Jump to content
The Wifcon Forums and Blogs

Self Employed

Members
  • Content Count

    7
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

0 Neutral

About Self Employed

  • Rank
    New
  1. Hi, civilian Contracting Officer here. I work at a pretty substantially sized Air Force base. The problem we currently have is a significant amount of civilian GS-13, Unlimited Contracting Officer openings/vacancies. But we have a problem. Base X isn't filling them, nor does it seem equipped to match attrition of current GS-13 positions. Base X has hired tons of graduates through their 7-9-11 (non masters route) program, and 9-11-12 (pre-existing masters) programs. Over the past 6 years, PK leadership has publicly discussed concern for retaining Contracting Officers. Specifically, Unlimited Contracting Officers through years 6-12 of their employment with the government. They have publicly floated providing bonuses for recently minted Unlimited Contracting Officers, but despite publicly stating they were pursuing it, it has not come to fruition. Additionally, utilizing Maj. Gen. Holt's contracting flight plan -- we now see fairly new officers (and enlisted,) pushed through Unlimited Contracting Officer boards to fill these vacancies rather than civilians. Base X has recently begun expanding the utilization of its limited warrant program to stop-gap the GS-13 opening issue. Base X is also clever. It is now offering limited warrants up to 25M, and putting into place restrictions on obtaining an unlimited warrant for a specified duration of employment, conflicting with messaging of a GS-13 CO shortfall and retention issue, now offering more responsibility and work for the same pay. Base X messaging continually addresses civilian retention issues with private industry, other agencies being an issue, and doing nothing to allow for the benefits those other agencies allow for (telework, degraded retirement benefits, etc.) Is Base X alone? Are we special? Is it just bad messaging, poor PA, planning, what?
  2. Yes, and no. If you're lucky enough, you're probably also using CON-IT. There are work-arounds to the system to fix some of the issues with CLS, but they're not yet tenable as they destroy the underlying relationship between the system and CLS, requiring a "patch," before subsequent mods/awards can be made on the effort. CON-IT will insert clauses that you did not even upload from CLS, a feature, not a bug. (yikes.) CLS will spit clauses you don't need into your solicitation, which you will have to manually remove -- and it may omit some depending on your requirement. Old methods/matrices are still effective until the bugs are worked out.
  3. Yep, I was thinking along these lines as well. Granted, not sure what recourse there is when they don't show up, just that we'd go to the next on the BPA list if they couldn't get there in time.
  4. Thanks for the response! What you suggest is kind of what I was going for -- a BPA of sorts for a general contractor. I agree wholeheartedly it's what SABER's for, but without time for a proposal, a SOW, we're in an interesting spot. Leadership cares as they were recently burned on such an NTE situation that drew the ire/of higher leadership, and so now I'm attempting to identify a solution to alleviate confusion for future CO's who are concerned that they're nor performing correctly, and local leadership alike so there is a streamlined and correct process. Unfortunately the basic SABER contract does not contain authorization to place oral orders IAW FAR 16.504(a)(4)(vi), nor clauses for T&M. It also doesn't have the Defin clause @ DFARS 252.217-7027 in place either. At the end of the day work will get done in an emergency, inside or outside the lines, but I'm trying to identify a within the lines approach to these situations.
  5. Hello world. I work in support of Civil Engineering as an 1102 at a CONUS Air Force Base and am looking for ways to appropriately handle emergency acquisitions (Septic pipe burst, water main leaking under steam tunnels, etc.) Our office primarily supports CE and the assorted base mission partners. We have multiple methods of executing contracts, ranging from IFB, 8(a) direct award, or utilizing our Multiple Award Construction Contract (MACC) (~1M-10M) or Simplified Acquisition of Base Engineering Requirements (SABER) (~$<micropurchase - $850K). I have been asked by leadership to research a method of handling these actions, but am unsure of the most expedient way -- and was hoping another base may have accomplished the task already. Please be gentle, as I'm still relatively new to the career field! Currently, in such instances our SABER contractor (Competitive, 8(a) SB, Single Award IDIQ) has typically been tasked to respond to such events, since they typically have the established capacity to respond and work the effort. Current Process: Branch chief receives pressure from leadership to resolve emergent issue, Requirements doc received, including purchase request and IGE. Action is under SAT. Task order issued w/ NTE, SOO (not SOW until defin). Definitized upon proposal receipt, but no defin schedule is issued. 252.217-7027 Contract Definitization was not part of the basic award or task order. I believe there is an issue with the current process as it's technically a UCA. 1. Has another base solved this problem? 2. What is incorrect with the current issue/could make it correct. (I believe there are an incredible amount of things currently wrong with the current method.) 3. Is there a better way? I've suggested some sort of BPA with general contractors who could respond within a certain amount of time, but my leadership was not receptive to the idea. They seemed to indicated they'd much prefer we utilize the existing SABER contract to the maximum extent practicable. Thanks. Very Respectfully, SE
×
×
  • Create New...