Don Mansfield

Let me try again. Can we know in the present what an offeror's approach will be in the future as if it were a fact?

No, I mean how they will perform the work. The actual "approach" they will use.

Let's determine the category of things that value belongs in, then describe what things make value distinct from other things in that category. I think value is a measure--like height and weight.

Can we all agree that it is impossible to know in the present how a contractor will perform in the future?

In the context of FAR part 15, value is a measurement of benefit in an expected outcome of an acquisition. This can be inferred from the definition of best value at FAR 2.101: "Best value means the expected outcome of an acquisition that, in the Government's estimation, provides the greatest overall benefit in response to the requirement." How should value be defined is a different question.

I don't think the deviation language conflicts with the Prompt Payment clause.

I checked the WAWF Pay Official training and the system records the invoice received date.

So just ignore 10 USC 3458(c)(2)?

I wonder if Ms. Kostro understands constructive acceptance under the Prompt Payment Act. See FAR 32.904(b)(1)(ii)(B)(1).

The restriction on contract type comes from 10 USC 3458(c)(2): "Contracts or agreements entered into using the authority under subsection (a) shall be fixed-price, including fixed-price incentive contracts."

Just put the last sentence in white font.

Probably because the parent contract wasn't completely priced.

In FY22, DLA awarded a requirements contract to Boeing. In FY24, DLA issued an undefinitized delivery order under the contract. This announces the fourth modification to that delivery order.

Probably. I don't think the current FAR Council even sees a problem.

@joel hoffman This is one of my main criticisms of the FAR Overhaul. Presumably, a clause is in the FAR because it meets the conditions for publication in 41 USC 1707. If you remove it, and agencies come up with their own versions, they would probably have to be published in the agency's FAR supplement. So what would be achieved? Chapter 1 of Title 48 gets shorter, but all of Title 48 gets longer. FAR 1.304(c) states "coverage that is not particular to one agency shall be recommended for inclusion in the FAR." This mitigates the risk of each agency coming up with their own unique clauses that achieve the same purpose.

How did they validate the accuracy of the output?

You are understanding correctly. The clause is completely removed from the FAR in the deviation guidance.

Do you mean it was perfect in picking all provisions and clauses for a hypothetical solicitation?

Joel, I've been creating line-in line-out versions of the changes and posting them on my web site: www.donacquisition.com.

No, they've already promised to do that in their offer (assuming it contained the Changes clause).

Would you say the construction of an Amazon distribution center is NOT based on market prices?

I don't doubt offices were doing that, but it makes no sense. Purchasing construction is not purchasing real property.

I don't think that's different than the current policy at FAR 10.002(d)(1).

I know--this thread is Joelnip.

That's good advice if the CO has a choice. The EO now requires the CO to seek higher-level approval, which they may not get. @GeoJeff Remember that you can tailor FAR 52.212-4 to include other FAR clauses if they are consistent with customary commercial practice. Are the FAR construction clauses consistent with customary commercial practice? If so, why not include them by addendum?