en-us https://www.intensedebate.com/users/781421 Comments by milret152 http://www.dodbuzz.com/2010/11/22/no-kc-x-protest-for-now/#IDComment111476109 If a bidder is going to protest because their competitor saw information they shouldn’t have, the protest needs to come shortly after this becomes known. You can’t wait until you lost and then try to call foul on such a thing. But how would either side KNOW if officials involved in the bidding saw the material? Usually such materials go through the contracts folks first. I do, however, find it odd the press has not reported that ANYONE from either side has recused themselves from further involvement. Tue, 23 Nov 2010 16:07:25 +0000 http://www.dodbuzz.com/2010/11/22/no-kc-x-protest-for-now/#IDComment111476109 http://www.dodbuzz.com/2010/08/05/kc-x-darn-those-deadlines/#IDComment91850115 Getting to the base is half the battle, the RFP specifies an address. According to Wkipedia, WPAFB is "one of the largest, most diverse, and organizationally complex bases in the Air Force.” Every RFP cites an immutable deadline with unequivocal wording, DON’T MISS IT! Yet the messenger arrived at this large, complex base a half hour before the deadline. Are you kidding me! The protest alleges being held up and then improper directions. All commercial deliveries at DoD bases are subject to delay for inspection. (9-11 ring any bells?) I live near to the commercial delivery gate of a SMALL AFB and I often see a line of commercial vehicles waiting to gain entry. Lastly, who plans to depend on directions once you get there! OMG! Use MAPQUEST, it provides a map of the address! If there was any confusion, ASK A QUESTION beforehand! I’m sure the AF would have elaborated as to which gate to use, the paperwork required to gain entry, typical delays experienced at the gate, and a map from the commercial gate to the delivery location. It’s called proper planning. GAO needs to deny this protest. Tue, 10 Aug 2010 00:14:04 +0000 http://www.dodbuzz.com/2010/08/05/kc-x-darn-those-deadlines/#IDComment91850115 http://www.dodbuzz.com/2010/08/05/kc-x-darn-those-deadlines/#IDComment91841847 One more thing, according to Wikipedia: Wright-Patterson AFB is "one of the largest, most diverse, and organizationally complex bases in the Air Force." Who in their right mind would expect to deliver a proposal of such value by relying on the directions of the gate guard ONCE YOU GOT THERE! Mon, 9 Aug 2010 23:11:10 +0000 http://www.dodbuzz.com/2010/08/05/kc-x-darn-those-deadlines/#IDComment91841847 http://www.dodbuzz.com/2010/08/05/kc-x-darn-those-deadlines/#IDComment91840122 1. You don't honestly believe there was a deliberate action of deceiving the messenger by the rent a cop at the gate do you. 2. Who in their right mind with a proposal of this worth would depend on the directions from someone completely unassociated with this competition? If there was any question as to the address that was specified FOR A LONG TIME in the RFP, a request for a map before the proposal left the plant could have easily been requested and readily honored by the USAF. Mon, 9 Aug 2010 22:58:38 +0000 http://www.dodbuzz.com/2010/08/05/kc-x-darn-those-deadlines/#IDComment91840122 http://www.dodbuzz.com/2010/08/05/kc-x-darn-those-deadlines/#IDComment91836883 No sir, you are wrong. Because the messenger was on federal property does not mean the proposal was deilvered on time. Wright-Patterson is a large AFB. The Air Force RFP states, "Proposals must be received (mailed or hand-carried) at the place specified in Block 8 by 2:00 p.m. local time 10 May 2010. Caution - Late Submission, Modification, and Withdrawals: Proposal receipt after the due date and time shall be governed by the provisions of FAR 52.215-1(c)(3). All offers are subject to all terms and conditions contained in this solicitation." The address specified in block 8 is an address that I just loaded into MAPQUEST and up popped a map, NO DIRECTIONS FROM AIR FORCE personnel at the gate REQUIRED. No, this is a case of simple imcompetence and improper planning. Mon, 9 Aug 2010 22:33:58 +0000 http://www.dodbuzz.com/2010/08/05/kc-x-darn-those-deadlines/#IDComment91836883 http://www.dodbuzz.com/2010/02/01/mda-companies-quality-a-concern/#IDComment55308826 Since this issue applies across the board issue, perhaps the problem is with MDA and the contractors are only reflecting behavior that has been reinforced by a poorly run defense agency. These contractors were all contracted after MDA's selection process and then allowed to continue to perform under the surveillance of MDA. Remember all the other products prior to launching that failed target had to be reviewed AND APPROVED by MDA (engineering drawings, QA plans, reliability growth plans, etc.) Also remember, in 2006, the DoD IG (D-2006-060) blasted MDA for serious issues with their Systems Engineering practices. There have also been numerous critical reports issued by GAO (type in Missile Defense Agency in the report search box on the GAO website and you will get 82 results). Lastly, MDA has never been held to the DoD acquisition process (DoD 5000, JCIDS/JROC, and PPBE budgeting) which brings checks and balances with entrance and exit criteria to the development, testing, fielding and proper appropriation funding processes. I say, MDA, first heal thyself. Thu, 4 Feb 2010 10:20:13 +0000 http://www.dodbuzz.com/2010/02/01/mda-companies-quality-a-concern/#IDComment55308826