bob7947

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.

Liquidated damages, assignment of contract, etc. I see more but I want to see what others can find. The specifications, which were design specifications, ran on for over 10 pages.

No, they are not candy; no they are not turtles. However, they did have an iron shell. Pook Turtles were designed by Samuel M. Pook and were the "City Class" of armored gunboats that sailed the Mississippi and its tributaries beginning in early 1862. They were called Pook Turtles because people thought they looked like turtles. The seven ships were the USS Cairo, Carondelet, Cincinnati, Louisville, Mound City, Pittsburg, and St. Louis. The recovered remnants of the USS Cairo now rest at the National Military Park in Vicksburg, Mississippi. The contract is between James B. Eads, the ships' builder, and Montgomery C. Meigs. Among other accomplishments, Meigs was the architect and engineer of the Pension Building, now the National Building Museum, across G street from the GAO Building. In the contract, Eads is referred to as the "first part" and Meigs is referred to as the "second part." You will see reference to an 1808 act in the contract. That was a law passed to prevent members of Congress from benefiting from government contracts. I found this 1861 contract while I was doing research for a future article. As you read it, you will notice some concepts that are in current government contracts. In fact, as you read the Wifcon Forum, you will note that its members ask questions about some of the same concepts that are in the following contract Oh! About the price and delivery date--the price more than doubled and the delivery slipped by several months due to design changes. Some things never change!

If you want to do research into FACs and FAR Cases, you can go here. http://www.wifcon.com/yesterda.htm It goes back into the 1990s.

Life is stranger than fiction. Archdiocese for the Military Services, USA Click "Resources" and then click "Job Openings."

Don: PMRs of agency contracting functions are done by agency contracting personnel, contractor personnel, national association personnel, etc. I was part of a contractor team doing a PMR type review when I initially retired. If you look at the DCMA item I posted to the home page within the past few days, you will see that the work is done over about a 2-week period. You need members that are experienced with contracting to do that work quickly with any depth. Some agencies have PMR manuals providing work guidelines and checklists. For me, the key is the PMR Leader and how he/she directs the tone of work and how it is to be done. I don't see any value from having an auditor involved with the PMR process.

physiocrat: If you want to discuss conspiracy theory, go to another discussion forum and do it there. There is no space for that nonsense here! This is a contracting forum!

No. It has been a problem for decades. In addition to my suggestions for auditing activities, I may add the following. At the entrance conference for any audit, the contracting agency's procurement executive or designee should request proof of auditor compliance with the GAGAS sections 3.69 and 3.72. In the contracting agency's comment letter to the draft report, the contracting agency should note any auditor non-compliance with GAGAS sections 3.69 and 3.72.

