Jump to content
The Wifcon Forums and Blogs


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

0 Neutral

About poisonivvy

  • Rank

Contact Methods

  • Website URL
  • ICQ

Profile Information

  • Location
    Wonderous Washington State
  1. Our contract requirement is flowed down from the agency (Dept of Energy) through CRD O 206.1; which defines PII as: "Personally Identifiable Information (PII). Any information collected or maintained by the Department about an individual, including but not limited to, education, financial transactions, medical history and criminal or employment history, and information that can be used to distinguish or trace an individual’s identity, such as his/her name, Social Security number, date and place of birth, mother’s maiden name, biometric data, and including any other personal information that is
  2. I took a snippet of what Vern said in posts above and completely agree. Although on the dark-side as a contractor employee, I've had experiences between DOJ, DOE, HHS, and DOD. I'm currently working in a DOE environment for the last four years. With the civilian agency mindset, we're always thinking on our toes and with very creative solutions. When HQ or headshop says no, you will find ways to execute the mission. Because there is a certain lack of discipline or even in-line fighting and revolving door shuffling, one solution never fits the bill for all parties involved. The mission also
  3. Retread is thinking of the False Claims Hooper vs Lockheed Martin case-- "The case of United States ex rel. Hooper v. Lockheed Martin Corporation (No. 11-55278 9th. Cir. 2012) alleged that the Lockheed Martin Corporation submitted false and gross underbids in order to ensure the company won federal contracts related to the Range Standardization and Automation IIA (“RSA”) program, which is overseen by the United States Air Force." From a synopsis at: http://bergermontague.com/blog/index.php/false-claims-act-court-rules-lockheed-martin-can-be-sued-for-underbidding-on-government-projects/ Edit-
  4. One scenario to think of when it goes bad- what happens when one of the major primes turns in an REA or Claim due to the actions/delay of the PMO Contractor? The fingerpointing and blame will go around for days. And from the other side of fingerpointing--when the PMO Contractor gets evaluated and the other major primes/CORs/COs accuse the PMO of not playing nicely in the sandbox with all the other primes for actually enforcing due dates, conformity, or schedule. You may also run into conflicts of interest in the reporting structure. Especially when technical evaluations or contractor perform
  5. If I've got a CO written clause about giving employees equivalent pay in Section H or I, would that trump a wage determination listed in Section J as an attachment (say the WD is higher than 'equivalent'). Or If I bid on paying equivalent to the incumbent per the RFP clauses and contract award comes in with different SCA WD, how I could argue my case before signing the award. Actually, in hindsight I'd see how the RFP was written and run.... Far away from it.
  6. May I derail the thread further and ask your opinion about these clauses that I've seen before. I'm always curious to think (yes, unlikely) that if the incumbent was paying below SCA...then as a scummy contractor, this could be my trump card that I provided 'equivalent' pay...not above and beyond utilizing the terms of my contract. I know that answer isn't a good one for DOL when they come sniffing though and see a wage determination incorporated later on in precedence as an attachment. "The Contractor shall provide equivalent pay to employees receiving a hiring preference as compared to pa
  7. We haven't been able to get that fly with a new LLC Joint Venture. A potential solution is to hire your Corporate Parent schedule holder as a subcontractor--who can use the schedule.
  8. Also check the RFP and the newly awarded contract. Ours had instructions, provisions, restrictions, etc on incumbent staff from the Government.
  9. In my current experience, I really wish our government customer had not put numbers in the RFP.... 1. The numbers were projections and based on data from 2004-2006. By the time they went through the hooplas, reviews, proposals, and protests we're a good 5 years down the road. The data were pretty much worthless once you throw in ARRA and any looming budget issues. 2. It made the people who bid the contract quite lazy and they just backed into a number, rather than coming bottoms up to see what it what really take to do the job. "Throw in a little of this, a little of that" was the mentality
  10. Especially in terms of what happens if someone gets injured or strains their back when taking out the trash--who pays and who gets sued. I realize it may be just small carry bins-- but we have to report first aids and paper cuts here at our site
  11. Can you also use the GPEA 44 USC 3501 in your arguments as well with the internal reviewer? I know you say the agency does not have supportive authentication-- but I'd check the link to see what, exactly, authentication is needed--is the signature embedded in the document, or does it appear separately? GPEA- "The Act specifically states that electronic records and their related electronic signatures are not to be denied legal effect, validity, or enforceability merely because they are in electronic form, and encourages Federal government use of a range of electronic signature alternatives."
  12. And now the fast and furious turn to get our subcontracts, charging guidance, and everything else in place as our fed customer has finished their procurement actions! Instead of champagne, can we have the choice of an un-interrupted nap?
  13. That was the best part about the class, you had to use your brain and think on your toes. No PowerPoint droning on and on. Still fuming with myself over not remembering the name of FAR Part 6...otherwise could have graduated with honors. The worst part--you'll never find another class like this unless looking verrrry hard. Makes any training classes that management mandates after this one quite a snooze fest to attend. In my- what next question- I'm challenging myself to reading, challenging, and understanding rather than depending on training to come around. Made it through the Cibinic a
  14. A little bit of both in our experience. After we merged we were allowed to keep the schedules until the PoP expired. Then we were required to consolidate into one vehicle/bidding entity as they came due for option extensions. However, IIRC, we had to novate the incoming company schedule to a version of our name. At one time, we had 3 GSA IT-70 schedules... Edit- Here's another sample of how GSA treats multiple contracts: http://www.gsa.gov/portal/content/227585 "GSA encourages contractors who have more than one MOBIS contract as a result of the merger to select one MOBIS contract to continu
  15. Thanks for some afternoon entertainment with reading delight! Wish they'd let industry chime in though--several of us "dirty scummy" contractors might have some good ideas too that the Feds don't see amongst themselves! I think my favorite so far is (saying that they are trained well): STOP Highering Contractors "In the Federal services we have pretty much trained personnel to fulfill any type of work that could present itself. So why on earth would we overpay a company typically made up of previous federal or state employees to do the same work they were sometimes doing right before they q
  • Create New...