I hate government bureacracy

[Scooter]

Building stuff for the government is so frustrating. I'm sitting here staring at two drawings of mating parts. They have an Engineering Change Order to change the dimensions on one of the parts, but not the other. The problem is, if we build it to what the right way would be(applying logic), the government would reject the part because it wasn't built to print when they start looking at the inspection reports and the numbers don't match the print. So we're going to end up building the part exactly to print even though the print is wrong. When the government gets the part, they will see that the part is made wrong and reject the part. But then our rebuttal is we built it to print and we will show that we built exactly what they asked for. So they have to accept it and pay us for the parts. Now if we asked the government agency for clarification, that can take months to years and we'll end up missing the delivery date and get penalized for it both on this contract and on awarding future contracts.

It is just so hard to accept the fact that we have to purposely do something that is wrong. The government is literally throwing away about $22,000 on this contract.

[Miranda]

I suspect you have been here before.

any chance you can do one of those run-around attempts?

I think if you asked for _both_ drawings of the engineering change order

you _might_ get a quick response ?

it is frustrating. I understand.

[standles]

Don't know what/who you are working for but here is my 2cents.

I am a program manager/engineer for the Air Force in weapons development. With the onset of Aquisition reform subcontracotrs have alot of leeway on issues like this. Frankly I am surprised that the gov is issuing change orders like that. The current mood is to lay the problem out and let the contractor provide the solution.

You are correct in that you must contractually build to the order. However, you can contact the PM and explain the situation and that you wanted to make sure before you proceeded. Bring it to light by pointing out that you wanted to make sure the program did not end up wasting money/time that could be spent to obtain more units down the road. PM's are under a big gun to bring projects in without alot of this stuff.

Problem is I do not know how your contract is written or even if your working directly with the Gov rep. If you are a sub to a larger contractor the gov PM's do not get involved.

The type of contract makes a difference as well. If it if firm fixed price then they would have to go the contracting person that holds the warrant to "plus up" the contract to cover $$ mistakes. This is iffy due to what funds are programed as and the color of the money. This usually means they steal from another program to pay that one or reduce the units purchased.

I would point it out with the cost savings and schedule speedups. Some contracts cost share on stuff like this.

In any event... IF you make it exactly to the blessed CO and they reject it they still have to pay you for it. It was no fault of your own that you were told to manufacture the wrong part.

Steven

[Scooter]

Most of our contracts are through various Air Force agencies building parts for older aircrafts. We haven't had much luck in terms of getting things done on time if we sit and wait for the PCO to get the information we need. It normally takes at least 3 months before we hear back from the engineering department. Seems like the simpler the request, the longer it takes. It hurts our delivery ratings if we don't make the deadline. So it ends up being a losing battle for us.

[Miranda]

yeah

I hurts either way you pick.

are both paths exclusive?

That is can you both make the parts as specified AND

ask them for clarification?

I guess this comes down to will you get paid to make the parts

if you formally ask for clarification?

miranda

[Genghis]

I read a book by a Soviet general. He said after WW II they took a crashed B-29 and decided to create an exact copy, reverse-engineered. One of the engineers found a rivet hole on the plane with no apparent purpose. They wrote a detailed, thorough report showing that the rivet hole was in all likelihood just a mistake made during manufacturing, and recommending that they omit it from their aircraft. The orders came back down, "We said we wanted an EXACT copy." So every one of those planes had the extra rivet hole.

Another story he told was about an exercise the Army put on for a bunch of bigwigs. The idea was to cross a river with amphibious tanks and attack the other side. They found during the rehearsals that the tanks couldn't steer straight and kept running into each other. Their answer was to PAVE THE BOTTOM OF THE RIVER. The exercise went off without a hitch, and the attack was smooth and precise.

[Patrick Sweeney]

The one I heard was the Army after WWII wanted to build up the Japanese economy. So whenever possible, they'd buy stuff in Japan. The let a contract to buy replacement mud paddle/tracks for tracked vehicles, and provided a worn one as a sample.

What they got were a bunch of brand-new tracks manufactured to the same dimensions and contours as the worn ones.

Just learning to be clear on blueprints and contracts is an art itself.

but we risk digressign in a Hate thread, which prohibits debate. (Mea culpa.)

[standles]

Scooter:

I hear ya and it hurting your delivery ratings. For others his problem is if he makes them to print but they are "wrong"... The gov will reject the part. Not because it was mismade but that they (gov) screwed up and the part was unuseable. Since the part was rejected scooter gets dinged because the right part was not "delivered". I have seen this before.

Yeah stupid I know but you "edumacated beauracracy at work"

You are right and are caught in a catch22. I have only been in the gov since 2002 but the idiocy and such drives me crazy on a daily basis. COMMON SENSE is dead it seems. Processes and paperwork are created to supply jobs. When one "process" is fixed they just create another one to make sure the folks don't loose jobs. but I digress....

Unfortunately the only outlet is to ask for a contract mod or when the contract is rebid make sure that delivery of parts that are technically correct but not suitable are not counted in the delivery rating. I would even go braoder and have a clause that if a part is rejected and the cause can be traced to the Gov then the contractor is not held reliabel and all payments should be made. Then when you deliver on the DD250 make sure it documents the reason it will "not work" (Hint Hint) If you want specific wording for such a clause let me know. Is this rating a basis for bonuses or profit sharing?

Tough spot.

Steven

Edited May 13, 2007 by standles

[Ted Murphy]

Where I work my partner has not come to accept the bureaucracy for what it is and keeps trying to change it. It would be funny if I did not keep being dragged into his mess.

[Scooter]

It doesn't hurt our delivery ratings if we build it to the drawing and submit it. We can prove we built it to print. If we sit around waiting for the government to come back and tell us what the correct part should be, we would miss the deadline. Missing the delivery hurts your ratings which lowers you chances of getting other contracts. No contracts = no job.

There are no bonuses or profit sharing here. Just sheer utter fustration of knowing that the government is staffed by a bunch of idiots throwing money away.