Don Mansfield

21 hours ago, Mattt said:

Recommend reviewing FAR 32.703-3. Your agency most likely has guidance in its supplement at paragraph (b).

I think the OP is asking if he can fund the over and above work before it has been identified. I also question when over and above work--as defined at DFARS 252.217-7028--would be considered severable.

Has the over and above work been defined? Or do you obligate a lump-sum and reconcile after ordering the over and above work?

I don't understand the question. FAR 17.204(e) has to do with options. The OP didn't say the contract had options.

2 hours ago, formerfed said:

Seems to me this LinkedIn post is a way to talk with industry and government experts.

I give him credit for soliciting informal feedback on LinkedIn.

I don't know for sure, but I don't think purchasing "commercial coworking space" is leasing real property. It's more like purchasing hotel accommodations.

What do you mean by "new start requirement"?

No, and I wouldn't expect more than "read your contract." If the contract includes FAR 52.229-3, Federal, State, and Local Taxes, then the contractor could be compensated for an after-imposed federal tax. This includes duties (a tariff is a type of duty).

Here's a good analysis: https://www.insidegovernmentcontracts.com/2025/03/the-trump-tariffs-and-federal-contractors-in-these-taxing-times-contractors-have-a-duty-to-know-these-five-things/

10 hours ago, 1102fun said:

We have a requirement to procure a commercial coworking space for one year. The Senior Realty Officer of our agency stated that coworking agreements can be procured as a non-real estate contract for services. I am trying to verify whether it really is a non-real estate service. Could someone please point me to the part in the FAR that coworking space would fall under? Thank you.

Do you mean something like Regus?

@Matthew Fleharty

What is your opinion of DoD Instruction 5000.66, DEFENSE ACQUISITION WORKFORCE EDUCATION, TRAINING, EXPERIENCE, AND CAREER DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM?

Do you think the instruction is to blame at all for the state of the DoD contracting workforce? Or are the problems all in the execution?

"After “the basics,” the recurring standard for workforce development is to spend merely 80 hours on continuous learning

over a two-year period that consists of 4,160 work hours—at that rate, people spend more time at work going to the bathroom than studying their profession."

🤣

@formerfed That's just the line-out version. It doesn't show the additions. I can't attach the line-in line-out version here because it's too big, but you can see it here: https://www.linkedin.com/posts/donald-mansfield-181b6425_compare-docs-version-of-current-and-proposed-activity-7325645767174410240-oB6w?utm_source=share&utm_medium=member_desktop&rcm=ACoAAAVVFfEBGwwV9lul0QXOYxogw54s42KVA9c

I think it's supposed to be STD ZD072. I don't know what the code means, but DLA uses it when referencing a Hazard Communication Standard notice in solicitations for batteries. The notice requires submission of Safety Data Sheets to the contracting officer.

Is FAR 52.223-3 in the contract?

I wonder how an offeror's proposal would differ using one authority vs. another. Would they have different proposals for different authorities (i.e., OTA price, FAR-based contract price, etc.)? That would interesting to measure.

Deleted

On 5/2/2025 at 9:21 PM, Matthew Fleharty said:

A lot to digest, but this is what stuck out most for me initally: In the line out draft of Part 1 they struck out FAR 1.104 Applicability which used to read "The FAR applies to all acquisitions as defined in part 2 of the FAR, except where expressly excluded." As far as I could tell on my initial read through, they did not replace or reword that text anywhere.

That jumped out at me, too. I'm going to submit a comment on the importance of that statement.

Now on Spotify.

One is a contract clause and the other is an activity.

I think you need to work on your question.

Nice work

New EO: https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/2025/04/restoring-common-sense-to-federal-procurement/

Was it 1-year money?

From what I could gather, it was FFP with a delivery unit of "hour." Assuming the measure of "effort" was time spent working, then I would say it was FFP LOE.

1 hour ago, ricroy said:

15.303(a) states, "The contracting officer is designated as the source selection authority, unless the agency head appoints another individual for a particular acquisition or group of acquisitions." An individual is defined as a "a single human being as distinct from a group, class, or family." So as currently described in the FAR, an SSA is a human. Perhaps the new and improved FAR 2.0 will redefine "Contracting Officer" or "individual" as other than human.

--

The Federal Activities Inventory Reform Act of 1998 defines an inherently Governmental Function as "a function that is so intimately related to the public interest as to require performance by Federal Government employees," (emphasis mine) so this is based upon statute rather than any policy or regulation.

I also do not think that computer software could yet be considered a "Federal Government employee."

--

The question of whether or not all award decisions are currently made by humans is unimportant as the law requires humans to perform this work.

Where did you get your definition of individual?

FAR 7.503(c)(12) doesn't include selecting sources.

1 hour ago, ricroy said:

Yes, an SSA has to be human. The duties and responsibilities of an SSA as described in 15.303(b) are inherently Governmental per 17.503(c)(12).

Neither of those say anything about an SSA being human.

Do you think all award decisions are currently made by humans?

Does an SSA have to be human? If AI produced a rational source selection decision that would otherwise withstand scrutiny at the GAO or COFC, what's the problem?

2 hours ago, joel hoffman said:

Of course, what happens when Federal Court case law contradicts an Executive Branch interpretation of the law? That will have to be adjudicated between the President and/or Attorney General and the Judiciary, won’t it?

Or what happens if an executive branch interpretation is rejected by a court in a future decision? Does the executive branch wait to hear from the President/Attorney General that they have changed their interpretation?