Government contractors are such a perversion of capitalism

SpicyMcVoodoo · 10-17-2006, 12:51 AM

Two things prompted me to mention this:

1) Army shuns system to combat RPGs - Lisa Myers & the NBC Investigative Unit - MSNBC.com

An Israeli company has developed a system which shields vehicles from RPG rounds. However, the defense department has contracted with Raytheon to build a similar system from scratch. Now why not just use the Israeli system instead since it's available now and they've already done all the R&D? Or at minimum, why not use the Israeli system in the period during which Raytheon is building our own system?

It seems the Defense Dept is being pressured into avoiding the Israeli system entirely because it threatens Raytheon's contract.

2) IRAQ FOR SALE: The War Profiteers

I saw this documentary, which noted how Haliburton is raping the US tax payer. Specifically, it charged two things which I found outrageous: They overbilled the US governmetn by over 1 billion dollars, and they were granted a cost plus profit deal with the US. The result of the cost plus profit contract was Haliburton would send empty trucks up and down roads, risking lives, to increase their profit...or if a truck had a flat tire, they'd destroy it and order another.

I don't know how true these alligations are, but they make perfect sense, considering there's absolutely nothing competitive about how the US went about selecting Halliburton to do its work, and therefore there's no reason for Halliburton to be efficient.

So this brings up a question...if government contractors aren't really efficient, then why don't you just have the government doing it in the first place? At least with an inefficient government, the inefficiency is not motivated by profit and bilking as much from the tax payer as possible. And if its the government itself wasting money, then it has to answer to the tax payers. Whom does Halliburton answer to? The politicans who gave them the sweetheart deals in the first place? The vice President ex CEO of the company? Something tells me there isn't a whole lot of accountability here.

Isn't the whole point of using contractors that they're subject to free market forces, and therefore, supposedly, they do a better job? Is this really true when contracts are formed and won not as a result of competition, but from political connections?

WickedLou9 · 10-17-2006, 09:03 AM

yeah it's a cluster fuck over there.
My dad could talk for hours about how messed up it it. He works for the Shaw group, one of the contracters that was sent down to LA after hurricane Katrina. there was alot of waste and poor communication. Like they would need a generator to run a pump. So they would tell 3 people to find the generator. Then they would find a generator near by but not tell the 3 people they told. So one of the three people is actually able to find a generator and have it trucked in.. so they end up paying for two generators. ... two generators which cost like 150 grand a piece mind you. stuff like that.

7960 · 10-17-2006, 11:10 AM

Originally Posted by SpicyMcVoodoo

Two things prompted me to mention this:

1) Army shuns system to combat RPGs - Lisa Myers & the NBC Investigative Unit - MSNBC.com

An Israeli company has developed a system which shields vehicles from RPG rounds. However, the defense department has contracted with Raytheon to build a similar system from scratch. Now why not just use the Israeli system instead since it's available now and they've already done all the R&D? Or at minimum, why not use the Israeli system in the period during which Raytheon is building our own system?

It seems the Defense Dept is being pressured into avoiding the Israeli system entirely because it threatens Raytheon's contract.

So contracts mean nothing? If there's a contract with raytheon then raytheon deserves either (a) the work, which includes profits from the project, or (b) money to buy out the contract, because there's usually a buy-out clause that says the govt can stop the project by paying some percentage on the dollar.

Although I do agree, if the israeli system is better and can be integrated then it should be deployed until ours is ready, *OR* raytheon's contract should be bought out and the israeli system should be deployed permanently.

2) IRAQ FOR SALE: The War Profiteers

... there's absolutely nothing competitive about how the US went about selecting Halliburton to do its work, and therefore there's no reason for Halliburton to be efficient.

...Whom does Halliburton answer to?

Questions like this are the reason why the govt has overhauled how it supplies the troops. Currently there is a contract for one company to do it all. By 2009 (I believe) there will be many smaller companies all bidding and competing for the work....obviously, in hopes that they'll be more competitive with pricing.

Is this really true when contracts are formed and won not as a result of competition, but from political connections?

Sometimes, and sometimes not. I can say 100% for certain that my dad won a few contracts because of the strip club in the building next to his office. I can also say for certain he won a few because he put forth the best proposal for the best product at the best price. Just like in the private sector, sometimes it's who you know and sometimes it's what you know.

SpicyMcVoodoo · 10-17-2006, 12:36 PM

Originally Posted by 7960

Sometimes, and sometimes not. I can say 100% for certain that my dad won a few contracts because of the strip club in the building next to his office. I can also say for certain he won a few because he put forth the best proposal for the best product at the best price. Just like in the private sector, sometimes it's who you know and sometimes it's what you know.

But don't you think it's more about "who you know" when it comes to government? In the private sector, if you pick someone who's not the best, but has connections, you're risking your own money. That's a pretty strong motivator to pick the best person, and that's usually why connections only matter as a tie breaker between people that are equally qualified. But with the government, there is no similar economic consequence to picking the non-best candidate. Therefore, it seems rational government would pick people based on connections more often, regardless of whether it's hiring people to work directly for the government or hiring private contractors.

