soboco

Joel, Yes, but just as we got a handle on the "smoking" issue a couple more serious issues took precedence with this same ktr (but different personnel). Now we've uncovered a theft ring, sexually explicit materials, malingering, drinking alcohol at work and misuse of GFE. Several employees terminated but others only a slight tap on the wrist. This ktr has been here 20+ years, so true rot is very much evident. (Add to the mix possible abandon/disregard/top-cover by PCO. Under previous PCO approx 90+ write-ups over 5 year period, but with this PCO, only 2 in 5 years!) Guess I should be grateful that I dont get bored at work! BTW: Are “KO” and “CO” really acronyms? (I mean, technically, aren’t they just initials --- as they don't spell an actual word?)

We are in an OCONUS location where the culture and environment sees cigarette smoking as something of an accepted pass-time! Outside the wire its deemed as OK to smoke in restaurants, public buildings, public transportation, almost anywhere! However, the recent emphasis here being placed on stopping/minimizing tobacco use on military installations is kicking up some dust (primarily from ktr's employees working on the installation). Military folks and DoD civilians pretty much stay in step with the new anti-smoking pressure (they do grouse about it, but they do comply), while quite a few ktr's folks (particularly construction crews and some service staff) are NOT so keen to comply. Some even flaunt the rule by smoking directly in front of huge "No Smoking" signs! (Most do not speak much English, let alone read it; which is excuse #1). Several ktr personnel have been repeatedly 'advised' of the designated smoking areas but continue to smoke in other than DTAs. We have tried speaking to them and have issued several written notices but they continue unabated. What recourse/actions may be available for us to realign these ktrs (and their personnel) with the DTA rules? (Note: Nothing in the contract addresses this specific issue.)

My 1102 journey starts fairly comparable to the earlier post by 'Cajuncharlie'... started with USAF back in the days of ASPR, but worked in the "Systems Branch” of Base Procurement. Engaged mainly with the folks in Data Processing on ancient programs such as CIAPS, various computer listings, and systems vagaries, hitches, glitches, edits and errors --- schlepping boxes of key-punch cards back & forth after reviewing pin-holes all day. (Yes, the old Burroughs 3500). Never saw much action in either of the other operational branches (Small Purchases, Services, Construction) as I was tracking heavily in Systems, but interacted with these folks as/when needed to clear edits/errors/etc. Eventually gave in to ‘guidance’ to complete procurement skills training and was "volun-told" into ‘rotational training’. Got a lot more seat time in Procurement than I planned, but eventually learned to really enjoy it and never looked back. That is, until sometime recently…!!! Seems the hand-writing was on the wall when our 702s, 1105s and 1106s began to disappear. We were gradually morphed into some kind of hybrid contracting-clerical-administrators. The cascading clerical duties and adverse administrative functions seriously tarnished the glow that was “Contracting”… so, I bailed. Several years later, I returned --- refreshed, renewed and with a new attitude…!!! I can say it was, well, worth it --- in a 'best-value trade-off' sort of way! Would I do it again? Yes…

Having spoken with leadership and legal, it has been determined there will need to be an assortment of actions required to re-engage (some contracted services more than others). It appears the main theme (and obvious 'take-away') in your responses is simply: "...it depends..." Thanks all...!!!

Now that the CR is in place and funds will be made available fairly soon... is there a specific/official manner in which contracts will/should be notified to resume performance? Will there a be a letter/email from the CO or COR/QAP --- or could a phone call suffice? Or should contractors just resume performance based on the fact that CR has been signed?

My 2-cents: As an 1102 with DoD, I am beleaguered by the overwhelming financial software/systems now required in Contracting (particularly at base-level). In addition to the previously named systems, other DISA-bred contracting/financial intersect technologies that 1102s must endure, also include: ?ABSS? (to develop, process funding documents) into SPS/PD2? which, in-turn, pushes financial data into ?IAPS?, for storage in ?EDA/EDM? for retrieval via ?EFR?. All of these are accomplished before DISA?s ?WAWF? even comes into the equation. Then, the fun really amps up!! We, (by the use of WAWF) are alienating new vendors with this highly cumbersome finance-based software program. In the past month my office has lost several more good, small-business sources --- as they were all frustrated by WAWF and bailed. The basic construct for these systems is for financial data mining purposes --- albeit via contract related data. (Providing only the slightest degree of actual Contracting products.) If this level of systemic "interaction" were thrust upon senior leadership to suffer through (merely to accomplish a single, simple, quick task), I feel fairly certain that some serious revisions/reductions would be imminent. From personal experience, straight-forward acquisition functions that could previously be done in less than an hour, now (with the benefit of so many systems to ?help? me), takes on average of up to 3-hours. Where are the systems? performance proficiencies here?? the systemic LEAN concepts / Smart Ops / Root Cause Analysis fish-bones to alleviate this multifarious PC ?Hydra??

