shinaku

I think that has merit to a degree.

I have become less of an advocate for "special off-site" training in certain areas. Particularly in programs that promote "making you a better this or that". Proficient, "Contract Managers", as I see it, are more effectively developed in the context of a real working environment. Of course the rub seems to be that context is increasingly scarce - that being a real working environment that openly promotes improvement in skills and performance of all the individuals resulting in a high performing contract organization - the two should be married IMO.

My experience in other fields I have functioned in before I got into contracting, was that folks who went away to obtain higher octane long term training that resulted in some certification that the company or agency touted as "top gun", for the most part but not always eventually regressed to the mean of the department. Certainly some good has come about, but it seemed hardly worth it to me as it rarely created the critical mass to improve the total shop around excepting their personal resume. But hey, nice certificate you got framed there and good luck with the promotion upward and out of here!

I have fantasized about a real working organization or shop within an agency or branch of a firm that truly functioned as "a model contracting department" where folks at all levels would rotate through for a significant stint to see and experience how things can truly operate whilst being truly and operational. Kind of like a "gold standard" of operations and service, essentially a "top gun department."

But it's not as restrictive as most people seem to think that it is, and a first-rate contracting person can get almost anything done with violating it.

Hopefully, typo - you meant without violating it.

Despite being taken back, I hopefully responded adequately enough though certainly sans the succinct objectivity of your statement though! I understood it to be a substantially behavior type question too as most questions are - (let's see how he handles this).

If I were on an interview panel and had to pose a similar question, I would state it with a context more along the lines of:

This next question I have concerns the FAR. Imagine that I am a new program manager client of yours with limited contracting experience. Please give me a no more than three minute brief on the FAR.

Reminds me of an interview I had a few years back. One of the questions, was: "Tell us about the FAR." (then long silence)

I was so taken back by it, that I almost smart-axed with a...."well, it is a thick paper-back etc. etc."

Check this out. The real deal - no theory - hands on - it works. Start with M-tools basic.

http://www.manager-tools.com/

I think PALT is most useful when it is augmented and anchored to the requiring activity's anticipated or desired start work date. Working backwards from there can really sober folks up.

Tiering off this topic - and I don't think my two cents here are a big deal either but would be curious what others experience have been.

On occassion at a pre-proposal meeting or a "pre-bid" site tour, I don't always catch all the participants names/firms whom attended. Often despite my pre-wired plans of a sign in sheet or other methods. I have even had, more than once, a person who cared not to be identified, which I did not push. Or half of them come late and in the flurry or the site tour they depart before you can nail their names.

As a result I have 1. Successfully gotten and included all names/firms who attended. 2. Gotten most of them and listed those I had. 3. Not gotten very many of them accurately due to reasons and then just indicated so on the amendedment notes "Between 9 and 15 people attended." 4. Just posted the notes and remained silent on who was there.

shinaku,

Agencies want to keep GOOD people - people with expertise and experience that are viewed as valuable. As I said earlier, it's too bad OPM can't fix the problem with allowing agencies to bring back reemployed annuitants without penalities. So contracting for their continued support is the only option.

While I completely agree with you on that patently obvious statement it is not the only option nor should there be any singular course of action focused on because it is expedient. People- aka valuable experienced employees - have absolute certainties (as we all do) to grow old, get sick and die in addition to the optional aspects of retirement, resigning, or transferring.

A wild example to enhance my point; Lets start promoting cryogenic suspension for those "GOOD" people to be kept on "ice" (before dementia sets in...that is, while they are still "good"). We can work a legal tweak into establishing their re-instatement rights after the technology is developed to bring them back to life for another 30 year career.

shinaku:

Assuming that there is such a trend, which you probably can't prove, why is it disturbing?

Why I find it disturbing.

When a person retires, it is generally established on the radar well before that last day happens. I have been assigned two ?requirements? where the project was to get that person back in their old slot, basically doing their old job. When I gently queried the project folks, none of whom were really ?in-charge? as management is immune from being asked those questions ? would not want to be put on the spot by a lowly contract specialist right? The bromide reply was in the vain of ?gosh, the HCM process is so difficult and slow and we really need this person back.? Did this just occur to you last week?

When I have drilled down further, I find, as I saw it, just plain lack of planning and attendant actions to mitigate the impending retirement. Heck, just as in contracting we have the PALT, the same applies for taking action to get one?s vacancy out and pro-actively working with HCM or taking other management actions or ideas into play. I also suspect that with the knowledge on both the retiree?s part and the project folks that ?hey, great idea, you can come back as a ?contractor?? is wrong and it feeds itself thus giving more impetus to not ?bothering? with the HCM process or other ideas in a timely way. Hey, buck up, do your job ? plan and take action. Oh, you find it difficult? I am so sorry ? give me a break.

I drill further and run this by folks I know in HCM and the excuse does not hold water as tightly as the project folks? excuse claims to be. A disconnect.

Now I am talking first hand accounts of my experience in an agency specific situation. I am well aware of the convoluted and arcane processes that exist in a many HCM departments.

And another point that this connects with. It further stymies the recruitment of new people, the advancement of others and short shrifts current folks who could have a chance, even if forced, to step up to the plate and do the retired persons duties, if even on an interim basis while they fill the position through the HCM process. I can see the next local job fair that my agency participates in where they really should say to people interested ?Oh, we fill our vacancies by contracting back to the folks who left them?so no real attrition here anymore.?

