Jump to content

Going "over the CO’s head"


Recommended Posts

Guest Vern Edwards

Carl:

There is no rule that says that you cannot post responses, and there is no rule that says that I have to want or care about evasive responses, especially ones that go on for three long paragraphs (four, if you count the earlier one in in which you told me that you weren't going to answer).

Here is my question, as originally asked:

Suppose that a contractor's performance was not terrible, but subpar, and that the CO and COR believed it was due to high turnover caused by the departure of experienced employees seeking better wages and working conditions. Would it be improper for the CO to suggest to the contractor that it consider increasing employee wages and improving their working conditions at no additional cost to the government?

See? I did not ask you to tell me that you won't answer ("Vern - No answer from me."). Silence would have been sufficient. I did not ask what you would do instead of what I described. The only Vernism (I like that) was saying that I wanted an answer to the question that I asked and was not interested in Carlist blah, blah, blah. If you consider that brow beating, then you must never have had your brow beaten before. Moreover, I didn't ask you specifically for a response. In fact, my question was prompted by Bob Antonio's entry, not yours. (It's not always about you.)

I did miss your comment in post #23 that such an inquiry would not be a violation of law or regulation. I'm sorry. I didn't catch it, overwhelmed as it was by the noise of your long-winded remarks. Thanks for the response, but one short sentence would have gotten the job done.

Vern

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Vern Edwards

Carl:

Unlike yours, my posts have provided useful information and opinions and pursued interesting lines of inquiry. They have been succinct and to the point. My answer to the original question was especially good. Most of the rest of my posts have been in response to your (continuing) nonsense about my simple question. If you want to learn from the Master, Grasshopper, study posts ##2, 18, 22, and, especially, 24.

:lol:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Vern,

In response to your question about a CO suggesting the vendor should raise pay rates, I don't think it would be 'wrong' but I wouldn't suggest it. To me it is up to the vendor to run the contract/employees. In my experience we usually have as part of our Quality Assurance Surveillance Plans a section dealing with employee turnover. If it exceeds a certain amount, the vendor will get dinged for it. If the turnover is such that it affects the work/mission, it could lead to a termination of the contract. Of course this is assuming that everything falls within the normal SCA realm.

I tend to look at it this way: This is my contract and I need to make sure that I do everything to ensure that it works before I award the contract. I want a fair contract for the Govt as well as the vendor. I want the vendor to make money but I also want to make sure the employees on that contract are treated fairly (pay rate, benefits and such). As I said I take responsibility for the contracts that I administer and prepare. I want a good fair relationship between the Govt, vendor and employees. If something seems out of whack talk to the vendor before award (if permitted).

As for the original topic, I think the CO is way out of line. If he didn't like the pay rates at the time of award he should have said something then.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Vern,

I don't think you pointed the question at me, but I have a thought. I don't think it would be improper to make the suggestion. I only wish a CO would take that kind of ownership of the work. No, it would not be improper, but it would not be wise. A better course would be to prepare an accurate past performance report documenting that contractor performance was degraded because of excessive turnover in personnel. That doesn't solve today's problem, but it makes it harder for the contractor to create a similar problem in the future.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Vern,

I've spent some time reading Administration of Government Contracts but I haven't spent enough time to give you a strong answer to your question. Let me offer what I have and I expect you'll tell me to do better. Here's where I am.

The Contracting Officer is a special individual because s/he has the authority to legally bind the government--unlike other authorized representatives. Accordingly, the CO needs to be mindful that even a "suggestion" can be taken as contractual direction by the contractor. In this situation, a "suggestion" might be used as the catalyst for a claimed change. It might even be viewed by the contractor as an attempt to take advantage of the government's superior bargaining position to coerce or threaten the contractor into making a change in its employee compensation under an implied threat of contract termination.

Now, in your hypothetical scenario none of these things was the CO's intent--yet by virtue of position and actual authority, a simple "suggestion" leaves the government vulnerable to contractor assertions along the lines I noted above.

Best I can do right now.

H2H

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Vern Edwards

OK. I presume that if the CO made it clear that it was only a suggestion and not a directive and that the contractor was not obligated to do anything it would not be unwise.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Okay, I'll agree that a suggestion that was clearly only a suggestion would not be unwise. In this case we seem to have a very small contractor. But at larger companies, the contractor's project manager has little (and sometimes zero) abilty to affect employee compensation. So let's just add that the CO who makes such a suggestion should understand that it may be futile.

H2H

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...

Question: Suppose that a contractor's performance was not terrible, but subpar, and that the CO and COR believed it was due to high turnover caused by the departure of experienced employees seeking better wages and working conditions. Would it be improper for the CO to suggest to the contractor that it consider increasing employee wages and improving their working conditions at no additional cost to the government?

I don't think it's improper per se, but I do think when operating in a performance based environment, it's a very fine line. My approach would be to address the subpar performance with the contractor, give specific examples of the problems noted, and ask them how they plan to fix the problem. If the working relationship is good, this might generate some discussions, at which point, it might be appropriate to provide a suggestion with the caveat that it's up to the contractor to fix the problem and an emphasis on the fact we don't care how they get the job done, as long as they get it done.

In general though, I don't think it would be necessary to provide this suggestion--if the contractor is having high turnover, they are probably going to know already that they need to increase wages in order to keep people. In which case, they are going to make a decision as to what is the lesser of two evils, losing people and possibly hurting their past performance rating, or losing money.

On the CO's part, I think rather than suggesting how they fix the problem, it would be more effective to let them know that their subpar performance is going to affect their past performance rating which in turn will affect their ability to obtain future contracts. I think the only time suggestions would be effective/appropriate would be when there's a problem the contractor doesn't know how to fix and is seeking advice.

Staci

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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