text:
Federal Acquisition Regulation

The Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) is the principal set of rules regarding Government procurement in the United States, and is codified at Chapter 1 of Title 48 of the Code of Federal Regulations,. It covers many of the contracts issued by the US military and NASA, as well as US civilian federal agencies.

The largest single part of the FAR is Part 52, which contains standard solicitation provisions and contract clauses. Solicitation provisions are certification requirements, notices, and instructions directed at firms that might be interested in competing for a specific contract. These provisions and clauses are of six types: (i) required solicitation provisions; (ii) required-when-applicable solicitation provisions; (iii) optional solicitation provisions; (iv) required contract clauses; (v) required-when-applicable contract clauses; and (vi) optional contract clauses."

If the FAR requires that a clause be included in a government contract, but that clause is omitted, case law may provide that the missing clause is deemed to be included. This is known as the Christian Doctrine, which is based on the underlying principle that certain government regulations have the force and effect of law, and government personnel may not deviate from the law without proper authorization. Prospective contractors are presumed to know the law, including the limits of the authority of government personnel. Thus, a mandatory clause that expresses a significant or deeply ingrained strand of public procurement policy will be incorporated into a Government contract by operation of law, even if the parties intentionally omitted it.

A contract award can be challenged and set aside if a protester can prove that either the contracting agency or the contract awardee did not comply with the requirements of the solicitation. A successful protest can result in reconsideration of the decision to award the contract or award of the contract to the protester in lieu of the original awardee. Even though a successful protester may not ultimately be awarded the contract, the government agency may have to pay the protester's bid and proposal costs.

Structure
The Federal Acquisition Regulation is contained within Chapter 1 of Title 48 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR). Chapter 1 is divided into Subchapters A-H, which encompass Parts 1-53. Chapter 1 appears in two volumes, with Subchapters A-G appearing in Volume 1 while Subchapter H occupies all of Volume 2. The volumes are not formal subdivisions of Title 48, but refer instead to the fact that the FAR is printed by the Government Printing Office in two volumes for convenience.

The single most heavily regulated aspect of acquisition is contract pricing, which is addressed throughout the FAR, but especially in Subpart 15.4, Parts 30 and 31, and Subparts 42.7, 42.8, and 42.17. A large part of the FAR, Subchapter D, describes various socio-economic programs, such as the various small business programs, purchases from foreign sources, and laws written to protect laborers and professionals working under government contracts.

The final three chapters of Title 48 (61, 63 and 99) establish the Civilian Board of Contract Appeals, the Department of Transportation Board of Contract Appeals, and the Cost Accounting Standards Board, respectively. The Armed Services Board of Contract Appeals has been established by charter within the Department of Defense.

The proper way to cite a regulation within the FAR is by part, subpart, section, subsection, without respect to chapter or subchapter. For instance, the FAR rule on legislative lobbying costs is found at FAR Part 31, Section 205, Subsection 22 (cited as "FAR 31.205-22").

The table of contents, as of the edition published October 1, 2012, is available.

Supplements
As the original purpose of the FAR was to consolidate the numerous individual agency regulations into one comprehensive set of standards which would apply government-wide, the issuance of supplemental regulations is closely governed by the FAR. Nearly every major cabinet-level department (and many agencies below them) has issued such regulations, which often place further restrictions or requirements on contractors and contracting officers.

One of the best-known examples of an agency supplement is the Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (DFARS), used by the Department of Defense, which constitutes Chapter 2. Chapter 3 is the Department of Health and Human Services Acquisition Regulation (HHSAR); Chapter 4 is the Department of Agriculture's Acquisition Regulation (AGAR); etc. The Department of Veterans Affairs' Acquisition Regulation (VAAR) implements and supplements the FAR.

The required format for agency FAR supplements is to follow the basic FAR format. To continue the example above, the supplemental DFARS section on legislative lobbying costs is DFARS Subpart 231, Section 205, Subsection 22 (cited as "DFARS 231.205-22").

Vision
Part 1 refers to a "vision" and certain "guiding principles" for the Federal Acquisition System. The vision foresees "delivery on a timely basis [of] the best value product or service ... while maintaining the public's trust and fulfilling public policy objectives". Compliance with the Regulation, along with the use of initiative in the interests of the Government in areas not specifically addressed in the FAR or prohibited by law, are required and expected of all members of the Acquisition Team. The Acquisition Team consists of all those who participate in Government acquisition:
 * - the technical, supply, and procurement communities
 * - the customers they serve, and
 * - the contractors who provide the products and services.

The role and operation of those involved as a 'team' in government procurement is defined in FAR 1.102-3 and RAR 1.102-4. The FAR system is intended to promote "teamwork, unity of purpose and open communication".

Definitions
FAR Part 2 defines words and terms used frequently in the FAR.

Deviations
FAR Subpart 1.4, Deviations from the FAR, provides the steps needed to document deviations from the mandatory FAR or agency FAR supplement. Deviation documentation is needed if there is a precise FAR clause or provision for the issue. The Department of Defense has published many class deviations to enable faster contract actions in war environments.

FAR 12.401 allows contracts for commercial items to be tailored to a great extent, therefore deviating in many particulars from the mandatory clause language. See also FAR 12.211, Technical Data; FAR 12.212, Computer Software; FAR 12.213, Other Commercial Practices for additional authority to deviate or "tailor" FAR clauses and provisions in the context of commercial items/services.

Improper business practices and personal conflicts of interest
Part 3 addresses various improper business practices and personal conflicts of interest. Within this section, subpart 3.6 generally prevents government contracts being knowingly awarded to a Government employee or to an organisation owned or substantially owned by one or more Government employees. Similar wording was previously included in the Federal Procurement Regulations prior to 1984, with several GAO decisions confirming that an agency does not violate this subpart if neither the Contracting Officer not the selection officer has knowledge of such ownership or business connection.

Ratifications
A ratification is the proper authorization by a contracting officer of an earlier procurement by a Government employee who was not authorized to do it. A ratification package has a legal memo that says an unauthorized commitment was made, that the commitment could properly have been done by contracting officers, and that funds were and are available for it. Other regulations and agency rules apply too, such as those from the Army discussed below.

Ratifications are governed by FAR 1.602-3 (Ratification of Unauthorized Commitments), originally added to the FAR in 1988, which defines a ratification as the act of approving an unauthorized commitment by an official who has the authority to do so. Unauthorized commitment means an agreement that is not binding solely because the Government representative who made it lacked the authority to enter into that agreement on behalf of the Government. A ratifying official may ratify only when: (1) The Government has received the goods or services; (2) The ratifying official has authority to obligate the United States, and had that authority at the time of the unauthorized commitment; (3) The resulting contract would otherwise be proper, i.e., adequate funds are available, the contract is not prohibited by law, the ratification is in accordance with agency procedures, etc.; (4) The contracting officer determines that the price paid was fair and reasonable and recommends payment, and legal counsel concurs.

There are dollar limits to the authority to ratify unauthorized commitments. A Chief of Contracting Office can approve up to $10,000. A Principal Assistant Responsible for Contracting can approve up to $100,000. A Head of Contracting Authority can approve higher amounts.

Ratifications in the U.S. Army call for a signed statement describing the unauthorized commitment, the value of the procurement, and other documentation. Then a contracting officer is to study the case and recommend action. If the procurement is not ratified, the matter may be handled under FAR Part 50 and DFARS Part 250 (Public Law 85-804) as a GAO claim or some other way.

Contractor damage
FAR Part 45 provides rules on the Contractor's obligations and the Government's remedies in these cases. Specific clauses should be in the contract to deal with Government Furnished Equipment (GFE) situations and bring your own device (BYOD) situations.

Commercial items
The authority under FAR Part 12, Commercial Items (and services), must be used thoughtfully and carefully. It is very tempting for a contracting officer to use FAR Part 12 and hence FAR Part 13 in situations where such use is clearly not appropriate in view of the basic reasons commercial item acquisition authority was created by Congress.

FAR 2.101, which is concerned with definitions, provides that a commercial item means – (6) services of a type offered and sold competitively in substantial quantities in the commercial marketplace based on established catalog or market prices for specific tasks performed or specific outcomes to be achieved and under standard commercial terms and conditions. This does not include services that are sold based on hourly rates without an established catalog or market price for a specific service performed or specific outcomes to be achieved. For purposes of these services –7affan (ii) market prices mean current prices that are established in the course of ordinary trade between buyers and sellers free to bargain and that can be substantiated through competition or from sources independent of the offerors.

