WifWaf

My point is, the opponents I mentioned above have a point. Even with a portfolio of facts, I cannot know on such a grand scale as the whole country of 330M peoples why the majority of discouraged workers are having trouble joining the labor force. So it is unwise to even try. Instead, anyone in power over a government decision that could even remotely discourage a labor force should have a bias against action. Unnecessary mandates are heavy handed.

First, some definitions I’ve gathered over the years. Modernity: the truth is knowable for anyone equipped to know - like looking through a window. Postmodernity: the truth is largely unknowable and those who say they know only know themself - like a mirror. Critical realism: the truth is knowable but hard to know - like a darkened window. The relativity and psychology that can pollute historical knowledge is not an insurmountable barrier to truth - it doesn’t mean it’s not worth basing your life on it. We just need to be aware of our own worldview lenses. Critical realism allows for the middle ground I mentioned above.

One could try comparing the unemployed+discouraged worker rate in right-to-work states to that of union-friendly states. https://www.bls.gov/lau/stalt.htm https://nrtwc.org/facts/state-right-to-work-timeline-2016/ I imagine that’s been argued, and those that don’t see any truth as objective have undermined the argument. So the question in this case then becomes, how does one prove truth is objective? A middle ground of “objective enough” must be found. Not understanding this angle of debate from your opponent is why there is such a vast schism on the issues today.

What about the addition of 29 CFR Part 13, effective January 2017 and incorporated into all CONUS SCA/DBA contracts via FAR 52.222-62. This change still makes my head hurt reading SCLS WDs. At what point is federal work no longer free to operate for the high school graduate with a dream?

And the resulting complexities are daunting today. Were they ever less daunting?

I dunno, 29 CFR Part 9, “Nondisplacement of Qualified Workers Under Service Contracts” seems immortal to me. Or undead.

Thank you for trying to wade into my murkiness. Let me clarify. No legal advice is requested. No politics are necessary to prove a truth (quite the opposite). History is what WIFCON does best, and accurate history can help prove objective truth. I trust you all to provide accurate history. As a CO, I like to think it is actually possible to meet my FAR 1.602-1(b) authority and -2(a) responsibility. However, my counterparts in various industries have to do the actual compliance with these laws and regulations, so my ears perked up when one of them publicly decried the repercussions he experienced meeting the laws that we can assume a CO (and, later, a judge) implemented in his contract. I am looking to decide if Mr. Musk is being objectively truthful in this instance. One way we can decide that for ourselves is by comparing his industry operating in the present to that same industry operating in the past. In doing so we could identify many onerous laws and decide if less of them in the past likely benefited overall output. That's "freedom to operate" in tangible, unideological terms. In other words, objective truth. The quote provided in the OP is likely discussing the onerousness of operating in NAICS 336414 - "Guided Missile and Space Vehicle Manufacturing" 1. That's been around since the 1960s at least. What especially problematic statutes, regulations, and case law interpretations have been added to contracts operating in that industry in the past 60 years? What, if any, have been removed? Did any small businesses thrive in that NAICS Code due to a particularly onerous law not being applied? Thank you for the book recommendations, I am looking into them. 1 https://www.usaspending.gov/search/?hash=20c1055b4757790570616163f6140723

I am in search of a discussion on a discussion board. Maybe this topic is about something people are attributing to me from their own pasts or from some other discussion. You shouldn’t do that, it is demeaning of my life and work. I am just a CO in search of how to comply with FAR 1.602-1(b). Seriously - that’s it.

The Swiss have lakes in need of environmental remediation. Ammunition was dumped there in the 20th century and now has up to 6 feet of sediment built up on it. Risk of explosion could occur, so a ~$75K prize competition solicitation is open almost a year for the public to provide ideas the government may research. Here is the solicitation. It's shorter than a news article: Given this country's body of law which, per a search done today, has 270+ occurrences of the word "environmental" including an Environmental Protection Act requiring Enivronmental Impact Assessments, one can assume there will be many legal obstacles to getting this job done. The public may not understand those obstacles. Should, then, the COs and Program Officials learned in those laws simply take the public's unrefined ideas for mission accomplishment and interpret them into workable solutions against all the legal constraints? To me, that sounds like laws have replaced the gods in Western society. Almost like we get a sponsor to go to the oracle of a massive lawbook, who then tells us what those laws decide the people must do. What do you think?

I am looking for the area of statute, CFR, or case law where WIFCON believes the following quote rings most true. Be objective with facts. Maybe rely on the Section 809 Report's legwork, but be creative too. Alternative, intervention-promoting viewpoints are also welcome here.

I honestly thought I said that. See above where I drone on about a “negotiation standard”. Okay, sounds good.

Good morning, Patrick: I don’t know if your background is in contracting, accounting, or computer science. I just ask you to please tell whomever wrote your recent ad about this DPC memo to read this reply in the thread. Thank you for attention to this matter. In its context, the DPC memo is placed in a military-industrial culture of compliance, which is only a corpse of what it should be. There are no ligaments or sinews connecting this complex organism to its foundational principles. There are only bones left, because decades of decaying foundational knowledge has retired or inflated into Senior Executive Service and corner offices without passing itself down. The knowledge that has been passed down has been unprofessional because that is easier to teach (and easy = lucrative). As a result, nowadays the people that should serve as those connections are not daily seeking partnerships over a shared connection to a head: professionalism. Your report of problematic pushback should be taken with this in mind. As a professional, when I say above that I would prefer price analysis, I would really like to make connections with my counterpart to respectfully partner up and understand the price. I would then like to posit the Government’s interest into what is being offered because only I can do that. My counterparts will not and cannot offer this interest due to their shareholder interests. The recent NDAAs have assisted with this in the rules, and you can find specifics about those changes via research here on WIFCON, but really what it all comes down to is working the rules to meet this need. That’s horse before cart. A compliance culture is cart before horse. And I would just like to ride into battle against our enemies on a properly oriented chariot. I hope you do too. To partner, we must take regulation and apply professional interpretations. And we must care for each other’s interest in doing so. The prime contractors that are following Table 15-2 instructions to “Conduct price analyses of all subcontractor proposals” should be fully enabled to do so with your help on the subcontractor end. You can play a part in creatively identifying the great unknown “data other than certified cost or pricing data obtained from a subcontractor” these instructions mention at II.A.(2) that catalyzes our exodus out of the military-industrial culture of compliance, and into partnership. Your background and breadth of understanding can be instrumental in this if you would only connect to the same head to which your counterpart should connect – and insist on no less. I am asking you to breathe new life into this corpse and be creative. We have an opportunity here, to connect together and meet each other’s interests. Sales and buying should always have been this way: please, try to remember.

No, but we’ve received Hatch Act training twice over the past month in my political appointee-run org.

If it's ideal and necessary, put in the United States Constitution. Or don't, and watch the power dynamics of Washington twist and manipulate the intent to each passing fad's whims.

It directs HCAs to submit nonratifiable commitments to GAO, but that would then restrict the exercise of the extraordinary emergency authority granted by Public Law 85-804 (50 U.S.C. 1431—1434) to the secretariat level, per FAR 50.102-3(e)(1)(iii):