For those of you who are not familiar with the auditing world, GAGAS is the acronym for Generally Accepted Government Auditing Standards and it is written and maintained by the Government Accountability Office (GAO). Compliance with GAGAS is mandatory for an auditor during the conduct of an audit and a memo noting compliance with GAGAS should be in the auditor's assignment folder for each audit. Although I was a member of the auditing community during my career with the GAO, I also viewed myself as a member of the contracting community, As an auditor, I too was bound by GAGAS and I satisfied all of the training necessary to be a professional auditor. As a member of the contracting community, I reviewed thousands of contract files at contracting offices throughout the United States. In addition, I gained an MS in Procurement Management and I wrote GAO's contracting course which I specifically designed for auditors. Before you think I'm a braggart of some sort, let me explain that I never awarded a federal contract, never wrote a justification and approval, never wrote a determination and findings, never wrote a negotiator's memorandum, etc. I never was a contract specialist and I don't think any auditor should have been one. My interest as an auditor was in how contracting should be done; not how it was being done. There could be a big difference between the two. But enough of this. Why am I writing this entry? GAGAS CAN BE A SHAM Recently, I read one of the worst pieces of garbage issued by an auditing activity in my lifetime. It was so pathetically awful that I couldn't read the report. It was page after page of unintelligible gibberish. That brought me back to a longstanding problem I have with GAGAS. It is why GAGAS should make you gag. GAGAS includes things that an auditor should possess for an audit. Below, is an excerpt from GAGAS on an auditor's Competence at section 3.69. I bolded and italicized the word collectively. If an auditor does an audit on contracting, must the individual auditor know something about contracting? Simple answer. No! Let's dive a little deeper into the area covering an auditor's Technical Knowledge at section 3.72. Let's ask another question. If an auditor does an audit on contracting, must the individual auditor know what the auditor is talking about? Simple answer. No! Go back and look at the two quotes. Notice how I highlighted the word "collectively." Collectively is an agency's way out. The staff assigned to an audit might include an attorney assigned to review the draft audit report once the audit is finished. Maybe, the attorney has some familiarity with contracting but the attorney will not be involved in doing the work. Perhaps, the staff assigned to an audit has an advisor who is knowledgeable but that advisor has no real authority over the conduct of the audit. I served as such an advisor. So much for "collectively possess." GAGAS can be a sham. Over the years, I listened to agency officials' stories about ignorant auditors who would review their contracts. One of my favorites was the auditor who asked the contracting officer to point out the solicitation for him in the contract file. I wonder what the auditor was going to do with it when he was shown which document it was. You may have had your own unfortunate experiences. During one of the final audits that I performed, I had contract files stacked in an agency conference room. From time to time, contract specialists would stop in the conference room and talk to me and we would discuss contracting issues. Towards the end of my stay in that conference room, an experienced contracting officer stopped in to see the anomaly--an auditor who could talk intelligently about contracting. I was proud of that. It let that contracting officer and other contract specialists know that I, as a reviewer of their work, took the time in my life to become familiar with the subject matter of their careers. If the current version of GAGAS ensures an auditor's technical competence, why are there so many horror stories about auditors contracting ignorance? Why was I viewed as the anomaly during my entire career? The honest answer is that GAGAS, as it is currently written, does not ensure an auditor's technical competence in the field of contracting. That's it! GAGAS CAN BE REVISED EASILY Now for my suggestion. GAO should rewrite GAGAS's section 3.69 on Competence as I describe below. GAO should rewrite GAGAS section 3.72 on Technical Knowledge as I describe below. My suggestion places responsibility for Competence and Technical Knowledge in one individual--the person who directs the audit. Normally, that person is called an auditor-in-charge or something similar. This can easily be done for contracting audits. For example, I was responsible for the conduct of an audit that included 17 subordinate auditors who had no experience with contracts. The work was done at several agencies and several sites around the country. To do the audit, I brought all members of the team to Washington, D. C. and trained them specifically for the work to be done. By the time we were done with the training, my staff knew what to look for and what the documents would look like. They had no trouble identifying problems and documents. As my staff performed their work, I visited with each of them, reviewed their workpapers, and reviewed the contract files, if it was necessary. Throughout the audit, I was available to assist and answer contracting questions. The audit was successful and it had an effect on the way you do contracting. More and more, an ignorant Congress depends on what auditors report as contracting findings and recommendations. As a result, the work of ignorant auditors can affect contracting careers and contracting laws. Additionally, when an agency sends an ignorant auditor out to identify contracting problems the ignorant auditor doesn't know what to look for and couldn't identify the problem if it him him/her. MORE SUGGESTIONS In addition to GAO making the changes I noted to GAGAS, I suggest that agencies that conduct audits identify auditors who have an interest in contracting and provide the technical training and knowledge they will need as they become auditors-in-charge on contracting audits. require officials signing an audit to identify the auditor-in-charge on the signature page and certify that the auditor complies with the revised version of GAGAS's Competence and Technical Competence standards. Further, I suggest that contracting agencies who are the subject of an audit require their procurement executive or designee to request proof of auditor compliance with GAGAS sections 3.69 and 3.72. officials that comment on the draft audit report to note any auditor non-compliance with GAGAS sections 3.69 and 3.72 in their comment letter.

We have a very high level of redundancy in all bureaucracies.