Note the emphasis in the FAR 2.101 definition for

for commercial items on established market prices. The reason why Simplified Acquisition Procedures are permitted for items above the $250,000 simplified acquisition threshold for commercial items is there is an efficient market pricing mechanism which pressures market participants to provide goods and services at a fair and reasonable price which represents very efficient / non-wasteful pricing mechanisms. Generally, the more efficient and well-developed markets have a large number of participating vendors and information is freely available to consumers in that market on the relative merits of each vendor's products and pricing which permits easy comparison of each vendor's products to each other. FAR Part 12 commercial items acquisition authority was intended to take advantage of the WalMart's (R) and Microsoft's (R) of the world where there is no need to go through the extensive, formalistic and resource/ time-consuming process of a fully negotiated procurement, which requires vendors provide cost and pricing information, to verify a fair and reasonable price. In other words, FAR Part 12 was intended to increase the number of competitors available to the US Government by jettisoning all of the unique requirements, including cost accounting systems, which are forced upon Federal contractors by acquisition processes such as FAR Parts 14, 15, 36 etc.; instead, the Federal Government could act more like a normal buyer in a fully functioning commercial market where the Government was but one of a large number of consumers seeking the same or highly similar products or services. However, FAR Part 12 was never intended to apply where the US Government was the only or one of a very few buyers for an item or service not in demand by the commercial market place.

What happens when there are very few market participants and the goods or services are not widely available to the public? Let's take surveillance systems in a military overseas contingency environment as an example. Battlefield full motion video is not something that is found in the commercial sector – Wal-Marts don't sell this; moreover, frequently there are special restrictions which impact on commercial firms ability to engage in work of this nature. For example, special FAA Administrator permission is required before a US certificated aircraft or pilot can fly in Iraq under Special Federal Aviation Regulation (SFAR) 77; if there are very few, or only one, vendor who can participate in this requirement, there are no vendors out there for meaningful competition which is the bedrock assumption of FAR Parts 12 and 13. In view of the above, the airborne recon contract is NOT a commercial service – therefore the use of FAR Part 12 commercial items contracting processes is wholly inappropriate and not permissible under the applicable laws governing Federal acquisition.

Taking another example, what happens when significant research and development is needed to adopt a commercial item for Government use? Should FAR Parts 12 and 13 be used here? Absolutely not. There are no market pricing mechanisms for the non-standard variant – the Government is the only buyer of this particular variant of the commercially available item.

What about situations where Government demand overwhelms the commercial markets supply? In this case, the Government is actually competing against itself because it has swallowed the market whole and usually has multiple requiring activities competing against each other for the same goods and services. This is exemplified in cases where numerous contracting offices demand the same goods and services, unknowingly driving prices up against each other. Frequently in these case, contracting commands accept take-it or leave-it prices from relatively few vendors (compared to demand) who know that these contracting offices are not coordinating amongst each other or establishing commodity control councils to ration demand against the civilian sources of supply. As the US Federal Reserve will attest to, inflation is one of the most damaging elements in an economic system to investment, capital markets and economic activity. In this case, the effect of driving massive cost inflation directly impacts civilians and non-Government consumers who are also competing for the same goods and services against the US Government acquisition commands; ultimately the deep pockets of the Government win out against the lesser buying power of the non-governmental market participants. In such cases, as the US Government did during World War II, commodity control councils must be established to identify all available sources of supply and ration supply to the various consumers, including US Government consumers, sometimes with price controls (although this is very dangerous because it frequently leads to black markets run by criminals). One solution in this case is to identify markets unaffected by the Government demand and seek to acquire goods and services through that other market. When the situation of overwhelming government demand occurs in a faltering or damaged economy, Government demand that is in excess of what the local vendors can supply to both Government and non-Government consumers should be met by vendors who operate out of the market in question, including through the GSA Schedule system if the damaged market is outside of the United States. Resources and expertise are in the Federal Government that are designed to assist in cases where Federal demand overwhelms civilian supply, one example being the Industrial College of the Armed Forces (ICAF). The ICAF's charter is to maintain the ability to nationalize an economy to achieve strategic objectives or a wartime mobilization, this is a good resource expertise in this particular area. Use of FAR Parts 12 and 13 without rationing of demand through a single commodity control council or finding other solutions is likely to create more problems than it solves. Non-commercial contracting methodology and clauses should be used for any acquisition where Government demand overwhelms civilian supply. It is highly unlikely there will be any cost controls or a fair and reasonable price obtained for non-commercial services or goods obtained using FAR Parts 12 and FAR 13 under these circumstances.

Sealed bids
FAR Part 14 details the requirements for conducting a "sealed bid" tender, where federal requirements can be stated "clearly, accurately, and completely" and price is the only determinant of contract awardee. Under this part,"Unnecessarily restrictive specifications or requirements that might unduly limit the number of bidders are prohibited."

Unsolicited proposals
Subpart 15.6 covers unsolicited proposals, i.e. business proposals offering new and innovative ideas outside the context of innovative proposals invited and offered within a government-initiated procurement procedure. The regulations suggest the executive agencies make provision for acceptance of unsolicited proposals and for prior contact with individuals or organisations contemplating submission of such a proposal.

Types of contracts
Part 16 identifies the types of contracts available for use in government contracting and the rules governing the selection or negotiation of contract types.

Service contracts
Special rules apply to service contracts. They must be performance-based to the extent practicable, with measurable outcomes. FAR 37.102 and FAR Part 37.6 describe performance-based methods. FAR 37.601 has specific requirements for performance work statements (PWS) for service contracts requiring performance-based standards. Agency supplements also require performance-based acquisitions. (See, e.g., DFARS 237.170 Approval of contracts and task orders for services; DFARS 237.170-2 Approval requirements.)

Performance Based Service Acquisition (PBSA) is a process and way of defining requirements that yields well written work statements that are outcome oriented and measurable thus enforceable. Deming/Six Sigma style quality assessments and process analysis can help define performance work statements. A Performance Work Statement (PWS) has: The DOD PBSA guide has a "performance requirements summary" matrix which can serve as an outline for work statement provisions.
 * An outcome-based definition of the service deliverable
 * Performance standards that are measurable
 * A plan for measuring and evaluating performance
 * A matrix of related services i.e., generator maintenance, that has subsets of services underneath them

Army Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) Supplement (AFARS) has an outline for performance-based service contracts.

Additional Resources for PBSA: The Office of Federal Procurement Policy (OFPP) has a Draft Best Practices Guide on Contractor Performance.
 * Office of Management and Budget, Office of Federal Procurement Policy, Performance Based Service Acquisition
 * Army Material Command PBSA site
 * NASA
 * Defense Acquisition University – Performance-based services acquisition links and templates
 * The Guidebook for Performance-Based Services Acquisition (PBSA) in the Department of Defense December 2000 is an outstanding resource with many examples and ideas
 * Army Material Command (AMC) Pamphlet 715-17, Guide for Preparation and Use of Performance Based Specifications
 * Interactive Internet presentation on performance-based services acquisition
 * Air Force Instruction 63–124, Performance-Based Services Acquisition

Personal services contracts
The term "personal services contract" means a contract with express terms or administration which makes the contractor personnel appear effectively to be Government employees. Such contracts are prohibited by the FAR (Subpart 37.104) excepting where specifically authorized by statute. "Nonpersonal services contract" means a contract under which the personnel rendering the services are not subject, either by the contract's terms or by the manner of its administration, to the supervision and control usually prevailing in relationships between the Government and its employees.
 * Contractors are NOT employees – no remedies under personnel law and no remedies under contract law if vague/badly written work statements used
 * Inherent governmental restrictions (See OMB Circular A-76) and FAR Part 37
 * FAR Subpart 9.5 Organizational Conflicts of Interest Organizational and Consultant Conflicts of Interest (OCIE) problems

Advisory and assistance services (A&AS) are permissible (See FAR Subpart 37.2)

Personal services are not permissible (See FAR 37.104 and Classification Act) without specific authority to obtain such services (meaning statutory authority)

Permissible to acquire expert and consultant services (5 USC 3109 or 10 USC 129b – expert services) or 10 USC 1091 – health services), as well as health services, intelligence, counter intelligence or special operations command operations requirements under DFARS 237.104, Personal Services Contracts and 10 USC 129b – Contracting must do a determination and finding (D&F) (per FAR Subpart 1.7 and DFARS Subpart 237.104) for this

DFARS 237.170-2 forbids non-performance-based contracts unless exception done under DFARS 237.170-2

If an agency is hiring experts, read over 5 USC 3109, Employment of Experts and Consultants, Temporary or Intermittent to see if it applies to FAR 37.104(f). Office of Personnel Management (OPM) has established requirements that apply in acquiring personal services for experts or consultants in this manner (for example, benefits, taxes, conflicts of interest), "therefore, the contracting officer shall effect necessary coordination with the cognizant civilian personnel office". Note that personal service contracts are potentially subject to salary caps.

