tl:dr, Is it unprofessional if you told a contractor in an email that a specification they were giving you was "a fantasy not connected to reality" and provided a ton of information to support the assertion?

I work for the DoD and we are in the bizarro situation where a contractor that does work for us is simultaneously working with us and in competition with us...at least, this is the reality to everyone except certain people in the decision making chain. We both develop test software for troubleshooting and identifying failures in hydraulic components on aircraft using a rather sophisticated automated test bench. The DoD contracted the creation of this test bench through the same contractor doing test program sets. The original idea for this effort was the contractor would do all the development work on both test bench and test software for ~30 different components and the DoD would have a small team providing oversight in the development stage and then any support needed locally once the work was delivered.

At some point after countless delays from the contractor, first on the delivery of the test bench, then on delivery of the first test program sets, engineers in the DoD decided they could do the same type of test program development the contractor was doing...for less money and with less delays. Our first test program set development proved we could do it and in the process of going through that effort we started finding a slew of problems on the test bench that the contractor was either too dumb to realize were problems or willfully hid them from us. To cut out a lot of the story, we ended up surpassing the contractor in both the fixing of the test bench they spec'd and in setting the standard for test program set development and have unofficially assumed the leadership role in the joint effort. The contractor has been passive aggressively disgruntled about this for awhile.

Today, we both are still working on test program sets but more importantly there are still some fairly serious problems with the test bench that need addressing for the long term success of the project. At my local site we stopped a couple years ago trying to get the same contractor that delivered a POS to help us try to fix the POS. For a large majority of that time I'm fairly certain the contractor has been in the ear of a decision maker sitting above us at a different site about how they have been cut out of the loop...which is true...but I'm fairly certain they've been denigrating our efforts and doing a lot of blaming for overall project delays on the efforts we've undertaken to fix their crap. My direct supervisor hasn't done a great job of standing up for what we've done in the face of this ongoing effort to sow seeds of doubt in the decision maker about our work because to do so would have the appearance of not being a team player in the eyes of the decision maker. The decision maker is too disconnected from the boots on the ground reality to even make sense of all the information, he just sees two "suppliers" of test program sets and thinks that we are both capable of fixing the remaining test bench problems (because contractor is constantly in his ear telling him so) and proclaims that we should work together towards the common goal.

So...that was a lot of backstory to get to this point, sorry.

Over the past 18 months I've tried to engage the contractor in one problem in particular we have. In a nutshell, someone either at the contractor or a sub-contractor they used proclaimed that an instrument they included in the test bench has better performance specifications than even the maker of the instrument. I've long questioned this and generated my own measurements showing the spec that was given by the contractor made no sense and was in fact closer to what the OEM was spec'ing. This spec has been used by the DoD in resource planning and has caused and will cause some major delays in our efforts as well as additional costs as we have to redo work that was done previously. The decision maker is again asking why the contractor can't work with us to fix this problem. So...I sent in a fairly detailed email, with the contractor on CC, showing all the conflicting information they had given us over the past 18 months and strongly questioned their basic understanding of the problem and how to fix it. All the information available points to the number they are quoting for the specification is total shit and I described this in the email as "a fantasy with no basis in reality". I didn't call anyone an idiot like I really wanted, I didn't use profanity. If anything, the email was laced with a little "arrogance" to it but the work we do goes into aircraft that are carrying soldiers into battle and I have no desire for fucking around with really important shit that these asshat contractors keep trying to blow off.

My direct line supervisor, the GS-14 that doesn't want to rock any boat, sends me an email and says the tone of the email was unprofessional and used the "fantasy not connected to reality" comment as an example of that. Really, tdub? What say ye (if you made it this far, pat yourself on the back)? This same supervisor, after previous 'heated' discussions has similarly pointed out the "tone of the meeting was wrong". Wtf? People are getting shot at and going into dangerous situations and we are going to worry about shit like this?

3/2/2015 10:32:48 PM

you'll really need to post the emails so we can read them to fully disseminate all of this - that's the best plan forward

3/2/2015 10:42:50 PM

Your GS-14 probably understands the tone and the reason for it, but has decided it's better to reel you back than to condone what is probably, to be fair, a harsh tone no matter the relationship. I would say that particular phrase is borderline unprofessional, only in that it's pretty condescending.

