Don Mansfield

The authority at FAR 26.202-1 can only be exercised in a declared major disaster or emergency.

👍

If you're not buying more than one year's requirement, it doesn't meet the definition of multiyear contract at FAR 17.103.

Are you buying three years worth of requirements? Or is it a project that is going to take three years?

A lot depends on how the material is marked and what the training contract said about the Government's rights. If I do a webinar for an agency, I allow them to keep the video and material for their own use. I would only have a problem if another contractor was using my material without my permission to perform a contract. They would also need my permission to release my material outside the Government.

Yes, I think so. I think if they participated in a good Community of practice--like Wifcon--they would have opportunities for incidental learning. Also, you may be overvaluing learning in-person in an office. I remember you once described this as learning by rumor and innuendo. A lot of contract specialists find the information they need by Googling the topic and adding "Wifcon" at the end. Also, if I were to go into a random contracting office today I would not be confident that contracting officers would understand line items or equitable adjustments. Just think of all those contracts with "ODC" CLINs.

Yes, I think they could. They would learn differently, but they could still learn.

You need to publicize the open market items in accordance with FAR part 5.

It would be best if you asked the contracting officer. Our interpretations don't matter.

By definition, a solicitation provision is a term or condition used only in solicitations and applying only before contract award (see definition at FAR 2.101). The provision at FAR 52.222-25 is a representation that an offeror completes in response to a solicitation. If the provision was in a solicitation and it was completed by an offeror that was subsequently awarded a contract, the completed provision would be incorporated in the contract by operation of the clause at FAR 52.204-19 or similar clause. Incorporating the provision in the contract without the contractor's response would be pointless. Have you read the provision?

The title GAO decision reminded me of our discussion thread last year. Why didn't the protestor argue that the missing information was not part of the "proposal", citing STG International? Seems like a missed opportunity.

Here's a COFC case that was filed under seal just three days after the Percipient.ai case was filed (there was a weekend in between). The COFC held that the protestor was not an interested party because they were not an actual or prospective offeror: https://ecf.cofc.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/show_public_doc?2023cv2047-51-0

1. No, but you should explain somewhere why you consider the two to be technically equal--don't just say they got the same rating. Then, conclude that (A) is a better value because of their lower price. 2. No, because you wouldn't be making a tradeoff. You should compare (A) and (C) and explain why (A) is superior technically, then conclude that (A) is a better value because of their lower price. Document a comparative analysis of each offer against each other offer and explain why one is a better value than the other. Not all comparisons will require you to perform a tradeoff analysis.

It doesn't. The way I interpreted Vern's scenario, the contractor would not be interested in ADR. In real life, ADR should be considered.

Ok, so "yes" to your question. As a taxpayer, I would want to know what else would be done with the $50,000 in resources. If they were being used to defend against a $4 million claim, then I'm ok settling the $40,000 claim. However, if the $50,000 were to be used to pay employees whose job it was to defend against claims and there were no other claims to defend against, then I'd want the money to be used to defend against the $40,000 claim.