"Inherently Governmental Functions" may not be performed by contractors other than a specific Personal Services Contract under the authority of P.L. 86-36 or 5 USC 3109. Inherently Governmental Functions are defined by P.L. 105-270 (FAIR Act of 1998) as a function so intimately related to the public interest as to require performance by Federal Government employees. These involve the exercise of discretion in applying Federal Government authority or making a value judgement in decisions for the Federal Government, such as monetary transactions and entitlements, determination of agency policy or program priorities, and hiring or direction of Federal employees.

See also 10 USC 2331 Procurement of services: contracts for professional and technical services and AFARS 5137.104—Personal Services Contracts.

See also agency regulations on specific prohibitions on use of service contractors for inherently governmental activities under OMB Circular A-76, for example, Army Regulation (AR) 735–5, para 2-11 sets out those property accountability tasks which can and cannot be performed by contractors. (Basically, contractors may not exercise any discretionary authority.)

Examples of prohibited personal services:
 * Clerical/administrative/secretarial support to Government personnel
 * Technical/Managerial performance of same or similar jobs performed by Government personnel
 * Any contractor personnel working in a Government facility and supervised/directed by Government

Health care
Special acquisitions rules and laws govern acquisition of health or medical related services. For example, DoD Instruction (DoDI) 6025.5, Personal Services Contracts (PSCS) for Health Care Providers (HCPS) has extensive requirements that must be addressed in any DoD health care contract. DoD 6025.18-R, DoD Health Information Privacy Regulation also has substantial mandates concerning medical records as well as HIPAA compliance. See Untitled Document

Military service regulations also deal with this issue extensively: for example, See AR 40-400 Medical Support Provisions – Authority

Accessibility
On Sept 10th, 2021 FAR updated its set of rules to shift from accommodations to building accessibility into the products and services government buys. federal agencies are now required to:
 * specifically identify which ICT accessibility standards are applicable to a procurement;
 * document in writing any exceptions or exemptions in their formal acquisition plans;
 * identify the needs of current and future users with disabilities and proactively determine how ICT functionality will be available to these users;
 * specify the development, installation, configuration, and maintenance of ICT in support of users with disabilities.

The new rules implement U.S. Access Board's revisions by strengthening FAR requirements for accessibility in Information and Communication Technology (ICT). Section 508 requires that federal agencies “develop, procure, maintain, or use” ICT. This adoption in FAR will help the public and Federal employees have comparable access whether they have a disability, or not.

Intellectual property (IP)
From the Government perspective, the most critical aspect of IP, data, technical data and patent rights revolve around freedom to operate and freedom of contract, namely freedom to have maximum competition. From the perspective of a contractor, the most critical aspect of this area is protection of competitive advantage from disclosure to its competitors. In other words, the contractor/commercial vendor wants to retain its ability to have a product to sell – inherent in this desire is a need to prevent the Government from disclosing important technical data, e.g., engineering designs, schematics, specifications, to its competitors when the Government conducts a follow-on acquisition and attempts to seek competition to meet legal and policy mandates in the Competition in Contracting Act (CICA) and Armed Services Procurement Act.

IP, data rights and technical data rights is a highly specialized practice area in Federal acquisitions. Careful examination of FAR Part 27 and applicable agency FAR supplements (for example, DFARS 227) must be performed and consultation with a wide variety of Federal statutes accomplished before attempting to deal with IP/data/technical data.

A number of variables drive allocation and use of IP/data/technical data including whether or not the subject of the contract is for research and development (R&D), small business/non-profit or non-small business/for-profit, source of funds used to create the IP in question (exclusively private, exclusively Government or mixed funds), acquisition of commercial or non-commercial items/services and whether software or non-software is being acquired. Additional clauses must be added to the acquisition for patent/data/technical data and specific CLINs must be added for data/technical data deliverables per the FAR/DFAR. Various agency regulations separately deal with technical data acquisition as well and must be consulted.

There is a difference between FAR and agency supplements. For example, the FAR focuses on "data" while the DFAR provisions focus on the narrower subset of "technical data". For technical data, DFARS 227.7102-3(b) states "Use the clause at 252.227-7013, Rights in Technical Data--Noncommercial Items, in lieu of the clause at 252.227-7015 if the Government will pay any portion of the development costs. ..." Thus, the Government would not be using that clause if it was not paying some portion of development costs – the question is whether or not this particular item's development costs were in fact paid for by the Government. It is prudent to make this determination up front in the CLIN structure of a contract for technical data deliverables.

There are different categories of technical data which are addressed in different sections of the Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) Supplement (DFARS). These main categories are technical data (defined not to include specific categories as called out in this list), software, and SBIR technical data. Technical data and software each are subdivided into two additional sub categories, commercial and non-commercial. Separate treatment and clauses are provided for each sub-category.

Generally, there are specific issues which must be addressed in any technical data rights or software acquisition, which include:

- Required contract clauses and provisions (driven by the below categories) (commercial versus non-commercial; software vs non-software; SBIR versus non-SBIR; technical and scientific information versus non-technical and non-scientific information; and special cases discussed in DFARS 227)

- Disclosure of technical data use restrictions as a part of the offer / proposal (for example, DFARS 252.227.7017 clause)

- Markings provisions (includes basic markings clause plus challenge clause)

- Required contract line item numbers (CLIN) structure (broken out for each category/type which are segregable – must be specifically expanded upon in the work statement / contract specifications; each CLIN must be separately priced; this is NOT THE CDRLS. CDRLS are separate.)

It is absolutely critical that both contracting and the requiring activity both understand the categories and subcategories of technical data as well as data. A basic understanding of the patent rights clauses are also necessary. Both technical data (and/or data) AND the patent rights clauses must be included as they are completely separate from each other.

Accordingly, it is important to understand your requirement and whether or not the acquisition or the deliverables fit into these categories because it drives acquisition planning and required clauses and provisions that must be inserted into the solicitation. It is normal for MULTIPLE contract clauses and provisions to be inserted into the contract solicitation for the acquisition of a SINGLE CATEGORY of technical data (for example, DFARS 7013, Non-Commercial Technical Data, and 7017 clauses). However, it is important to note that if multiple categories of technical data (or even FAR data) is to be acquired, multiple categories of technical data clauses must be inserted and each contract line item number (CLIN) must be specifically drafted to cover each separate CATEGORY of technical data (e.g., commercial AND separately non-commercial software)

Technical data for DoD contracts is defined at the DFARS 252.227.7013 clause, paragraph a, subparagraph (14): ""Technical data" means recorded information, regardless of the form or method of the recording, of a scientific or technical nature (including computer software documentation). The term does not include computer software or data incidental to contract administration, such as financial and/or management information." There are separate clauses for software (commercial and non-commercial).

The two standards technical data rights clauses in the FAR are the DFARS 252.227.7013 (non-commercial technical data) and the 252.227.7015 (commercial technical data) – neither of which covers software or software documentation.

Non-commercial software and its documentation are covered by the DFARS 252.227.7014 clause.

Commercial software acquisitions are dealt with only briefly at DFARS 227.7202 which essentially says that the Government shall get the rights customarily obtained by customers in the relevant software market, the Government shall obtain the minimum rights necessary for the Government's purposes, and that the Government cannot force the commercial vendor to give up rights. The Government cannot issue a unilateral modification forcing delivery of rights in computer software; mutual consent is mandated by law and DFARS provisions for commercial software acquisitions. The contract clause that is normally in a commercial software contract acquisition is the FAR 52.212-4, Commercial Items, clause. This clause mirrors the above intent which states that the Government will have rights provided to the normal consumer in that particular market, which in reality are defined by a separate software license. Licenses for software routinely have provisions which are illegal in Government contracts. In particular, see FAR 12.304 for the provisions of the 52.212-4 clause which may be tailored and which ones that may not as well as some provisions that may NEVER be in a Government contract except under very specific circumstances (for example, indemnification agreements, provisions which require the Government to give up control of litigation (usually for patent infringement lawsuits against the Government/licensee, invoicing, and remedies). Separately, examine the 52.212-4 clause as well as the software license and determine if they have provisions which either overlap or contradict each other. If so, then the two will have to be reconciled – essentially, the license will have to be rewritten to address any conflict with a provision which tells which one will control – either the license or the 52.212-4 clause.

The broader category of know-how, etc. is covered by the "data" provisions of the FAR. Note that DFARS part 227 scope provision requires that DOD use the DFARS 227 provisions rather than the FAR 27 provisions. However, it is important to remember that the FAR data provisions include both "data" and "technical data". The scope section is inartfully drafted because a literal reading would compel use of clauses which are specifically limited to scientific and technical information – you have to use the much broader FAR clauses to go after "data" which is not scientific or technical information.

DFARS 227.7103-1, Policy, para (c) says that "Offerors shall not be required ... to sell or otherwise relinquish to the Government any rights in technical data related to items, components or processes developed at private expense solely because the Government's rights to use, modify, release, reproduce, perform, display, or disclose technical data pertaining to those items may be restricted." HOWEVER, the Government may include a source selection criteria which rates offers more favorably or higher which provide desired technical data rights.

