Jump to content
The Wifcon Forums and Blogs

This stream auto-updates     

  1. Today
  2. joel hoffman

    SCA

    Perhaps it is because of a general hands off approach to service contract labor by those government program officials, contracting and contract administrators. However, I wonder why the government wouldn’t know what the proper wage classification of 200 employees is on an existing contract that is being recompeted for a successor contract. FAR 22.1008 describes the process and responsibilities for obtaining the wage determination to be included in the solicitation for the successor contract. For instance, 22.1008-1 says, in part, I don’t know here if the proposer was using the labor classification provided or proposed something different. If it was different for 200 employees, shouldn’t that have tipped off the government that something was amiss with the government provided wage determination? Then, the government agreed with it. If the proposer did use the provided wage decision but was unable to rehire [EDIT:some] employees at that wage level, did DOL re-classify [EDIT: all] the employees at a higher minimum wage/fringe? Pardon me for my ignorance, but something seems to be wrong with the contract formation here. I don’t think that the conformance procedures were intended to have to be used for determining the minimum pay for the entire work force. Both the eventual contractor and the government should have known that something is wrong with the wage determination, if the proposer decided to propose a lower classification for the type of work included in the wage. determination. The government should have known what the correct classification is for 200 existing employees, if the eventual contractor confirmed it in its proposal only to find out later that that was incorrect. I don’t. Know if DOL ended up changing the classification that was in the wage decision or simply determined that the employees should have been classified at a higher level. EDIT: Lotus said in the original post: Can Lotus or someone else please help clarify what happened and why, assuming that this is a successor contract? Thanks.
  3. Summer has officially started! Let’s get it started off with the SmallGovCon Week in Review. This week’s edition includes a new FAR provision relating to the Kaspersky ban, NIH’s CIO-SP3 HUBZone awards, and much more. DoD, GSA, and NASA issue an interim rule amending the FAR to ban Kaspersky products. [federalregister.gov] NIH makes more CIO-SP3 on-ramp awards. [washingtontechnology.com] House appropriators putting the Defense Department on notice that they’ll be keeping a close eye on future OTA awards. [fcw.com] Former employee of U.S. government contractor in Afghanistan sentenced to 5 months in prison after pleading guilty to accepting illegal kickbacks. [justice.gov] EPA issues direct final rule to amend EPAAR by removing Mentor-Protégé clause requirement. [federalregister.gov] After pleading guilty to government procurement fraud, a former official at Scott Air Force Base sentenced to two years of probation. [stltoday] GSA needs to recognize that contracts with good selection and reasonable access fees are preferred over high fee, limited section vehicles. [federalnewsradio.com] View the full article
  4. @FrankJon How weird. You string together a series of loosely connected phrases and sentences like a Timothy Leary and then say that you've tried to describe something. It's Friday night and that makes it all right so what have you got to lose? Is that it? You have to work hard to develop an idea and communicate it to others. You are not putting in the work. I have not entertained any of your recent thoughts in this thread, because you have been incoherent. Get some rest. Try again later.
  5. Vern, I think this one’s to me not FrankJon... Yep,it’s a conceptual thing. I m saying that something is missing. Like a lot of stuff, the missing parts may not be obvious until and unless we see what the thing can’t do. My point is that the view of competitive advantage that you have subscribed to scarifices or gives up something else which may be very valuable...This need not be the case. I have tried to describe the term’s other implications, but I have failed. I’m not fatigued, but I’m not effective either. Thank you all for entertaining these thoughts.
  6. Yesterday
  7. Here is another successive protest. First protest to GAO in 2015, a corrective action, agency issued a new solicitation a year later in 2016, 2nd protest to GAO in 2017, and now a protest COFC in 2018. See Trans Digital Technologies, LLC.
  8. @FrankJon Frankly, I have no idea what you are talking about.
  9. Static vs. Dynamic Analysis Snap Shot vs. Moving Picture Long Run vs. Short Run Considerations Transactional vs. Strategic Analysis That last distinction includes opportunity for recognition that a business can better succeed over its competitors over time. Are we willing to consider what happens over time? Vern, it seems to me you are sticking to an analysis of the transaction and not what happens to the business over time. Why do so? I do so because I want insight into what keeps a business competitive and in business. When looking for analysis tools I’m not quick to exclude tools and techniques that may help. I’m looking to learn something I don’t already know...broadening my considerations, reversing or revising the assumptions and playing with definitions are all part of the tool box. I want a big tool box. It seems that making and advocating Policy positions is different...that’s where we narrow our considerations considerably; we use a few quality tools. Policy requires decisions and advocacy and by implication, if not in fact, choosing winners and losers...hopefully with the opportunity for feedback and revision, since the feedback loop is the most important part of any iterative process.
  10. Vern Edwards