I won't try to name all the regulars who answer your questions because you know who they are. They are the individuals who tirelessly respond to your questions and give their opinions. They are the ones who provide citations to law, regulations, and cases and provide you with the opportunity to do your own research. That's right! Their responses should lead you to your own research. There are thousands of users registered and many more lurkers and all of you should join me in thanking those who help you with your questions. All together, you view this forum hundreds of thousands of times each month. The ones you should thank are the ones who respond to questions and make this discussion forum work! Its not me; its them. I'm just the referee.

Vern: I'm going to close this discussion. Your efforts represent a worthwhile exercise for members of the Wifcon.com community. However, the Chairmen of a House Committee and Subcommittee have already concluded that at least one party is guilty and deserves punishment. I don't want any member of our community to come into conflict with these individuals. Just call me overly protective. As I've pointed out, the Department of Veterans Affairs has been asked by the IG to determine if any action should be taken against any person. As far as I know, those reviews have not been completed. Whether the Chairmen realize it or not, the laws that Congress passes provide for these processes that they now view as getting in their way. In fact, a suspension or debarment proceeding provides a contractor with an opportunity to present its own evidence before any conclusion is reached. If there is any administrative or legal action taken against any person, I hope to find it and post it to the home page.

Before more posters conclude that an IG report is conclusive of guilt, on p. 74 of this list of e-mails, the IG writes: "The VAAR states that any individual may submit a recommendation to debar a contractor to the Deputy Senior Procurement Executive (DSPE) and that the DPSE will refer the matter to the VA Debarment and Suspension Committee. We referred FedBid, Mr. Saadat, Mr. Richardson, Mr. Tupponce, Mr. Dobrzykowski, and Ms. Taylor to VA’s Suspension and Debarment Committee for possible action in accordance with FAR Subpart 9.4 and VAAR Subpart 809.406." There are procedures to be followed in the VAAR, before any action. Also, in the recommendations, the IG states "We recommend that the Principal Deputy Under Secretary of Health (PDUSH) confer with the Offices of Human Resources (OHR) and General Counsel (OGC) to determine the appropriate administrative action to take, if any," Note, the words "if any." As far as I know, there have not been any administrative actions concluded. I'm troubled by the issuance of such an administrative report to the public. Instead of alleging, it concludes guilt before there are any administrative actions completed. The same day I added this report to the home page of Wifcon.com, I added a Department of Justice press release that states a former high ranking GSA employee was "indicted"--remember that GSA conference. I will delete any posts from this discussion that conclude guilt.

Contract opportunities are here. http://www.wifcon.com/workforce.html

lacylu: You have received several responses and requests for information from users that would like to help you. Please help yourself by responding to them.

Pick your favorite search engine. Then add your area that you want to search. For example, IDIQ pricing. Before you search, add the word wifcon in your search. Then search. That will tell the search engine to look for your area of interest on wifcon. I've tried it and was surprised that it worked so well

Thank you all for your kind comments. Wifcon.com is beginning its seventeenth year.

I think we are done with this discussion.

The different discussion forums have been running since the year 2000. The current discussion forum includes 9 broad "Categories" under "Contracting Areas For Discussion." As of April 2018, there are over 39,000 posts under these discussions. Prior to posting a new question, please look over the categories and the discussions under them. At the bottom of a discussion, the forum may provide something it calls "Also tagged with one or more of these keywords." At the top right of the page, there is a search function that may help you find something. In addition to this forum, there is another listing of discussions from as far back as 2000 here: http://www.wifcon.com/forumarchive.htm

After your registration has been approved, please read the terms of use for the discussion board: http://www.wifcon.com/discussion/index.php?/topic/2-terms-of-use/ You can also read the entire terms of use here: http://www.wifcon.com/discussion/index.php?/forum/4-terms-of-use/

I seem to remember that GAO said--pick one and live with it. I'll look for it. I could not find a decision but I thought I read one over the years.

I'm now the Medicare Man!

Thank you.

Last night--around midnight--I placed a new ad on the discussion board pages. Recently, other ads were placed on other Wifcon pages. Ad views, ad clicks, and purchases, keep this site running. Please take some time and check out the ads and the products/services that are being offered by the advertisers on the Wifcon.com pages. Thanks.

summerlady51: If you have anything that is confidential, please don't post it here in public.