leo1102

WOW!! Talk about a coincidence. This very subject was discusses in this office last week. I was going to start a thread today. Thanks to all who provided clarification.

Formerfed - You don't have to "imagine"it. It's there in black and white with her photo for good measure. She said it because she believes it. Also, by late July and early August, many offices were already in mandatory overtime because of the influx of ARRA funding coupled with FY09 funded acquisition actions - this means no leave unless sick or emergency, no school, no nothing but work work work. Multiyear funded officers operate a little differently, but many annual O&M funded offices have been working overtime since May - it depends on the color of the money. Civ_1102 - Would Mr. Assad be better in his current assignment or at OFPP? I'm DoD Army and will grin sheepishly and selfishly state that I want him to remain where he is doing the superb job that he is doing. How long as Mr. Drabkin been in his current assignment? Charisma is not a prerequisite of procurement excellence, but it sure can be a plus. Dwgerard - Good point about the multiyear funded offices.

Civ_1102 - I agree with both of your points.

I read with interest Bob's posting of the Doan article "Pie Crust Promises: President Obama and Procurement Reform". Several things stuck out, but the one that infuriated me was: "That is why many of the government's contracting officers and procurement officials, this summer, staged a de facto work stoppage, in silent protest, by taking unusual amounts of leave and vacation time during the last, and busiest, months of the fiscal year. Procurements, as a result, have slowed to a crawl and the system has lurched to crisis. " Where is her proof that this happened? I know of no one who would deliberately place a procurement in jeopardy by either a "de facto" or a facto work stoppage "in silent" or loud protest. We (1102s) support federal procurements that impact the health and welfare of the people, environment, national security, etc of the United States. We take our jobs seriously and are, for the most part, dedicated to mission accomplishment, not mission failure. While the procurement system is additionally burdened by ARRA funding this fiscal year end, every 1102 that I personally know is rising to the occasion and getting the job done, not taking leave. I personally know of 1102s who are coming to work sick with fever and chills, working 16 hour days, and working weekends and holidays to get the job done prior to the end of the fiscal year. Maybe the KOs and procurement official's Ms. Doan is talking about are at the upper echelons of the 1102 field because those of us in the trenches are working our butts off. How dare she!!!

I would check with the local SBA for this information?

I remember exactly where I was and what I was doing - . I was working as the Battalion Commander's Secretary at the 30th AG Bn (Rec) at Ft Benning, GA. The National Guard liaison office down the hall had a television in it. One of the soldiers came running down the hall (I heard the footfalls before seeing the soldier). He told me that a plane had hit the World Trade Center. Leaving my desk, I arrived at the television just as the second plane hit. Standing there dumbstruck by what we were seeing, we (civilians employees and soldiers - a large crowd had grown by then) began talking about the new soldiers we were processing through the reception station and what the world would hold for their future because this was an act of terrorism - plain and simple, no question, we were certain. I returned to my office to notify the Battalion Commander of the events - he was in a meeting and at first was quite angry at the interruption but understood my urgency after the fact. Then the plane hit the Pentagon. I was sitting at my desk processing the influx of phone calls, when the civilian personnel advisor for our Regimental HQs phoned to tell me that the Pentagon had just been hit. Immediately I rushed into the Battalion Commander's office and informed him and then went across the hall to inform the Executive Officer. The Executive Officer looked me straight in the eyes and said angrily "You're a liar". Dealing with the shock of being called a liar to my face, I responded that she needed only to check the television news to see the truth (she never did apologize for calling me a liar and our relationship was forever changed). It was at that moment that I remembered that the former battalion commander had left the 30th AG Bn (Rec) for the G-1 offices of the Pentagon. I phoned her cell phone, no response. I phoned her husband's cell phone, no response. I phoned her home phone and received a standard voice mail. I phoned her office and received a standard voice mail. I didn't know that the cell phone circuits were probably overloaded at that time and I certainly did not know that it was precisely where her office was located that the plane hit the Pentagon. The next morning, first thing when I arrive at work at 0730, I phoned her home number and, thankfully, she answered. Yes, she had been at work. Yes, overall she was OK (we would later learn that she had some hearing loss and other minor injuries). A meeting was scheduled for shortly after she reported to work on 11 Sep. She was not in her office when the plane hit, but in a conference room further down the hall. I never forgot that the soldiers we were processing through the Reception Station and who would go on to Infantry Training were going to be soldiers in a world that was far different than it was prior to 11 Sep. The influx of recruits grew steadily and these brave patriotic volunteers went into the breach.

What is the period of performance for the option line items? Exercising an option 30 - 60 days in advance of the expiration date of the current period of performance is most common. You can not exercise and option period while changing the period of performance for that option period without a bilateral modification signed by the contractor. If I was a contractor, there would have to be a real good reason to shorten a period of performance because that could impact adversely impact my income. Check to see if the contract has clause 52.217-9.

