Jump to content

The value of a long-term contractor


Recommended Posts

As a new 1102, I have encountered a lot of problems that many on this forum would consider routine and easy to manage. As a newcomer, I tend to be pushed around by program offices and others groups because they know that I am ?green? and inexperienced. I have to admit, I am a bit afraid of stepping on anyone?s toes by being too assertive. So here is my issue?

Basically, I am working on this IDIQ renewal for IT services?.it is for one individual who has been doing the same job for 11 year while working for different body shops. It is a base plus 4 years and under $2 million so it isn?t what I would call a crucial project. My research indicates that MANY people can do what this particular person does. So not long ago I get an email from the contract employee?s agency boss explaining that they want to keep this employee no matter what happens. The catch is that the ?employee? doesn?t want to leave his body shop because he is afraid he will lose money and benefits by going to anther company.

What options do I have? We toyed with the idea of bringing this person on as a Fed but that seems like a far-fetched idea and not really in my realm of responsibility. I also looked at sole-sourcing to an 8(a) and having him be brought on board that vendor, but then again, he refuses to leave the company he is with. When I was hired I was told to never work against the wishes of my customers.

This person has been on the job over a decade so he must be doing something right. But, isn?t that a bit of a stretched timeframe for a contractor doing the same job for the same agency? How valuable can this person really be if many others can do his job?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Vern Edwards

I'll begin with a textbook response and then address some practicalities.

First, forget the past and make no assumptions about whether or not the person has performed well. Treat this as a new requirement, which is what it is.

The rules for this are in FAR 6.302-1 and 6.303. If you haven't read them, read them.

The requiring activity wants you to award a contract on a sole source basis. Point them to FAR 6.303-2 and tell them you need that information from them. Point out that FAR 6.303-1© requires them to certify the truth of any assertions that they make in support of a sole source justification. Tell them that you will take no action until you receive satisfactory information from them.

If and when you receive the information, take it to the contracting officer and ask him or her if he or she considers it adequate to proceed on a sole source basis. If he or she says yes, then proceed accordingly. If he or she says no, ask for an explanation that you can give to the requiring activity. Don't get personally involved and don't make it your issue. It's the requiring activity's and the CO's issue.

As a practical matter, you will get flak from the requiring activity. So what? You are not a decision maker in this matter. That's what the CO is getting paid for. Don't offer opinions you cannot back up with knowledge. Don't let it become personal. You won't sign the contract, so don't get too wrapped up in this. It has obviously been going on for a while, so there is no reason for you, as a new 1102, to get personally involved.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Vern, thanks for the detailed and helpful reply and nope, I won?t sign the contract. It can be said that my current group is a bit disorganized and that is throwing me off since I am new to the world of contracting. The biggest issue I have is that I have 4 different ?parties? telling me to do 4 different things. It is strange because one my of COs is telling me to do things that aren?t even in the FAR while his boss is just worried about supporting the customer. The last thing I want to do is make ?enemies? in the office and agency, but beyond that, I am going to follow the FAR even if it peeves off someone.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest carl r culham

Reading your post I picked up on certain words like "job", "contract employee", "employee" which raises the possible consideration of non-personal versus personal services as covered in FAR Subpart 37.1 as well. You may or may not want to go there but as you continue your career you may want to understand the nuances of personal and non-personal services which lead to allowances (and limitations) to use private sector temporaries (5 CFR 300, Subpart E), and specific agency authority or that granted under 5 USC 3109 regarding personal services. Without providing a lengthy post a simple Google search on "Non-Personal Services" with or on its own "Private Sector Temporaries" will lead to many web references that will help with the overall subject.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Vern Edwards
Vern, thanks for the detailed and helpful reply and nope, I won?t sign the contract. It can be said that my current group is a bit disorganized and that is throwing me off since I am new to the world of contracting. The biggest issue I have is that I have 4 different ?parties? telling me to do 4 different things. It is strange because one my of COs is telling me to do things that aren?t even in the FAR while his boss is just worried about supporting the customer. The last thing I want to do is make ?enemies? in the office and agency, but beyond that, I am going to follow the FAR even if it peeves off someone.

Let me suggest an alternative way of thinking. The number one problem is to accomplish the agency's work. That work is defined by the "technical," "program," or "requiring" office. Contracts is a support organization. The FAR contains rules and information about the conduct of acquisition, but it does not cover address every issue that will come up, and it is so poorly written as to be almost indecipherable to inexperienced people. (Just because it seems clear does not mean that it is.)

