Contractor Inanity

[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.

[Stan]

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.

Sandbag, This has been an issue for more than a decade with the USG Buyer and various vendors. There have indeed been some excellent examples of vendors willing to make things work and there have been too many examples of "lowest bidder to a USG contract". In all fairness though, most of the confusion has been a direct result of the contracting officer lacking background in contracting the wigit.

You identified a real problem. When the wigit in question is anything but the right item or service, and I as the end user indicate said, there's little left to do but modify the contract (not me physically). After all, it's wrong and people's lives are at stake. Not just a wrong sized bolt or nut, but a really big deal (useless too).

There are program managers involved and these wigits over the years are not off the shelf items (they take months to years to order and receive.. exactly why I'm PO'd).

I think contracting officers should possess more than just some contract training with our vendors and end users. It's that, or let the end user dictate what is needed directly. Is 5 meters or 26 kilos a big deal? Depends largely on what end of the stick you're on !

[sandbag]

Meh, I dunno: I've done all three points of the triangle (KO, PM, user), and I find the tripod to be one unstable structure. Suckitude of just one leg results in pain. For what it's worth, Army people that do this stuff all come from other branches; I think the Air Force is the only service where you can go right into some kind of acquisition field straight out of Basic Training/OBC. Army type officers have all at least commanded companies, and some were 3s/XOs prior to changing fields. NCOs are all reclasses from something else, as well.

See, what I'd be interested in finding out is what the final spec for your widget looked like in the contract. Let's say your requirement as the user was for the widget to weigh, say, no more than ten pounds, be no more than (note I use "no more than" rather than "MUST be 8.123 pounds like the one we say at the trade show that we liked") a foot tall and a foot wide. You know what room you have to work with, and how much you can carry. You know what you want it to do, and that what you want it to do is in the realm of the possible.

What I'm guessing is that somewhere along the way, your requirement as the user got tweaked by the TRADOC people (assuming you are Army), and extra got added to the requirement, which drove size or weight up. If that's not the case, and the contract for the widget clearly sets thresholds in the design for the production version, then there's a problem that the Government has every right to claim remedy for. The Government doesn't just take it in the shorts if what was asked for isn't what was delivered; I don't know who's telling you that, but they're wrong on that count.

So anyway, the $1M question is: "what was the contractually-explicit specification vice what was delivered"? I know this doesn't help your situation at all (and I really don't know if we carry the same widgets), but it bears asking. If the lowest bidder isn't going to deliver the right item, the contract doesn't get awarded to them. This happens far more often than the reverse, but obviously doesn't sell newspapers were it to be published.

Sandbag, This has been an issue for more than a decade with the USG Buyer and various vendors. There have indeed been some excellent examples of vendors willing to make things work and there have been too many examples of "lowest bidder to a USG contract". In all fairness though, most of the confusion has been a direct result of the contracting officer lacking background in contracting the wigit.

You identified a real problem. When the wigit in question is anything but the right item or service, and I as the end user indicate said, there's little left to do but modify the contract (not me physically). After all, it's wrong and people's lives are at stake. Not just a wrong sized bolt or nut, but a really big deal (useless too).

There are program managers involved and these wigits over the years are not off the shelf items (they take months to years to order and receive.. exactly why I'm PO'd).

I think contracting officers should possess more than just some contract training with our vendors and end users. It's that, or let the end user dictate what is needed directly. Is 5 meters or 26 kilos a big deal? Depends largely on what end of the stick you're on !

[J Wolfsberger]

... 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?

It's usually somebody at the program management level (government or contractor) who's decided that they want all information to funnel through them for insecurity/political/career reasons. (FWIW, if you are letting your users talk to the developer/vendor, and as you've described, you're doing things the right way.)