BrettK

REA'n Maker - want to borrow my rake to chase the young'uns from your yard? Seriously though, thank you all for your candor on this topic.

Thanks for your responses. Both are quite helpful.

I searched the site and could find nobody discussing the NCMA GCMS for this (or prior) years. I have questions! Have you attended in the past? Are you going this year (Dec 5-6 in Bethesda, MD)? Is this a well attended conference by people who participate in Wifcon? Why or why not? Is it worthwhile? Do you feel vendors get a lot of opportunities to interact with federal decision makers there?

So in order to understand Price Reduction for Defective Certified Cost or Pricing Data the reader is expected to have, what, two PhDs?

Here is the data I got for the parts you mentioned. Still looks like a decrease in Gunning Fog for each: Part 13 1995: 13.98 2022: 13.69 Part 25 1995: 13.51 2022: 13.25 Part 31 1995: 16.55 2022: 15.41

Really interesting idea. So I ran an older version of the FAR through Gunning Fog readability index. According to that non-scientific reading, the old FAR was written at the 16.55 level (college senior to college graduate). The most recent FAR is written at 14.32 (college sophomore to junior). From a reading index level, it is less complex now. I'm sure that doesn't track with your findings.

Feel free to DM or email me. I'll put on a bulletproof vest just in case it gets ugly.

BTW, the most interesting thing I learned about the FAR in terms of word count, having counted all years that were electronically available to me, was that it was not a linear expansion as I expected. There were some years parts were replaced or removed casuing a decrease from the prior year. It was much more of a jagged trend that eventually made its way upwards from 1995 - present.

It was a group effort. Thoughts?

I understand and I did not end up using it_depends' info. I have good word counts for the 1995 FAR and the 2022 FAR and compared them to the number of words in Harry Potter series for impact. I thought it came out nicely. If you're interested, the graphic is on this page and also embedded in the white paper that can be downloaded from the same page. https://www.bidscale.com/whitepaper

Thank you for this! I still did word count but this is useful as well.

On topic but not particularly relevant to this argument: Remember that as of last month, there is now the added "Significant Strength" as a potential label as well. https://www.acq.osd.mil/dpap/policy/policyvault/USA000740-22-DPC.pdf

Ha! I've caught my limit and am grateful. Just watching now.

Rats. The FAR shows italics for those subsections but doesn't specifically state they should be used. I missed it.

Amazing! Looking forward to having this reference in my toolkit. Thank you!