    SCA

    That's wrong. The CO is an agent of the U.S. with limited powers. Certain persons in the DoL are agents of the U.S. with different limited powers. The CO has no power with regard to worker classification. He or she merely implements DoL policy. DoL is the ultimate decisionmaker. I know that you are distressed by your situation, and I understand. But we are now edging into the realm of ignorant silliness, so I think it's time for me to say good luck to you and goodbye. I hope it works out.
  11. Retreadfed

    SCA

    Lotus, I think you are spitting into the wind here. So far as I can tell, the conformance procedure is not required by statute. Instead, it is a creation of DoL in its capacity to implement the SCA. FAR 52.222-41 is a clause drafted by DoL and is set forth in 29 CFR 4.5. That is where the conformance procedure is stated. When contractors receive a solicitation for offers on work that is subject to the SCA, 52.222-41 is required to be in that solicitation. Thus, offerors are placed on notice that if a conformance is necessary, DoL has the final say on what the conformed rates of pay will be. Similarly, if a contractor receives a contract subject to the SCA and has to utilize the conformance procedure specified in FAR 52.222-41, the contractor has agreed that DoL will have the final say on what the conformed rates of pay will be. As for the KO and DoL being the same person, that is not so. The government is the entity with whom a contractor has contracted. The KO and DoL official ruling on the conformance are agents of the government. Agents of the government can only bind the government to the limit of their authority. When the conformance procedure is called for, the KO has no authority to make final determinations. Thus, the KO cannot commit or bind the government in this regard. It is the DoL official who rules on the conformity that has the authority to do so. Finally, you have to recognize the purpose of the SCA. The SCA is designed to protect workers not the contractor or government. While the scales may be tipped in the employee's favor under the SCA, the welfare of the contractor was not a concern of congress when it passed the SCA.
  12. I'm still having trouble figuring out where the competitive advantage comes in in those situations where certified cost or pricing data are required. In those situations there are no viable competitors over whom to gain an advantage.
  13. lotus

    SCA

    Seems outrageous, remarkably unconscionable, but perhaps true. The Govt is the big bully on the block. A fairer interpretation is that if the Govt made an award pursuant to the proposal, it accepted the mappings within the proposal. And the KO and the DoL are the same person, the United States of America.
  14. If a company could gain a competitive advantage by performing faster TINA sweeps, wouldn't one (or more) have done so by now?
  15. Yeah, well, you know, that's just, like, your opinion, man. PepeTheFrog challenged your definition of competitive advantage, proposed another more inclusive definition, and offered conditions that lead to better TINA sweeps and litigation avoidance. PepeTheFrog did a little bit more than repeat. Does it go without saying that your post was accompanied by evidence and sound theory? "Sound theory," huh? Sounds like a topic for discussion. its competitors (these are obvious, but you asked) faster response times less overhead costs less chance of negotiating a bad deal more contracts in a faster amount of time less lawsuits, fines, penalties, other bad consequences from litigation Even in your narrow definition for competitive advantage, over time, this stuff leads to an ability to provide greater value, offer lower prices, or produce better products or services than other competitors. But you knew that!
  16. @PepeTheFrog Pepe, all you have done is repeat H2H's assertion without making an argument in its support accompanied by evidence or based on sound theory. It is not enough to say that something or other is a competitive advantage, you must explain on whom the advantage it works and how it works. Some of you people think you can just say stuff and claim it's true without making an argument in support. Well, you can, but you won't get away with it as long as any of us can think and are willing to spend (or waste) time arguing with you. I'm not going to waste more time on this side issue. Go back and read my post of Monday at 10:16AM and then respond. That, or although it might seem early, perhaps it's time for you to hibernate. Actually, to take H2H's approach, you don't have to do anything, but please don't waste our time with more yakkity yak. (Tony, Did I spell yakkity right? Help!)
  17. Has anyone explained the issue to them? Maybe COMM needs to be aware it's a requirement.
  18. Vern Edwards

