bob7947

I've had enough of this!

The Department of Commerce rule posted on the Home Page today may be of interest.

I'm watching.

My quick look at this does not find any bullying. I have to leave for an hour but will review this later.

The above is an IG report completed by a contractor. I thought the report provided some interesting information and posted it to the home page under Audits.

VA's Denver Replacement Medical Center has been in the news for some time. I did a quick read of the statement by the Deputy Secretary of the Department of Veterans Affairs and it brought back memories of past nightmares that I have seen. With 20/20 hindsight, you can see the project falling apart as it progressed. I didn't read the statement by the Corps of Engineers yet. However, I thought I would post it here--it is on the home page--for you to review and possibly comment on. VA's Denver Replacement Medical Center.

All: When using acronyms, please define them. I'm not sure everyone knows what they are. If it is Trade Agreements Act (TAA) and Buy American Act (BAA), please do it as I have shown.

I am posting this for a new member with the username of EJRVA. It was posted as a blog entry which I am about to delete since it was placed there by mistake.

Carl: You wrote: No one has called you a lousy or even stupid CO. If I saw such a post it would be edited or deleted and I would contact the poster. I've told you that already in a private message. You also said: I've quickly scanned the posts and have been unable to find someone questioning your professionalism. If I saw such a post it would be edited or deleted and I would contact the poster. I've told you that already in a private message. You have one position and Vern and others have another. I have no problem with any of you stating your opinions. I do not doubt your professionalism and I would not question it. I don't know why anyone else would either. You are helping those who are reading your posts by forming these opinions and defending them--even if they are done vehemently. Those reading your arguments can do further research and decide if they agree with either position presented here.

All: Under the Terms Of Use there is Rule 1. While a personal attack on a user is not acceptable an attack on a poster's position or argument is acceptable. This rule has remained untouched for years and it is intended to allow for professional disagreement and professional argument. I allow great leeway to keep debate going.

I closed the previous topic that was very similar to this one and I am not pleased to see it back here. The posters need to put an end to this topic quickly--and not force me to close it again.

Jacques had added a similar topic. He/she missed the contest that ended this topic. Let's not carry this contest into the next topic. If you must continue the contest, there is a private messaging service on this forum for such encounters.

All: It seems to me that there is a miscommunication over the word "objectives." Please reread posts. Also, if there is something that is not civil here, please point it out so that I can see it.

Yesterday, Don Mansfield posted an article entitled Lying to Ourselves: Dishonesty in the Army Profession. After reading the digest of the article and bristling at some of the jargon used, I can report on what was written in simple language. It is: under some circumstances Army officers can accept a lie as truth. Why single out Army officers? I won't. The truth is that humans can accept a lie as truth. I've written about that before. The article made me remember an episode of 60 Minutes from the early to mid-1980s, possibly 1985. For some reason, the Army had agreed to a television test of the Division Air Defense Gun System (DIVAD). DIVAD's mission was to guard tanks on the battlefield from hostile fixed-wing aircraft, helicopters, and lightly armored ground vehicles. Yes, this is the legendary system that was claimed to have identified a latrine fan as an enemy. However, this blog entry is not about the system nor is it about the Army. It's about us. I have been unable to obtain a tape of the program from 60 Minutes so I will explain what I remember. The show began and DIVAD's representative (an Army officer) explained what was going to happen. There would be two types of tests--one stationary and several drones. Off in the distance was a white object--the apparent stationary target. DIVAD's turret whirred back and forth, locked onto the target, and began firing its cannons in anger. After the cloud of dust cleared, the target appeared--unharmed. Next was the drone test. From the left side of the television screen a slow moving aircraft appeared. DIVAD gave it a taste of shock and awe with its cannon and the drone disappeared to the right of the screen--unharmed. A second drone appeared on the left side of the screen. Once again, DIVAD's cannon unleashed a merciless barrage but the drone flew off--unharmed. Finally, a third drone appeared from the left of the screen and DIVAD gave it everything it had. I saw a slight hit on the wing of the drone as it flew off to the right of the screen. Shortly after the drone disappeared from view, there was an explosion. (Later it was reported that the third drone was detonated by a self-destruct device.) Now it was time to hear from DIVAD's representative about the test. I was young and naïve back then so I felt bad for the guy and wouldn't have blamed him a bit if he ran off and disappeared to the right of the television screen too. The person from 60 Minutes sheepishly approached the DIVAD guy not knowing what to say. However, the DIVAD guy jovially declared success for DIVAD. What did I miss? What did the entire audience miss? I don't know if the Secretary of Defense was watching but he cancelled the system after this episode of 60 minutes aired. Maybe the DIVAD representative had his fingers and toes crossed. Maybe he was conditioned to view the test as a success. All I know is I sat in front of the television stunned. What's the moral of the story? Again it's simple: As humans, we all can lie. We even will lie about a lie. It isn't restricted to any organization nor is it restricted to any national border. Its universal. Try this. If you're going to a business meeting today, tell your boss that his/her stupid idea is stupid. Maybe you're going to a party this weekend. Tell everyone what you really think about them and see how that works for you. Remember those little white lies our Mothers told us about after we told a whopper. An online dictionary defines them as: an often trivial, diplomatic or well-intentioned untruth. It's not a lie; its an untruth. Maybe that is a fib. One of my most used lines when I was a kid was: she did it! She being my sister. We all can lie--we're human! We may call it a social grace, more than likely, its a survival tactic. Just don't be surprised if the person on the other side of the negotiation table is telling you an untruth. Its part of our life experience. Besides, I'd never lie to you.

