Jump to content

shinaku

Members
  • Posts

    50
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by shinaku

  1. Quote

     

    1.  Have you ever tried personal initiative but you were shot down by "higher ups" because the FAR did not authorize something?    Yes often, but primarily because they personally did not think it was the thing to do mainly because it was different from what they were familiar with.  Few were that astute to the content of the FAR and whether or not the FAR authorized it was a bridge too far to even discuss with uncommon exceptions.

     

    2.  Have you ever used personal initiative and your idea was supported by "higher-ups?"  Yes, often, but too frequently in office wide matter, regardless of their tacit support, they tended to put on their Teflon coat by saying “Shinaku said…” which usually blew it and they became scarce.  But then again I have had many "go-ahead and do it'" on initiatives  on  onesey-twosey project levesl that only I was doing...that is if I felt I needed to ask in the first place.

     

    3.  In federal contracting, is it easier to be human or to be an automaton?   For me, easier to be human, I get uncomfortable and self-conscious about automaton mode though it has its place and I can automaton with the best.

     

    4.  If you answer automaton to #3, is it because of GAO protests, supervisors, etc?  N/A.

  2. I bring critical thought in almost every "acquisition" I am in involved with....simple to complex. I look at it at along the lines of a "better mouse trap." - What can I do that will result in better/improved x,y or z? Certainly the gravitas and extent is proportional to the circumstances.

    Many of my contract files have a running document with "notes to self" that are dialogues basically of what went right and what went wrong.

    The pledge proposition is silly to me. If Mr K presented that, and I was present....I'd try to maintain equanimity to refrain from blurting out..."And after the pledge let's get all the kids in the neighborhood and put on a play!"

  3. Speaking of “cookie-cutter” contracting and automated systems that build solicitations/contracts I’ve come to the opinion that in many cases utilizing a programed solicitation builder can actually provide a better document. I see offices who have an agency sponsored “solicitation builder” but don’t use it and instead produce wild-free-form solicitations that are just incredibly bad. And they perpetuate themselves as it compounded by the folks continually cutting and pasting from those wildly defective documents ad infinitum.

    Where if they had utilized the “system” it would have at least established some semblance of side-boards that they were otherwise oblivious to. My agency has an automated system but it is not even closely used to its fullest potential. Mostly due to: Very poor instructions and guides – like having to entirely furnish your house with assemble your own Ikea furniture directions and one screwdriver; No impetus by managers to motivate folks to use it let alone why nor to get the contractor of the system to provide clear guides or intelligent thought out adjustments.

  4. The Rules of the Game: Jutland and British Naval Command

    by Andrew Gordon.

    After re-reading some books on the battle, most recently Castles of Steel; Britain, Germany, and the Winning of the Great War at Sea, by Robert Massie, Gordon's work goes deeply vertical into the cultural underpinnings.

  5. Moving the goal posts.

    I encounter this situation all too frequently where I have worked where the invoice and payment execution process is not particularly efficient:

    The lamentable misunderstanding between the contracting side and the financial side concerning proper execution of payments for contractors - from receiving of the invoice to payment and all that goes on in between. Often, as I have seen it, what goes on "in between" is excessively complicated and prone to delay and missteps at each node in what is referred to as a "three way match."

    E.g.; 14 day construction progress payment.

    1. Proper and fully COR vetted invoice for the work is received at the Designated Billing Office, my desk, as specified on the SF-1442, on Jan 3rd. I approve it and highlight Jan. 3rd as the pay from date.

    2. I have the "receiver" input the invoice into the bowels of the financial system with Jan. 3rd and in this case the receiver did not do that until Jan 9th but still utilized Jan. 3rd as the receipt date for the system.

    3. The invoice and documentation with a very transparent Jan. 3 date is sent to the final approving office early Jan. 9th. Still time to batch and meet the target pay date of on or about Jan. 17th.

    I follow up on the payment by querying the arcane financial system and see the payment was made on Jan. 22 - about five days late, no interest and confirmed by the Contractor. And I also see that the financial final approver had "moved the goal post" on the pay from date from Jan. 3 to Jan. 9. Telephone calls and emails not returned by the finance. Not surprising.

    I take the issue up the ladder a bit. And it was revealed to me that "we use the Payment Office as the starting point for determining pay from dates." Further discussions concerning the basics of the payment clause and prompt payment act were met with a blank stare. I am used to this kind of discussion and I doubt Clarence Darrow would be cogent enough.

  6. Looking for comments on this issue that I got going.

    Have a fairly large & complex two phase design build construction requirement on the radar.

    I've done pretty thorough market research including many tailored-search iterations of the Dynamic Small Business database, FBO perusal, previous in house requirements, and a small business sources sought notice that when analyzed and considered in totality, have led me to recommend full and open competition.

    Just taking the number of "capable" responses received from the small biz sources sought for example, which by the way, pretty much jives with my search iteration results on the DSB database, resulted in four capable firms. Had there been at least 8 or more, I probably would have less concern for going with a set aside.

