Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
Again False. And please restore my posts with credible links.
For instance: https://www.gsa.gov/portal/content/104121
Which states: Companies may also participate by seeking subcontracting opportunities with current contract holders.
The one I had found b/c you posted some Defense only relationship spells it out even more clearly. WBC - why don't you post that one as a favor and save yourself the $125k?
Seriously dude. So the preference on paper is for anything being bought by the Gov have a contracting vehicle with the SAM registration, etc.
However, in software - especially SAAS offerings - there is so much out there and new products online every day. To be able to harness the latest, they trust VARs (VALUE ADDED RESELLERS), which is where ACS comes in.
So, this is somewhat addressed in the link below, which took all of about 10 seconds for me to find. Also, as has been stated, I routinely do vendor/solution selection for the Gov and provide Analysis of Alternatives (AoA's). The gov picks based on the findings and recommendations, and then makes a move.
I've sold both SAAS offerings and firmware. It all depends on the mood of the buyer and what you're talking about. In my current supporting role, our contract is buying and installing a data center that sits in the same building as the one currently owned by the Gov. Yet the relationship to the racks and software is from my company to the vendor, and the Gov has a relationship to us. In that case you have one instance where the Gov has the direct relationships and less than 30 feet away is an environment we own but service for the Gov.
Here's the link I mentioned before: https://www.gsa.gov/portal/content/104121
Here's the pertinent statement: Companies may also participate by seeking subcontracting opportunities with current contract holders.
Okay - so please drop this whole string of talking nonsense. It is patently false and you seem to not be able to understand basic Gov contracting protocols.
The most hilarious part of this is that I'm preparing for a meeting this afternoon to work out requirements AFTER CONTRACT AWARD with a solution provider and the Gov.
Please stop. Please. Learn, get in the know, and let's move on with this.
Why can't I find the governing specification, the part designation, or the manufacturer that I'm trying to locate?
The QPD does not include every specification, every part designation, or every manufacturer doing business with the government; it is limited to active and inactive specifications that have a requirement for qualification. Only government or manufacturer parts within those specifications are listed. Likewise, only the sources for products currently included in those qualification data sets will be located and found within the QPD. Additionally, if a specification is canceled or revised to remove the requirement for qualification, the qualification data associated with that specification will be archived offline and be unavailable to general users of ASSIST or the QPD. If you cannot find a QPL or QML in the QPD, please check the governing specification in ASSIST, as the specification may have been canceled or revised to remove the requirement for qualification.
Yep - as a direct seller.
Wasn't it you who posted some DIA something and I posted the FAQ?
Actually let me take a different route. Does the manufacturer of socks have a SAM?
Primarily it shouldn't matter much. Generally a manufacturer doesn't sell direct.
Have you read the patents, and with respect and relation to Phonefactor?
The answer to your questioning is there.
Agreed. My set is lower (though I'll not be in remorseful pain if it goes up before I get more). Just notice whomever doing this 355 thing for a week or three now.
Strong bids though. Our 355 mystery person has shown up again. I'm guessing 1.355M person is the same.
The history of the relationship. Look to the last couple of paragraphs of the article.
I'll bite. What are your reasons?
Odd behavior - someone keeps putting bids in for lot sizes of $355k
someone's lucky number?
ACS is also working with other agencies. Not 100% sure yet if SFOR is one of the products being implemented.
Do not focus only on DoD. There's a lot of need out there otherwise.
Once again I disagree - from experience. While at DoD, the agency I supported needed an LMS. They funded us through an ODC line and we got them a SAAS product that isn't even FedRamped.
Happens all the time. It's not violation or even cause for alarm. I've even written custom software for the Gov, used Wordpress, other things that can fix the need. There are security checks through the ISO along the way, but no registration. For real - please understand this happens every day!
Respectfully, I think you're focused on manufacturing, which does seem to carry more guidelines. I haven't done much of that except for a little bit of finance work for FMS.
And?
What buying centers?
