Contractor Inanity

[J Wolfsberger]

In this last case our widget specs did get tweaked based on funding limitations. I think someone should have got back with us and stated our expectations vs funds didn't jive. BUT, what good would it be to give me something I can't deploy simply because it fit into financial imitations? I thought it was logical to simply reduce the quantities by one or two til the end user-specified item could be had. Too simply ?

...

On paper the vendor fulfilled what the contracting officer required. Only later (the widgets have yet to arrive) did we (vendor and us) determine the widgets don't exactly fit the intended mission. Worse yet, some of the miscellaneous items for this widget are sub-contracts and the vendor claims being stuck in the proverbial corner.

See my comment to Sandbag. Odds are:

1. The vendor didn't know what your mission/operation was - probably wasn't told and didn't ask.
2. Nobody wanted to go back and explain there was a disconnect somewhere in what you asked for/what was technically feasible/what was affordable.
3. I'm inferring that by "sub-contracts" you mean government furnished or specified components. Which means somebody failed in developing the specs (par for the course after point 1), or didn't want to upset someone else by attacking their (in this case) pet rock.

[Stan]

See my comment to Sandbag.

Hey John !
During two large contracts, this is exactly what went wrong. A very big Beltway Bandit with way too much on their plate - my contract ended up with a "logistics specialist" who unceremoniously dumped a line item because the potential vendor I had worked with before (and provided as a reliable source) was not their source. The log spec then ordered some other friggin doohickey that was not only incorrect for the intended application, but way too expensive resulting in me ending up short for my units.

Odds are:

1. The vendor didn't know what your mission/operation was - probably wasn't told and didn't ask.
2. Nobody wanted to go back and explain there was a disconnect somewhere in what you asked for/what was technically feasible/what was affordable.

Precisely ! All of the above

I'm inferring that by "sub-contracts" you mean government furnished or specified components. Which means somebody failed in developing the specs (par for the course after point 1), or didn't want to upset someone else by attacking their (in this case) pet rock.

Basically sub-assemblies that we refer to as "tools" (weapons) that are sub-contracted to a third party (your pet rock theory in action). By ordering a different widget and the sub-assemblies for that wrong widget, I end up with a logistical nightmare trying to store non-standard ammo and spares.

[Entropy]

The problem I've had when I'm at the unit level is that I have no input into the requirements. I'll get equipment that shows up on by doorstep and too often it sits around collecting dust. Most of these are intel systems that assume I'll have plenty of room when deployed, reliable power and good bandwidth. Frankly, if it can't fit or run on a laptop or an external hard drive then chances are it's not coming on the deployment.

[Pete]

A very big Beltway Bandit with way too much on their plate - my contract ended up with a "logistics specialist" who unceremoniously dumped a line item because the potential vendor I had worked with before (and provided as a reliable source) was not their source. The log spec then ordered some other friggin doohickey that was not only incorrect for the intended application, but way too expensive resulting in me ending up short for my units.

And the boll weevil said to the farmer,
"Farmer, I'd like to wish you well"
Farmer said to the boll weevil
"Yeah, I wish that you were in hell

Lookin' for home
Lookin' for a home
Ah, you have a home, all right
You'd have a home, real hot home."