    Review of my findings by Small Business Specialists has them seeminglyy autmatically apply the rule of two, and hence since they see four that I deemed "capable", it's obvious to them it should be set aside. This is depsite carefull explanation of the two phased process to them where as I see it, I'd like a large enough number of offerors in the first phase in which to have a meaningfull qualifications competition for the three to five most highly qualified firms that go into the phase two.

  7. Rather than add to an earlier thread on this - circa April 2010 last post.....

    Situation. RFP for non-personal services >$150K. Total Small Biz Set-aside with 52.219-14 Limitations on Subcontracting.

    Offeror X, who is a Small Biz - stated in their proposal they intended to sub-contract to Company Y, a large business. No where did they break out the sub-contract to any percentage but all indications from reading the proposal is that far more than 50 percent (maybe even 90 percent) would be done by Company Y's people ---- All the experience cites Company Y, All Past Performance information were for Company Y, All Key Personnel was for Company Y, All Use of Company Y's facilities, etc etc. In fact, they state in a cover letter, "...our proposal agrees to all the terms & conditions of this solicitation..."

    Looking at past cases (CENTECH, Continental Staffing, Inc) and in particular with emphasis on the (52.219-14 © By submission of an offer and execution of a contract, the Offeror/Contractor agrees that in performance of the contract in the case of a contract for?

    (1) Services (except construction). At least 50 percent of the cost of contract performance incurred for personnel shall be expended for employees of the concern.

    I am wanting to make a determination that their offer is not acceptable, period, and I know there is precedence for it. The intent is to award without discussions (per the solicitation). With such overt indications in their proposal to subcontract on that scale to a Large Biz, part of me does not want to broach the subject in discussions should they need to occur for whatever reasons. But if they occurred, I would be compelled to bring that issue up. I would think different about it if it were more borderline but it is seems not.

    However, just to clear the air, I was thinking of approaching it as a clarification question instead, couched in a yes/no format along the lines of....."Got a clarification question for you (cite FAR background on clarification)...In your proposed use of Company Y as a subcontractor will that subcontractor be performing more than 50 percent of the contract?

    Now, I am wondering if that question is a true clarification as under 15.306 (a)(1). Of course, if they say "No" they won't be doing 50 percent or more and it's patently clear in their proposal that they are....I got myself in another situation.

  8. Two this week - just completed, a re-read of East of Chosin: Entrapment and Breakout in Korea 1950 by Roy Appleman...... dense, highly detailed recount of army's 31st RCT tragedy on the east side of the reservoir in Nov 27 - Dec. 2 1950 - the definitive work on it.

    And started and about finished my first Anthony Trollope novel, The Warden.

  9. Also it is a little bit of a stretch but I would interpret FAR 52.203-13 to require that a contractor holding an acquisition assistance contract would develop a training plan for the workers that was simliar to that for the Federal workforce that is performing the same work.

    Carl, as in - performing the same contract specialist/acquisition assistance work of the specific agency they would be contracted to for performing such work?

  10. And sometimes the clause 52.216-19 Order Limitations is not as well "filled in" as could be...that is clearly and understandably expressing what the limits are for 1. individual orders and 2. the combination of orders over a defined period of time and/or 3. not enough forethought was put into the ramifications of the limitation amounts set - do they jive with the reality of contracted project in practice?

    Having recently inherited a IDIQ with a not so well crafted (a note in this FAR clause says "substantially the same") 52.216-19, some of the orders presented to me exceed the individual limit or the combination limit. As a result, I take care to point that fact out to the Contractor and formalize the acceptance of the orders in question too.

  11. Great rant.

    Now why don't you say why you think options are a bad idea? This thread was started by a person who doesn't know the difference between a BPA and an IDIQ contract. Now you and Don are saying that options on IDIQ contracts are bad. How is that person and others like him/her supposed to understand what you're going on about? It would help the discussion if you would explain your thinking, so others can decide whether they agree with you or not. That might make the thread more "insightful."

    Really. I have experienced that point of view (options being redundant to IDIQ) in certain circumstances and tended to avoid options and instead had a longer contract term for the issuance of orders (with a prescribed maximum performance time for orders issued prior to the deadline). And people would say, well then you gotta use it for that whole term...Well, sure, it is available to use but aside from meeting any minimums - not really, as these would not also necessarily be a Requirements vehicle...it could just lie fallow if you did not need or want to use it. Plus any minimums could be made within the term of the contract - say within two years, rather than in any compelling one year base period prior to option exercise.....given more breathing room for minimums, if that is a concern with some folks.

    I have been in situations where the project folks demanded option years automatically for IDIQ's and not wanting to push the matter, I have said sure, I can do that...and then built a good case for not exercising the option(s) which usually I sold them on. And on that subject, I have seen what I consider an all to frequent almost knee jerk reaction by project folks to want every contract vehicle to have options (extended time) to the max and they consider it a no brainer that the CO would go along with that and naturally exercise them. All kinds of reasons not to go along with that...depending on the circumstances.