On SAM and FAR
Stop talking the nonsense that's carried on over the past few days. Under the contract I'm working for a Fed client, the gov can buy software through my company (or any on the contract - to include Lockheed and GITD), or through ACS. After purchase any of these companies can service said software (support, mainly, but could be installation and configuration).
Strikeforce itself would not be a direct party in any of those agreements. They would have an agreement with the vendor to provide Tier X level support, etc.
Move on sheeple.
You're right. They buy through ACS. Already been done outside of DoD. I know no facts on DoD purchasing.
That would be only for a direct purchase from STI. Got it? If they buy STI software through ACS, only ACS needs the registration.
Gov rarely buys directly from software manufacturers, including Oracle and MSFT. They buy through a vendor who will service the products.
When did he say what about the 4th quarter?
In the infamous misunderstood youtube video he was correct about the third quarter last year. And thanks everyone for misunderstanding so I could pick up more very cheap.
Please let us know what you have in mind about his statements for the 4th Q that were not what panned out.
Sure - I've posted things as well. I'm currently with a large Technical Integrator, after 17 years of such service. Specific software does not have to be vetted through anything like SAM, etc.
It all depends on how the money is funneled, etc., but definitely the Gov can hire a contractor and either run the money as an ODC or as a service.
The biggest thing about software would be what's allowed by an agency CIO/CTO or within on office within the agency, etc.
ACS currently is selling to the agency I support. There are no hoops about what the software is outside the ISO and primary client.
Please learn the Federal acquisition rules before posting nonsense.
Once again. Wrong.
That is correct! Plenty more coming. This could be rolling on hard for years. Good insight, sir!
Of course security starts at the source. A server can sit out there being protected as hell but not need any of it if DATA from the user isn't sent to it.
My main question is if this comes through in the Big Swing before or after the next recession, caused by Trump trade wars.
I think we'll be good at least to some extent, depending on YOUR price point and timeline.
If looking for 3-5 cents I think the timing is sweet and before late summer. If looking for more, maybe it doesn't really matter.
I think it's a she character, but who knows who is really there.
I agree. I have a belief that's what was behind BVTK reaching out the other day.
Hey, were you in training again on that last spike?
Are you cancelling all training?
I remember your story from last year's spike.
I've been at least two of those through etrade. I wouldn't read too much into it, just the action.
Another board a few months ago always went apeshit when they saw a specific channel ID. One of my trades I ended up with that ID, and the board thought one particular guy was making moves.
I agree 100%
Probably. Big cases. Regular updates, etc.
No big deal.
Speculation is a weak scare tactic in this case.
Someone had a post about the BVTK request for SFOR to reach out to them. I saw that but didn't digest it at the time. Now that I looked at their filings and PRs, wondering if this is a company using OOBA and not wanting to get sued.
Which is the game plan of the lawsuits. After the new set loses, I think the idea is that SFOR (if still that entity) just asks for the fees and if refused shows the dockets from past cases. But again maybe they won't be SFOR by that time.
Risky at this price with interest rates rising. If she got in lower, great. Otherwise wait a bit to get in. $16?
No.
Mainly revenue that hasn't been fully recognized enough to report.
DOC is a paying client, purty damn sure. And while I think it happened Q1, I don't know specifics. That's just one avenue.
I haven't been on this board in a bit but have been holding. I saw an ad via a game the other day and it seemed to be the car app. I skipped through it as usual but has anyone else seen this?
Main split is $0.0150 and $0.0185.
The .0168 is right in the middle of that. Either way, this is holding relative or going up. Let the manipulators buy a used Ford Pinto, I don't care.
Well heck all! My gwarsh!
And? Still means you hold no cheap shares anymore, and this thing is gaining attention and steam.
Oh sure, of course there'll be some, but the bottom is rising, with solid strength. Tried to say this awhile ago.
Seriously man, I can't thank you enough.
NCAR, apparently.
And I have two fist fulls of your cash. And more free to ride. Thanks again, dude.