Jump to content
The Wifcon Forums and Blogs

Recommended Posts

17 minutes ago, bob7947 said:

This is a modified version of the disclaimer at the beginning of the Terms of Use.  I will add it to the Terms of Use by the end of today.  C Culham.  I considered your post.

This will be placed directly under the Terms of Use and just before "Reading the Terms Of Use is required to use this forum."  I had trouble with the second sentence but settled on that.  It will be added by the end of the day.  Just don't start giving any medical advice.  :rolleyes: 

 

 

🤠. Looks good! 

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, bob7947 said:
  • We have over 6,000 registered accounts with some being duplicates.  I approve all accounts personnaly in an attempt to keep the spammers out.  If this wasn't done, I estimate that there would be about 60,000 to 100,000 registered accounts.  The internet is a dangerous place.  With 6,000 accounts, we should have more posts every day.  I will start another topic seeking answers about why the posts are so few.  As Administrator of this form, I can see the agencies, companies, etc. who are online viewing our forums.  This information in hidden from everyone else and I do not provide it to anyone.  There are many, many, many, that are viewing but not posting.

Why more people don’t actively participate in forum type discussions is something that puzzled me for years.  I tried unsuccessfully to promote use in the government.  It also failed in the company I work for.  I questioned many people on why it’s not used.  The pattern seemed to be intimidation, even when posting anonymously.  Nobody wants to be criticized or appear inadequate.  I don’t know whether it’s the nature of people gravitating to the profession or the way the profession changed them.  Whatever, there is obvious hesitation.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I will give it a try again tomorrow.  What I have been noticing is that a federal employee registers posts a question, I appprove their account and their post automatically appears.  If they get some good information, they are happy, and go back to their work.  They may reappear a year later.  It is very rare that somwone registers to discuss a variety of issues.  The young person that wants to debate a contracting issue online may be non-existent.  Even with an alias as a display name, which I strongly advise, a person still feels the need to protect that identify.  So the hightest level here is probably someone willing to have a brief discussion, be satsfied, and disappear, only to reappear a year later for another brief encounter. 

Our world has changed dramatically since I was young. 

For example, long ago the GAO Law library on the 7th floor of the GAO building was packed with attorneys who had the U. S. Code and Administrative News volumes, U. S. Code annotated, etc.,  all over their desks in an effort to claim a desk.  Woe was the attorney that disturbed another's desk.  Sometimes I had to sneak off with a volume to read at my desk in another part of the building.  If an attorney saw me, it was sure punishment.  Then Lexis/Nexis appeared.  It got down to one attorney who still wanted to feel a volume in his hand and me in the law library.  Then he left because techmology allowed others to get done their research faster and better.  Since General Counsel would only allow its attorneys to use Lexis/Nexis I was left with the librarians who once did something.  I continued for awhile because I could do everything up there.  It was wonderful.  I could order a legislative history of the Federal Property and Administrative Services Act of 1949 (FPASA) and I would have volumes of the legislative history delivered to me in shopping carts.  Newspaper articles were pasted in the volumes, every bill leading up to to the final law, every congressional report, etc.  By the time I finished with the contents of those shopping carts, I most have been the world's expert on FPASA for at least a day or two.  I did the same for the Truth in Negotiations Act, CICA, and other oieces of major contracting legislation.  I remember reading about Carl Vinson's 50th aniversary in the House.  They gave him a colored TV.  Now he's got an aircraft carrier.

Back to my story.  Then we were all given personal computers at our desk.  It had a 386 chip.  We were hooked up to the internet.  Goodbye Law Library.  I still used the Law Library's microfiche reder to research things on my own time.  Towards the end of my career, I went for a walk up to the Law Library and found cobwebs on things.  I got my own Dell 386/SX.  Now I have 2 PCs down here and 1 upstairs, a laptop in the bedrron and a tablet, and a smart phone.  Even the Corvette tells me off when it's upset.  

