Boof

Thanks for the information. This is a case where the Government is worried the contract hire will violate the harassment laws because they have not been trained on the subject by their company management.and it will end up being blamed on the Government managers in the court of public opinion for not doing enough to prevent it.

Wow, Big response in a short time. The issue is that our agency provides mandatory harassment training to all Government Employees. Our Office of Civil Rights wants to know how we mandate this training on contractors. We haven't in the past and some of you would say we should never try. I agree that we have no legal requirment to provide this training to contractor employees as they do not work for us. I also know that we can request the replacement of anyone who we find out is violating any of our workplace rules and the contractors have done so for various reasons without major protest. However, everyone inside the Beltway knows that there is the legal answer and the political answer. How we deploy and protect our contract hires is a common Congressional inquiry theme and we get a lot of FOIA from the press about contractor treatment too. I was just curious what others may have done to provide top cover on this issue. Don, I agree about not being able to just write my own clause per se, but we could use standard verbiage in the statement of work or as an added requirment in section H like on many other topics. We could also have our policy shop go through the Agency clause approval process.

All, I am trying to research what provisions or clauses are in Federal contracts that address sexual harassment but also other types of harassment (e.g. race, religion, age, etc) by members of the the contract workforce. I researched the FAR and only found equal opportunity provisions and clauses concerning the contractors own hiring practices. The specific question from my front office asked what we put in our contracts to force the contractor to provide sexual harassment and/or other harassment training to their employees?. I thought that the FAR would have addressed this by now buy my searcch isn't turining up anything. I am still searching some of our contracts for verbiage in SOW, PWS, etc but that is also coming up with zero. I am thinking there may be some agency or locally written clauses available at other agencies that could be shared to save me time. This is a big issue in an organization that may have over half the professional personnel in an office as contract hires. In one case we have 17 Direct Hires managing the workload distribution to over 350 contract personnel. Feds have rules, training, disciplanary processes and appeal processes. What does the contract hire workforce, which may be a conglomeration of employees from a dozen companies in one cube farm have?

CS123, Yes and this is done wrong all the time too. The reseller has to use the products of small manufacturers to qualify as small business unless the CO gets a non-manufacturer waiver from SBA first. Many Junior contract specialists do not understand this and many experienced personnel don't either. With that said, SBA should put out blanket waivers for a lot of things that everyone knows must come from large business through the small resellers. That would solve many of the mistakes and save everyone a lot of work.

I await the FAR change, however many years that takes. We do usually use the FSSI when it meets the requirment. We have our office supplies automated so that the contracting office is not involved very often (automated purchase card orders go directly to the vendor from the automated system). We have courier services through them (12% claimed savings). Not sure how we can integrate the professional services FSSI with our requirements yet.

Office supply FSSI are not BPAs anymore. They are IDIQ contracts outside of the FSS program.

A new OFPP benchmark for the Agencies is competed actions with only one bid as shown in FPDS. The pressure is on to reduce that number. The theory is that if you only have one bid, the CO didn't try hard enough to get competition. Things like a poor requirement document , not enough time given for the proposal, too restrictive of a set aside, etc. DOD started it by their policy to not accept one bid without a J&A and make the CO find out why no one wanted to bid, correct the process and go back out for more competition. As far as I can tell they are counting simplifieds in their counts.

Yes that was pointed out to me in post #2 and I acknowledged in Post #4. Just missed it. Thanks.

Ummmm. Send an email to 3 companies saying you want Widget 1234 and provide sealed bidding procedures for them to bring it to your lockbox. Why you would do this is questionable but it is using the combination.

I agree that neither type of BPA is a contract. They are agreements as their name implies. They set some basic terms and conditions for placing Calls against them. I do wonder about FAR Part 8 BPAS that have been competed with winning suppliers receiving calls that may amount to hundreds of millions of dollars. That would seem more of a commitment than just being an agreement but as BorderC stated, there is no consideration beyond the award itself to bind them and it is my understanding that either party could walk away at any time.

Oh but wouldn't it make sense for SBA to add most IT software and hardware to the waiver list for the entire Federal Government and eliminate another paperwork mill. Congress and the Executive Branch keep adding more and more tasks for COs to do. We need to eliminate useless work.

What is CMRA? Is this a DoD only system? Or is this another name for the service contract reporting required in SAM?

Retreadfed, The clause states The Contractor shall make available at its office at all reasonable times the records, materials, and other evidence described in paragraphs (a), (B ), (c ), (d), and (e) of this clause, for examination, audit, or reproduction, until 3 years after final payment under this contract or for any shorter period specified in Subpart 4.7, Contractor Records Retention, of the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR), or for any longer period required by statute or by other clauses of this contract. So it allows them to use FAR 4.7 timeframes. It also would allow an agency clause to extend the time which is what I am considering our procurement executive to consider approving. The two year retention of time cards is horrible. Mdfam, thanks for pointing out 4.704. I must be blind. My bad.

I am curious about the retention periods contractors are required to retain documents. FAR Clause 52.215-2 states that records should be retained for 3 years past the final payment unless FAR 4.705-1 to 705-3 prescribes less. FAR 4.705 only requires 4 years retention for most documents but does not say when that 4 years begins so you assume it is based on the date of the document. This allows contractors to dispose of documents prior to the final payment and two years prior to when they may submit a claim on the cost. Any idea why the FAR allows this? Am I just missing something? Since the auditors are running years behind in making indirect cost audits, we are running into big issues settling REAs, claims and getting a final close out of the actions because the contractor says the documnets were disposed of after 4 years. We plan to ask for an agency clause increasing the retention time (The FAR clause states "or for longer periods required by statute or by other clauses of this contract" to six years from our accepting thier indirect cost rate proposal. I hope someone can provide me some background on why the FAR is the way it is and why I might not want to add such a clause.

illzoni, Correct. We can hire with either a BS/BA or 24 hours of business credit at or below GS12. But promotion opportunities tend to come fast and GS12s without a degree get frustrated at not being able to apply for them. All the better if you have both.