If the supervisor thought it was a battle worth fighting, they probably wouldn't have said anything to you. Office politics and saving face.

I'd suck it up and play it off as temporary aggravation with a historically difficult contractor, but concede error if you need to. Ultimately you don't want comments like that distracting from the real work that you importantly outline as necessary to carry soldiers into battle safely.

3/2/2015 10:52:57 PM

as a GS-12 that has to put up with nonsense from DoD contractors on a daily basis, I've had plenty of emails where I just want to reply "that's stupid and so are you." professional decorum prevents that; what you said was on the line, and I can see where it comes across as toned down, but you have to be able to insult people while still using a golden tongue. I probably would have said "these figures have no representative basis in fact" instead of calling it a fantasy outright; same meaning, but worded more "professionally"

3/3/2015 7:51:05 AM

Quote :

"Is it unprofessional if you told a contractor in an email that a specification they were giving you was "a fantasy not connected to reality""

Yup. You could have been more professional there. "I have strong concerns that the specification you're providing is obtainable" or some such nonsense, vs something someone with a name like CuntPunter whould say while proving someone wrong on the internet.

[Edited on March 3, 2015 at 9:47 AM. Reason : ^]

3/3/2015 9:46:38 AM

that phrase was unprofessional, and if all your manager did was reply directly to you to give you a heads up that it was unprofessional then it sounds like he handled it correctly.

3/3/2015 9:55:17 AM

Guy named "CuntPunter" is worried about professionalism in a work email.

3/3/2015 11:15:44 AM

Could you have used different words and gotten the same point across without triggering an email from your boss? Absolutely.

I wouldn't go so far as to call it unprofessional though.

'Unprofessional' is something that gets you a warning from HR and goes in your file. This is petty drama.

3/3/2015 12:08:30 PM

If you have to question it, tone it down, then tone it down again. You aren't ever going to get in trouble with HR for being too polite.

Basically, you called the contractor an idiot.

3/3/2015 12:09:58 PM

Everyone knows that when you want to call a contractor an idiot, you tell it to your boss in casual conversation behind their back. Definitely not in an email.

3/3/2015 12:32:16 PM

Sounds like my emails. I think it's unprofessional to not call out stupid when you see it.

3/3/2015 12:45:06 PM

Quote :

"I think it's unprofessional to not call out stupid when you see it."

Pretty much this.

I'd rather speak up 1000 times about stupid decisions mid-project, than have the whole thing come up short/fail and then have to answer why objections or points-of-concern weren't raised during the project. My manager can slap my hand all he/she wants for the tone of my emails if it saves my group headache/time/energy/money down the road. That's a price I'm willing to pay.

3/3/2015 1:05:46 PM

You can "call out stupid" in a professional way.

For instance: "I understand the specifications you are describing, but it is not possible to implement them in this project. It is imperative that we go in a different direction in order to save valuable time and money. If you would like me to explain again why those specifications cannot work, I am happy to do so, but I cannot incorporate them into x project."

3/3/2015 1:24:51 PM

My boss thanks me for my emails. I'LL STICK WIT IT.

3/3/2015 1:29:09 PM

I guess telling it like it is has no place in government contracting.

3/3/2015 8:01:10 PM

i agree with GS-14

and, if you take out the comment in question, it remains professional, yet he has still "called out stupid" with the remainder of the email and the arguments he presents.

3/3/2015 8:22:14 PM

It's a long boring email so I don't expect you guys to internalize all of it. Most of you seem to be treating this email as the only communication to the contractor about this topic. Certainly, if this is the first real time the subject had been broached with them I wouldn't have put things in such stark terms. We've had probably 5 informal discussions, several formal discussions, several emails of which data was given to the contractor from our test benches, and even had the contractor on-site and spent an hour or so demonstrating the methods used to generate the data that had been previously sent to them. This spanned over an 18 month period. They had been asked both informally at first and formally to work this topic and help us understand where this "fantasy" number was coming from and somehow what seemed so clear to us from a "problem statement" just wasn't getting them to produce any meaningful engineering work. And actually, I stopped on my end trying.

