Contractor Inanity

[patmc]

Agree, I too had the full range of experiences. That said, he is correct is his overall message that being a S4 is an experience you would not wish on your worst enemies. That blog is hilarious, which is sad.

For every bad story dealing with contractors, I can recall a good one, and also recall an even worse story dealing with support units composed entirely of US Army Soldiers.

[Entropy]

Schmedlap,

Highlighting this particular event is not meant as a condemnation of contracting generally. In fact, contractors have provided me invaluable help when I've been downrange (and here in the US too, actually). Still, there are a lot of problems and a lot of stupidity out there. You'd think latrines would be a no-brainer.

[120mm]

Sounds like the contractors involved are managing expectations.

Here's what REALLY happens, if they go that 5 meters: Some "Sir, yes sir, I'll make it happen" O-5 will have that port-a-potty servicing company leading patrols and assaults within a week, if they let the US Army have an inch in conflict with their contract.

The #1 problem with contracting is the US Army. Either lack of supervision by the responsible parties, or unreasonable expectations/lack of knowledge of the contract by the same.

Ask me how I know. The US Army unit I'm co-located with right now, has made itself nearly 100% dependent on us for support, despite the alleged independent nature of both parties
.

[Surferbeetle]

Most people on both sides of government contracts are reasonable and want to be successful in contract relationships; however…

Once long ago and in a place far away the additional duty of article 32 officer landed on my desk a couple of times. My take-away from those experiences was that accountability exists, penalties increase with increasing dollar amounts involved, and penalties increase with increasing harm against others. Times have not changed that much on the issue of accountability.

The Federal Acquisitions Regulation provides a framework by which government contracts are executed. A special agent such as a contracting officer has limited authority, is only authorized to conduct a single type of transaction (i.e. they have a warrant for construction contracts), and fully understand the types of contracts (the USG uses express contracts which are further broken down into different subtypes such as fixed-price, time & material, etc.) and elements of a contract.

A Contracting Officer may designate (in writing) a technical specialist as a contracting officers technical representative (COTR). This person is tasked with writing a statement of work which details the work to be done (task, condition, and standard is an easy way to think about it), developing an independent government cost estimate (using cost data from a variety of sources), assisting the contracting officer with the technical parts of the negotiation as needed, and managing the technical portions of the project. Usually a separate Inspector will also be designated for the project (this is where a good quality assurance/control/surveillance plan comes into it’s own). Problems with the contract may have to be resolved by modifications, and only contracting officers working within the scope of their warrant are authorized to execute modifications to the contract.

Bottom line: the JAG, the Comptroller, and the Contracting Officer are earning the big bucks and losing their hair for a reason. If you have a question about a contract these are the folks to see.

[sandbag]

By the way, the FAR is heavy enough to beat a man to death with. That, plus the Defense supplement to the FAR, is enough to make me cry on a nigh-daily basis.

I liked reading that blog until the kid closed it out. I think he got it resolved later on.

Bottom line: talk to a Contracting Officer. They don't like stupidity any more than you do, and like fraud, waste and abuse even less.

[Stan]

One of the things that bugs the piss outta me to this day is the so-called vendor/buyer (insert any USG agency here) privacy with no regard for the end user.

I spent months defining requirements right down to an inch in width and overall height and even stated less than 50kgs (man portable). Not only will this friggin wigit not fit where intended, it tops out at 86 kilos.

When we were finally "authorized" direct contact with the vendor, they were writing the "Buyer" daily ranting about our discontent over their superior product and "world-class" training.

Government funds committed and the FY over... We live with what we have despite the fact we can't employ the wigit as intended.

[sandbag]

Sounds like you're getting bad advice. You're OK to talk to the vendor, so long as both you and the vendor know that you (as the user) don't have any actual, apparent or implied authority to enter into or modify contracts. I usually give my users a little blurb to stick at the end of e-mails to cover that. Who told you that you couldn't talk to them?

By the way, is there a program manager for that item, or is it some kind of commercial-off-the-shelf widget?

If you can't get an answer, get in touch with me.

One of the things that bugs the piss outta me to this day is the so-called vendor/buyer (insert any USG agency here) privacy with no regard for the end user.

I spent months defining requirements right down to an inch in width and overall height and even stated less than 50kgs (man portable). Not only will this friggin wigit not fit where intended, it tops out at 86 kilos.

When we were finally "authorized" direct contact with the vendor, they were writing the "Buyer" daily ranting about our discontent over their superior product and "world-class" training.

Government funds committed and the FY over... We live with what we have despite the fact we can't employ the wigit as intended.