A detailed discussion of intellectual property in Government contracts can be found in a variety of sources, including Intellectual Property in Government Contracts by Ralph C. Nash, Jr. and Leonard Rawicz published by CCH/Wolters Kluwer, as well as Licensing Software and Technology to the U.S. Government: the Complete Guide to Rights to Intellectual Property in Prime Contracts and Subcontracts. However, note that neither of these books provide a nuts and bolts explanation on how to deal with commercial computer software licenses as discussed above. These books provide a high level discussion of the law and regulations, history and policy involved, which is useful.

Categories of Technical Data Rights:

DFARS 227.7103-4 License rights [Non-commercial items] provides the standard license rights that a licensor grants to the Government are (1) unlimited rights, (2) Government purpose rights, or (3) limited rights. Those rights are defined in the clause at 252.227-7013, Rights in Technical Data—Noncommercial Items.

Technical information developed exclusively with Government funds may be used by the Government without restriction including going to another contractor to produce the item in question.

A second technical data rights scenario occurs when items/technical data is acquired using mixed funding – the Government gets Government purpose rights which allow the Government to go with another vendor provided a non disclosure agreement is signed with that other vendor and any tech data/drawings produced under that other contract are marked in accordance with the DFARS 252.227.7013 clause.

If the technical data was developed exclusively at private expense, the Government has limited rights. That means the rights to use, modify, and disclose the data within the Government. But it generally may not, without permission, release the data outside of the Government. DFARS 252.227-7013.

Contractors in the Government Workplace – OMB Circular A-76 Public – Private Competitions, Inherently Governmental Work (not permitted to be performed by a contractor) and Federal Trade Secret Act (FTSA) Impacts on Use of Contractors:

In other areas, problems frequently arise when Federal activities hire support contractors to assist them with executing their mission. These contracts frequently come into at least potential conflict with rules governing permissible use of contractors, such as rules against use of contractors for inherently governmental functions (See OMB Circular A-76) and rules against personal services (see above). One of the most serious problems can occur when a contractor is put into a position where they can see private party trade secrets, proprietary information or other contractor's proprietary information. The Federal Trade Secret Act (18 USC 1905) imposes criminal, civil and administrative sanctions on Federal employees who with knowledge allow proprietary, confidential or trade secret information to be used for an unauthorized purpose, including permitting other Federal contractors to view the proprietary information in question.

Given the overwhelming reliance on support contractors, it is now necessary to address this question of authorized use under the Federal Trade Secret Act. A simple solution is to include in the CLIN structure a statement, such as for example, "the Government may provide proprietary information received under this contract to support contractors provided no organizational conflict of interest occurs under FAR Subpart 9.5, the support contractor is not directly competing on the acquisition in question which originated the proprietary information in question and a non-disclosure agreement with each contractor recipient is accomplished requiring the contractor ensure such proprietary information is not disclosed outside of the Government activity handling the proprietary information." In this way, the contract that is the entry point for such proprietary information being handled by US Government support contractors includes an explicit authorization which avoids violation of the Federal Trade Secret Act provisions relating to authorized versus unauthorized use.

The DFARS includes a non-disclosure agreement at DFARS 227.7103-7, para c, which can be used in this case.

Markings:

Markings are critically important technical/proprietary data to manage in a Government contract. See: Contracts which include technical data should include a markings section to ensure a contractor properly marks proprietary information and the Government protects it accordingly.
 * DFARS 252.227-7025 (Limitations on the Use or Disclosure of Government-Furnished Information Marked with Restrictive Legends),
 * FAR 27.404(h) – Unauthorized marking of data – discusses the marking provisions of FAR clause 52.227-14
 * DFARS 252.227-7017, Identification and Assertion of Use, Release or Disclosure Restrictions (Great clause to include for marking requirements, along with 52.227-14 clause)
 * Markings also covered in DFARS clause 252.227-7013, Rights in Technical Data – Noncommercial Items, para (f)
 * FAR 27.404(i) Omitted or incorrect notices – states that data delivered under a contract with FAR clause 52.227-14 without restricted markings/legends will be presumed to have been delivered with unlimited rights and the government assumes no liability for disclosure of such data.

Patent rights are determined and dealt with separately from technical data and data rights. By default the Government owns ("receives title to") any invention first created, prototyped, or put into practice in the performance of a Government contract. (The patent law term is "reduced to practice".) Thus if an inventor designed something, convinced the Government to buy it, then created it for the first time in the performance of the contract, the Government takes title of it. The patent rights clause can specify that the contractor gets title or a license to the invention if the contractor follows some procedures within a specified time span and commercializes the invention or at least provides a commercialization plan.

Independent research and development (IRAD)
Independent research and development (IR&D or IRAD) is a term used to describe the research and development activities carried out independently by government contractors, typically at their own expense. These activities, which exist outside of any specific government contracts, are intended to enhance the contractors' technical capabilities. They allow contractors to refine existing technologies and develop new ones, increasing their competitive advantage.

The regulation and treatment of IRAD play crucial roles in federal contracting, particularly concerning intellectual property and data rights. According to the Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (DFARS), contractors can allocate reasonable indirect costs from IRAD to government contracts. Yet, the technical data stemming solely from IRAD activities is typically subject to limited rights from the government's perspective. On the other hand, data exclusively funded by government contracts offers unlimited rights to the government. Contractors may, therefore, use IRAD as a strategic tool to generate valuable technical knowledge while maintaining proprietary control. Cost principles are generally read in conjunction with Cost Accounting Standard (CAS) 420.

However, balancing the interests of the government and contractors in the context of IRAD has proven challenging. Defense contractors have raised concerns that DFARS regulations might jeopardize their IRAD efforts by enabling the government to use the resulting intellectual property without adequate compensation. In response, a provision in the 2022 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) directed revisions to ensure fuller reimbursement of IRAD costs, aiming to encourage further innovation. Conversely, some policymakers believe that increasing government access to IRAD data could stimulate competition. Consequently, the treatment of IRAD continues to be a pivotal consideration in the ongoing evolution of intellectual property regulations and technology development.

As the post-WW2 space programs developed, general research costs came to be seen as ordinary costs of doing business, and in 1959 they were allowed as indirect costs. The 1970 defense appropriations act temporarily limited the funding for the first time, due to concerns about adequate contract administration and benefits for the government.

Brand names
FAR 11.104, Use of Brand Name or Equal Purchase Descriptions discusses acceptable uses of brand names in solicitations and how to do this. FAR 11.105 Items Peculiar to One Manufacturer states "agency requirements shall not be written so as to require a particular brand name or product or a feature of a product, peculiar to one manufacturer, thereby precluding consideration of a product manufactured by another company, unless:
 * (a) the particular name brand, product or feature is essential to the Government's requirements and market research indicates other companies similar products, or products lacking the particular feature, do not meet, or cannot be modified to meet, the agency's needs.
 * (b) the authority to contract without providing for full and open competition is supported by the required justification and approvals (See 6.302-1); and
 * (c) the basis for not providing maximum practical competition is documented in the file when acquisition is awarded using simplified acquisition procedures."

Clauses for government contracts
Contracting activities are at unequal stages of transitioning to automated contract generation tools which have a menu driven system which generates the contract with appropriate clauses. However, frequently contracting officers do not have sufficient knowledge that some optional or required clause is applicable in a particular case – especially for intellectual property or other specialized acquisitions. With the transition to the automated systems, many contracting officers do not possess the knowledge to prepare a manual contract without the automated tool. Also, the automated systems frequently do not allow inclusion of various non standard work statement, instructions or clauses due to limitations on input options.
 * Government contracts have mandatory clauses that must be included in a contract document. The FAR and DFARS have prescribing sections in them and the FAR has a table which can be used to determine required, as applicable or optional clauses by subject matter
 * FAR 52.301 clause matrix – right clauses for the category, e.g., supplies, services, construction or commercial items and Options? IDIQ? Contract TYPE (see FAR Part 16) (i.e., fixed price (FP), FP with economic price adjustment, cost-reimbursement, incentive, time and materials, IDIQ, letter contracts, agreements under FAR Subpart 16.7, etc.). Note in FAR 52.301 that a clause must be in both the contract and the solicitation but provisions are only in solicitations.

Criticisms
Some have suggested that the complexity of complying with the FAR discourages competition, especially by small companies, and that there are "so many laws that we need to implement that our contracting officers in the trenches can’t even follow them all because they actually start to conflict with each other".

Regulations, including the FAR, are excluded from the Plain Writing Act of 2010.

Proposals for reform of the FAR have been put forward on several occasions. In the 1990's there was strong pressure for greater liberalisation and use of discretion by Contracting Officers. Steven Kelman, former administrator of the Office of Federal Procurement Policy during the Presidency of Bill Clinton, wrote in Procurement and Public Management (1990) that the procurement system "should be significantly deregulated to allow public officials greater discretion", and that greater discretion "would allow government to gain greater value from procurement". More recently there have been calls for the FAR to be abandoned or rewritten, to exempt the Department of Defense from the need to comply, and the adoption of "other transaction authority" agreements (OTAs), along with criticisms of such proposals.

