Jump to content

Is it necessary to use the terms "weakness," "significant weakness" and "deficiency" when communicating during FAR Part 15 discussions?


Vern Edwards

Recommended Posts

22 minutes ago, Vern Edwards said:

Yes. That has already been said, and is more than enough said. Thank you.

The topic of this thread is:

That topic has been addressed. Do you want to say more about that? If so, please do. If not, then off-topic commentary is just blah-blah-blah and is unwelcome, because it often causes confusion, as we have seen so many times.

No, I addressed the original topic, which was a question. Didn’t know it was limited to the first ones to answer.

 Sorry for also suggesting that effective discussions also go beyond simply identifying “problems”.

I also mentioned a common hesitancy to avoid more than the minimum stated discussion requirements and a possible historical source. Sorry.

Wasn’t intending to cause any further debate.

I edited my previous posts. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

32 minutes ago, Vern Edwards said:

Yes. That has already been said, and is more than enough said, unless you want to explain "perhaps."

It is “necessary” to address “significant weaknesses” and “deficiencies” during “discussions” but I suppose one could avoid labeling them as such, reference FAR 15.307 (d) (3). 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...