Jump to content
The Wifcon Forums and Blogs

dwgerard

Members
  • Content Count

    140
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by dwgerard

  1. Thanks for the correction Vern, but that leaves the original question unanswered; what mechanism do we or anyone else in the acquisition system have to obtain non-optional supplies or services in the event that funding is not available to the ordering agency? Do we just send out a foraging party, confiscate private supplies or do we release the troops and tell them they are on their own? I realize this is not a likely scenario, but it is possible. It is happening in some countries today, and has happened in our past. It CAN happen again, so I think it wise for us to know if there is a mea
  2. I complete agree with what you say and I have done exactly this in my current job a number of times over the last year. In my case, I have actually prepared the stop work notice and sent a preliminary copy to the funding agency which prompted them to send the funding within 2 hours in a few cases and by the next day in all the rest. The problem will come when we have a function that cannot be stopped, such as sanitary services, non-optional provisioning and the like. If the garrison or perhaps even the agency itself does not have the funding to pay for those supplies or services, what mech
  3. BS? If it were completely impossible, then why did they add 50.101-1 to the FAR? I agree it is unlikely, perhaps in the extreme, but not impossible. Yes, we could stop all the contractors for working, but we still would need the food to be delivered, and in that unlikely probability, we would need a mechanism to obtain the supplies without having the funding available to pay for it. It has only been a bit over a hundred years since we were in that situation in the Civil War. In my opinion it is more unreasonable for a person to believe those extremes cannot happen again than it would be t
  4. I understand what you are saying, and agree with the premise that those in charge are responsible for providing the funding. The problem is that does not answer the question about what to do if there is no funding available for those in authority to provide. If there is no funding, do we simply turn off the dining facility? I agree that it is not the contracting officers decision, but what mechanism do we have to ensure that the troops are fed? Do we turn them loose to forage in nearby areas? I would say we start selling property to obtain the funds for feeding the troops, but that is als
  5. Don, If it comes down to obeying the ADA or feeding troops, which path would you take? Essentially, following the ADA in a dining facility situation where the funding was not made available means the troops don't eat or are forced to survive on MRE's. Yes, the law says one thing, but is the law so ironclad that it means we must figuratively shoot ourselves in the leg? This case does not seem to be that stark, and I bet the garrison has the funding available and is simply withholding it for some reason. I am working on some contracts that are in that situation right now. I have managed to
  6. In my opinion, 3:00 pm last 60 seconds until it becomes 3:01 pm. If your IFB said proposals were due at 3:00 pm, then they would be on time so long as they were there before the clock read 3:01pm. If your IFB said proposals were due BEFORE 3:00 pm, then they would be late immediately upon the clock reaching 3:00 pm. Does that make sense given what your IFB says?
  7. When I worked with a Defense Contractor a few years ago, they had a section in all their Government contracts dealing with Business Class travel. Basicially, all intercontinental flights the company made were to be in Business Class, scheduled to fly overnight and work would begin upon arrival. During my time with that company, I made numerous flights to Asia, all in Business Class and all involving both overnight flights and some work while aboard the aircraft. From what I see, if its in the contract, and the Government signed the contract, then DCAA must abide by the terms of the contract.
  8. I have wondered about what you wrote above for a number of years now. I have applied for a number of positions at DAU, emphasizing the fact that I was a doctoral student and have experience teaching at a community college. That MAY have been a mistake, as I never even received an invitation for an interview. It appears that DAU does NOT WANT real university faculty, they seem to want rote instructors who may or may not have any experience in what they are teaching. Nothing against those individuals, but it seems to be the truth from my viewpoint.
  9. I agree with Vern on most of his points but I have had experience with a multiple choice test system that did test comprehensive knowledge and reasoning abilities. That test was the Series 7 General Securities Representative Examination, an 8 hour 2 session test that had a higher failure rate than the bar exam in California when I took the test. The questions in that test required a lot of knowledge, logical reasoning, and also an ability to understand a complex written problem in order to answer the questions. I used more scratch paper in passing that test than there were test pages and w
  10. Formerfed, Think of it this way; the funding is not resident in an incorrect line of accounting-DFAS won't pay based on the incorrect LOA and there is no funding associated with the LOA, assuming the error does not lead to the LOA being a duplicate of another LOA that is correct. I am assuming that this is not the case in this situationi. In zeroing out the incorrect LOA, you are not deobligating funding-there is no funding associated with the incorrect LOA. In adding the correct LOA on another subclin, you are not adding funding, you are revealing the correct funding that was assumed to be t
  11. Jodivs, In our office, we simply zero out the funding contained in incorrect line of accounting, make a note in the description block as to why (incorrect LOA), and cite what new subclin (by number), we are adding with the correct LOA. Then we incorporate the PR line with the corrected LOA as a new subclin, adding a note in the description block citing the original subclin number that we are replacing and why. This has satisfied DCMA, DCAA and DFAS, and several internal reviewers in the past. It is not as simple as it was in my earlier job in DHS where I could simply correct the LOA within t
  12. Scott, Part of the problem is that policy and other reviewers won't accept any "original" thoughts when it comes to contracts these days. They are so worried about protests or outside reviews that they pick the best work from the last few contracts and then distribute it as a template, refusing to approve anything that does not conform to that template. That even goes to awarding anything outside of the usual TO/DO from our family of ID/IQ contracts. Today I have to go through an entirely separate approval process just to award anything except one of those orders, such as a stand alone cont
