is my bond." The evaluators misinterpret the written word as a bond - an offer/promise. Talk about your ancient concepts. Oaths are sacred. Yes*, but that didn't stop all of humanity from entering into contracts. And you know how they made it work? Hard consequences for oath breaking. A king from ancient antiquity once even allowed the sacrificial killing of members of his tribe because he made an oath with another tribe to serve him in exchange for his protection. When he failed to ensure that protection, the king valued his bond more than his kinsmen’s lives even. A modern-day equivalent is one's guarantee of livelihood, vice an actual life. If we solicit a proposal framework that separates promises from paraphernalia, and explicitly places the hard consequence of partial payment on promise-breaking, we are applying ancient wisdom to our work. This theory is applied in an RFP that requires offers to be filled in for contract insertion, to be sure. * I answer with 100% certainty in fixed-price contracts, but with less in flexibly priced contracts due to the post-award influence of invoice-by-invoice cost allowability determinations. In particular, terms of the contract would allow an offer's enforcement here.