Jump to content
The Wifcon Forums and Blogs

apsofacto

Members
  • Content Count

    296
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

0 Neutral

About apsofacto

  • Rank
    Member

Recent Profile Visitors

12,460 profile views
  1. I think these are the takeaways, then. The dollarizing may just be a symptom of many of us not realizing this. Thanks both.
  2. Contractor could also provide a better warranty, too. I have a follow-up question: is it necessary to "dollarize" this exchange? Questioner states the CO "believes" the amount is $10K, but does this number need to be known?
  3. That's what I thought too. That passage states also: I'm actually in Texas. So deep in Texas the BBQ place near my house gives you a discount if you open carry. I didn't think we were allowed to apply a penalty in that fashion. That's why I was assuming the multiplier and the LD amount would be the same. Thanks for sharing all that- it was interesting!
  4. That's interesting! Do you remember if there was a liquidated damages clause? If so, was it the same amount as the multiplier? Seems like that would be internally consistent . . . Also, which state? I'm working under state code now and it doesn't seem very flexible about that kind of thing, but maybe it's just Texas . . .
  5. They could abandon the policy and see how it goes. Even if the court were wrong, the source selection would be simpler. Stated concerns the policy was addressing were : 1.) business continuity disruption after a disaster, and 2.) less competition over the long term. If the policy dies, how would ya'll mitigate those concerns? My immediate response would be 1.) letter contracts or anything else in FAR 18, and 2.) waiting and seeing to see if the marketplace begins to dry up.
  6. Yes, that is a goof in the IT group, software management failure as General describes. Thanks for confirming.
  7. Just to clarify, is the "someone" a vendor saying they wanted to submit a quote and feels frozen out of the competition, or is it a person at your agency who never got their license?
  8. It's very circumstance dependent, but you should get an opportunity to respond to negative past performance. You could always call your (former) project manager and talk to them, see how much stink rubbed off on you. May be worthwhile (regulations allowing) taking them out to lunch and do some fence-mending.
  9. I realized today I have been on a jihad spiritual struggle within oneself against sin against the word "Indicate" for a few years now. I saw the Environmental Protection Agency Acquisition Regulation (EPAAR) Clause Update for Submission of Invoices federal register entry on the Main Page and started compulsively trying to rewrite this section: According to the linked Merriam-Webster definition, "Indicate" has a few meanings, some mean to "to state", and others are more advisory or suggestive. So whenever I see the word, I wonder for a fraction of a second which version the author means. The passage says "clearly indicate" which surely helps. Why not just say "state" or "describe"? Won't this version always be better?: (Also cut "clearly", and added "of the work" because we pay folks for work, not for period of performance) Question is: should "Indicate" be vindicated, or annihilated? We know by now that I have some issues. I'm getting old, and crusty. Set in mah' ways. Resisting the urge to change the passive voice in the second sentence! So I appreciate your feedback, I may need to be yanked out of this rut I'm in. Or perhaps we can destroy this scourge that plagues us. If this devolves into a contest to rewrite that clause section that's OK too, that would be fun.
  10. Honestly I think so. Budgets are very important- it's why people fight over them. You can persuade the IT group to consolidate licenses, etc., and you should because its a sensible thing to do. However, the first official act is humping a requisition over to the procurement office, and that is solely in their control. Your remaining concerns are: Contract Type; Past performance Evaluation; and Price Evaluation When we discuss these issues, we don't deploy much specialized IT knowledge, though certainly a little is required. If you are curious, observant, stick around for a little while and are tight with the IT group you can get through those problems and run a great procurement together. You are absolutely right that if a contracting officer has the following shortcomings, they won't be able to pull of an Agile procurement: Unilaterally refuses to pay people by the hour; Has zero interest in writing new words for the evaluation factors; and Cannot evaluate a labor-hour based price proposal These are procurement shortcomings I think, and they won't be corrected by increasing the amount of IT technical know-how of the CO. I think those shortcomings would make it more difficult to procure MEP services, for example. Those will hurt the CO in all sorts of areas. We don't disagree on much. I think the cure to this disease lies in being a better procurement guy in general, and you believe further focusing on IT subject matter will help (Correct me though if I'm misunderstanding your cure.) Would be safest to do both, but we're luck to accomplish even one of those two things. . Most likely outcome is neither- improving people is really hard. Side note: Have you tried defining a "sprint" or "scrum" and procuring say 20 of those? They're labor hours in drag, but they might sneak by because you do not have to use the word trigger-word "hour" in the description. I haven't had 1/10th the push-back on the labor hour thing you may have experienced, but that was my back-up plan if that problem came up.
  11. I don't think you hire the 1102 to consolidate data centers and push them to the cloud. The budget to accomplish that would come from the IT department, so it must always originate there. But let's say it did, is your thought that the 1102 would need a lot of technical knowledge in order to issue the solicitation to accomplish that? I'm certain that is true to some extent, but I'd rather the 1102 concentrate on being a great 1102. The IT folks need us to ensure discussions are fair, to help navigate the small business world, to make sound best-value trade-offs, and a host of other things. They can't do that stuff on their own, but they can pull their weight on the technical side. I've been fortunate to have a good relationship and a fair amount of trust with the IT groups I've supported over the years, and I've learned a great deal about their business mostly through interacting with them all the time and seeing their various successes and failures (they've seen a few of my failures as well). To address the question posed, I don't think lack of knowledge is the driver of being left behind. If you are curious, observant (or nosy), stick around for a few years and can manage a relationship with the folks you support I think you will be OK. This is more attitude than anything I suppose.
  12. Sole source acquisitions to the actual sole sources may help you through some of this. Someone will need to write justifications. Say you did that alone, how much of a toothache remains? Also, FAR 19.502 gives you an out, but some justifying is required: Regarding the "dedicated suppliers", would competing the remaining work under some BPAs fit the bill? These ideas require more up-front paperwork, but hopefully a payoff down the road. Supply chain is not my world, just trying to provide another option in addition to Pepe's above. Folks, feel free to open fire on this trial balloon.
  13. I am aghast. There are no Bs- there are only A1s and A2s. Seriously though, are we getting stupider as the generations go by? Will we one day obsess about the amount of electrolytes our crops are receiving? Or is this just something typical 42-year-old males worry about? I fear that I'm a "B" and I'm being followed up by mostly "C"s.
×
×
  • Create New...