When the decision makers boss (an SES level individual) started wanting to know why schedules were still slipping we, the DoD, decided to be more direct during a joint "summit" telecon in asking them what it would take to get them to own this topic and just fix it. The reply was more of the "you accepted this from us in the past" (implying it must have been correct if we accepted it), and "you've touched the machine in ways that probably broke the system" and "this always worked for us" (but they never have data to back it up) and a whole host of DoD blaming instead of just stating "oh yeah, we'll show you where the specification came from". Look, part of the reason for the direct email was because I know without a doubt that they fucked up and I've called them to the mat on it and I'm trying to force them to publicly acknowledge their mistake so the decision maker might start to get a bit of a clue.

Sure, some of you will say "maintain professionalism" (which none of you seem to readily define, actually. Not like I used profanity or pejorative on these guys) regardless of the situation. I wonder how many of you have actually had to answer to someone that reports to the Under Secretary of Defense who likely gives nary two shits that the "tone" of an email in this situation might be sorta maybe a bit on the rough side.

Quote :

"I understand the specifications you are describing, but it is not possible to implement them in this project. It is imperative that we go in a different direction in order to save valuable time and money. If you would like me to explain again why those specifications cannot work, I am happy to do so, but I cannot incorporate them into x project."

Oh no doubt, that "tone" was tried over and over again to epic failure.

[Edited on March 3, 2015 at 8:27 PM. Reason : .]

3/3/2015 8:25:24 PM

3/3/2015 8:29:30 PM

Quote :

" The reply was more of the "you accepted this from us in the past" (implying it must have been correct if we accepted it), and "you've touched the machine in ways that probably broke the system" "

hahaha old boy is making you his bitch

3/3/2015 8:40:11 PM

Sorry, meant to say Under Secretary of <Insert Service I work For Here>.

Btw, this contractor is one of the big 2.

3/3/2015 9:11:20 PM

i think this falls into the "if you have to ask" category.

3/4/2015 12:19:53 AM

^^^ no joke. They've got you by the balls and they know it. If someone with authority, and the ability to make someone suffer consequences, doesn't step in they're just going to keep dicking you around.

3/4/2015 7:33:43 AM

OP how often do you use the phrases: "won't somebody think of the children" and "this time, it's personal" ?

3/4/2015 7:47:47 AM

Quote :

"It's a long boring email so I don't expect you guys to internalize all of it. Most of you seem to be treating this email as the only communication to the contractor about this topic. Certainly, if this is the first real time the subject had been broached with them I wouldn't have put things in such stark terms. We've had probably 5 informal discussions, several formal discussions, several emails of which data was given to the contractor from our test benches, and even had the contractor on-site and spent an hour or so demonstrating the methods used to generate the data that had been previously sent to them. This spanned over an 18 month period. They had been asked both informally at first and formally to work this topic and help us understand where this "fantasy" number was coming from and somehow what seemed so clear to us from a "problem statement" just wasn't getting them to produce any meaningful engineering work. And actually, I stopped on my end trying. When the decision makers boss (an SES level individual) started wanting to know why schedules were still slipping we, the DoD, decided to be more direct during a joint "summit" telecon in asking them what it would take to get them to own this topic and just fix it. The reply was more of the "you accepted this from us in the past" (implying it must have been correct if we accepted it), and "you've touched the machine in ways that probably broke the system" and "this always worked for us" (but they never have data to back it up) and a whole host of DoD blaming instead of just stating "oh yeah, we'll show you where the specification came from". Look, part of the reason for the direct email was because I know without a doubt that they fucked up and I've called them to the mat on it and I'm trying to force them to publicly acknowledge their mistake so the decision maker might start to get a bit of a clue. Sure, some of you will say "maintain professionalism" (which none of you seem to readily define, actually. Not like I used profanity or pejorative on these guys) regardless of the situation. I wonder how many of you have actually had to answer to someone that reports to the Under Secretary of Defense who likely gives nary two shits that the "tone" of an email in this situation might be sorta maybe a bit on the rough side."

Seems like a lot of words to justify an incredibly unprofessional phrase, and probably entire email, on your part.

3/4/2015 9:06:14 AM

CuntPunter seems like someone who uses "'twas" and "M'lady" in regular conversation

3/4/2015 9:08:39 AM

I could easily see with a recalcitrant contractor, reaching a point where you have to be that blunt. But just because you reached that point doesn't mean the statement wasn't unprofessional, and just because a statement was unprofessional, that doesn't mean it's wrong to do.

