Jump to content
The Wifcon Forums and Blogs


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by leo1102

  1. Let me clarify - DWGerard1102 may have been involved at the beginning of he CID investigation for Thrower. I have no knowledge of his involvement. I would think that he would remember the specific reason he left the organization.
  2. That was a truly interesting read. Since Mr. Bigler was not sanctioned, I am wondering if, in the last 10 years, any DoD attorney has been sanctioned and why?
  3. Good morning - The link you mentioned is not the one he is writing about in this chain. For the one he is writing about in this chain, I was one of the brand new contract specialists assigned to one of the requirements awarded to the subject contractor in FY04. The CID investigation and case preparation went on for years and in 2010 I testified at the Federal trial in Boston, as did many of the contract specialists, contracting officers, and the Government attorney who advised our contracting office. When CID started investigating, the activities spelled out in the Press Release from the Justice Department DWGerard1102 furnished in his post were discovered. As for that KO retiring - he was a good man who worked for a horrible shrew of a supervisor and did the very best he could to keep us shielded from her. I, and others, hold him in high regard for his kindness and for his efforts. I know of no rumor, innuendo, or factual proof that he did anything unethical or illegal. RIP.
  4. I completely agree - the selection process would be different. The group of us discussing this finally came to that same conclusion late yesterday afternoon. The particular acquisition we were discussing will be posted in a single point of entry. Thanks to all who contributed to this discussion. It really helped.
  5. Thank you all for your input. It gives me a lot to consider.
  6. There are several of us in the office who are discussing the meaning of FAR 4.502(b)(4). Does this part, or any other part of the FAR, DFAR or NMCARs, prohibit issuing a solicitation over more than one Government Point of Entry? I have always only used a single GPE. Please advise. Thanks.
  7. If these are IT Services, they may be professional services. If they are professional services, then the SCA does not apply and the clause would not be in the contract. I would contact the person who contacted you and ask them if the information is required for non-SCA professional services. If the SCA clauses are not in your contract, then it is a good bet that you are providing professional services.
  8. Great write up Bob. While certainly not at the level described above, as a Contracting Officer, I am sure that many of us have had to work with undue influence at many levels on many procurements. I know I have. It there is only one thing to be admired in the above, and there are many, it is that Mr. Rule certainly lived up to his name - he followed the rules, refused to be unduly influenced and reached an agreement on a very politically charged and contentious modification. It is an extremely hard thing to do, but it is an essential part of being a Contracting Officer.
  9. Bob - It looks like a COR position to me - I have seen 1102s lateral or get promoted into 1101 and become CORs on contracts that they either awarded or administered as an 1102.
  10. Vern - Good morning I have heard the same thing - agencies hiring 1101s or 1105s instead of 1102s.
  11. leo1102

    Career Changes

    Started as an 1102 in October 2003 - GS-07/09. Army Installation Level Contracting. Supplies and Services. Cradle to Grave. SAT, SAP and Larger. Commercial. FFP, CPAF. Competed/Selected for GS-11 in same office (2007). Relocated to another Army Installation Level Contracting office for promotion to GS-12 (2008). Large service contracts. Commercial. FFP, CPAF, CPFF. Direct Select to CofE lateral GS-12 (2009). Construction, A&E, Supplies and Services. FFP, CPAF, CPFF. Commercial and Non-Commercial. Competed/Selected for GS-13 Supervisor - US Navy (2012) - Supplies and Services. Cradle to Grave. SAT, SAP and Larger. Commercial and Non-Commercial. Services. Competed/Selected for Non-Supervisory GS-14 (2015) - IT and Engineering Services - SAP and Larger - Commercial - Cradle to Grave. I have relocated a total of 4 times - all within DoD.
  12. This is nothing new to me. One year the office ran out of printer paper at fiscal year end and there were no more funds - at least that is what they told us. I have had to purchase my own paper, pens, post-its, folders, and desk organizational items on many occasions. I always kept a list and receipts for everything I bought and would take the costs off my taxes as a business expense every year. The receipts came in especially handy once when I was relocating for a promotion. The admin person in the office from which I was departing went to the chief of that office and I had to produce receipts for the larger items I was packing to take with me - with the exception of obviously personal items.
  13. If performance started in FY15 and if FY15 funds were used, then the FY15 PIIN is correct. If, however, the actual period of performance of the award started 1 Oct 15 and if FY16 funds were used, then I would say a FY16 PIIN should have been used. Were FY16 single year funds used to fund the award or where they multi-year funds that were effective in FY15?
  14. LucyQ: I apologize for my earlier response. As indicated by the other contributors who so generously provided very helpful guidance and input to your initial inquiry, this is the forum in which discussions of acquisition careers are appropriate. Again, I apologize.
  15. This may not be the forum in which to share such personal information and the questions you raise are not related to the acquisition process.
  16. It appears as if you have already contacted the contractor numerous times and have not received the repair services. I was wondering, have you contacted your agency attorney? An official letter may do the trick. If not, then the attorney can advise you on the next course of action. Did your order/contract include FAR Clause 52.237-2?. Protection of Government Buildings, Equipment and Vegetation? As prescribed in 37.110(B ), insert the following clause in solicitations and contracts for services to be performed on Government installations, unless a construction contract is contemplated: Protection of Government Buildings, Equipment, and Vegetation (Apr 1984) The Contractor shall use reasonable care to avoid damaging existing buildings, equipment, and vegetation on the Government installation. If the Contractor’s failure to use reasonable care causes damage to any of this property, the Contractor shall replace or repair the damage at no expense to the Government as the Contracting Officer directs. If the Contractor fails or refuses to make such repair or replacement, the Contractor shall be liable for the cost, which may be deducted from the contract price.
  17. Vern - Thanks for the clarification and the explanation.
  18. ji20874 - Good point - my mistake to use 52.222-17 when he issue concerned professional services.
  19. Vern - I sure hope your response to my post is that the notion is "truly, deeply stupid" and that you are not saying that I am "truly, deeply stupid." I did not combine the terms performance-based and knowledge-based in my post. I am a bit confused by your response. Would you please elaborate on your post?
  20. BLUF: If the requirement is performance based and non-personal services, then it is ultimately the contractor's determination how to sufficiently staff to meet the performance standards. Under 52.222-17 the new contractor is required to offer first refusal to incumbent employees. The new contractor does not have to offer the same compensation or benefits as their current employer. Ultimately it is the choice of the individual employee whether to be hired by the new contractor. I had one instance where the incumbent contractor was not the LPTA offeror when the requirement was resolicitated. The incumbent contractor sent me an e-mail and stated that if his company was not chosen, all of his employees would walk off the job. The new contractor acted IAW 52.222-17 and not one single employee left. All experience was retained and it was a smooth transition.
  21. You are correct - My mistake. I should not have assumed military at all. Sorry.
  • Create New...