Jump to content
The Wifcon Forums and Blogs


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

0 Neutral

About Confused1102

  • Rank
  1. I actually found the responses on this thread pretty funny - old school perception. Bill Gates said in an interview a few months, the number one benefit an employer could provide is flexibility. Telework is awesome. If you can't be effective while telelworking I think it is more a personal limitation than a systematic telework issue. Accountability should be based on results, not the presence in a chair - the attitude that a person has to be in a chair in the office so you know they're working vice reviewing their documents, talking to them on the phone regularly about current actions, etc. that is wrong with the Government and why it's hard to keep high performers in this field. A supervisor's effectiveness isn't based on if they're in the office or not. It's if they can lead their team to accomplish results. Do people abuse telework? Probably. Do people abuse 'smoke breaks?' Probably. We are generally supposed to be writing contracts in results based fashion - non-prescriptive in the how, as long as i get the result I need. Telework is the epitome of results based performance. If you can't figure out how to be effective with telework then don't do it. But don't think that because you are unable to be effective with telework means everyone is unable to be effective with it. I telework twice a week right now. I have had clients send numerous complementary emails to my supervisor about issues I have resolved, actions I have issued, and business advice I have given, all while I was teleworking. They had no idea I wasn't in my cube doing my job - none! If you can't manage with telework, maybe it says something about your capabilities, not the employees'. Telework saves me my commute, having to get ready to go to work, allows me to get online earlier, cuts down on traffic congestion, etc.
  2. Thank you all for your inputs. I thought the topic would bring up some good discussion and I appreciate the perspectives shared.
  3. Thats not what it says, it says, 'such as' which imply it's an example of a specific source.
  4. You are correct, I am looking for opinions and I think you characterized our different perceptions of the text correctly. Obviously, we both think 'my [our] interpretation better meets the reasonable and prudent person standard.' I appreciate your opinion. I look forward to hearing/seeing what others think as well.
  5. C Culham; I read the sentence as 1) through another Government agency or 2) from a specific source. So it doesn't change my thinking. ji20874; who says an EDWOSB isn't a specific source? Do you have a definition for the term?
  6. Scenario: You're doing an EDWOSB Sole Source award via 10 United States Code 2304(c)(5), as implemented by FAR 6.302-5: Authorized or Required by Statute using EDWOSB Program,15 U.S.C. 637(m), as implemented by FAR 19.1506(a). Assume all requirements of 19.1506(a) are satisfied. Are you required to post a synopsis required by FAR 5.201(b)? Excpetion at FAR 5.202(a) "The proposed contract action is expressly authorized or required by a statute to be made through another Government agency, including acquisitions from the Small Business Administration (SBA) using the authority of section 8(a) of the Small Business Act (but see 5.205(f)), or from a specific source such as a workshop for the blind under the rules of the Committee for the Purchase from the Blind and Other Severely Disabled;" My thought is No, you don't need to post the synopsis because you are making an award authorized by statute from a specific source (an EDWOSB). But I feel the wording of 5.202(a)(4) isn't exactly clearly. Wanted to see what others thought of this sitaution. If my interpertation is accurate, then this would apply to EDWOSB, WOSB, SDVOSB, and HUBZone.
  7. I think it's a great idea! And echoing what Vern already said, it will show how cumbersome DoD statutory/regulatory/policy is for a working professional. I don't envy the person tasked with compiling or maintaining the tool. As you build the tool, parts you have already consolidated are going to be updated as you are compiling other parts (i.e. assuming you work by part in numerical succession, as you are compiling Part 15, DFARS Part 5 will be updated). 1. Yes, I would use such a tool if it were user friendly. In my opinion this would mean having the tool web based, similar to the Air Force Hill FAR site, with the FAR Parts listed on the side of the screen while viewing the content in the center of the screen and able to scroll through an entire part without having to click on each individual subpart (like acquisition.gov). Although not entirely necessary it could have links to the actual regulations on the top; similar to how the Air Force site allows you to switch between FAR, DFARS, NMCARS, AFARS, etc. 2. I think shading is sufficient for distinguishing between the different regulations, and it is useful to have regulation cited on the left, otherwise a reader would need to refer back to some legend every the used the tool if they were not a frequent user. 3. To make the tool more useful, do you plan to incorporate clauses? Or a clause matrix? While the matrix isn't full proof, it is a tool to help start looking at clauses for RFP's, exporting it to excel makes it even more useful. I think a consolidated clause matrix across the regulations would be a powerful tool, although possibly a separate project from your current endeavor.
  • Create New...