Sometimes people hide behind professionalism and you have to yank them out to get something done.

In this situation, i'd offer a token apology the next communication but stand my ground. Maybe something like "sorry guys for the tone of the last email, it had been a long day, i'm sure you guys can relate. But we need to get a resolution for this part spec, and for good data-driven decision practices, the spec you're quoting can't be validated...".

[Edited on March 4, 2015 at 3:49 PM. Reason : ]

3/4/2015 3:48:45 PM

Yep, unprofessional. Happens to the best of us though. Holding your tongue (and not hitting send on emails right away) is probably the single biggest improvement I've made professionally over the past decade.

3/4/2015 6:56:20 PM

yes, it seems pretty unprofessional to me. if somebody used a phrase like that in an e-mail to me, I would dislike them for the rest of our relationship. there's just no cause to be flagrantly rude.

Quote :

" If you have to question it, tone it down, then tone it down again."

3/4/2015 7:55:22 PM

Here is the email with some some info redacted. <Contractor A> is one of the big defense contractors. The contract for the test bench was from DoD -> <Contractor A> and <Contractor A> subbed out nearly 100% of the initial development to <Subcon A>.


<Contractor A>,

I don't have much confidence at this point that you guys understand metrology and measurement uncertainty concepts, which is at the root of any calibration issues we may be having, including with the Temposonic. Layered on top of this issue is new information about the custom matching of a <Subcon A interface board> with a Temposonic that was either forgotten during this entire development effort by <Contractor A> and <Subcon A>, or negligently withheld. Neither of these scenarios are helpful to fostering a working relationship built on mutual trust.

And because I'm not just trying to cast stones in this email and simply want the stuff to work as it was intended I'm going to attach a slew of information that is my foundation for questioning your ability to help effect the outcome on this topic. There seems to be a real fundamental misunderstanding of what skills and knowledge is needed for what troubles us that a simple problem statement isn't going to fix.

I attached servicereport.pdf where we sent a failed <Subcon A interface board>in to <Subcon A> for evaluation. Notice that in that report there is no mention of matching a <Subcon A interface board> to a Temposonic probe. They were quite happy to and did sell us a new board by itself, again, without saying anything about matching the new board to a probe.

I attached Temposonic Uncertainty.xlsx which shouldn't be new information. This is the OEM spec numbers that we've talked back and forth about regarding probe accuracy. I included 150mm to match info that <Subcon A> has sent (see next paragraph), 20" to match a number listed for test fixture stroke in some of our tech data, and 56" length to match the stroke length of the entire probe. I left out hysteresis as it is even more negligible from an uncertainty perspective than repeatability.

I attached information that <Subcon A>sent to us where we were inquiring about the Temposonic accuracy. They sent repeatability data which is only a portion of the uncertainty. Regardless, this data is almost useless as it appears they are using a servo system to position the sensor for measurement and without knowing how accurate the servo can position then it's impossible to know which is the source of error, the servo or the probe. You'd want to demonstrate to a NIST standard which one is your reference for measuring the other. In particular, they show three trials of positioning at 0, 50, 100, and 150mm and already on the third trial the repeatability is 2.6x worse than OEM Temposonic spec for a 150mm stroke probe. We received this data after a meeting we had with them where <Subcon A Rep> kept interchanging instrument resolution and instrument accuracy, sometimes in the same sentence. This is also a mistake <Contractor A> has made on occasion in discussion about topics of this nature. If we are going to have a discussion on measurement uncertainty and calibration then these basic concepts have to be understood before we are even speaking the same language. This is a pretty good place to start to remedy this misunderstanding http://www.ni.com/white-paper/4439/en/

I attached a spec sheet for the <Subcon A interface board> from <Subcon A>. I assume you guys already had this. Again, no mention of matching board to probe. Also note <Subcon A> is quoting < ±0.015% F.S*** for non-linearity and ±0.0015% F.S*** for repeatability. These are .005% and .0005% worse than the Temposonic spec sheet number but I would expect that the system integrator won't always get or commit to full instrument accuracy so this actually makes sense.