Welcome to the wonderful world called Contracting. Its unfortunate but PWAC may have nailed it --- other duties as assigned! To the best of my knowledge, being a CO does not necessarily convey to team lead duties/responsibilities --- and definitely not to a supervisory role (at least not without DPC intervention). Ive experienced ktg units where out of 10 people total, 5 were warranted (but were neither team leads nor supervisors). Have also experienced the opposite... one warranted individual for a unit of 7-10 staff, with the Chief holding the only warrant (and was the only Supervisor).

Vern, thanks again for your very helpful and incisive input... much appreciated!

Vern, thanks for the timely and informative reply...!!! Having established this very point myself (that this DOES constitute a change) there is now a concern as to whether/not we would be opening ourselves to potential protest(s) if we modify the newly awarded contract --- particularly as the "3:1 ratio" was a primary cost driver for this requirement. My concern: If we now change the ratio from 3:1 to 7:1 that means the requirement is more than halved --- which in-turn means other potential vendors would only have needed half as many 'guards' as originally estimated. (That alone may have allowed others vendors to participate.) Your thoughts...???

Sorry for being vague... This requirement is to provide surveillance and close-support guard services for contractor personnel. The current ratio is: one guard for every three ktr personel.

Solicitation stated required contractor/guard ratio of 3:1 --- award made on that basis. Due to circumstances and resultant costs, contract award now under review to revise ratio to 7:1 (which does not decrease the amount of spend, but would preclude/negate additional increases). Would this be considered "outside the scope, or a substantial change"? As usual there are differing 'opinions' here as to which way to go on this... Thanks in advance for your input!!

UPDATE... After another review of the provisions contained in this Solicitation (and in conjunction with the WIFCON input/feedback) I have determined the provisions to be in line with the requirement and do not necessitate revisions. Therefore, I have amended the Solicitation --- solely to extend the deadline for the submission of quotes. Last Friday I instructed the CS to issue the Amendment and to contact the two other sources to determine whether/not they had received our Solicitation (and to enquire as to their intent --- to bid or not). One vendor will "No-Bid", however, we do now have another vendor who definitely intends to submit his bid --- and he has no 'issues' with any of the clauses! RESULT...!!! Thanks WIFCON for your time, consideration and contributions on this one... once again you have come up trumps!!! Much appreciated...!!! (PS: Sorry, if I hijacked the topic... it was completely unintentional! Mea culpa.)

I have a question on a related 'provisions' topic... We currently have a Solicitation out on the street... it?s for a recurring, non-personal, commercial, service (below SAT). However, after several weeks of market research we have concluded there are very, very few vendors in this particular arena. The major player in this market has received and reviewed the Solicitation and now insists that some of the provisions in the Solicitation be 'amended/revised/tweaked' to his satisfaction --- additionally he wants some provisions added and others deleted. I have attempted several times to explain to him that this is the Solicitation and NOT the contract --- and the 'mandatory' nature of this effort (and the required provisions) --- but this vendor is refusing to yield. The Contract Specialist and the end-user have searched high & low for one or two more competitors but (as stated earlier) they are seriously few & far between! (Also worth noting --- we are in an overseas location.) What 'options' do we have available in dealing with this obstinate vendor? The Solicitation is due to close in 3 days. Your thoughts/comments/questions welcomed...