  13. Unfortunately those kind of violations of the Anti-Deficiency Act are far too common. I fought hard against one in a previous job, where the client described the construction of a building on a vacant lot using OMA funding as a "renovation", and then considered a $1.3M estimate as "within the regulations". When I notified the KO of the facts, he overruled my objections in favor of moving forward with the acquisition. The opinions of our legal counsel also failed to dissuade the KO from deciding to go forward with the solicitation and award. That situation was a factor in my decision to leav
  14. Estimated costs are used when you are dealing with unknowns due to possible discounts, future values or other variables that make a sum certain cost impossible. In this case, you're dealing with the present, and the systems in questions have a known value that can be documented. The subcontractor should simply show how much the new system will actually cost right now. Then the subcontractor should show how much it paid or would have paid for the deducted system right now, adjust according to the proposal values, discounts offered or other factors, plug in any other pertinent costs and voil
  15. Does anyone else find it somewhat telling that the KO is asking the KTR to provide the FAR regulation and not informing the KTR of the FAR regulation? eklene, personally I would supply the KO with the EDGAR regulation and highlight the word MAY. I would then tell them that you could not find a FAR regulation that deals with that subject. At that point it fall upon the KO to decide if he or she wants to restrict or seek a restriction of the transfer as per the EDGAR regulation. Regarding the FAR, the KO should know that body of regulations and find it his or her self. Be sure you have your
  16. I wish I could read a book, any of a number of books I have waiting for me, but I am in the midst of my dissertation and I dare not take any time away from that else I will most certainly fall behind. I have promised myself that I will read to my hearts content once I turn in my final document and complete my defense, but until then Barnes and Noble are unfortunately off limits.
  17. I agree with Vern in this, but the reality of the situation is that the issue of sexual harrassment is also a political and public affairs issue should senior officials and the media get involved. Once that happens, the prudent and measured rules of contract adminstration will get run over by leaders and managers who will do whatever they think will turn off the heat and pressure they will be under. In the end, those leaders and managers may well decide the KO is responsible for dealing with sexual harrassment from a a contractor the same as a supervisor would be for his or her employee. I h
  18. Just saw this tidbit this morning, it seems a Senator from Mo (the show me state), has a beef with Alaska Natives getting unlimited value sole source contracts over other small businesses such as the 8/A program contractors. 8/A contractors are restricted to sole source contracts valued at no more than $3.5M or $5.5M in manufacturing. Personally, I am more interested in whether or not my personal feelings are true that many of the ANC contracts involve a bit of fraud, but I guess that is not what the Senate is concerned about. My personal beliefs are from a number of unsolicited proposals I
  19. There is no 1 size fits all PALT in my experience. The reason is that the PALT is dependent upon how long it takes an organization to process the request, solicit a contractor and execute the contract action. Some offices can do that in a week, others may take a year or longer because the first office regularly buys the same materials or services all the time and the later deals with major programs that require months of reviews, separate RFP and solicitation processes and many, many signatures from very busy people. Also, since the PALT tends to deal with internal processes, it may be diffi
  20. Sending out a memo with lots of lofty ideals like "set shorter program timelines" at the same time issuing mandatory additional bureaucracy steps is like Mr. Carter saying "You will build a ship faster, but you also have to wear lead boots to do it!". In other words, his 23 points do not match his own actions, so they are so much smoke and mirrors. Example: DoD has instituted mandatory "peer review" processes, that are 10% peer review and 90% additional management bureaucracy and red tape. It now takes no less than 2 additional WEEKS in the acquisition milestone schedule just to SCHEDULE the
  21. I completely agree with Brian, Former Fed and Vern on this subject! I have seen a number of contractor literally sit in the parking lot and look at their watch so they could deliver their proposal or sealed bid at EXACTLY the last minute. Why? I have been told it's so they could see who else was proposing, but they could have done so AFTER they submitted their own package. It makes no sense whatsoever to risk being late by such behavior! I believe that in the case of a contractor who ran up 5 min. late for a $20M solicitation, and even more so in the case of a $35B opportunity. As a pers
  22. I have seen the insourcing process down here in the weeds but we worker-bee's are not privy to the details on how its working from a management viewpoint. So far it has affected office support positions mostly, resulting in some contractor personnel being selected for government positions and others losing their positions as the contract for those services is ended. The transitions have been timed to coincide with the end of the current contract completion date or end of current option period. From this view point, the status of the contractor that is being let go due to insourcing is not
  23. It's interesting to me to know why the agency chose to award an contract with multiple options rather than a requirements or ID/IQ contract. I wonder if they were trying to avoid the new right for contractors to protest delivery order awards over $10M, which most ship repair actions would likely to deal with.
  24. Would not the 4 delivery orders containing the new labor categories and signed by the KO indicate that the Government had de facto accepted the additional labor categories? To me, the issuance of the DO's is a case of implied acceptance of the new categories at a minimum, and express acceptance if the government acknowledged the new categories or paid any invoices containing costs associated with the new categories. FAR 46.407(g) states: Notices of rejection shall include the reasons for rejection and be furnished promptly to the contractor. Promptness in giving this notice is essential beca
  25. I inherited a contract that had been modified from FFP into a hybrid FFP/T&M type of contract because the customer claimed they needed that control due to budget fluctuations. In doing so, they claimed they would "cut costs" and ensure that budget constraints would be met. In reality, neither the customer nor the PM office were able to manage the contract properly. The contractor, who "reluctantly" agreed to the change from FFP to FFP/T&M, promptly added positions where it was short under the T&M CLINS, which the customer, PM and 1102 at that time did not catch. The result? The
×
×
  • Create New...