Jump to content

daniel_1102

Members
  • Posts

    4
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About daniel_1102

  • Birthday June 20

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    Panama City, FL
  • Interests
    Sailing, Reading, Travel, Music,
  1. I really don't care about your question in all honesty, I was just trying to be cordial. Your question lacked the detail to answer in the manner you expected, perhaps it was intentional to lead into another discussion or perhaps it was unintentionally vague. However since you have chosen to add more context to your question I will respond. You are correct, I doubt I know even five percent but then again I never claimed to know a great number of them. Due to the vague nature of your question I made some assumptions, which I should have known better when responding to you. I have observed your style of writing for quite some time and should have predicted your question was not intended to be constructive. I have worked for three different agencies in the last 14 years and I know what the agency policy and guidance were telling their 1102s so if they were following policy and guidance, then one could presume a great number of them. If you are looking for a statistical sample then no, my reaching out to a few contractors would not provide any relevant data. If one were examining positive or negative experiences for anecdotal evidence for discussion purposes (like this thread) than perhaps, but I now see that is not your interest. I doubt however that you will be conducting a scientific analysis of how many contracting officers or contractors have used this method so I am left to wonder what was the purpose of your question “How many contractors and 1102s have used the method and how many of them are you in touch with” other than to lead into some inflammatory discussion. Again, I should have known your question was not intended to constructively continue this discussion. In my first post I simply posted the latest guidance from DoD and DAU, which Gov2310 seemed to find useful, rather than some outdated "Air Force Regulation 400-28, published in 1979, which become OFPP Pamphlet No. 4" and offers little to the original question posed by GOV 2310. But thank you for your history lesson although I’m not sure how citing defunct regulations answers the original question Gov2310 or supports an answer of “yes and yes,” but I am sure you will enlighten us with your sage-like knowledge.
  2. Many of the 1102s I know have used this method, and the contractors do not experience significant issues unless the PWS and the QASP are out of sync. Typically, problems occur if the drafter of the PWS does not accomplish his/her due diligence when preparing the PRS and the PWS does not agree with the matrix in the QASP, if the narrative between the two documents varies, or some other oversight occurs and then problems follow. A majority of my contracting experince is with DoD and many are following the DAU/DoD guidance I posted. If you have specific questions about locations, I will share away from a public forum. I just returned from a three year assignment in Europe but was not actively working contracts, although I was working in a procurement related capacity. I can reach out to any of the 1102s for specific questions, but I generally do not stay in touch with contractors when I go from one location to the next. I could get a hold of them I suppose, if needed. I have not yet examined how things are being done where I currently hang my hat, I'm just getting settled in and reviewing the contracts which I will be working for the next X months or X years, depending on how long I stay here.
  3. Not necessarily, if the performance work statement is done well, it will contain all of the essential elements a contractor needs to price the effort. According to the DoD Guidbook for the Acquisition of Services, the intent of the guidance seems to be to provide the QASP as a product that compliments the PWS and allows the Government to alter the method of surveillance without having to modify the contract each time a change is made to the QASP. Is this the best possible solution? I've not yet had an issue with this method, but I have not worked contracts in a couple of years, but I also have not heard complaints from either contractors or 1102s who have used this method.
  4. I read through this thread and did not see two of the latest documents used within DoD, included in this discussion. The DoD Guidebook for the Acquisition of Services, dated July 20, 2011, Para 4.3.2 Performance Assessment Strategies has some guidance about the QASP. The Services Acquisition Guidebook dated June 5, 2012 seems to be derived from the DoD Guidebook and states the same guidance concerning the QASP. This document is hosted on the DPAP website and indicates the QASP is not to be included as part of the contract. 4.3.2 : "The QASP is not incorporated into the contract since this enables the government to make adjustments in the method and frequency of inspections without disturbing the contract. An informational copy of the QASP should be furnished to the contractor." DoD and DAU are leading the KO/CO away from incorporating the QASP in the solicitation and contract. http://www.acq.osd.mil/dpap/ccap/cc/corhb/Files/Miscellaneous_Training/Guidebook_for_Acquisition_of_Services_24March2012.pdf
×
×
  • Create New...