"Specifically, would make her a good choice"? My primary viewpoint of Bunny Greenhouse is that she represents the type of leadership that appreciates why we (in contracting) do what we do... and, in my opinion, would support and defend to the hilt the features and folks that work well --- and would seek to change those that prove wasteful and/or counterproductive. I see her in a role where she, if need be, would censure "change" just for the sake of change --- but would wholeheartedly pursue a genuine need for reform (policy, procedural). More specifically, she seems truly dedicated to getting Federal Contracting right --- rather than just getting close to the right self-serving politicos. (IMHO)

Having worked under Lorita Doan's tenure at GSA, I can say (from personal experience) she is a special type of person, very forthright, engaging and 'smart'. However, as long as names are being tossed about for the proverbial OPFF ring, here's another... maybe in the interest of ending the plethora of massive-money, no-comp awards to certain DoD ktrs --- the name Bunny Greenhouse springs immediately to mind as a more than feasible candidate! Her disdain for political agenda, affiliations and aspirations are inarguable --- additionally, her Federal Contracting experience and aptitude are unquestionable. She got a raw deal, but she is the real deal...!!!

I have a couple of staff in my office who are now fully engaged in their DAWIA training... one is a new staff member and the other person was here when I arrived but hadnt pursued any certification. Both folks are local nationals (we are overseas), so it seemed as though this wasnt a "priority" for them. As they are permanent employes working in the Contracting field it seemed appropriate, to me, for them to also have access to 1102 training.

civ, Just to clarify... the FAC-C certification is to be in lieu of DAU (DAWIA) Level I, II & III certifications?

Based on my experience as the Level IV OPC for the local GPC program, I would highly recommend that you ensure your CHs and AOs seriously conduct timely account reconciliations... in addition the other information provided here. The GPC program has changed its 'processes/procedures/programs' several times recently (March '08, when it changed from CARE to AXOL "Access On-Line) and earlier this year to its regenerated guise as "PCOLS" (Purchase Card On-Line System) for management and accountibility of GPC. Like many of the CHs, the GPC program was not my primary function, its oversight was about 3rd on the list of programs that fell under my AoR (even though the related workload could support an FTE). As with many CHs it is often seen as just another additional duty --- which gets the back-burner treatment. Unfortunately, this often leads to cards being blocked from use and these units are then stuck with little/no means to procure needed goods/services. Thats when the "proverbial" hits the fan --- and the upshot: Contracting catches in the neck ...again!! (Note: Oversight of this task area has recently been delegated to newly hired, fresh, young, eager, MBA graduate.)

I use the generic term 'vendor' to describe all companies/businesses in general --- however, I use the term 'contractor' to refer specifically to vendors that actually have (or have held) a Government contract. To my way of thinking... an 'offeror' is a vendor who submits a proposal/bid/"offer" in response to a Solicitation. But, when an offeror is selected (and upon award of a Government contract), said offeror is then re-designated as a 'contractor'. Further, ANY company that actually performs on a Government contract is considered a 'contractor' (IMHO). Those without a Government contract are simply referred to as vendors/companies/businesses/firms/etc. ...just my 2 cents...

Joel, In answer to your question: WAWF (Wide-Area Work Flow) --- is exactly as Vern described it...!!! For more information see: http://www.dfas.mil/contractorpay/electron...eaworkflow.html Thanks again for your input!!

Thanks all...!!! Your input/info has given me even more ground to stand firm on!!

FormerFed... thanks for the input --- and my apologies for the vagueries! But, in answer to your questions: 1. The contract is a definitely a "requirements" contract --- with estimated minimum and maximum quantities (the commodity is: fuels). 2. The estimated quantities for the 'sister' agency were provided by that agency. 3. The contract was issued to cover their requirement in consolidation with the two other co-located agencies. 4. Solely for the purpose of 'consolidation and 'ecomomies of scale' a third agency was selected to solicit and award this contract. Hope this info further claarifies the situation... and thanks again for any input/ideas/assistance!

I am a newbie here... so please advise if I have posted in the wrong area. However, I am very interested in this particular topic as I currently have a very similar issue. My organization is part of a DoD unit that is currently co-located with another DoD agency --- "we" are using a new contract for the provision of bulk cargo type products --- under a Requirements / IDIQ contract which was awarded by yet a third DoD agency. The "issue" is this... our 'sister' agency does not appreciate the 'nuances' of the required (WAWF) payment process under the current contract and they are now seeking to establish their own contract. Their contract is to run concurrently with the present contract, using the same funds, the same contractor, for the same products, the same delivery points , at the same times, the same period of performance and (hopefully), the same prices! My questions: does this not circumvent the intent of a "requirements" contract? Wouldnt the contractor have grounds for additional costs (G&A, Overhead, etc) under the new contract? I am sure there may also be other 'issues' to consider here and would like your thoughts/feedback/suggestions/ideas. Thank you and I look forward to receiving your input.