Jump to content


jtolli

Member Since 08 Dec 2008
Offline Last Active Yesterday, 05:10 PM

Posts I've Made

In Topic: Authorities Delegated to COR

10 February 2015 - 09:31 AM

If I was a COR and I saw a contractor employee doing something that could cause injury to themselves or others, I would tell them to stop work, and then contact the CO.  Whether that is permissable or not I would worry about later. I wouldn't allow policies and procedures to stand between me, and doing what is right. Doing the right thing is sometimes more important than doing things right. I acutally had this happen many years ago where I witnessed contractor employees on a contract (not construction) I was COR for, working in a confined space without having the proper prootective equipment, or the equipment to test the combined space for hazards. I verbally ordered the employees to to stop work and get out of the manhole until they were later told differently. They did get out, and I went and informed the CO immediately of what I had done.  He agreed with my course of action, and issued an "official" stop work order in writing.


In Topic: FAR 13.104(b)

29 January 2015 - 08:37 AM

As I understand the scenario as presented by JDYoung, and I have seen people do this before, you have a requirement for an item and you ask vendors who you know don't sell that item if they will give you a quote, of course the vendor tells you that they don't sell the item, so you ask them to send you a "no bid" or "no quote", and you then consider that "no bid" as a quote.  Here is a specific example. You have a brand name requirement for a Dell lap top.  You get a quote from Dell for the lap top.  You then go to 2 other vendors who ypu already know are not Dell authorized resellers, and do not sell Dell lap tops.  You ask them to send you a "no bid", and then say you solicited from 3 vendors, and only got one quote.


In Topic: Contractor Manpower Reporting

30 December 2014 - 08:29 AM

CMRA = Contractor Manpower Reporting Application. The CMRA is a web based application developed by the Army in order to collect data on services that they contract for. Section 807 of the National Defense Authorization Act of 2008 required DoD to provide an annual inventory of contracted services to congress. The other services were using FPDS data to develop their inventory. More recently DoD has gone to standardized systems accross the board. They are calling this the enterprise CMRA (eCMRA). In reality it is the same web based application that the Army developed, now being used by the other services.


In Topic: Contractor Manpower Reporting

24 December 2014 - 10:19 AM

Sounds like you are a contractor.  I work for the Government, and have been using the CMRA for a few years.  Have you tried e-mailing the CMRA help desk?  Here is what I can tell you based on my experience. I don't believe you can create any sort of "enterprise" login for the CMRA.  One of the limitations I noticed with CMRA, at least on the Government side, is that once an individual (COR) "claims" a contract, then only that individual can view the specifics of that contract. There is no way to transfer the contract to anyone else. So if the person who claimed the contract moves to a new job, then their replacement is out of luck as far as using the CMRA to do any research on that contract.  I would imagine their are similar limitations for those individuals with a contractor or subcontractor role in the application. As for your questions regarding administering components, contracting organization, etc., are you referring to the NDAA Elements section?  If so, that is not the contractors responsibility to complete, so you need not worry about it.  As stated on the CMRA Contract Details screen, "Note: COR/COTRs and Contracting Officers are responsible for entering NDAA data. Contractors are not responsible for this data.".  I am not surprised that you have got little to no information from the contracting office, in my experience contracting officers and specialists know very little about the CMRA as they typically don't use it.  You would be better off asking the COR for the contract, as COR's do the bulk of the data input and review on the Government side.  But I will also say that many COR's don't fully understand the CMRA, and in my experience many don't use it at all.  As for training, I have not heard of any such training, and to be honest don't see a need for training, it is a pretty straight forward system to use.


In Topic: Funny or tragic? Part I

16 October 2014 - 12:02 PM

In my experience a lot of people tend to confuse the various justification documents and formats from different parts  (6, 8, 16) of the FAR.  The Army's Computer Hardware Enterprise Software and Solutions (CHESS) program contracts are also Part 16 contracts, but the ordering guides instructs you to prepare justifications using the FAR Part 8 format.  I just ran across a question on the Ask A Professor site when an individual asked about preparing Class Brand Name Justifications for Part 8 buys, and the answer given was that it is possible in accordance with FAR Part 6.  Here is a link to that particular Q&A: https://dap.dau.mil/...estionID=120988