HR flexibilities is key. I know many agencies contract out because they claim the private sector can provide people quickly. In other words,a contractor can provide resumes, bring people in for quick interviews, and the government make an on-the-spot decision about the person. Plus the private sector can transfer and replace someone that doesn't work out.

If this needs to work, the government HR process needs some radical changes and I don't see that happening especailly with the influence of unions. Unions will worry about new hires coming in at higher pay than long standing Fedeal employees.

Federal salaries are competitive so I don't see that as a barrier, especially with the government fringe benefits.

I have seen what I consider a disturbing trend in an agency that I am familiar with. The acquiring of the services of a recently retired employee through indirect means: Solicit a contract for professional or temporary administrative support services and a firm is selected that will hire the recently retired person, and bingo, they are back on the job.

As I see it, this is motivated by two reasons.

1. An easy way to continue the services of the retired employee. But, hey, everyone retires, heck people transfer. It is not un-expected. And with the perceived slowness of the personnel (excuse me Human Capital Management) system there is a knee jerk reaction to point to that first as a reason to contract or to expedite. When more often than not it is the obtuseness of the project shops managers that no planning or setting in motion of personnel actions to fill that position were done given the expected retirement.

2. Coupled with a growing awareness of ...."hey, easy, no problem, we can contract them back!" And that is influenced by what I consider wrong headed thinking of people-pleasing contract folks who go along with such contracts to the extent of even promoting the practice: "No problem, we can do a sole-source 8a with a firm that will hire that person." or tailoring the evaluation criteria to the shoe size of the de-facto "key person".

Cut and pasted and from old contract/solicitation.

I am trying to wrap my head around why a Contracting Officer would issue a 2009 solicitation with a 2006 wage determination that was replaced in June 2007. Below is the relevant excerpt:

DOL Wage Determination No. 05-2312 (Rev 3), 12-01-2006 (8 pages) and DOL Wage Determination Number 1997-0368 (Rev 4), 03-02-2007 w/Collective Bargaining Agreement between LB&B Associates, Inc and Int?l Brotherhood of Electrical Workers Local 453, dated 1 May 2005 through 30 Apr 2008 (23 pages). Extension of Agreement Between LB& B Assoicates Inc and Int?l Brotherhood of Electrical Workers Local 453, dated 1 May 2008 (3 pages)

The project involves both SCA and CBA personnel. I understand incorporating the CBA and CBA Extension but why not the prevailing WD (Rev 7) posted on WDOL on 07/15/2008? The Q&As didn't flush out answer.

Anybody have reasons or guesses?

Your post essentially asked two questions 1) can construction be done as a commercial item and 2) what happened to the comp demo program

1) OMB OFPP memo dated July 3, 2002, while cautioning about the use of Part 12 in some cases, explicitly allows the use of Part 12 for construction, especially for non-complex construction.

2) The comp demo program exists, but FAR 19.1007b1 states that "agencies may reinstate the use of small business setasides

as necessary to meet their assigned goals, but only within organizational units that failed to meet the small business participation goal." That may be the case for the unit that posted that solicitation.

Mike

No questions asked in any seriousness. I was making an observation on the "awareness" factor there. Agency, that sub-agency in particular has abosolutely no problems with attaining their small biz goals.

Joel, This is a USDA agency.

On slower Friday afternoons I sometimes browse through FBO to peruse what other offices in my federal agency are doing...to compare notes so to speak and also, I will admit, for entertainment purposes.

Today, I took a look at a recently posted "Recovery" Solicitation. Now, I have seen this done before and I don't agree with it but whatever....

I looked at a construction for buidling roofing solicitation done as a Commerical item, with SF-1449, the commercial terms and conditions but with the added clauses for bonding, the Davis Bacon Wages, etc. And....it said prominently "100% Set aside for Small Business" and they even had the estimated price range....between $250K and $500K. (Small Business Competitive Demo Act...did that go away???)

For sure. Having developed a IDIQ for certain services, Road Maintenance in this case, that could have resulting work in either Construction or non-construction awards(competed of course as multiple award), I set up the Schedule of Items to reflect Construction (D-Bacon) or straight service items. And that task orders would be either or all the way, and not have any mix of the two.

Having moved into a new position and office I gradually inherited, as successor CO, a growing constellation of on-going contracts. Much to my concern, there was no common electronic, structured contract filing system, that I could quickly and easily access. Instead, I would get notified of my status as the new CO prior to receiving, in many cases, the contract folders by Fedex days or weeks later. As as result, I could not quickly see for myself the terms and conditions of the actions I was inheriting. Upon the folders arrival, I would then dive into them and see just what the heck I had taken over.

One of these instances, was a multiple award IDIQ, for fairly complex services. I saw that they were awarded with a base year and two option years. Okay fine, except, I could not find any documentation what so ever that the previous CO (COs') had exercised the first option year! After a thorough examination I concluded it indeed was not. In fact the base year had ended 9 months prior and they were merrily awarding task/delivery orders since. Naturally, a "a very urgent and vital need for our mission." of course, what isn't?

I weighed my course of action with much consideration.

"PWAC"'s made my day!