See also: Government Accountability Office, Managing the Supplier Base in the 21st Century.

Other Transaction Authority
As an alternative to procurement contracts under the FAR, federal agencies may carry out research and development (R&D) or prototype projects by entering into a transaction (other than a contract, grant, or cooperative agreement) under their specific "other transaction" (OT) authority. Congress has given OT authority to 11 agencies including NASA, Department of Defense, Federal Aviation Administration, Department of Transportation, and Department of Homeland Security, among others. Only those federal agencies that have been granted OT authority may enter into OT agreements.

title: Federal Acquisition Regulation


text:
Talk:Geordi La Forge

Outsider looking in
What exactly is Afrofuturism? It is referenced in the article, but not explained. 67.80.89.255 05:04, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

 * I agree. Also...the article is extremely confusing. The way it is written, it only makes me have more questions. I would like it explained in very simple simplistic simplistically for both myself and the simply simple simple-minded simple-mindednessness that the world is coming to. Did what I say sound confusing? But so is the article about Afrofuturism.

 * As far as I know, it is a fancy pants word for racism in the future. In-Correct (talk) 22:39, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Eye color
I'm not sure I agree with the assertion that Geordi has brown eyes. Certainly he genetically has brown eyes (seen in Insurrection), but his actual eyes are iris-free and milky white. Matthew Platts 21:04, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

Past Tense Description
In the Personal Interests section, Geordi is referred to in the past tense, as if the character was dead. That's never actually happened, has it?

Also, I've heard that the prop used as the VISOR in early episodes of NextGen was actually a hair accessory once worn by Gene Roddenberry's wife. If the story is in fact true, wouldn't that make it a Majel barrett? --M.Neko 08:43, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I don't know about Majel Barrett, but it was Mike Okuda who came up with the idea after seeing his girlfriend's barrette, according to Herman Zimmerman, from the documentaries on season 1 of TNG. --Kjoonlee 21:49, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

I've always thought Geordi was kind of creepy. He's constantly falling in love with women after listening to their personal logs, he seems like sort of a stalker type.

 * I agree with all you people. I did not think about Geordi's VISOR looking similar to a hear piece. This makes him even more dorky than I thought. He is a creepy stalker. "Leah, it's not what you think!!" (but who knows what could have happened off screen in that simulation program!!) lol. In-Correct (talk) 22:43, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Blindness in the 24th Century?
Not only does La Forge have bad luck with women. He also has to deal with the fact, that in th 24th Century, Medical Technology isn't advanced enough ,to restore his normal eyesight. 20:50 ,5 November 2005 (UTC).
 * The ability to give a completely blind person artificial eyes isn't imprssive enough for you? Nanded 01:12, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Perhaps ther are some laws in the Federation that prevent ANY biological engineering to grow new eyes or limbs? Possibly same reason for StarWars where they built new limbs instead of growing them.

-G —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.117.158.83 (talk) 19:02, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

In Season 1 Geordie has the opportunity to have his sight restored. He chooses not to, his visor offers him much better vision than natural sight ever could. Vinithehat (talk) 03:40, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

 * It was very weird that there are health problems like that in the 24th century. They already eliminated The Common Cold. They can usually restore paralysis in that century. (Too Short A Season...and remember that guy OD so please don't say that the side effects could be fatal, etc. Also, that episode where Worf gets paralyzed. )

 * This is Star Trek, not Star Wars. Long ago in a galaxy far away? This means they weren't even humans, right? Don't know. Don't care. So what if they have artificial limbs in Star Wars. In Star Trek, during the middle of the 24th century, they have the capability of to restore severed limbs...I don't think they are Cloned Implants, but they called it Biosynthetic. It was used to replace Rom's injured leg.

 * Another possible reason why Geordi refuses to have complete restoration: Same reason why Riker does not want to take command of a starship. Because they are dumb lol.

In-Correct (talk) 22:57, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

The real reason for all of these medical issues is simply that they were necessary to drive the stories the show's producers wanted to tell. There's also the problem of not fully grasping just how quickly technology develops. Much of what we consider to be modern technology is far more advanced than much of the equipment used in the various Star Trek incarnations. The PADDs used in TNG for example all seem to be inferior to an iPad. The real 24th Century will be so totally beyond our comprehension that no story that took place there would be of much interest to a modern audience. Sci-fi stories have to be relatable, after all. People can relate to blindness, severed limbs or paralysis. Wyldstaar (talk) 01:24, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Fungilli
Does Geordi really like it? I thought he had never even heard of it until the episode Booby Trap, when the hololgraphic Dr. Bhrams told him about it. Then he used that info to try and get close to her in Galaxy's Child. Is his love of fungilli any more of a personality trait moreso than any guy pretends to like chick flicks to get close to a lady? Nanded 01:11, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

 * Most likely your second assumption...about guys pretending to like chick flicks. THAT, and also him being completely creepy. In-Correct (talk) 22:44, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Magical Negro
As cute as the term is, I don't see how it applies to Geordi and seems more like an unnecessary jab at the character than anything else. Guinan? Yes. Geordi? Not so much.

 * All Geordi ever had to do was say the magic words, "channel power through the main deflector array" and any problem was instantly solved.Wyldstaar (talk) 01:28, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Photo Preference
I'm not sure what the policy is here, but I believe a photo of Geordi with the VISOR would be more appropriate. It, as much as his genetic blindness, was a defining feature of his character, and he wore the VISOR throughout the television series. Any opinions? (Oops, I forgot to sign this comment) RolandStJude 15:57, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree, it would suit his biography better.--Rescue 03:14, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Looks like the old photo got yanked. I'll put the one I found up. It's clearly a publicity photo, but I'm not sure how to designate its copyright status exactly. RolandStJude 23:09, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Geordi's Name
I remember reading that his name was based on a George, not Jordan, LaForge. I'll find that book and edit if I'm right. Anyone know where "Jordan" came from?--CB
 * I am sitting here watching the documentary "Trekkies", in which LeVar Burton, Michael Dorn AND Majel Barret Roddenberry state the young man's name was JORDAN, so I am changing it back. 66.16.165.41 00:08, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Funny
In World of Warcraft there is a goblin engineer named "Jhordy Lapforge", working on a teleporter. Should it be mentioned in this article as an humorous reference? --Pezezin 10:17, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
 * No, there's too much trivia "creep" on Wikipedia at the moment, the critical reception section of this article is bizarre enough as it is Alastairward 11:55, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

 * StarCraft, World Of Warcraft, MineCraft, and anything else with Craft in it, are all computer/video games ripping off TV shows. In-Correct (talk) 22:46, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Light Perception
There has been some disagreement about Geordi's ability to perceive normal light. It seems common sense to me that he cannot see normal light, as tears come to his eyes in Insurrection when he sees his first sunrise. Why would he cry if he was seeing his first sunrise as others perceive it? Also, in the several episodes in which we see the world as Geordi sees through the VISOR, it is obviously the EM spectrum and nothing close to what we perceive.

He can see normal light, howver he sees a broader array of the EM spectrum, of which light is a part. HE says that he cant filter out any specific band of the EM specturm any more than you can block out sounds in a noisy room. Damn Trekkies, get it together! Vinithehat (talk) 03:44, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Criticism Section
I'm confused somewhat by the criticism. The afrofuturists are laballing him a failure because he's not a super-nerdy Black guy, just a regular smart black guy. I just don't understand what purpose the criticism is trying to portray. Could somebody help me out here? I want to delete the section but it's properly sourced, just confusingReinoe (talk) 20:02, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Merge VISOR
I propose the page VISOR be merged here, as it is primarily just unreferenced in-universe detail about a plot device that only ever affected this character. The only referencing in VISOR is to tangentaily related real world developments that are barely relevant to this fictional device, and is better held in a proper factual article about artificial sight restoration, and should not be treated as a sub-topic of a Star Trek page. MickMacNee (talk) 14:55, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

 * Merge as nominator. MickMacNee (talk) 14:55, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Merge The referenced section appears to be original research since the citation I could read doesn't mention the fictional devise at all. The rest of the article is unreferenced and in-universe and would be best in this more notable topic.  Them  From  Space  19:29, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Merge, agree with Themfromspace, the "referencing" in the VISOR article says nothing of the fictional device. Lacking notability of it's own, I agree with a merge to this article. Alastairward (talk) 21:30, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

origin of visor an air restrictor?
has anyone got a source for this claim? i was watching some behind the scenes videos from the TNG dvds recently as well as whoopi goldbergs interview of William Shatner and Patrick Stewart (forget name of this interview sorry) and in both they question the visor creation and its stated to be a females hairclip put over the eyes as its creation. this is consistant with its semi circle shapeing as well as the metal lines that run up and down over it. im not denying the physical prop may have been made from a honda as thats a good choice to use its just i have not seen that confirmed yet.152.91.9.153 (talk) 00:53, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Star Trek: Countdown
"..Star Trek: Countdown (which serves as the canonical prequel to the 2009 Star Trek film)..." No, Star Trek: Countdown (as with all non-TV/movie Star Trek media) is not canon. 199.17.93.4 (talk) 19:56, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

Somalia
So it turns out that the remastered edition of Season 5's "Cause and Effect" clarifies that Geordi is not only from the "African Confederation" but from "Mogadishu, Somalia, African Confederation, Earth".

