3:46 am, July 14, 2014

FederalNewsRadio.com - Purpose of Comments statement Click to show

Hubbard Radio, LLC encourages site users to express their opinions by posting comments. Our goal is to maintain a civil dialogue in which readers feel comfortable. At times, the comment boards following articles, blog posts and other content can descend to personal attacks. Please do not engage in such behavior here. We encourage your thoughtful comments which:

  • Have a positive and constructive tone
  • Are on topic, clear and to-the-point
  • Are respectful toward others and their opinions

Hubbard Radio, LLC reserves the right to remove comments which do not conform to these criteria.

  • 2
       

  • 'Demand Management'
    PalmerBuyer
    Re "Demand management is a question of what you buy, how much of it do you buy and how you describe the requirements," he said. "That really starts off the acquisition process because what I ask industry to provide and the way I ask them to provide it usually drives the cost of what I get. We are looking at exactly what it is we buy in terms of quantities, where it's bought and how we describe what we buy with the objective to getting some insight into how best we articulate that requirement to get the best deal with industry." ALL good contracting officers already do this. The problem is NOT with contracting, but with the people writing the requisitions. More than once I have gone back to a requisitioner and asked 'do you really need this?' or 'do you understand that by requesting it this way it will cost more.' The concept of buying a cadillac when you really need a volkswagon is not unknown. Again, good contracting officers WHO ARE BACKED BY MANAGEMENT have been doing this for years. There are four parts to a description and sometimes only the requisitioner knows which is more important: price, quality, delivery, and design. RETIRED 1102
    { "Agree":"1","Funny":"1","Insightful":"1","Disagree":"-1","Offensive":"-1","Troll":"-1" }
  • Navy Acquisition Savings - In-source, fixed price contracts, kill post retirement job bribes
    Honest Broker
    Over the last couple of decades, I have observed Navy leadership favoring only prime contractor solutions instead of looking to in house expertise and fixed price contracts. One major problem is the prime's allowance to offer retirement jobs to these senior Navy personnel, civilian and military. A GS-10+ or O-5+ supervising those making the contracting decisions should get a real "cooling off" period of 2-years or more. They are getting a retirement pension, so why can't they wait so they are not tempted by these legal bribes. Another major problem, prime contractors have managed to get the system changed from firm fixed price to cost plus fixed fee per hour and best effort, so they have no motive to get the job done efficiently especially if they can get their political supporters to keep pumping them with funds. The Navy hires impressive Engineers and Scientists coming from top named schools and great credentials, but then they subject them to immediately being an accountant, learning business processes, reviewing proposals, and watching someone else do the work. These young folks have no experience with no hope of getting it, so they are easily tricked into signing off on the specifications not to mention Supervisor and Program Manager pressure too. Why doesn't the Navy use these talented scientific people to design the system first and then outsource the major portions to the best of breed and cost effective companies using firm fixed pricing, mainstream COTS and good testing metrics? I've noticed that software functionality gets re-written every time a new prime gets brought onboard because they need a man-hours generator and programming rates pull good profits. For starters, there are tons of software tools to streamline development and reasonable cost relative to a man-year of programmer fees ($125/hour equals $248K/year), but that means less profit for a prime so they press for a re-write. The Government needs a strong engineering team that only out-sources for tools, but writes their own code for the final product so it doesn't keep getting re-charged for the same functionality. I wonder how many security leaks resulted from company marketers or employees looking for a new job? Industry uses their in-house personnel to design their production system and product, and then they decide on what to outsource but they always keep the key knowledge with their in-house workforce. They do not tolerate personnel getting favors from their contractors and do not mind bringing the issue to litigation. Unfortunately, reality steps in and you realize our political leaders are greedy and addicted to big campaign budgets so the primes will always have the final say on how the Navy runs their acquisition. I wonder how much the Navy would save if they just did these two things; return back to in-house design and development while killing the bribery incentives through retirement job offerings?
    { "Agree":"1","Funny":"1","Insightful":"1","Disagree":"-1","Offensive":"-1","Troll":"-1" }
  • { "Agree":"1","Funny":"1","Insightful":"1","Disagree":"-1","Offensive":"-1","Troll":"-1" }