Now, when I go to youtube to research something I look at the time of the video.  If it's 30 minutes, I'm upset.  I want it in 3 minutes.  Give it to me fast.  

When you look at the over 1,000 pages of Wifcon.com--excluding this forum--you see the GAO Law Library mentality in me.  I still update the NDAAs but I could not repeat what is there.  Now, I want it fast like anyone else.  In short, you are seeing about 30 years of progress and what it has done.  Get it to me fast.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Marco Polo got the glory in the West, but Ibn Battuta was by far the best

His journeys took him far and wide, across the Dar al-Islam he hied

75,000 miles by one account, either on foot or on a mount

 

Polo came back with jewels and riches, but Ibn was robbed and left with his britches

Truly we honor such stamina and courage while we sit on our couches with our favorite beverage

Now Ibn has left us on another quest, and we hope it will be much like the rest

While we wait in the forum to hear some news of Ibn Battuta’s latest cruise

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

If you a Certified WBE, SBE and DBE, and the project we are working on required our certification, under the Prompt Pay 52.232-27,  52.232-40& 52.219-9 we purchased specific long lead blast resistant custom extruded and painted for job specific requirements.  The schedule is behind and no new schedule has been updated. We have material which we have met all the requirements for stored material off site, but we are being told we cannot be paid for these stored material under the FARR 52.232-5(b) with consideration is specifically authorized by this contract.  The contract indicates that stored material can be paid if they approve the request.  

I have not been able to get the governing party to approve, review, or consider the request, as they are falling back on the 52.232-b clause.  It is my understanding that under the SBE prompt pay for materials that are project specific and custom manufactured should be considered for payment.  Can you enlighten me?

Kathleen Hoosier

Link to post
Share on other sites

@bob7947

Thank you for considering my input.  The revised disclaimer looks good to me as one who has read several similar disclaimers and even created few for various reasons over the years.

I also have a thought, not sure it will work but here is an example of what I am thinking.

An OP posts a question.  Rather it going immediately to the Forum site the OP has to answer a couple of Yes or No questions.   They are -

1.  Have you researched WIFCON Forum on the subject?   Answer Yes they move to the next question.  Answer No. they receive a response that says the question will not be posted until they have confirmed researching WIFCOM.

Next question -

2.   Have you asked the CO of the contract your question?  Answered either Yes or No with a requirement to explain why Yes or No in a short sentence.  Or even have a drop down menu to check a block like - (No)This is a question being debated in our office; (Yes)The CO has given me an answer I am not confident in;  (Yes)The CO and I agree but legal does not;  (No) Just a scenario I have created to get input, etc. but not make the drop down too long.  No drop down then again encourage just  a snap shot of - Why are you posting this on WIFCON.   The response would be the lead in to their question that would then get posted to the Forum.

Just thought I had as I continue to mull over ideas to help improve Forum all the way around.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

The folllowing is my draft proposal on Members responding to an OP's initial post.  Feel free to provide comments.

  • Carefully read the initial post.  If you believe the OP's post requires more information or is unclear, ask for the information that you need to provide useful information.  Once you believe you have sufficient information, respond to the OP's initial post.  (There are no time limits.  However, if you are not getting a response in a reasonable amount of time to your request, PM me.  Remember, the government authorizes flex time.  They may be on a 4-day week, a 5 and 4 day pay period, etc.)  
  • If a Member has a request for information or clarification pending from the OP,  please wait for the OP to respond.  (This should prevent members from climbing over each other to respond to the OP's initial post.)
  • Once the OP responds, all Members may join the discussion.  

Thanks C Culham.  I was writing this when you posted.  I think your idea may be too complicated for the software to handle it. 

