Jump to content
The Wifcon Forums and Blogs


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited


0 Neutral

Profile Information

  • Gender

Recent Profile Visitors

5,547 profile views
  1. I am a COR I am in a situation where I have, and I walked into this so it has been the practice of this organization. Regardless of work status, i.e. Federal Employee,Active Duty, or Contract Employee we have a system that the person signs into in the morning. The system is not precise enough to track hours, its sole purpose is to know who is in the building and who is not. I now have the lawyers saying no we can't have the contractors reporting their status as such. Being a contracting professional as well as a experienced COR I can make the argument both way. 1. No the contractor is not our employee and we should not present a perception of employer/employee relationship. Having the contractor sign into this system does give that impression. The system does not have to be signed out of. 2. As a safety aspect we should know who is in the building in case of emergency and who is not. We would have to account for every person in a time of evacuation to ensure the building was vacated. My question to my WIFCON Colleagues is: Is there any case law, rules or regulations that requires accountability of personnel within our premises? Thank you all for any help...
  2. Yes, the current contract specifies 5 days 8 hour days 40 hour week. We are considering this to help the contractor staff
  3. As a general question and all quality assurance and reasonable surveillance being adhered to. Is there any prohibition on letting contractors work an alternate work schedule, e.g. 9 hour days for 8 days, 1-8 hour day and one day off? I can find no prohibition against the practice any input would be appreciated.
  4. I would agree with granulaity of billing, if it were consistant. However, it is not consistant. It appears that the contractor deviates from task order to task order. I think this accounting practice is unreasonable to account for. Especially when a contractor logs 8.60 hours for one day which mathmatically works out to be 8:36. Not to mention the nightmare it creates when you try to close out a contract with seconds, and minute computations. But this is my opinion, I am sure some people will defend the practice as well as perform the practice.
  5. Agreed, no, no reservations it is a control thing..."they" fell that more control over the contractor would give them greater latitude for personal services. We CORs are interfering with scope creeping. Will see if the CO has the leadership skills necessary to make a decision. Unfortunately, this is one of the systemic issues in DoD...and one of the reasons I left the contracting agency. While I was perfectly whiling to prevent this as a CO, leadership would allow it under the auspices of customer satisfaction. Ah well....
  6. I have searched the forums extensively and found nothing specific to the following subject. I know from being a Governent contracting professional that duplication is frowned upon. However, when I try to defend my position I have nothing I have nothing. My only defence is that it would cause increased cost in monitoring, administration, and not make good business sence. What do you tell the section that just wants their own contract that is word for word as the already awarded ID/IQ? I need something specifically prohibiting the practice... Thank you in advance, Steve 60 Minutes /100 =0.6 .60 of 1 Hour is 36 Minutes = $44.50 at $1.24 per Minute 12.60 Hours Overtime (Keith) TDY Trip to Germany was from 01/13/2013 to 01/18/2013 Authorizes 8 Hours for Overtime. 4.60 Hours OT Not authorized.
  7. I have recently taken over the duties as COR for a IT Service Contract. The contract is a T&M ID/IQ service contract in which T&M or FFP orders are placed in the form of task orders. There is no optional work within the task order and there is no mixed task order i.e. T&M Line Items with FFP Line Items. My question is that it has always been my experince that hours are billed in 1/4 hour increments. I have some invoices where the hours are billed fractionally: Therefore: 60 Minutes /100 =0.6 .60 of 1 Hour is 36 Minutes = $44.50 at $1.24 per Minute The contractor says by not-rounding the Government is saved money, in my opinion this is not reasonable. The additional manhours to track and then try to close this task order washout any savings by a "to the minute recording of time worked". Not to mention monthly invoice reviews. My question to the forum is: Is there anything that gives guidance regarding timekeeping recording? If so, please tell me provide the references.... Thank you in advance Steve
  8. I think will have to keep in mind that GAO is comprised of like-minder professionals that are ubiquitous in any Government organization. GAO can miss-speak and even at times openly disagree with one another. While there is a mechanism in place to show a united posture towards any situation GAO’s historical documents are evidence of changing and conflicting positions. Again, GAO’s writers are human, and we must read their decisions with a critical eye, as we read anything….
  9. We here have used plug numbers extensively both for T&M, CR, and CPFF. The problem when using the plug number is that you remove the numbers from the competition, you are essentially leveling the field and making the numbers a none-issue as a discriminator for evaluation. Another issue we have seen when giving plug numbers the contractor has the ability to "buy-in" to the contract, and then coming back to the Government for overruns that it cannot be held against the contractor because they did not originally bid the number. Another issue in CPFF if the CAS rules may be invoked when you do a Cost type contract. an overrun would negate the contractor's right to the fee, but the overrun would be the Government's fault because the Government gave the number. I suggest doing a T&M CLIN before a cost reimbursable CLIN if you have to do a plug number, and leave the fee out of it. Moreover, when you do a cost CLIN you get into FPRA/FPRR/Provisional Pricing, remember this is true for any part of the contract is cost. If you have a FFP contract with small parts being cost, you do not get away from some of the requirements implicit in a full cost type contract.
  10. SSKO, I do not think you will find anything that limits the number of exercisable optional tasks. Remember according to FAR 17.207(f) the option must have been evaluated as part of the initial competition and be exercisable at an amount specified in or reasonably determinable from the terms of the basic contract. Moreover, we the Government have a responsibility to contract in good faith. Therefore, I would not have 1400 exercisable task options when you have no intention of exercising them. Be reasonable in your assessment of the work, and have options that have a good possibility of being exercised, and that meets the Government need.
  11. Also terms such as experience vice tangible evidentiary evidence, see it in black and white!!! The human memory is arguably the most unreliable and flawed thing in the world. But we continue to do the easy thing by asking our perceivably more experience colleagues on what to do in a situation, rather than perform the time consuming activity of research. What if the person has a flawed memory, what if the person has been doing it wrong for all of these years? If the person is truly correct than they can show evidentiary proof of their course of action. If not do your own research, you will likely learn more than you bargain for…
  12. Does anyone have some verbiage for the Clinger Cohen Act section of the Acqusiition Strategy, or where I should go to get some verbiage. My requirement is an IT requirement but not a capital investment type IT requirement. Thank you Steve
  13. Thank you for sharing Vern...I apreciate the support.
  14. I agree with Don. And, the troops will not starve to death. The Garrison commander will be forced to explain his ineptitude in securing the proper funding and for putting the CO in the position in the first place. These problems persist, because CO's are stepping around the rules to accomplish the mission. Well mission accomplishment is not part of the oath, obeying the law is. There are far more people in prison, or who have forfieted their carreers because the held mission accomplishment above the law, nothin is above the law.... not even the mission, nor the officer's OER! Moreover, when it comedown to it, these people will leave the CO out in the cold so fast it will make your head spin...
  15. The reasons these problems are happening is because the system allows it. I have been a contractor, a COR, and now a contract specialist with desires to be a CO. Having said that, when the COR or any Government employee other than the CO directs a contractor to do anything out of scope the contractor should contact their contracts administrator to make contact with the CO, and at least get a email regarding the added work. To often as a COR I have seen my collegues intimidate contractors into free services and work. If played right the COR will get hammered by the CO and get their letter revoked. Unfortunately, there are too few CO's with enoughleadership to pull the trigger and do ratifications. When the COR misbehavoir starts cutting into their pocket it will stop. But as long as there are contractors out there willing to do the work without question it will continue...
  • Create New...