Weno2

Thank you

Yes. Important because it's a source of information to members, etc. Could have more of an influence, but if Agencies aren't willing to provide NCMA membership (like before February 2025), that fades. No

Thank you Vern. Someone deleted the closed CPAR evaluation, so we are unable to amend the CPAR evaluation.

Situation where contractor did not concur with approving offical's (RO's) decision, and requested a reevaluation (level above CO). Contractor filed a claim after they received CPAR evaluation with Review Official's (RO)'s decision. Instead of issuing CO final decision, the government proposed changing the CPAR evaluation and contractor accepted the proposal. The RC closed the CPAR evaluation after their decision. Does the government initiate a new past performance evaluation? Or can you amend the final CPAR and make the changes? CPARS help desk was of no use because they don't provide a phone number: Only contact by email, And the responses did not address my question.

Because of a laspe in appropriations, Agencies are sending shutdown letters to contractors. We are seeing the following verbiage: "Appropriations provided under the Full-Year Continuing Appropriations and Extensions Act, 2025 (Public Law 119-4) expire at 11:59 pm tonight. On September 19, the House of Representatives passed H.R. 5371, a clean continuing resolution (CR) that would fund the government through November 21. Unfortunately, Democrat Senators are blocking passage of H.R. 5371 in the Senate due to Democrats’ insane policy demands, which include $1 trillion in new spending." Ethical? Congruent with the FAR? Would you sign the letter if you were the CO?

I started with the DAR (sure there are posters that started before the DAR), then the FAR. FAR 2.0 just another stop on the contracting knowledge bus.

Logical since GSA will be in charge of buying all supplies and services for civilian agencies. Draft EO would make GSA the center of most common buys

My condolences to Bob and his family. Bob, contributors to the website, and other who've opined (+ and -) have made - at least - the last 24 years of my contracting experience better and easier. He will be missed. Thank you Bob.

Take care of yourself, Bob.

I had an attorney take the same position a few weeks ago. GSA Interact responded to the following question, "Is a Schedule BPA a "Contract?" Here's the link: Interact (gsa.gov)

Vern, thank you for your contributions. All of us from the contracting community who have benefited from you (and those who did and didn't realize it) thank you. You lit thousands of torches in the contracting community. Now it's on us to start - or continue - to light the torches.

The latest Alliant 3 (currently in draft RFP form) is not setting prices at the base K level - only at the task order (TO) level. Is this the first acquisition considering this "innovative" method? I believe it's been discussed here before. Is this something other contracting offices should consider implementing, or did GSA get a special waiver for trying this "innovative" method?

See FAR 42.1502, Policy

Bob, I've played a sax solo in front of thousands: I rather have your legacy. Thank you Bob for everything. And thanks to all who have provided positive in Wifcon.

FAR 2.101, Definitions, defines best value - 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 can you justify the government is getting "best value" awarding to a technically unacceptable contractor?