LindaK

Bob: If you happen to work for DoD, use of "tiered evaluations" (same thing as cascading evaluations) was covered in the FY06 Defense Authorization Act and shows up in the DFARS under 210.001(a)(i)(B).

1. Have you ever tried personal initiative but you were shot down by "higher ups" because the FAR did not authorize something? No, not that I can remember - my contracting world is not that complicated that it falls outside the regulations/policies/EO... found elsewhere. 2. Have you ever used personal initiative and your idea was supported by "higher-ups?" See above 3. In federal contracting, is it easier to be human or to be an automaton? Have to agree with what's been said above (with the exception of CDS who apparently has found a utopian contracting office for which I am jealous). In my experience, I see a huge push to homogenize the federal acquisition field - make all documents and contracts look alike. That's best accomplished by automation. Human thought wreaks havoc on automation. 4. If you answer automaton to #3, is it because of GAO protests, supervisors, etc? To a degree, yes. But it involves much more than that. I have actually seen this FAR principle abused rather than properly used because the individual ignores the principle in its entirety and thinks that if the FAR doesn't prohibit it, it can be done, but fails to take the additional step of researching whether the action violates other regulations, laws or policies.

Contractor/subcontractor personnel may not engage in any of the following behaviors at a government work site: Alcohol consumption; Gambling; Non-professional contact or relationships with Government personnel.

To add to Vern's suggestion, the number for General Inquiries to ASBCA is 703-681-8500

Todd, The DLA Master Solicitation for Automated Simplified Acquisitions clearly states at 3.©(3)(d): "TIE QUOTES: If evaluated offers results in a tie between qualified quotes, the award decision will be based on the following order of precedence: (1) A domestic end product offer over a non-qualifying country end product offer It would appear that the contracting officer was following the procedure outlined in the solicitation for tie quotes - apparently you identified the product of a non-qualifying country and the awardee indicated that it was providing a domestic end product. If this is a repetitive issue, and you are certain that there is not a domestic product that would satisfy the requirement, I strongly encourage you to engage with the contracting officer and perhaps the small business office to find a workable solution for the future. There should be a process in place in which you can notify the contracting officer that the only solution for a solicitation is a non-qualifying country end product and as a result, paragraph (1) of the Tie Quotes process should not apply - without having your quote being rejected for taking exception to the requirements of the solicitation. That said, I agree with what others have said about protests, which is unfortunate and which does keep companies from protesting. I'm quite dismayed at what I see going on - more often lately than ever before (I mean, seriously, look at the language for the Tie Quotes - "If evaluated offers results in a tie between qualified quotes" - really?). I wish more companies would express objection. I don't see things changing without it.

As for the NAICS quesiton, try 334614 - Software and other prerecorded compact disc, tape, and record reproducing.

No apologies necessary. I can take it! It's as much a fear of disclosing things I've seen over the years that I shouldn't disclose for purposes of job security as it is in revealing my ignorance. I actually think the contributors here are more gentle in their responses than I might be. Couldn't resist an emoticon!

I thank you Bob and all the contributors! Wish I had more time (and courage) to participate more often.

Wishing you the happiest of happy! And thanks for your dedication to keeping this site going!

Oh - and it involved the AF, not the Navy. Maybe that's why you don't recall it.

Yes. Reported differently depending on what you read but in the settlement that was reached, Boeing agreed to pay a penalty in excess of $6M.

I believe Vern is more on track with this issue. Violation of the Berry Amendment may constitute fraud. Boeing was charged with fraud in such a case in 2004 for selling aircraft parts that contained Russian titanium.

Hi Vern! Same LindaK. I sent you a private note via this site (I think).

Don: Thanks for beating me to the punch on the regulation. You nailed it! Some contracting officers 'reserve' these brand name requirements for small business, but a set-aside is inappropriate. A little bit of research will uncover incidences of abuse of programs such as the 8(a) program for these brand name items manufactured by other than small business concerns, so I'm not opposed to the rule in principle.