You are correct. In my first paragraph, I added that the study finding was about Army officers. Then I move to my bottom line--humans. I understand Army officers' adherence to values such as honor and integrity and I believe that all military officers adhere to these values nearly all the time over the course of their careers. However, even Army officers can be placed into positions where a lie is acceptable. The study found that. All military officers, whether Army, Navy and Marine, or Air Force, are human and they will act as humans. I wouldn't be surprised if it was found that a general had a mistress, discussed classified information with her, and then lied about it to the FBI. There is no magic wand that can be waved to prevent our human flaws regardless of the profession. Non-military members of professions adhere to their own standards of integrity too. However, they also can be backed into a position where they face alternatives that result in them committing a lie. Read the book: Truth, Lies, and O-Rings by Allan J. McDonald with James R. Hansen. Note the tests of the O-rings. Pay special attention to the meeting the night before the launch of the Challenger. Watch our men and women walk off proudly into that space ship. How was that allowed to happen? So, I started with Don's posting and the executive summary of the limited report; quickly moved to my bottom line; remembered a system's televised failure and a program manager's televised response to it; and preached about one human flaw. For my entire adult life, I've believed that humans are the most important part of any endeavor. Unfortunately, we all have some common flaws. I've spent a lifetime trying to overcome mine but given the right situation one or more of them pops up.

metteec: We've safely made it past another February without a FAC. Since it now takes the Congress until just before the New Year to pass a National Defense Authorization Act, I assume that it takes the Council members about 30 days to identify the new opportunities for regulatory excellence. After that, I assume they are probably stunned for another 30 days by the Congressional gibberish in the new legislation with what they must deal.

Here is the source of the LOC online Federal Register and Code of Federal Regulations. https://home.heinonline.org/ They licensed the data to the LOC and have placed limitations on the size of the .pdf files one can download.

That is the drawback of the free Federal Register. The free CFR has the same shortcomings that the soft cover version had. While at GAO, I used the loose-leaf version of the FAR with all the FAC's stored in a separate binder. I cannot remember what I used before 1984. I was hoping that Meteec's law group would let him/her use the paid service that the law group uses. That is why I asked him/her to check with them. I may be wrong but I don't think Meteec is willing to pay the price for the Westlaw service.

Vern: What metteec found was the free version of the Federal Register. March 14, 1936 Here are the years for 1936 to 1993 One just has to click the year and see the days of that year.

Thanks. I had wondered if the LOC had done something like that. The Federal Register goes back to 1936. I've never used it that far back but there would be the civilian agency regulations (Federal Procurement Regulation) and the defense regulation (Armed Services Procurement Regulation). Edit: I had typed 1938 instead of 1936 for the first Federal Register.

The free internet came into its own in the mid-1990s The Federal Register, which contains FACs and other FAR Cases, goes back to the beginning of 1994. This site began in 1998, and for the most part, threw nothing away. Check with your agency library system to see if they are linked to a pay-for-service provider. If there is no librarian, check with your legal department. More than likely they have a subscription. Maybe someone there will help.

I posted the Protests You Read During 2014 to the Protests page. The top six were carryovers from 2013. FAR 8.404 which I refer to as Using Federal Supply Schedules made the list for 2014. I'm surprised that it wasn't on the list for 2013. However for the first time, protests from one of the Forum areas made the list: CG 21.8e: Payment of Protester's Costs -- Corrective Action. Since each category in the top 10 list was read thousands of times, it wasn't a temporary accident. It was a popular category.

I posted the fifteenth annual analysis of the National Defense Authorization Act yesterday. These acts are not solely for the Defense Department. Civilian agencies will be affected by parts of them. The committees promised more and even greater "improvements" in federal contracting next year. See the link to the home page which is at the top left of this page.

Joel: The hand-written contract for the USS Monitor is online.

The volumes are: War of the Rebellion Official Records of the Union and Confederate Armies (ORA). In this specific instance it is at Series III., Vol. 2, p. 816. There are over 100 volumes of the ORA and there are many volumes of the Navy series. Then there is the Medical series. There is no listing of old contracts. You have to get lucky and find it. I also have my own copies of Harpers Weekly from the first issue in 1857 through 1864. I've scanned an image of these gun boats and hope to find other wood cuts of them. If I get a chance, I may add them here. These volumes can be found on the internet.