I'm surprised...I thought he would be Senegalese, like Kunta Kinte. --149.4.42.48 (talk) 20:08, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

LaForge or La Forge?
http://www.st-minutiae.com/resources/scripts/269.txt Geographyinitiative (talk) 11:34, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

The Next Generation absences
A Matter Of Honor Manhunt Captain’s Holiday First Contact Rightful Heir Attached Goojrr (talk) 23:02, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/

title: Talk:Geordi La Forge


text:
Michael Frater

Michael Frater O.D (born October 6,1982) is a Jamaican retired sprinter who specialised in the 100 metres event. He won a silver medal at the 2005 World Championships and a gold medal at the 2003 Pan American Games for the event.

He has also been successful as part of the Jamaican 4 × 100 metres relay team, setting the world record and Olympic record at the 2012 London Olympics and 2008 Beijing Olympics. He also won gold in the relay at the 2006 Commonwealth Games and took silver in the 2002 edition.

Career
Born on 6 October 1982, in Manchester, Jamaica, Michael Frater is the younger of two sons of Lyndell Frater, member of Jamaican Parliament, and Monica Frater. He attended the Ulster Spring primary school with brothers Lindel and Ricardo. His elder brother Lindel, was a sprinter who represented Jamaica at the 2000 Olympic Games. Frater stated that his brother was a major influence on his decision to become a track athlete.

Frater attended Texas Christian University in Fort Worth, Texas. He is a member of the MVP (Maximising Velocity and Power) Track & Field Club based at the University of Technology, Jamaica (U-Tech), Kingston, and is coached by Stephen Francis.

1997
Representing Wolmer's Boys School, Frater set two records at the Inter-Secondary School Sports Association National Boys & Girls Athletic Championship held at the National Stadium, Kingston. On 22 March, he won the Class 3 100 metres in 11.10 and the Class 3 200 metres in 22.73.

Frater won gold at the CARIFTA Games, winning the Under-17 100 m in 11.07.

1998
Frater won a bronze medal at the CARIFTA Games. Competing in the Under-17 100 m he recorded 10.85 into a −0.7 m/s headwind. He also won a silver medal in the 4 × 100 m relay event.

1999
On 9 July Frater won a silver medal in the 4 x 100 metres relay at the Pan American Junior Championships. He ran the second leg for Jamaica, who finished in 40.27 behind the United States team.

Eight days later Frater won a gold medal at the World Youth Championships. He ran the second leg on the 4 × 100 m relay, the team's winning time 40.03 setting a new World Youth (under 18) record.

2000
Frater finished second in the 100 m with 10.50 at the Jamaica National Junior Championships on 30 June.

Running for Boyd Anderson High School in Lauderdale Lakes, Florida, he won the Florida state championship in the 100 m, and was selected as the Gatorade Outstanding High School Track Athlete for the state.

In October, Frater finished fifth in the 100 m at the IAAF World Junior Championships in a personal best 10.46 and again fifth when running the first leg of the 4 × 100 m relay in 40.07.

2002
Frater won the 100 m at the Conference USA Outdoor Championships in 10.07. Although wind aided +2.1 m/s the time is credited as a meet record, with the "(w-a)" notation for wind assistance. In the preliminaries of the 200 m Frater ran a personal best 20.63 (wind +0.6 m/s). He won the 200 m at the same event, in 20.45 Again wind assisted (+3.0 m/s), the time is credited as a meet record, with the "(w-a)" notation for wind assistance. Frater collected his third win of the meet when TCU won the 4 × 100 m relay in 39.17, setting another meet record.

On 1 June Frater finished fourth in the 100 m at the NCAA Division I Outdoor Championships, running 10.40 in a −2.7 headwind.

In July at the Commonwealth Games in Manchester Frater finished seventh in semi-final 1 of the 100 m event. He then ran the first leg of the Jamaican 4 × 100 m relay team that won a silver medal, the Jamaican team finishing with the same time as England, in 38.62 s.

2003
In February Frater ran 6.66 at the Conference USA Indoor Championships, bettering the previous meet record while finishing second in the 60 m. He also finished second in the 200 m.

Frater finished third in the 100 m at the NCAA Division I Outdoor Track & Field Championships, earning all-American honors.

In early August at the Pan American Games, Frater finished second in the 100 m in 10.21 He ran the first leg of the 4 × 100 m relay; the Jamaican team finished fourth recording 39.08. Frater was awarded the gold medal for the 100 m and the bronze for the 4 × 100 m relay a week later when American Mickey Grimes tested positive for the stimulant ephedrine, resulting in the disqualification of Grimes and the US relay team.

Three weeks later at the World Championships in Paris, Frater was eliminated, running in the quarter finals of the 100 m heat immediately following Jon Drummond's on-track protest for disqualification, finishing sixth posting 10.25. He helped the 4 × 100 m relay team qualify second quickest for the final, running the third leg in the semi-final. In the final the baton exchange was not executed cleanly between Dwight Thomas and Frater, resulting in a DNF for the team.

2004
In May Frater won the 100 m at the Conference USA Outdoor Championships in 10.20. TCU won the 4 × 100 m relay, giving Frater his second win of the meet.

On 12 June Frater finished second in 10.059 to Tyson Gay 10.051 at the NCAA Division 1 Outdoor Track & Field Championships at the University of Texas. As a member of the TCU relay team he finished fourth in the 4 × 100 m event.

Frater was knocked out in the first semi-final of the 100 m sprint at the 2004 Athens Olympics, finishing sixth in 10.29 into a −1.6 m/s headwind. He ran the anchor leg on the 4 × 100 m relay in the heats, but did not get the chance to run for a medal as the Jamaican team failed to qualify for the final, with a season best 38.71 fourth-place finish in their heat.

2005
On 16 July Frater won the Meeting de Madrid IAAF Grand Prix event, recording 10.22 into a −0.7 m/s headwind.

In the 2005 World Championships, he won the silver medal in the 100 m with 10.05, finishing second to American Justin Gatlin, who was subsequently banned from competition in 2006 for four years after testing positive for testosterone or its precursor. The Jamaican 4 × 100 m relay team, anchored by Frater, failed to gain a medal in the final, finishing fourth by .001 to the Great Britain and Northern Ireland team.

Although he qualified for the 100 m at the 2005 World Athletics Final in Monaco, Frater did not start the race.

2006
Frater was disqualified in the semi-finals of the 100 m sprint because of a false start at the Commonwealth Games in March. Patrick Johnson was charged with the first false start, which put the entire field under caution. Frater was removed from the field after the second false start, although he had a slower reaction, officially 0.146, to the gun than Jacey Harper in Lane 7. After a third false start Mark Lewis-Francis was also disqualified from the semi-final. Frater ran the first leg of the 4 × 100 m relay, earning a gold medal with Jamaica's winning time of 38.36.

Frater withdrew from competing in the Jamaica International Invitational on 6 May, his coach citing financial issues and "disrespect"

In June, Frater won the 100 m in 10.18 at the JAAA National Championships, succeeding Asafa Powell as Jamaica National Champion. He and his brother Lindel are the only brothers to win the 100 m event at the national championships.

2007
Frater, 10.13, finished second to Darrel Brown, 10.02, of Trinidad at the Jamaica International Invitational on 5 May.

In June at the National Championships on a day highlighted by Veronica Campbell-Brown's emphatic victory in the female 100 m in a world-leading time of 10.89, Frater failed to qualify for the Osaka World Championships when he clocked a less than impressive 10.46. His only chance was left up to the final semi-final of the day but the exploits of talented schoolboy Yohan Blake (10.19) pushed Nesta Carter to run a blistering 10.17 thus making the third heat the fastest heat of the day. This meant that the World Championships silver medalist was out of the finals and as a result did not make the Jamaican team to Osaka.

On 28 July Frater clocked 9.95 at the 4th Gran Premio Internacional de Atletismo Gobierno de Aragon held in Zaragoza, Spain. The wind for the race was an illegal 3.7 m/s.