If you worked for me I would want you to be a problem solver. If you told me that you were going to "follow the FAR even if it peeves off someone," I'd say, "Cool your jets. Use what you know about the FAR to solve problems, not to tell people what can and cannot be done. In fact, as a general rule, don't mention the FAR to the program folks. Instead, ask them what their problem is and then, if you can, find a way to solve it without breaking the rules. If you can't, see if you can offer them an alternative.

In the case in question, it appears that the office you support has defined their problem in terms of keeping a certain person under contract. This is troubling. Why have they defined their problem in that way? Are the reasons legitimate or improper? Obviously, your office shouldn't support that request if the reasons are improper. So you should ask them to articulate their reasons. You should help them to do that, if you can, but you shouldn't help them make things up in order to achieve their end. If you conclude that they do not have a legitimate need for what they are asking for -- a sole source award to the person's current employer -- then you should refer that problem to the CO and let him or her decide. You are not the decider, and you don't have enough knowledge or experience to explain things to the program folks or to have confidence in you. In time, if you work at it, you will gain a reputation for being knowledgable, experienced, competent, and cooperative -- the go-to guy or gal -- so that when you tell someone that you cannot do what they want, but can offer them X instead, they will know that they have been given the WORD, and that they will have to yield to your knowhow. That's the way to gain respect and to get promoted.

Right now, focus on learning to solve problems. Don't get into the "follow the FAR" mode of thinking. Of course, you should comply with the rules, but you don't know what they means or how to do it at this point in your career.

Keep your eyes and ears open. Learn, and let the deciders do the deciding. If they are wrong, that's on them. Your time will come. You'll know when you're ready: They won't start a meeting without you, and the people with problems will be lined up outside your cube.

P.S. While Carl Culham is right, understanding the "nuances" of personal versus nonpersonal services is very hard. Even the best minds haven't been able to sort that out, and a high-ranking panel has said that the rules are poor, outdated, and not grounded in statute or case law. In any case, they are being widely ignored. Don't go there. In my opinion, that is not an important thing for you to study right now. By the time you do get around to studying it, the rules may well have changed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Motorcity and anyone else looking to advance in our contracting field,

My advice is take Vern's post above, cut and paste it into a word document, print it out and put in on your cubicle wall, and also save it on your computer. Periodically go back and read it as part of your career planning.

If you to want to advance, follow it carefully. I've seen many people move to the top doing just what Vern is telling you. On the other hand, I've seen people stagnate, get frustrated, and become very negative in their outlook because they are "FAR enforcers."

One of the best people in this field I know admits he's not a FAR expert. He spends lots of time researching regulations, policies and procedures every time something comes up. But what he is good at is listening to people, getting them to talk about their problems, and finding answers. He often stops by offices unannounced bring coffee and donuts just to chat. People (program offices) freely open up to him because he listens and they trust and respect his judgment, which was earned over a long time. But after he digests what they say, he goes away and researches issues and often talks to many coworkers and friends to get their views. When he has the solution, you can be sure he's right and it works.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Another suggestion since you're new, you state that the contract "is a base plus 4 years and under $2 million so it isn?t what I would call a crucial project." It's not to assume something isn't "crucial" just because the dollar value isn't extremely large. In fact, most program officies consider any of their important projects crucial, regardless of dollar amount, especially if they are the ones funding the procurement.

I know of customer agencies who weren't thrilled when their $2 million dollar project was called "small." To them it was anything but.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest carl r culham

(Sorry, gone for a couple of day chasing the non-mythical King Salmon).

Motorcity - Great advice from Vern Edwards.

I want to offer a quick add-on to the "PS" he added to his post. It is true many things in the regulation and law change almost every day. In the spirit of Vern's post but with a little different view I would offer that every day is a good day to begin understanding all elements of the FAR and their connected public laws that are specific to subjects you get involved in. Doing so will make you the proactive problem solver CO that Vern Edwards suggests. Case in point, if you are DoD, Section 831 of the National Defense Acquisition Act and related DFARS Case 2009-D028 will surely bring changes to personal service contracting because that is the intended emphasis on an area that has been ignored, either on purpose or because of unawareness. The thought from my chair is an aware CO is a great problem solver, which lead to the reference to FAR Subpart 37.1. Not as a hammer but awareness to help you with your problem.

Further reference but not much meat here yet ?

http://www.federalregister.gov/articles/20...ices-dfars-case.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...