Just happened to have a look at the board and noticed your kind solicitation. Haven't spent much time here lately, but have seen the recent news.

As for this GSA contract, I hope people understand that doesn't appear to be what most would consider a "money contract". There very likely is no up front money in this, nor any guarantee of a derivative money contract in the future. It is a posturing contract. Crossflow is now well postured to accept orders from what is essentially a catalog of pre-approved suppliers to (I believe) all government agencies. However, I should further note that the GSA is considered the "preferred supplier" for these agencies, i.e., they are somewhat obligated to acquire needed supplies via the GSA source than from an outside source. This also flows to defense contractors with facilities on military bases, who may acquire their needed supplies via the GSA (particularly when working on cost-plus type contracts). There may be more than one GSA source for any specific commodity - in other words I doubt this Crossflow contract makes them "sole source" for the general commodity. There would still be a competitive bidding requirement, I would think (especially for any big contracts), and the bidders could include GSA pre-approved suppliers as well as qualified suppliers not in the GSA catalog capable of satisfying the mission.

What I do find interesting (and promising) is that in my experience with the GSA, they were primarily the source for office supplies, leased vehicles and "common minor material" (nuts, bolts, other very basic commodities), and NOT for more specialized, mission-specific supplies. Thinking it through, however, this bodes well for the Crossflow pre-approval, as it does support the proposition of this product being the government standard. And if demand permits, the GSA might even stockpile product to timely meet demand and benefit from "economic ordering quantities" (buying mass quantities for a discount).

So, in summing, the news is good in that Crossflow is better postured with this contract in hand, but there is no known immediate or longer term "absolute" that anything will come of it. IMO, this news does not justify the PTSC PPS improvement.

This from the former contracts guy, who is also the former logistics guy.

One funny and somewhat embarrassing (but not sure who really should be embarrassed about it) story about a dealing with the GSA: While working the West coast Space Shuttle contract at Vandenberg as head of Logistics Operations Controls, I found a need for red ink pens for editting contracts, proposals, plans and other (mass quantities) of documents. I order 1 each box of red pens. I get one large box - a gross (144) of smaller boxes with 12 pens in each. Need a pen? LOL I believe it was due to a failure of the GSA to specify actually quantities in their catalog, or having the wrong quantity designation. But still, regardless of proper blame, it was a bit embarrassing for me, at least, to have this obvious foul-up land on my desk - literally. Then of course there's the "need the form in order to order the form" catch-22 story I've told before.... LOL

Now, having done one of my infamous novels, I must ask a very basic question re: the recent news on the '584: Has anyone of techie knowledge offered an opinion as to whether claim 29 lost any meat via the amendment? As far as what little I've managed to read here, it seems that this may still be a big unknown. But maybe I missed it....

JMOs and question, FWIW,

SGE