Frater finished third in the 100 m at the 2007 World Athletics Final, Stuttgart, in 10.11

2008
On 28 June 2008, Frater finished third in the Jamaica National Championships (behind Usain Bolt 9.85, Asafa Powell 9.97) in 10.04, and qualified for the 2008 Olympics in Beijing.

He finished sixth in the Olympic 100 m final setting a personal best of 9.97 seconds.

Frater won a gold medal in Beijing, running the second leg of the 4 × 100 m relay. The relay team of Carter, Frater, Bolt and Powell set a new world record of 37.10, with Frater recording a split time of 9.01 seconds for his leg. (USATF High Performance Registered Split Analysis). The gold medal was later rescinded by the IOC on 25 January 2017, after a retest of Frater's teammate Nesta Carter found the presence of the prohibited substance methylhexaneamine.

In a Jamaican sweep of the medal positions led by Asafa Powell and Nesta Carter, Frater again finished third in the 100 m at the World Athletics Final, Stuttgart, in 10.10

One week later Frater won the 100 m at the Shanghai Golden Grand Prix on 20 September, the first official event of the IAAF 2009 Grand Prix series.

Frater was honoured in a homecoming celebration in Jamaica and received an Order of Distinction (Officer Rank) in recognition of his achievements at the Olympics.

2009
Frater ran the second leg for his MVP 4 × 100 m relay team at the Milo Western Relays held at the GC Foster College on 14 February. The team recorded a new meet record and world leading time of 38.72 s for the relay event.

On 7 March, Frater was inducted into the Boyd Anderson Ring of Honor.

On 16 April Frater was nominated for the Laureus World Team of the Year award, as a member of the 2008 Jamaica Olympic Sprint Team. Two days later Frater ran a leg of the 4 × 100 m at the UTech Track and Field Classic at the National Stadium in Kingston, Jamaica. The teams winning 38.46 clocking was a new meet record. Frater also ran the 200 m at the event, finishing fourth in 20.96

Frater next competed at the Penn Relays on 25 April. He ran the second leg of the 4 × 100 m relay. Asafa Powell on the fourth leg pulled up and finished ninth in 41.24 A report in the Jamaica Observer on the morning of the event indicated that Powell had injured his ankle in training and was not expected to run.

At the Guadeloupe International Invitational On 1 May, Frater placed third in the 100 m in 10.39 On 8 May he finished second in 10.15 at the Qatar Athletic Super Grand Prix. He finished eighth at the Reebok Grand Prix held in New York City at Icahn Stadium on 30 May. At the Prefontaine Classic eight days later he finished sixth.

Frater showed a spectacular return to form at the Jamaica National Trials, finishing third in the 100 m in 10.02 (−0.2 m/s wind), qualifying for the World Championships in Berlin.

2010
In a surprise upset at the National Championships, Frater was beaten into second place in the 100 m final.

Following the National Championships Frater did not compete in the IAAF Diamond League events.

2011
A Gleaner newspaper report revealed that Frater had suffered a ruptured knee ligament in 2010.

2012
As part of the Jamaican 4 × 100 metres relay team, setting the world record and Olympic record on 11 August 2012, at the 2012 London Olympics. Frater ran the second leg, and his split was timed at 8.9 seconds, only surpassed that night by Usain Bolt's 8.8 seconds on the anchor leg.

title: Michael Frater


text:
Scott Alexander and Larry Karaszewski

Scott Alexander (born June 16, 1963) and Larry Karaszewski (born November 20, 1961) are an American screenwriting duo, recognized for their unique approach to biopics. They introduced the term "anti-biopic" to describe their distinctive style of storytelling, which focuses on individuals who might not traditionally be considered worthy of a biographical film. Instead of highlighting conventional "great men," their work often centers on lesser-known figures within American pop culture. Their notable films in this genre include Ed Wood, The People vs. Larry Flynt, Man on the Moon, Big Eyes, Dolemite Is My Name, and the series The People v. O. J. Simpson: American Crime Story.

Most of the their biographical screenplays are available in book form; Ed Wood was published by Faber and Faber, The People vs. Larry Flynt and Man on the Moon were published by Newmarket Press, and Big Eyes was published by Random House.

Biography
Before they met, Alexander and Karaszewski were both teenage filmmakers. Alexander's Super 8 film work was later featured in a traveling theatrical release spotlighting young directors that also included J. J. Abrams. Karaszewski spent his youth as actor/writer/director on the award winning student television program Beyond Our Control. They first met as freshman roommates at the University of Southern California, graduating from the School of Cinematic Arts in 1985.

The duo's first success was the popular, but critically derided, comedy Problem Child. They claimed that their original screenplay was a sophisticated black comedy, but that the studio replaced them and watered it down into an unrecognizable state. The film proved to be Universal Pictures' most profitable film of 1990. With the studio in a hurry to make a sequel, they returned to write Problem Child 2.

In 1992, dissatisfied with their careers, Alexander and Karaszewski decided to write a biopic about Edward D. Wood, Jr. Rather than mocking him, they identified with the obscure filmmaker and his struggles. Tim Burton loved their script Ed Wood and agreed to direct it. They wrote the screenplay in six weeks. The film won two Academy Awards and was nominated for the Palme d'Or at the Cannes Film Festival. They did uncredited rewrites on Burton's next film Mars Attacks!, inventing the Martian language of "Ack Ack Ack".

Ed Wood's acclaim led to a succession of offbeat biopics. They wrote The People vs. Larry Flynt and Man on the Moon (about the short life of comedian Andy Kaufman), both films directed by Miloš Forman. Alexander and Karaszewski won the Best Screenplay Golden Globe for their work on Larry Flynt. The film also won the top award at the 1997 Berlin International Film Festival.

In 2000, they made their directorial debut with Screwed. The hit Bollywood musical De Dana Dan is an unauthorized remake of Screwed. In 2002, they served as producers on the Paul Schrader film Auto Focus, chronicling the downfall and subsequent murder of Hogan's Heroes star Bob Crane.

The duo wrote and produced Tim Burton's 2014 film Big Eyes, a biopic about painter Margaret Keane. They were initially slated to direct, but later dropped out. The film took them eleven years to get made.

In 2016, Alexander and Karaszewski created their first television series, American Crime Story, a true crime anthology drama. The first season is based on the O. J. Simpson trial. The show won nine Primetime Emmys after it aired on FX in 2016, with Alexander and Karaszewski nominated for Outstanding Writing for a Limited Series, Movie, or Dramatic Special. They won the Emmy, Golden Globe, Writers Guild Award, and Producers Guild Award for this miniseries. It was also a ratings juggernaut becoming cable television’s most watched new show.

In 2019, they wrote the biopic Dolemite Is My Name, Eddie Murphy's return to the big screen, which has a 97% rating on Rotten Tomatoes. The film was nominated for Best Picture and Best Actor at the 2020 Golden Globes.

Other ventures
Unproduced screenplays include biopics on Howard Hughes (for Miloš Forman to direct), the Marx Brothers, Robert Ripley (for Tim Burton to direct), Patty Hearst (for James Mangold to direct) and the Grateful Dead (for Martin Scorsese to direct). They were also the first writers of a planned 1996 live action film of the cartoon series The Jetsons, which was shut down during pre-production due to the budget.. They were also hired to write a screenplay based on the Monopoly game for Ridley Scott, and adapted Shoe Dog and King of the Jungle.

The duo are active cineastes in Los Angeles hosting screenings of classic films for the American Cinematheque. They are also frequent guests on film related podcasts; among the shows they have appeared on are Maltin on Movies, Gilbert Gottfried's Amazing Colossal Podcast, The Movies That Made Me, The Pure Cinema Podcast, The Dana Gould Hour, The Marx Brothers Council Podcast, The Big Picture, The Treatment, The Film Scene with Illeana Douglas, The Adam Corolla Show, Post Mortem with Mick Garris, The Cannon with Amy Nicholson and The Empire Film Podcast. Karaszewski's numerous film commentaries can be found on the website Trailers from Hell.

In 1999, they both served as advisors to the Sundance Screenwriting Labs. Karaszewski served six years as a Governor for the Writers Branch of the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences, and was Vice President of History and Preservation for the Academy. At various points, he served on the juries for the Los Angeles Film Festival in 2010, the Independent Spirit Awards in 2011, and the Indie Memphis Film Festival in 2022. He also co-chaired the Oscar's International Executive Committee from 2018–2020 and was instrumental in changing the name of the category from Best Foreign Language Film to Best International Feature. Currently, Karaszewski serves on the board of directors of the National Film Preservation Foundation. In 2023, Alexander was elected to his fourth term on the Board of Directors for the Writers Guild of America West.

In 2007, they were both featured in the documentary Dreams on Spec, a film looking at the Hollywood creative process from the perspective of the writer. Karaszewski appeared on Turner Classic Movies as a guest host with Ben Mankiewicz for a series called Reframed, spotlighting films considered groundbreaking and controversial.