Take a look and provide any comments to my proposal.  Keep in mind the flow of discussion between the OP and Members.  If it looks like I am starting a one-on-one discussion between OP and and a Member, that is not what I am doing.  The first Member that posts to an OP starts the discussion.  If there is a request for information to the OP, that puys on the brakes for further discussion unitl the OP provides additional information.  I'm sure this isnt going to be pretty at first but let's see how it works.  If it doesn't make sense, let me know.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Good luck .The problem with a Forum format is that one can’t speak by phone with a questioner to seek clarification and context to the question. It’s a slow process and responders here aren’t known for patience. Asking questions via what amounts to a public “texting” mode of communications is slow and inefficient. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
58 minutes ago, bob7947 said:

The folllowing is my draft proposal on Members responding to an OP's initial post.  Feel free to provide comments.

  • Carefully read the initial post.  If you believe the OP's post requires more information or is unclear, ask for the information that you need to provide useful information.  Once you believe you have sufficient information, respond to the OP's initial post.  (There are no time limits.  However, if you are not getting a response in a reasonable amount of time to your request, PM me.  Remember, the government authorizes flex time.  They may be on a 4-day week, a 5 and 4 day pay period, etc.)  
  • If a Member has a request for information or clarification pending from the OP,  please wait for the OP to respond.  (This should prevent members from climbing over each other to respond to the OP's initial post.)
  • Once the OP responds, all Members may join the discussion.  

Take a look and provide any comments to my proposal.  Keep in mind the flow of discussion between the OP and Members.  If it looks like I am starting a one-on-one discussion between OP and and a Member, that is not what I am doing.  The first Member that posts to an OP starts the discussion.  If there is a request for information to the OP, that puys on the brakes for further discussion unitl the OP provides additional information.  I'm sure this isnt going to be pretty at first but let's see how it works.  If it doesn't make sense, let me know.

Bob, it feels overly structured to me. That said, you gotta do what you gotta do.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I was thinking that a statement (which you can call disclaimer or not) should appear (maybe by a link to the terms of use, or not?) each time a poster attempts to post. I know I have no recollection of the terms of use I saw when signing on. Not sure, does a poster have to re-read the terms of use for each new post?

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Neil Roberts said:

I was thinking that a statement (which you can call disclaimer or not) should appear (maybe by a link to the terms of use, or not?) each time a poster attempts to post. I know I have no recollection of the terms of use I saw when signing on. Not sure, does a poster have to re-read the terms of use for each new post?

Unnnnh, no. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, bob7947 said:

The folllowing is my draft proposal on Members responding to an OP's initial post.  Feel free to provide comments.

  • Carefully read the initial post.  If you believe the OP's post requires more information or is unclear, ask for the information that you need to provide useful information.  Once you believe you have sufficient information, respond to the OP's initial post.  (There are no time limits.  However, if you are not getting a response in a reasonable amount of time to your request, PM me.  Remember, the government authorizes flex time.  They may be on a 4-day week, a 5 and 4 day pay period, etc.)  
  • If a Member has a request for information or clarification pending from the OP,  please wait for the OP to respond.  (This should prevent members from climbing over each other to respond to the OP's initial post.)
  • Once the OP responds, all Members may join the discussion.  

Thanks C Culham.  I was writing this when you posted.  I think your idea may be too complicated for the software to handle it. 

Take a look and provide any comments to my proposal.  Keep in mind the flow of discussion between the OP and Members.  If it looks like I am starting a one-on-one discussion between OP and and a Member, that is not what I am doing.  The first Member that posts to an OP starts the discussion.  If there is a request for information to the OP, that puys on the brakes for further discussion unitl the OP provides additional information.  I'm sure this isnt going to be pretty at first but let's see how it works.  If it doesn't make sense, let me know.

Bob,

I doubt I adequately appreciate what, "ask for the information that you need to provide useful information."  Do you mean, don't reply until you can answer the question posed?  Sometimes folks who ask questions on WIFCON don't even know what facts are relevant to their question, and are perplexed when asked for facts where they don't see the nexus.  Is it permitted to give the "lay of the land" when asking for more information, or do you anticipate just a list of questions?

Sometimes just answering the question posed would be really misleading, so this is going to be a challenge for me.  I think I'll make it a point to not be the first person to respond to a new thread.  (I can hear all the regulars cheering.  :) )

Link to post
Share on other sites

Jacques:

Here is the original post that started our rethinking.  I provided the bolds to show the items that begged questions.