I attached the email I sent from Oct 2013 where even the OEM is telling us a 56" linearity corrected probe can only be spec'd at ±0.05mm (1.97 thou). If you look at the SLF chart for our one probe in particular that was quite a bit better than their stated spec you can see that the error is random, not some kind of slope/gain issue which makes me think over a longer term their probes will have temperature or other effects causing the the error to be worse. They probably know more than <Subcon A> about their own parts so when they tell us to not expect more than ±0.05mm out of any 56" LCO probe, I tend to want to believe them.

<Subcon B> is using glass scale encoders on their bench, btw.

After knowing all this and dealing with all this I've certainly become rather convinced that the stated 0.001" number that appears on drawings and cal manuals delivered with this test bench was a fantasy with no basis in reality. The number makes so little sense that I'd think it were a mistake if it only showed up in one place. I'm happy to be wrong on this point and would gladly eat humble pie because this means our work is done. Until then, this isn't a kosher situation and there needs to be some sense made of all this conflicting information long before shipping the test fixture up there for carte blanche experimentation. If the fundamentals are wrong, all your experimentation will prove is what we already seem to know, that the instrument isn't good enough and someone still owes the DoD an explanation on how the 0.001" number was so horribly wrong.

Best regards,

3/4/2015 9:11:23 PM

Christ, let it go already. You could have definitely worded it more politely/professionally.

3/4/2015 9:45:04 PM

Someone asked above to see the email and for fucks sake you don't have anything to do with your shitty Oakland life than to reply to this dreck of a thread? Did they install the jumper nets yet?

3/4/2015 9:58:11 PM

btw, it's also worth remarking, this

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/02/26/email-successful-people_n_4854701.html

is totally a thing. I'm all about some short e-mails.

3/4/2015 10:15:04 PM

That email is pretty bad... You come off as angry and a little ranty, and you project an attitude of being difficult to work with.

I thought from your initial post you had 1 or 2 bad statements, but the aggressive tone is laced throughout. That strategy might work a few times, but you're going to get yourself branded as an asshole, and you're going to "train" people to tiptoe around you and be on eggshells, rather than be honest and open, wanting to work with you. You risk becoming blacklisted, which makes you less effective, which puts your job at risk. And considering your boss called you out, you're on the radar already.

Definitely too prosaic too. You're goal obestensibly is that you're trying to point out technical flaws, but you seem to be more concerned with browbeating and shaming the contractors.

Your boss is probably in damage control mode, and if you knew what was good for you, you would be too.

3/5/2015 12:37:39 AM

Quote :

"Guy named "CuntPunter" is worried about professionalism in a work email. "

Some advice

1. Don't send emails. Do not argue in emails. Email is for forwarding links and jokes. Email will never ever cause someone to see the light and create a revelation. It's like arguing on a message board
2. You should have gotten managers and program managers above you to come with you to bring this up with the decision maker
3. Quit your job. Incompetent contractors, gov decision makers, delays, ineptitude, and small politics are the norm in DoD. Is writing that email and worrying about it really what you want to do?


[Edited on March 5, 2015 at 12:48 AM. Reason : .]

3/5/2015 12:45:43 AM

At least now we know this dude's professional persona matches his internet persona. That's admirable, IMO.

3/5/2015 1:07:21 AM

Probably unrelated: message_topic.aspx?topic=641040

3/5/2015 5:04:25 AM

Ahhh the classic "I have a buddy"...

Quote :

"I have a buddy that works in the Government"

3/5/2015 9:13:25 AM

Your tone was very very nasty and you accused the contractor of negligence and incompetence. You are just a little pee-on and I don't give a shit what SES you report to, you need to let that level of accusatory statements come from him or another flag officer. My guess is you'll never make it above whatever gs<11 you are now.

[Edited on March 5, 2015 at 10:09 AM. Reason : pointless]

3/5/2015 10:07:56 AM

^ My guess is he's probably at least GS-12, with a reasonable chance of being a GS-13.

3/5/2015 10:13:12 AM

probably true, I guess the govt does just keep bumping everyone up to 13.

3/5/2015 10:19:58 AM

emails like that encourage a contractor to fuck with you for the rest of your career.

3/5/2015 10:52:59 AM

Quote :

"You are just a little pee-on and I don't give a shit what SES you report to,"

sorry I made it sound like you report to an SES

3/5/2015 12:12:11 PM

peon

3/5/2015 12:16:06 PM

no, I meant he is literately peed upon.