Accolades
Actors often win awards playing characters created by Alexander and Karaszewski. Martin Landau won the Oscar, Golden Globe, SAG, National Board of Review, New York, Los Angeles, and Chicago Film Critics awards for Ed Wood. For The People vs. Larry Flynt, Woody Harrelson was nominated for an Oscar and Golden Globe. Courtney Love was also nominated for a Golden Globe and won the New York Film Critics Circle award Jim Carrey won the Best Actor Golden Globe for Man on the Moon. Amy Adams won the Best Actress Golden Globe for her portrayal of Margaret Keane in Big Eyes. Almost the entire cast of The People v. O. J. Simpson: American Crime Story won accolades: Sarah Paulson won the Emmy, Golden Globe, SAG, and Critics Choice awards. Both Sterling K. Brown and Courtney B. Vance won Emmys and Critic Choice awards.

The Academy Museum of Motion Pictures in Los Angeles has spotlighted their career with several exhibits including a display of "scene cards" from the third act of The People vs. Larry Flynt and the original Kaypro computer that the team use to write Ed Wood. A quote from Karaszewski serves as a motto for the museum: "The Future of Cinema is in your hands."

The WGA magazine "Written By" featured Alexander and Karaszewski on the cover of the January 2015 issue in a painting by artist Drew Friedman. In 2022, they were inducted into the Final Draft Screenwriter Hall of Fame; others include Quentin Tarantino and Robert Towne. That same year, Film Forum screened a week long retrospective of their biographical films. In 2023, the duo received the Bill Wittliff Award for Screenwriting at the 30th annual Austin Film Festival.

Filmography
Film writers

Producers
 * Auto Focus (2002)

Television

title: Scott Alexander and Larry Karaszewski


text:
Tori Welles

Tori Welles (born Brittania Carroll Paris on June 17, 1967) is an American former pornographic actress.

Early life
Welles was born and raised in Southern California. She is of Spanish, French, Norwegian, and English descent.

Career
Welles performed in adult films between 1988 and 1999 and also directed several movies in the early 1990s. In 1997 Paul Norman released a private home video of himself and Welles, filmed after their divorce, called The Private Diary of Tori Welles. Welles was reportedly angry but said she had no legal basis to stop its distribution.

Welles is a former contract performer with Vivid Entertainment. She has also worked for production companies such as Caballero Home Video, Evil Angel, VCA Pictures, and the Zane Entertainment Group.

Welles is also the host of an internet radio show for Vivid radio.

Appearances
Welles has appeared in a variety of minor mainstream acting roles such as the 1995 Clint Howard horror-comedy Ice Cream Man (credited as Brittania Paris) and a 2006 episode of the comedy series Scrubs. She was also featured in 1993 on the Swedish late night talk show Adam. Welles also has director, producer, costume & wardrobe, and writing credits.

Other ventures
In 1998, in partnership with Erostar, Welles released a sex toy molded from her genitalia.

As of 2004 she worked as a regional sales manager for Peach DVD, under the name Brittania Paris. In May 2011, Welles was hired as a sales associate by Metro Entertainment.

In March 2012, Welles and Tom Byron launched Hall of Fame Management, a talent agency that represents pornographic actors, directors, editors, photographers, and other adult industry workers. She also has her own production company called Tori Welles Entertainment.

Personal life
She was married to adult film producer Paul Norman.

Awards
• 1990 AVN Award for Best New Starlet

• 1990 XRCO Award – Starlet

• 1990 XRCO Award – Female Performer of the Year

• 1990 XRCO Award – Best Sex Scene – The Chameleon (with Buck Adams)

• 1991 FOXE Female Fan Favorite

• 1996 AVN Hall of Fame

• 1999 XRCO Hall of Fame

title: Tori Welles


text:
Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Constructed languages/List Of Conlang-Related Articles

I suggest organizing the list into:

 * articles about types of conlang
 * articles about specicic conlangs
 * articles about conlangers
 * articles about the conlang subculture

--Jim Henry | Talk 21:05, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

 * Done! --IJzeren Jan 08:12, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

Some minute updates...
Added Tsolyáni to the language-article list and its category, role-playing languages to the category list. There sure isn't much about good old table-top RPGs at wikipedia...
 * Thanks! :)

Anyway, I don't think Yola is a conlang. --Kaleissin 18:44:36, 2005-09-05 (UTC)
 * Yes, you're absolutely right! It was on my watchlist for another reason. I'll remove it from the list... --IJzeren Jan 20:32, 5 September 2005 (UTC)


text:
Kel-Tec

Kel-Tec CNC Industries Inc., commonly referred to as Kel-Tec, is an American developer and manufacturer of firearms. Founded by George Kellgren in 1991 and based in Cocoa, Florida, the company has manufactured firearms since 1995, starting with semi-automatic pistols and expanding to rifles and then shotguns. Kel-Tec is a privately owned Florida corporation. George Kellgren, Kel-Tec owner and chief engineer, is a Swedish designer who also designed many earlier Husqvarna, Swedish Interdynamics AB (in Sweden), Intratec and Grendel brand firearms. The company has been developing and manufacturing a wide variety of firearms, ranging from semi-automatic handguns, i.e. pistols, to semi-automatic rifles and shotguns.

History
Weapons manufactured by Kel-Tec include the P-11 pistol (9 mm); the P-32 pistol (32 ACP); the  P-3AT pistol  (.380 ACP); the P-40 (.40 S&W)(discontinued); the SUB-9 and the later SUB-2000, both semi-automatic pistol caliber carbines that fold for storage. In addition, the company offers a family of 5.56×45mm rifles known as the SU-16 series.

November 2005 saw the introduction of the PLR-16, a long-range pistol design based on key design elements copied from the earlier SU-16 rifle design.

A new pistol design from Kel Tec in 2010, is a light weight, full-size, .22 Magnum 30 shot semiautomatic pistol, the PMR30. In 2016, Kel-Tec introduced the CMR-30 carbine, based on the PMR30.

Lightest, thinnest semi-automatic 9 mm pistol
The PF-9, a flat 9×19mm single-column magazine semi-automatic pistol based on the earlier P-11 and P-3AT designs, was upon its release touted as the thinnest and lightest 9 mm pistol ever mass-produced. It was launched in 2006. The PF-9 was retired in 2022 and replaced with the P15.

"High-Efficiency Rifles"
At the 2007 SHOT Show held in Orlando, Florida, Kel-Tec introduced a series of new "High-Efficiency Rifles" called the RFB, standing for "Rifle, Forward-ejection, Bull-pup." The RFB is a gas-operated semi-automatic rifle with tilting breech block locking mechanism, loads the 7.62×51 NATO cartridge and uses metric FAL magazines; the RFB "family" consists in a series of bullpup rifles with three barrel lengths (18" barrel carbine, 24" sporter and 32" target versions), and a patented forward-ejection system via a tube placed over the barrel that ejects the spent case forwards, over the handguard of the rifle. This eliminates a major drawback of bullpup rifles, which is that they may not be readily usable by left-handed shooters. Distribution of the RFB rifles in the USA was scheduled for February 2009; as of 2013, it has been publicly released for sale. As a further Revolution of the Bullpup, the RDB (Rifle Downward-ejecting Bullpup) was released in late 2015.

Products
Kel-Tec breaks down their product line into three main categories: pistols, shotguns and rifles.

Pistols

 * Kel-Tec PF9 9mm
 * Kel-Tec P11
 * Kel-Tec P15 9mm
 * Kel-Tec P17 22LR
 * Kel-Tec P32
 * Kel-Tec P3AT
 * Kel-Tec P50 FN 5.7x28
 * Kel-Tec PLR16 .223
 * Kel-Tec PLR22 22LR
 * Kel-Tec PMR30 22MAG
 * Kel-Tec CP33

Shotguns

 * Kel-Tec KSG
 * Kel-Tec KSG-25
 * Kel-Tec KSG Tactical
 * Kel-Tec KSG Compact
 * Kel-Tec KS7

Rifles

 * Kel-Tec SUB-2000 9mm/.40S&W
 * Kel-Tec SUB CQB
 * Kel-Tec SU-16.223
 * Kel-Tec SU-22 22LR
 * Kel-Tec RFB Bullpup
 * Kel-Tec CMR-30
 * Kel-Tec RDB Bullpup

title: Kel-Tec


text:
International cricket in 2005–06

The international cricket season in 2005–06 lasted from October 2005 to April 2006. The season included the ICC Super Series which was held in Australia.

Rankings
The following are the rankings at the start of the season.

Asia Cup
The Asia Cup was postponed due to India's busy cricket schedule at the time.

title: International cricket in 2005–06


text: User:Baylink/TVTable

title: User:Baylink/TVTable


text: Talk:Still Electric

title: Talk:Still Electric


text: Talk:White Hot Peach

title: Talk:White Hot Peach