    SCA

    The fact that the mapping was shown in the proposal is irrelevant. The contractor is responsible for setting its price. The contractor should know whether it will have to conform some labor classifications and knows or should know that the DoL has the final say and might conform the classification to one with a higher minimum wage. It must take the chance, which is a reason to classify/conform conservatively and price accordingly. The agreement between the parties on the contract price is not an agreement on individual elements of cost. The CO's agreement with the conformance proposal does not constitute a warranty that the DoL will approve the proposed conformance or that the contract price will cover the contractor's labor cost. It merely expresses agreement or disagreement with the contractor's conformance decision. Finally, I believe (but am not sure) that the DoL's approval or disapproval of the conformance proposal is the government acting in its sovereign, not its contractual capacity, and the contractor will have to live with it, just as it would if the federal or a state government raised taxes or fees.
  19. PepeTheFrog agrees its competitors This is true, but your definition is too narrow. A competitive advantage is also a condition or circumstance that puts a company in a favorable or superior business position. PepeTheFrog is surprised @here_2_help 's comment drew any criticism or questions. -efficient, responsive, accurate financial systems (ability to conduct effective, timely TINA sweeps) -internal legal, compliance, risk controls (litigation avoidance) Both of these lead to competitive advantages. Both of these help with TINA sweeps and mitigate legal risk. The conditions that allow a company to conduct efficient TINA sweeps create competitive advantages. How is any of this controversial? PepeTheFrog has much deeper faith in your imagination if you allow it to wander beyond the boundaries you set to state your case. The conditions that lead to a company's ability to complete sweeps in a timely manner is a competitive advantage, right?
  20. Here is a article from Journalist's Resource you might find interesting. The cost of the study is $40.
  21. lotus

    SCA

    It is a definitized contract. It was competed procurement. The mapping was clearly shown in proposal.
  22. I base my opinion more on anecdotes and experience, some of it direct, and some of it current.... I heard an SBA trainer mention it in a WOSB presentation as well. In regard to this discussion, I don't distinguish between 8(a) and SB's in general because the ostensible goals of both programs are the same. Fair point; construction has always been a special animal in the procurement world. Just out of curiosity, what percentage of the average federal construction project goes to small business, in your experience? Your post also brings an obvious question to mind: would SB programs be more effective if they were more focused on sectors like construction? I think your comment kind of supports what I said - efficacy isn't really the SB metric, it's the fact that these businesses exist in large numbers, and even if a small percentage succeed, it's hard to justify not spending procurement dollars to help further that success. The alternative is basically to enrich shareholders and the investor class. Do you think it's a coincidence that all the successes you cite appear to be in the construction sector?
  23. See the following at Federal News Radio: https://federalnewsradio.com/defense-main/2018/05/aiming-to-speed-procurements-dod-wants-to-reduce-data-demands-on-contractors/
  24. Remember too, that a high percentage of small businesses, in general, fail or otherwise go out of business, too. And the construction business is fairly high risk, regardless of the size of the business. Many of y contemporaries and co-workers in USACE and I often did a lot of unofficial handholding to get such small firms through performance of their contracts. Of course, that could be good or bad for them. But there was always a sense that we wanted the job to be acceptably completed. I remember providing technical assistance, even to the point of demonstrating how to perform construction surveys, leveling and installing columns and bases, electrical control systems, leveling valves, pipe laying, well pump and pressure testing, etc. they weren’t all 8(a) firms, either. Edit: I was composing this post during the time that the two most recent responses above were posted.
  25. Yes. That's one relevant question. Let us know when you have the numbers.
  26. C Culham

    SCA

    All is doable and I completely understand the concerns about the "doing" passing strict scrutiny. Agree but only the OP can provide the facts to sort it out. In my experience I have never had success with DOL confirming something outside their official processes and this is specifically related to conformance. The very point on which additional thoughts are based.
  1. Load more activity
×