jc100
join:2002-04-10
| reply to BK
Re: hmm
Sounds like we will be seeing OnSat in court. I bet they full well knew what they were doing. Hell, I've read stories where people inflate costs to the government astronomically. For instance, this one company was billing 100,000 dollars for parts like screws and such. It went on for a long time before someone happened to notice it. Basically, our government and its payouts are so inefficiently run, no one noticed fraud. Makes you feel like your tax dollars are well spent, ay? My guess, this company figured they'd tap the cash cow and are upset they got caught. Tough. I say make them give a year free to compensate for the double billing, or send the ceo / owner to jail. |
|
TScheisskopf
World News Trust
join:2005-02-13
Belvidere, NJ
 ·Sprint Broadband D..
| I have read articles that stated that the registration for the procurement process, especially with the Pentagon, is so costly that the companies add those costs to the price of whatever they are selling to the government.
The whole process, from registration to bid to R&D to milestones to completion is so complicated it HAS to be beastly expensive. Just reading the specifications on a bid has to require a very specialized ability. Too bad none of it results in savings and cost-overrun oversight, which I think was the initial objective. |
|
jc100
join:2002-04-10
| A family friend worked for the Pentagon for many years. Now he has retired and does subcontracting. His current project (last I spoke to him), was to find ways to save the government money. It's odd how that works. The government is SO INEFFICIENT it has to literally hire people to find ways to cut cost. Instead of making smart choices beforehand, we're left with hiring people to clean up the mess. It's good for him. They pay well to their subcontractors. Still, our government's waste and irresponsible spending is ridiculous. They spend like money grows on trees. No wonder our dollar is so devalued. I said it before, and I'll say it again. The only difference between Democrats and Republicans are Democrats tax, and Republicans print more money and borrow to pay the debts. IE devalue our dollar. Right now, this country has added 5 trillion to it's deficit. I wonder how much of that was legit spending and how much of that were billion dollar contracts (Haliburton) that went unmet. |
|
marigolds
Gainfully employed, finally
Premium,MVM
join:2002-05-13
Saint Louis, MO
| reply to TScheisskopf
The reasons for the ridiculous specs are the companies who weasel their ways around vague specs.
Unlike a private company, government has to award to the lowest qualified bidder even if they know that bidder will cut corners and deliver an inferior product. So, the only way to avoid the inferior product is to tighten the specs.
As an example, I was recently involved in a RFP writeup for county government. I wrote the spec pretty tightly including a requirement for the proposal to include measurements of accuracy for the product being delivered. One of the major bidders, Company A, then contacted us and said "Our product description states it fits inside these tolerances, our production methods should fit these tolerances, and our customers state from their experience that it fits these tolerances. Actually measuring the tolerances will create unnecessary extra expense that will greatly increase the price of the contract so you should remove the measurement requirements." Without going into what this product is... if it does not meet specs than a series of analysis based on the product will come out wrong (and unless you know the product is not in spec, you do not know the analysis are wrong) and the product must be created at a specific time frame. If you get an inferior product, you have no chance to go back and get a better one since the time frame is gone.
So, I contacted a company that I know does those measurements but was not competing on the bid to find out just how much it costs to make those measurements. Turns out that it is pretty cheap, they even just did it for Company A, but Company A was not happy about it and did not pay them. The answer was pretty obvious... turns out that Company A's product comes nowhere close to the required specs and they count on customers who do not have the expertise to realize the product is off spec or who simply will take an inferior product over no product at all (remember the time frame problem). To top it all off, Company A throws in a licensing clause that makes it a violation of the product license to hire a 3rd party to measure the accuracy of the product!!
And that was the real reason they wanted the supposedly unnecessary expense of accuracy measurements taken out of the RFP.
--
ISCABBS - the oldest and largest BBS on the Internet
telnet://bbs.iscabbs.com
Professional Geographer
Geographic Information Science researcher |
|
TScheisskopf
World News Trust
join:2005-02-13
Belvidere, NJ | Don't doubt you in the least. Seems sociopathic behavior is at epidemic levels these days. |
|
kherr
Premium
join:2000-09-04
Collinsville, IL
clubs: | reply to marigolds
I have a friend that's retired Navy, and he said that in chocolate chip cookies for the service, there has to be at least 26 chocolate chips in each and every cookie, not average. Imagine the quality control that takes place at the bakery. |
|
dcsos
@verizon.net | Not to mention how much sugar our troops end up ingesting
Can you spell dentist?
26 per COOKIE? |
|
jc100
join:2002-04-10 | reply to marigolds
Doubt you can answer, but this wouldn't be power tools would it? Just wondering.... |
|
jc100
join:2002-04-10
1 edit | reply to dcsos
Ay, I guess if your life involves being shot at, you take comfort in small things. However, I hate to see how long it takes to count out the chips. Somehow, I would hope that the guy was joking and pulled a fast one on you. Sadly, I don't know whether or not he actually was. That's pretty bad, isn't it. |
|
Ulmo
join:2005-09-22
San Jose, CA
 ·Comcast
 ·SONIC.NET
| reply to marigolds
said by marigolds  :The reasons for the ridiculous specs are the companies who weasel their ways around vague specs. Unlike a private company, government has to award to the lowest qualified bidder even if they know that bidder will cut corners and deliver an inferior product. They don't have to. They need to rewrite any rules that cause that. |
|
