Jump to content
The Wifcon Forums and Blogs


  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

0 Neutral

About PepeTheFrog

  • Rank
    Bronze Member

Recent Profile Visitors

2,723 profile views
  1. FrankJon, PepeTheFrog understands your viewpoint now. Thank you for clarifying. PepeTheFrog only thinks that it "might be" a stupid decision to use FFP to purchase a set number of hours, if the better solution is to use FFP to purchase a deliverable, result, or defined service or if the better solution is to use a different contract "type" to actually purchase a set number of hours. PepeTheFrog agrees that often the government uses FFP to dust chairs using contractor personnel. PepeTheFrog wonders if these government employees are deeply comforted by seeing contractor personnel every day, in the same office. Maybe they are just lonely and want some company?
  2. Is it there? Is it where? While you eat your green eggs and ham, these are the only reasons you should care: Is it in the solicitation? Is it in the contract? Is it in the FAR? (Is it also included in the solicitation or contract?) Is it in your agency's FAR supplement(s)? (Is it also included in the solicitation or contract?)
  3. PepeTheFrog thinks FrankJon knows the answer to this question, and FrankJon is just being coy, but PepeTheFrog will hop in. The delivery, inspection, acceptance, and payment terms and clauses of FFP contracts are not designed with the intent of purchasing a set number of hours. You could do that, but it might be a stupid decision. There are other types of contractual delivery, inspection, acceptance, and payment terms and clauses that are more appropriate for purchasing 1,880 hours of somebody's time. FrankJon, can you think of a more appropriate "type" of contract for purchasing 1,880 hours of someone's time?
  4. Where/ How to start learning?

    You're in the right place. Reading as much of this discussion forum (and website) as possible will be very helpful. You might try reading your subcontracts line by line, and tracing the flowdown clauses back to the FAR or DFARS. National Contract Management Association (NCMA) is a helpful group to join and they offer a monthly journal which is worth the price of membership.
  5. :lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol:
  6. What is the benefit, from your perspective, of accounting them as direct costs instead of G&A?
  7. page limitations on proposals

    Ten pages means less time and effort reading, evaluating, and thinking. As far as the disparity between the page counts, PepeTheFrog thinks the government either (a) has not considered it or (b) does not care. As a general principle, PepeTheFrog thinks it is foolish and frustrating to assume that government employees always act rationally, intelligently, or purposefully.
  8. Deleting FAR Part 19 sounds good. At a minimum, delete FAR Part 26, Other Socioeconomic Programs, and move its contents into FAR Part 19, renamed "Small Business and Socioeconomic Programs." (Then delete FAR Part 19, anyway!) Also, to keep this troll going: FAR Part 22. I'm not saying eliminate labor law, but the FAR Councils shouldn't be implementing Department of Labor regulations. Just provide cross-references to the applicable Department of Labor regulations for topics in FAR Part 22. Also, just raise every threshold you can get your webbed feet around. That's the easiest and laziest method of "acquisition reform"-- exemption. A rising pond lifts all lily pads!
  9. No-Cost Settlement and Unsatisfactory CPARS?

    What kind of tacos are you eating, Gordon? Chicken, beef, fish, or cat?
  10. Types of orders

    The writer is probably using the term mistakenly due to ignorance or sloppiness.
  11. PP Neutral Rating

    Hear, hear! Use broad, expansive, inclusive language, e.g. "including, but not limited to..." Also, don't forget that a "neutral" (actually, neither favorably nor unfavorably) rating for past performance does not provide the same protection during the tradeoff or source selection decision stage. Consider firm A and firm B, with evaluation factors of past performance, technical, and price. Firm A has no past performance, firm B has excellent past performance. Even if firm A and firm B have the exact same technical rating and underlying strengths and weaknesses, you can determine that firm B is the superior choice, even if firm B has a higher price. Your rationale is that the price premium of $X justifies a lower risk (having excellent past performance instead of no past performance). Bottom line: Having no past performance shields the rating, but doesn't create "immunity" during the tradeoff and source selection decision.
  12. u mad, bro? You might be on the wrong website...4chan is that way! ----->
  13. Advice for New Professionals

    Embrace the fact that you, and you alone, must provide yourself with education and training. Do not rely on anyone other than yourself to increase your knowledge and abilities. Try to read and study more than anyone else in the office.
  14. Advice for New Professionals

    Be willing to switch offices to get promoted. Do not take any career advice from federal employees, other than from the most impressive one percent who did something very similar to what you want to do. When applying for a position on USA Jobs, consider that everyone else will be rating themselves to get a perfect score to "make the cert." Totally ignore anyone who tells you war stories about remaining in the same grade for many, many years. Have a backbone and learn how to be assertive, but not rude or confrontational.
  15. Changing Solicitation to Set-aside while live

    Yes, this process is called an "amendment."