Don - Does the recent OMB disagreement with GAO's decision have an implication on the table you provided with this Blog?

Brian - Thanks for the clarification.

What never would have happened - the implied overuse of ANCs under the 8(a) program or the uncovering of the implied overuse?

Formerfed - Thanks for the clarification dated 6 Jul 09. I have been out of the office for the past two weeks and am just getting around to reading WIFCON.

It is my understanding that only one order (GSA orders not contracts) to the prime contractor. For example - A GSA order is placed with a small business (Prime) that performs more than 50% of the requirement and that small business has a teaming agreement with a large business (Subcontractor) that performs less than 50% of the requirement. There is no order issued to the large business teaming partner, only to the small business partner.

FAR 8.405-5 subparagraph b states: Ordering activities may consider socio-economic status when identifying contractor(s) for consideration or competition for award of an order or BPA. At a minimum, ordering activities should consider, if available, at least one small business, veteran-owned small business, service disabled veteran-owned small business, HUBZone small business, women-owned small business, or small disadvantaged business schedule contractor(s). While I know that this does not state that set-asides are allowed under FAR Part 8, doesn't it allow placing language such as "In an effort to support the socio-economic goals of the requesting activity, small businesses will be given preference in the best value evaluation for this award IAW FAR 8.405-5 subparagraph b" into the narrative section of the GSA e-Buy RFQ?

parkerr - I was hoping you would weight in on this subject since I consider you very knowledgeable on the DOD Army policy.

Fort Benning's Contracting website has great GPC information. You can check it out at https://www.benning.army.mil/DOC/GPC.htm

I just finished soliciting a large value RFQ on GSA E-Buy. The GSA master contract contracting officer permitted us to add any FAR, DFAR, AFAR or local clauses that applied to the requirement not already in the master contract. We determined proposal submission instructions and evaluation criteria much like a solicitation issued under FedBizOps.

Farfetched: I think you mean Level Certifications in Contracting. Duty Positions require certain levels of certification. Certification includes any required coursework (on-line and resident) required to be certified as Level I or Level II or Level III in Contracting. If you are interested in exactly what courses are required, you can go to the Defense Acquisition University website.

To add a contractor in the middle of federal simplified acquisitions for materials and simple services made no sense when GSA and FedBizOps was available without a fee. I never, ever used FedBid. I could be wrong about this but it is my understanding that the contract expires in June and the option is not being exercised. Has anyone else heard this?

Your statement "Usually search engines only turn up a lot of junk related to the GSA FSS and nothing else" is a strange comment to make. GSA FSS 58 5 contains 24 separate vendors that supply various makes and models of CCTV cameras. Most of these items are commercially available in the open market and can be found during a routine Google search. Most of the GSA FSS vendors are small businesses.

You may want to contact a Federal Government contracting office that currently has a translation contract/purchase/delivery order in place. They may be able to assist you. Look for places like Fort Benning because the Western Hemisphere Institute for Security Cooperation is there and documents are translated from Spanish to English or visa versa regularly. You may also want to try Southcom units who deal a lot with South American governments and agencies. Perhaps even the Defense Language Institute will be able to assist.

here 2 help: Thanks for the detailed rebuttal to my e-mail. I learned a lot reading your response, the least of which is that I should not have responded to bigred's initial inquiry without having the knowledge required to do so.

On the other hand, consultants regularly cost more per hour than full-time employees which would increase the cost to the Government under T&M.

Carl: I did ask that question in my post on 9 Feb. And I fully agree with your point.

Let me understand this correctly - the place of performance as stated in the FSS order is "Government premises" and the KO is permitting the contractor to telecommute from another location without a modification to the order. Are you asking whether telecommuting is within the scope of this order? I would not think so as the cost to telecommute is often less than working on location. Did the GSA FSS price include location work or the option to telecommute? Did the RFQ include the possibility of telecommuting? Would offeror's quotes have been different if telecommuting was permissible under the GSA RFQ? What about IT security issues - will your IT permit a contractor remote access? In addition, even though the actual work being done by the contractor is not changing, the location may not allow sufficient Government oversight. Does your office have a legal advisor - If so, I would ask for a review and a determination. Let me know what happens - I find this very interesting.

Wouldn't it be a bit presumptious of us to assume that the contractor (Ktr) would know whether the contracting officer (KO) violated the ADA or not? I have never had a Ktr ask a KO if he/she was in compliance with ADA, or for that matter, if a KO was within his/her authority to obligate funds. I agree that an unauthorized commitment (UAC) appears to have been made by the KO and that the determination needs to be made whether to ratify or not. For this specific instance, I would recommend a stop work order until the UAC issue is determined. The Ktr still retains his right to be paid for the work completed to the date of the stop work order.