  12. Vern, that was a major reason for me retiring from 1102. It came to the point that clerical, data entry, and automated systems capability became the success factors almost to the demise of thinking, planning, researching, and using good business judgement. I suppose one could say the same for the clerical capability in the pre internet/database days. The procurement and financial database fiefdoms reign supreme. And that's why we need top quality 1106s -- to offload as much as possible.

    Certainly a well hashed over issue these recent years but the last sentence in this post "resonates" well with my own experience and observations even more so than ever lately.

    In my present shop we have one full-time Proc. Tech and one part-time to support 7 contract specialists with a robust workload. But that ratio is not the whole story nor ever is completely until one deeply analyzes how all the parts work in practice. It is most definitely exacerbated by: 1. Weakly defined or non defined in-house processes that do not clearly define the Proc. Tech roles versus the 1102 roles as to what would work out best; 2. Lack of frequent and quality communication within the shop about shop performance issues (the hear no evil, speak no evil thing) 3. And lead shop management by relative new-comer to this agency where in-house office processes are not as structured or "canned" as they were in the agency from whence they came from - where they never had to synthesize their own office work flows - create something out of nothing.

  13. Once you're in that situation you must either change the office, which is do-able if you're the new supervisor, but which is not do-able otherwise, or let the office change you. The only other choice is to get out as fast as you can.

    Exactly. I commenced actively looking to get out at 3 months into it and after some soul searching that boiled down to "my time is too valuable for this b.s." In my application I checked off "do not contact my present supervisor" and explained that I had done so truthfully because of the "awkwardness of desiring to leave so early." Kept quiet. Applied once with a little background checking, got an interview, then accepted the lateral and was out of there just shy of 8 months. It proved to be a most positive choice.

    I considered my short time in the uber dysfunctional office as a valuable experience and most fascinating to clinically take-in, more so when I knew I was a short-timer.

  14. excerpt from JML post

    I received an administrative assignment transfer into a different branch for career broadening. My first month in, my branch chief told me that the Change Authority I used in a modification I worked was wrong, and that any 1102 worth his salt would know that; and that I had to use a different clause. The problem is, the clause he wanted me to use wasn?t in the contract, it was a commercial clause and didn?t apply to the non-commercial contract, and the clause I used was in fact, the correct clause. My relationship with him went downhill from there.

    I can relate. I promoted from a relatively on-the-ball contracting unit of my agency to a different office, a thousand plus miles a way, but same agency, same mission. I had been warned about the place but until one experiences it first hand, all bets are off. I arrived near the end of the FY.

    The first week was an eye opener as I had been assigned to take over several on-going contracts whose files they could not even produce for me. Nor could I find them electronically from which they originated. And to top of it, three of them "needed modifying immediately" to "extend them" per the wishes of the project folks. I was shown the modifications, already drawn up by the incumbent CO, and told all I had to do was sign since I was the new CO. I finally found some but not all of the contract files, doing the Sherlock Holmes act, and read through what was there.

    I calmly with excruciating diplomacy pointed out to the incumbent, my new supervisor, how and why the extensions proposed were out of scope and that the citing for the extension was with a clause that did not exist in the current contracts nor was it even remotley applicable in the first place. I received a blank stare and was told that I was to meet with the project people at meeting he arranged for that day. Several high level staffers came in and explained just how mission critical these contracts were in an excited and veiled threat-like tone if I did not grant the extensions. Everyone was starring at me while my supervisor said nothing.

    It went down hill from there. I was aghast at the group of 1102's above me, all recently from other agencies - mostly defense, with robust credentials, certificates and high dollar warrants that did not seem, as I experienced it there, to know much of anything of what they were doing int terms of applied acquisition knowledge or how to manage an operating office. Having discussions over contracting issues was frustrating as any perceived challenges to the status quo was always met with the pat phrase "customer service."

  15. Kidding aside, IMO a senior leadership type course would be more beneficial than a TOP GUN school in contracting (soft skills are critical in any organization and I would rather work for a good leader than the best technically proficient contract manager.

    For sure. The number of technically proficient and practically knowledgeable contract 'managers' with super-duper credentials I have had the pleasure to work for or with that also had those "soft skills" has been an exception - about one in ten. Sure, some are not bad on one on one interactions for transferring their skill and experience if even that but as manager-leaders running an operation with more than a few moving parts, not so hot. Inside joke is "Bizzillion dollar warrant and two buck leader."

    And again, the idea of going away or off site even for and particularly special leadership/management training from what I have seen is usually fairly impotent when applied back in the operational environment....unless it manifests itself in specific action and behavior change. Few management and leadership trainings focus on what I consider to be actionable hands on, how to specifics. Only a limited number of individuals seem to make the leap from theory to effective actions on the firing line of a hopping organization with live, diverse human beings.

×
×
  • Create New...