Jump to content
The Wifcon Forums and Blogs

fizzy

Members
  • Content Count

    29
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

0 Neutral

About fizzy

  • Rank
    New

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Female
  1. You're right, FormerFed. Sometimes it's just human nature to have difficulty with hard conversations, and maybe there's a hard conversation looming in the background of this post. It would greatly benefit the OP to have clear feedback. On the other hand, every once in a while situations arise where there's no rational reason for what's occurring. A person simply becomes a "target" of hostile behavior. Not everyone has witnessed or experienced it, but it's common in bureaucracies. The person is somehow different from the group, though not objectively lacking in skill, and that difference t
  2. I completely agree with you, FormerFed, and this could be an accurate description of what's occurring. However, things aren't always that clean. We really don't know, and can't pre-judge without being there. We have no real evidence at this point that who we are communicating with is a stickler for technical accuracy and lacks flexibility or communication skills. The OP seems confused. Nobody has pointed out these deficits, at least according to the post. Why assume they are there, and feedback is just being withheld in his or her performance reviews? The very first thing a person would
  3. The real question you should ask yourself is what kind of actionable intelligence a FOIA response would provide. Unless you're certain a FOIA response would reveal overwhelming evidence of a violation of law, and not simply a violation of policy, I would question the usefulness of pursuing that route. If the official who does not want to see you promoted is in a position of enough influence and power, policy essentially becomes how they and their peers interpret an issue on any given day, and there are limited avenues for appeal. Even if you believe there's a violation of law, and not just pol
  4. Mr. Edwards, your explanation has made me realize two things. First, there is (was) not anyone in my supervisory chain of command at the time I was thinking about this particular matter who had any knowledge of contracting or legal matters whatsoever, so the idea of seeking guidance or direction from them just doesn't (wouldn't have) make sense. Second, despite not having knowledge or expertise, no independent decisions by people who are responsible for knowing something about contracting matters are allowed by those in the chain of command. Rather than consider a person who forms an opinion a
  5. OP, please let us know how this turns out for you. I'm very curious. Mr. Edwards, the answer to your question is to escalate and seek consensus on the definition of consolidation of contracts through the chain of command. I did not find such black and white answers as would be suggested in this thread as I escalated this matter through my chain of command. My interpretation means nothing if my chain of command, or my SBA liaison, or my legal counsel had another point of view.
  6. This is just political advice from experience on consolidation of contracts, not advice on interpretation of statutory language. Just good willed advice- escalate and get consensus to CYA.
  7. Well, my experience tells me otherwise, but good luck.
  8. SBA would very likely say it is indeed a consolidation of contracts, and imprecise language on the definition of government entities would not allow an exception. If your dollar value is high, escalate the issue for concurrence, and go back and look at the Final Rule and latest amendments for any information that would suggest this would be interpreted as a consolidation of contracts.
  9. Unless I'm missing something, I think Don answered your question by pointing you to the first bullet in the Memo on FSS Contracts. If you have an FSG that is excluded from TAA compliance, and the statutory requirements for country of origin defaults to BAA given the dollar threshold, then you would add DoD specific clauses to your GSA solicitation that states the BAA requirements. This will exclude schedule items that are not BAA compliant, or Berry Act compliant, or whatever it is you are procuring. I guess I'm not following the question. Do you have internal policy guidance that restricts y
  10. Definitely. All you have to understand is you cannot act with prejudice. If you understand what it means to act with prejudice, then it is very simple to understand when you are treating all offerors equally, and when you are discriminating between the merits of offerors fairly. For example, you have allowed oral presentations of a technical approach. All offerors receive the same instructions, and present before the same panel in the same location. They have been given an equal chance to present their technical approach. Offeror #1 begins with a description of their approach. You refer to th
  11. Remember your Blanket Purchase Agreement includes only those labor hour categories that you've entered into an agreement with the government for performance of orders under the BPA. Those that you submitted for evaluation and were agreed to by the government are the only ones you can use to compete for an order under the BPA. If you only quoted higher-priced labor hour categories, then you are forced to bid fewer resources to complete a task that may have been more efficiently performed with lower-priced labor hour categories. You got your agreement by plugging in whatever labor hour rates yo
  12. It is permissible for you to bid on the order issued under the schedule BPA with a labor hour category that exceeds the requirements of the order unless prohibited in the BPA order solicitation. This forces you to discount those more experienced labor hour categories to be competitive, if this is a multiple award BPA and you are competing for the order. It sounds like the problem you have is that you don't have an agreement under the BPA for the lower-level staffing that would allow you to bid competitively for these types of orders. You may wish to discuss with the matter with the CO.
  13. You can only accept a Quote that is compliant with your solicitation. If your RFQ requested a product or service on the vendor's schedule contract, then if the vendor does not offer it on schedule you can not accept the Quote. The Quote is simply non-compliant. You go on to the next in line for selection. Did you address whether you reserved the right to communicate with respondents prior to making a selection in your RFQ? Depending on the answer to that question, then you may be able to clarify with the vendor offering "open market pricing" whether their product or service is awarded on the s
  14. No, not so shocking after you've been around. IGs aren't as independent as they could be. They still sit inside of these agencies, and serve a role in the agency's self-preservation. They can be encouraged to look the other way, (nothing to see here, move along), or to not mention certain details in their reports that might attract too much Congressional attention at an inopportune time. If this ended up in a prosecution, I will guess the IG did get involved at some point, but probably only after the right person asked for the investigation.
  15. I am also a GS-13, with 10 years of 1102 experience, FAC-C Level III certified, and have an unlimited warrant. My experience has been entirely different trying to move up and out and away from my agency. I have had no response to most positions that I've applied for, both within the government and in the private sector. The only job offers I've had are from contractors who place private contract specialists into federal agencies to support their 1102s. Most people agree those jobs are a step down unless you are retiring, and then taking them. I have several colleagues who report the very same
×
×
  • Create New...