Don Mansfield

I'm not saying that. I'm questioning why full and open competition should be the rule. Because tradition?

Right, but Vern is proposing throwing out that rule. I'm adding to that by saying that there would have to be a J&A to conduct full and open competition. Nobody would ever write a J&A again.

If there were no CICA, why would the justification for full and open competition be self-evident?

Why should full and open competition be the default? Shouldn't the decision be justified?

How about requiring justifications and approvals before conducting full and open competition?

@ErinHamp10, Given the grant of discretion at FAR 1.102-4(e), you should analyze the procedure beginning with the assumption that it's permissible. Then, see if there's anything that prohibits the procedure. If you can't find anything, then you can assume it's permissible. Your comfort level is not relevant when making this determination. Nothing in what you've described seems to violate any law or regulation that I know of. If you think it does, specifically identify the law or regulation.

I read ji's post yesterday and thought about how I might do what he proposed. Then, I got busy with something else and forgot about it. Strangely enough, I had a dream last night that I stood up in front of a room full of people and explained how I would put a special definition of "cost of contract performance" in Section H that would exclude pass-through costs to the OEM subcontractors. ji, who I've never met in person, was in the crowd nodding his head in agreement. When I woke up, I thought "that's a pretty good idea". True story.

I don't think GSA MAS contracts are definite quantity contracts.

Do you think the COs' behavior is due to lack of knowledge (they don't know how to find answers for themselves) or laziness (they know how to find answers but prefer to have someone else find the answers for them)?

Forgot about those. Thanks. These certificates are contained in FAR 52.212-3. There's no need to include them separately. That is weird. The Section 809 Panel questioned what was up with that in their report. From Vol. I, p. 34:

Like what? I watch this pretty closely and the prescription at FAR 45.107(a)(1)(iii) is the only one that I know of that conflicts with the "Notwithstanding..." at FAR 12.301(d).

Coincidentally, Ken Adams is teaching a class on drafting clearer contracts starting Wednesday: https://www.worldcc.com/Events/Event-Info/sessionaltcd/21_04_27_LD I'm thinking of taking it.

I think the authors of this press release blew a great opportunity for some clever word play. https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/mathematics-professor-and-university-researcher-indicted-grant-fraud For example-- "Calculated Deception FOILed" "Divided Loyalty Dooms Professor" "FBI-ordered Operation Yields Dividend"

How about that specific instruction is clear?

@Vern Edwards This was what I was referring to☝🏽️