3/5/2015 12:22:38 PM

OP, people are flaming you for flaming someone. How ironic.



[Edited on March 5, 2015 at 12:40 PM. Reason : wrong one]

3/5/2015 12:37:12 PM

Quote :

"Someone asked above to see the email and for fucks sake you don't have anything to do with your shitty Oakland life than to reply to this dreck of a thread? Did they install the jumper nets yet?"

You've got a real bad persecution complex going on here. Read the other comments in the thread. You fail at basic interaction and communication when it comes to email. Like others have pointed out, long emails are a terrible, terrible idea. Take your lumps and move on. It's really not that hard to admit that you were wrong and to take it as an opportunity to learn.

3/5/2015 12:37:21 PM

Quote :

"You've got a real bad persecution complex going on here."

lol you have no freaking idea.

3/5/2015 3:50:36 PM

we should let him be more of a cunt here so he will stop being such a cunt at work

3/5/2015 4:29:22 PM

I'm fairly convinced some of you are pushovers and wouldn't know real conflict if you saw it. You all seem to forget that we the taxpayer are paying this corporation for work and we aren't getting what we are paying for AND putting soldiers lives at risk. This shit is serious is business. FWIW, this email has spurned more actual movement on rectifying this situation than anything else done up to now.

Quote :

"Don't send emails. Do not argue in emails. Email is for forwarding links and jokes. Email will never ever cause someone to see the light and create a revelation. It's like arguing on a message board"

Probably the dumbest advice in the entire thread.

Quote :

"You should have gotten managers and program managers above you to come with you to bring this up with the decision maker"

Decision maker sits 500 miles away and his boss sits at yet a third site. Naturally, his boss is even more unaware of what goes into making the omelete.

Quote :

"Probably unrelated"

While this may or may not be Lockheed, that thread is not this topic.

Quote :

"Your tone was very very nasty and you accused the contractor of negligence and incompetence."

Well, that and I supported the accusations with a slew of information that they can easily refute if I am wrong.

Quote :

"emails like that encourage a contractor to fuck with you for the rest of your career."

Unlikely. The only reason these assholes have any sort of wiggle room is cause the DoD did a poor job of making sure we got what we wanted. We trusted the contractor and found out after the fact that was a horrible terrible mistake.

Quote :

"you need to let that level of accusatory statements come from him or another flag officer"

Ok, so this is what I was waiting for. So...professionalism is less about basic courtesy (you know, that same stuff that has turned our country soft) and actually more about knowing your place in the pecking order? So, if you get to a high enough level then you have latitude to be a dick?

Quote :

" And considering your boss called you out, you're on the radar already. "

So far, this style of having to resort to matter of fact bluntness, has done nothing to limit my ability to move up at 2 different employers now. It seems like the actual work product I put out and the effect I have on the bottom line covers up the occasional email sin. I doubt I'd have it any other way.

3/5/2015 6:15:02 PM

Quote :

"So...professionalism is less about basic courtesy (you know, that same stuff that has turned our country soft) and actually more about knowing your place in the pecking order? So, if you get to a high enough level then you have latitude to be a dick?"

No, I say that cause he would know how to handle the situation properly. You are not the COTR or KO. It's proper for you to have discussions at the working level to figure out the problem, but you went above you rank to accuse them of lying/incompetence etc. The govt does not simply accuse a contractor of fraud, that's a major issue. You do everything you can at your level, and if you are not satisfied then you address it with your superiors.

Besides you originally stated that you sent an email to the decision maker at his request,

Quote :

" The decision maker is again asking why the contractor can't work with us to fix this problem. So...I sent in a fairly detailed email, with the contractor on CC, showing all the conflicting information "

but then you clearly addressed this directly to the contractor in your email.

Quote :

"<Contractor A>, I don't have much confidence at this point that you guys understand metrology and measurement uncertainty concepts "

now if you had sent this to the decision maker WITH NO CC, then you'd be fine. Except for the fact you sent a very long winded email with too many personal attacks and confusing details. It's no wonder your decision maker doesn't know what's going on, you have no idea how to write an email to a flag officer.

Since you say the decision maker asked, you should have written the email with just the facts (at a top level), clear, concise, and recommend a course of action. He will burden the contractor he agrees.

3/5/2015 7:07:08 PM