Quote

Say there is a contract requiring the  contractor to provide storage space for an agency's government file boxes, like in a warehouse.  It is a fixed-price contract task order off of the GSA ScheduleWith only a few weeks to go until the contract expires, it comes to light that the contractor has lost a bunch of the file boxes.  The contractor admits it cannot locate them and has given up.  The contractor has submitted invoices for full payment.  What is the appropriate way for the agency to handle such a situation?  Obviously, the agency shouldn't pay the invoices where the contractor didn't perform, but how would one calculate that here?  

I have the benefit of hindsight, and some of my questions were already asked.  I see the OP is looking for legal advice which could lead to a dispute and trips to Boards and possibly courts.  As soon as I see this, I need

  • can you tell us the GSA schedule and contract.
  • could the government retrieve and return the files under the contract,
  • Why did the government notice missing files at the last moment,
  • how did the government find out that the files were lost, 

If the GSA schedule contract is online, maybe we could lead the OP to the correct clause.  Maybe we will find out that the files were retrievable by the government and the government had/didn't have a system to account for retrieved and returned files.  In the end, we may be able to point the finger at whoever was monitoring the ins and outs of those "files" for the government.   If the OP is a contracting officer with the ability to make decisions, this may save the OP a lot of grief with the few suggestions/ideas we make.

I'm guessing these files were in long term storage with a contractor and they could be retrieved and returned by the government.  They did have a retrieval and return process set up.  Files may have been (1) retrieved for use and with that user--so they were not missing, (2) misplaced by the contractor when the government returned them, or (3) contractor employees ate lunch on them messed them up and deep-sixed them.

This is a toss-up and the OP may have to conduct an investigation.  Maybe we can give the OP some thoughts about where to look.  In the end, we cannot tell the OP what to do because we don't know who caused/is responsible for the missing files.  Our final response, Sorry, we gave you some ideas but we cannot tell you what to do.  That's a contracting officer decision. 

The first questions I wrote took a few minutes.  If I didn't get any answers, I just wait.  I cannot repsond with any intelligence with what I have from the OP.  As I wrote, the government may be at fault or the contractor may be at fault.  Even if the fault is determined by the OP, we do not advise what to do.  This is a contracting officer decision.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I review the forums about once or twice a week and if I see a question that is within my area of knowledge to respond to, I do so, but most of the time I just read and learn.  

There have been times in the past that I've felt somewhat intimidated by the responses to my responses (or at times, questions) but I just remember that this is anonymous and I move on. 

I always recommend this site to my staff and our contract attorneys and although not all take me up on my recommendation, some do and have reported back with positive feedback.  I definitely appreciate this site!

Link to post
Share on other sites
20 hours ago, Deaner said:

Too many rules: If I feel like i'm walking on egg shells, i won't participate.

This is a problem. 

What if I ask the wrong questions?  What if the OP doesn't want to respond?  What if the OPs answer causes more questions?  

The purpose of any forum is to provide "groupthink" - a range of answers, opinions, questions, suggestions.   The smart OP gathers the information and considers it, understanding some of it may be biased, inapplicable or just plain wrong. 

Using the 'lost files in the storage unit' example...many good considerations came up after the initial couple of posts.  Did that invalidate those earlier posts?  Not necessarily.  Collectively, they all seemed to help hone in on a course of action, even when some of the early posts jumped the gun. 

To throttle discourse in an attempt to eliminate less-than-perfect answers seems a fools errand at best, and a way to kill this site at worst.   And in the long run, I'd argue that the very thing you seek, correct information, will be more distant than before. 

...Just my two lurker cents.  

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

I’m with jayandstacey — I hope the new moderation isn’t seen as too heavy-handed.  Are we trying to mollify someone (pbuh) who isn’t even here anymore?  But I am sure we’ll have flexibility to adjust again if it doesn’t work as planned. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...