Jump to content
The Wifcon Forums and Blogs

formerfed

Members
  • Content Count

    1,226
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

0 Neutral

About formerfed

  • Rank
    Contributing Member

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    Washington DC

Recent Profile Visitors

13,404 profile views
  1. This is the only question asked. Everything else about the contract and scope came up as thread drifts. As far as lease versus, most contracts like range ops don’t get into detail like that. The OP hasn’t asked about scope. The person seems lost about whether items can be purchased for a short duration period for the immediate range need. The advice here_2_help gives is the OP should come up and ask what a long term need is and do a lease versus purchase analysis. Since rent money comes from a different pot that purchase, that’s why I suggested asking the Controller. The program off
  2. Here_2_help’s response seems to be the answer to OPs question. The reason I mentioned seeking the Comptrollers input is the emphasis on mission. I assumed this was a one time effort and had special funding. But the thread seemed to drift without any further input from the OP. If range operations is ongoing, thenhere_2_helps response is exactly correct. If someone has a continuing need, funds are available, and the items are more economically acquired by purchase (confirmed by an analysis),why lease?
  3. Again, it all reverts back to the risk adverse nature of our field and many of the practitioners. Companies lose procurements after investing large amounts of time and money. Just common courtesy means they are owed an explanation why they lost. The problem is fear of protests and inexperienced 1102s. What’s funny is many protests occur because companies can’t get some basic information why they lost. A properly and confidently conducted debrief usually answers most questions and defuses protests. If it doesn’t, all the information and more gets uncovered anyway.
  4. How much money are you talking about in total? This is really a question for your comptroller, budget officer, or finance/accounting person. Generally if you get a requisition that has certified funds, you can assume all the proper questions were asked and the certifying official approved use of the funds for the intended purpose.
  5. Nicole, your use of “allocated” isn’t clear as Retreadfed mentioned. Allocation is a budget/financial term that doesn’t seem to apply here. Another question is are you talking about funding that has expired or still current funding?
  6. The entire debriefing process is too risk adverse to me. I think frank and honest feedback on why another offeror was selected is in order. That means what are the advantages/benefits, including price, of the selected offeror versus the source being debriefed. That includes past performance but I wouldn’t get into specifics about the selected offeror like who was the agency and project - just something like the feedback was very positive.
  7. Good commentary by Vern. To both Michael Wootens initiative and Verns article, I’ll add two comments. The first concerns why some agencies take six months to buy something while others take six weeks. That’s proof the regulatory system isn’t broken. A great study by OFPP is examining why there is those differences. The second is the entire acquisition workforce needs realigned and adjusted and I’m not limiting that to 1102s. We need a workforce trained and knowledgable in the entire process from translating a need to delivery and acceptance of the product or service. Picking on 1102s, h
  8. Bob, That is a good story. They say competition makes for better outcomes. In this specific instance of the Cold War, it did even though we might be the only ones that knew. I had no idea about the J-58 engine and afterburners. I assumed afterburners are used just for bursts before overheating the engine.
  9. Bob, Wow! What a great article. Thanks for writing and publishing. Until now, I never understood the connection between the A-12 and SR-51. Now I know plus lots more after reading your article. The videos are amazing too. I especially liked one comment that the plane was built 58 years after the Wright Brothers flight. The same time later, we still don’t have a plane that matches it.
  10. Rudy, Tough question. Ji20874 brings up good points too. It’s not uncommon for agencies to re-evaluate proposals after award when possible mistakes are uncovered. Generally It happens when the government discovered they erred in evaluating what proposals said. It doesn't involve consideration of supplemental information outside what was in the offer normally. Here the KO didn’t do complete due diligence in conducting past performance even when the solicitation said it could. That’s a weak argument to me. It might be difficult to justify cancellation when the past performanc
  11. I was top dog. But subordinate leaders were upset as well as the policy people. I advised everyone that any CO could use as many people they wanted for reviews, including all former members of the review board. Or they could not have anyone else review their work. The caveat is they were accountable for things going wrong. I never anticipated how good the outcomes were. The overall quality of all work improved significantly. When people were asked to help, most gave it everything knowing their input was valued.
  12. I once read a book with the author saying his golf score reflected his management ability. If he effectively trained and delegated, he had more time for golf and improving. The mantra in my last government job was empowerment. Employees had to be successful or they could leave. I trained, encouraged, and coached. I waived formal contract reviews. Employees could seek out as much advice and opinions as they wanted. But in the end, seasoned people were accountable. All seasoned COs had unlimited warrants. Their jobs were supporting program offices through making the acquisition proc
  13. This is one big sore point with me personally. The concept of evaluating past performance as originally envisioned was excellent. Then then the risk adverse, lawyer driven nature of the procurement process kicked in. Now all that’s considered are hand picked references provided by offerors and CPARS. Agencies are even afraid to ask references information so they resort to written questionnaires. COs are either too scared or too lazy to dig into sources and ask pertinent questions. Lawyers even say if you verbally ask questions be sure to ask the same to everyone! Doing the job
  14. I know this is an old thread and likely the OP moved on. But most of the posts (and resulting advice/opinions) say there’s nothing to be done. Most imply it’s his companies fault. And it probably is. However the pertinent contract language says the contractor exceeds the ceiling at their own risk. That doesn’t mean nothing can be done for relief of the contractors situation. It may be in the governments interest to reach settlement with the contractor depending upon special circumstances.
×
×
  • Create New...