Don't know much about the best college for accepting misc. class credits but the new FAC-C refresh as it is called does not affect you much if you have a FAITAS level II certification already approved. No special pre-requisites for starting level III like they have for starting level II. Not unless the agency added some. Most changes are in level I and level II. I graduated University of Maryland, University College (UMUC) after going to night school for 13 years. They accepted almost everything I had but my credits were from just 2 schools and UMUC. Depending on your degree, make sure you have 24 hours of business credit. That has tripped some of our new hires.

The issue of coming on board with the Government as a GS1102 is having a Bachelors degree with 24 hours of business credit. I have to assume you are DAWIA level II at least with your warrant. If you have these 3 things the Department of State in Washington needs you. I think we have a advertisement on USAJobs because of the Direct Hiring Authority. We have many ex-Air Force including me.

Captain 2722: It is harming the contracting community now, and it will be even worse when those people are in GS-13/14/15 positions and have the knowledge & experience as a GS-7 still. Hate to say but they are already at the upper levels.

Salb, Are you the CO/CS or in the program office? The program office must make the case in absolute terms that going to any other company other than the one most postured to meet the need will cause mission failure. They must explain on the J&A how taking extra time to compete the requirement will adversely affect the Government. If the J&A reads all wishy washy like your description above, I would disapprove the J&A immediately (as the competition advocate for my acquisitions office). My legal advisor also uses the same standard in thier review. If you have to compete the requirement even amoung a few companies then you might as well compete it with all. It would be very hard to justify how evaluating 3 or more companies will save enough time to justify eliminating all others. Also don't bring me an urgent and compelling J&A that shows you have been studying the market for months already. It is obviously not urgent.

From the Department of State Foreign Affairs Manual (FAM); Personally identifiable information (PII): Refers to information which can be used to distinguish or trace an individuals identity, such as their name, Social Security Number, biometric records, etc., alone, or when combined with other personal or identifying information which is linked or linkable to a specific individual, such as date and place of birth, mothers maiden name, etc. Department employees should exercise their best judgment in determining the sensitivity of the PII. Sensitivity of the PII would depend on factors such as whether its unauthorized disclosure may result in any of the following harms to the records subject: fiscal or physical harm, identify theft, personal or professional embarrassment, inconvenience, unfairness, security risks, coercion, and/or other adverse effects.

I need more people but only if they can think, write and stand toe to toe with the clients and contractors. These are rare people who usually don't want to work for the Government. I believe I learned enough from the mandatory core classes to be able to solve issues through research. I have done a lot of learning on my own time when most personnel will not do so for various reasons. I had to study a lot and apply it in obtaining my NCMA CPCM. That was the hardest test I ever took but it was worth it. No one should be level III certified without taking a test like that. However, in looking at my organization, we might only have a few COs left after the test. A large portion of our staff just don't have the capacity to deal with the complexities of the contracting field. The less than stellar specialist is overwhelmed by all the new rules on simplified acquisitions and FSS ordering. Not to mention all the complex elements in the FPDS report. Meanwhile our superstars that can think clearly are assigned the tough contracts but more importantly the tough clients. They make all the correct decisions on how write a solicitation that will get top value only to be told by the program office that they refuse to do it that way. Management buckles and the COs get frustrated. Training is not going to cure these systematic problems.

Since this one year (6 MO + 3MO+3MO) contract was due to a bid protest, I will bet that 6.302-2 Urgent and Compelling was used as the Justification. If so, the issue is that a J&A for urgent and compelling cannot exceed one year and that -8 clause made it a year and a half. The GAO just got done ripping us for having a one year urgent and compelling contracts with the -8 clause in them. You need a new J&A but you may still get GAO or OIG static about making more than one urgent contract in a row for the same service. However, what is a CO to do in situations like this.......bring the boots home? They also recommended we make a new contract and not extend the current by mod but I choose to ignore them on that point.

I am a big supporter of using FEDBID.com reverse auctions but I would not solicit this kind of service via reverse auction.

I must agree with some of the recent posters Written debriefings are prudent and save time. I do not meet with contractors unless it is for a current requirement due to lack of time. If you are a good CO, you make more awards. More awards means more administration. More administration means more OIG audits, more GAO audits and reports, more congressional inquiries and more press releases that need to be cleared. Soon the good CO is overwhelmed and no longer a good CO. The World according to Boof.

I think the Best Procurement Approach Document is a total waste of time. GSA FSS were invented for the Federal Government to use as an early form of Strategic Sourcing and I do not see why we should have to do a BPAD to use GSA FSS. Anyone who can think can justify using the FSS for whatever requirement they are buying so it is an exercise in writing and tree killing. Once upon a time protests were not allowed but as we started awarding multi-million dollar delivery orders they became necessary. They should have about a $10M threshold. I yearn for the days when I could call three companies that I knew I could trust, get a price from each, write it on a memo for file and award. Now it has to be approved by my OSDBU that I set it aside, post it on Ebuy, get bids from companies I don't know who all want to protest the award. Might as well go full and open.