SpicyMcVoodoo · 10-17-2006, 12:39 PM

Originally Posted by 7960

So contracts mean nothing? If there's a contract with raytheon then raytheon deserves either (a) the work, which includes profits from the project, or (b) money to buy out the contract, because there's usually a buy-out clause that says the govt can stop the project by paying some percentage on the dollar.

No, I didn't summarize the article very well. They made it sound like there was nothing concrete tying the government to raytheon's system except pressure to keep them from going to the israelis.

7960 · 10-17-2006, 01:40 PM

Originally Posted by SpicyMcVoodoo

But don't you think it's more about "who you know" when it comes to government?

You'd think so, but there are repercussions. If a (military higher-up) recommends a project that fails then his career can end right there. If he doesn't give a shit if he stays a Major for the rest of his career then you're right (this is the minority, IMO). But if he does give a shit and wants promotions/more money/bigger pension when he retires then he'll do his best to make sure he gets the best product or gets it done on time or hits the budget (there's that old "good, fast, and cheap...pick two" for you

).

Many part of this story should scare you... I worked for a company that contracted to the air force. The company hired me because I was "good with computers" and this project was going to need someone "good with computers." I sat in a room with two guys (one being my boss) across the table from each other with 4" thick stacks of paper in front of them, arguing about prices. It wasn't uncommon to hear things like:

Supplier: Those are $0.45 each
Boss: We need 60,000 and 45 cents blows the budget
S: well, maybe we can get them for 40 cents
Boss: ok, go with that and we'll see how it works out

They went through hundreds of things like that. At the end of the day they'd take all the numbers and re-do them and figure out if they were up or down money. Finally I said to my boss "why am I here?" (I hadn't said a word for 2 days). He said "to figure out how to make this go easier." I said "can you get me that parts list in electronic form?" and he said yes. So I built a database and imported the list into the database and made it so my boss could change a number and have it reflected on the screen.....they'd never thought to use a computer for this

(granted, it was '93 but still, there was no need to do this on paper).

He brought it with him for day 4 of negotiations. When the supplier guy sat down and saw a computer he didn't like it. The first time they changed a price and my boss turned the monitor around and showed him exactly what that meant to the project the supplier guy got up and left. My boss gave me a HUGE bonus and I hadn't even been there a week. People were PISSED until they found out I saved the project millions of dollars.

Moral of this story? My boss had no stake in the negotiations except to "save money." But he went into negotiations every day and tried to shave cents off of each part because he was also looking for a promotion/more money/bigger pension when he retired.

Of course, this is just one person's opinion.

Phantom · 10-17-2006, 02:39 PM

I'm a fed gov't contractor

it's a jungle of a business that never ceases to entertain.

I will say this, even though many contracts are administered ineffeciently, this is still better than having federal employees attempt to do the same work. The advantage with contractors is they could be fired quite easily if they do not meet their end of the deal. Gov't employees can do nothing for 30 years and it's damn near impossible to get rid of them no matter how useless they are.

sj23 · 10-17-2006, 04:48 PM

Why do you think we went to Iraq in the first place?

RMNIXON · 10-17-2006, 06:44 PM

The government simply has little concern or motivation not to waste money. It is just so easy to get more of it from YOU!

SpicyMcVoodoo · 10-17-2006, 08:37 PM

Originally Posted by RMNIXON

The government simply has little concern or motivation not to waste money. It is just so easy to get more of it from YOU!

The exact same could be said of government contractors with no bid deals and profit plus cost contracts.

KatKanPlay · 10-17-2006, 09:02 PM

Originally Posted by Phantom

I'm a fed gov't contractor

it's a jungle of a business that never ceases to entertain.

I will say this, even though many contracts are administered ineffeciently, this is still better than having federal employees attempt to do the same work. The advantage with contractors is they could be fired quite easily if they do not meet their end of the deal. Gov't employees can do nothing for 30 years and it's damn near impossible to get rid of them no matter how useless they are.

Me Too! My experience and I work on military bases. Those boys are serious about getting their money's worth. So we have to be also.

There are a process, but given the magnitude of this job the whole bid process would have taken much too long. The missing piece in this operation is the oversight or lack of it.

ballz2wallz · 10-17-2006, 09:11 PM

Originally Posted by WickedLou9

yeah it's a cluster fuck over there.
My dad could talk for hours about how messed up it it. He works for the Shaw group, one of the contracters that was sent down to LA after hurricane Katrina. there was alot of waste and poor communication. Like they would need a generator to run a pump. So they would tell 3 people to find the generator. Then they would find a generator near by but not tell the 3 people they told. So one of the three people is actually able to find a generator and have it trucked in.. so they end up paying for two generators. ... two generators which cost like 150 grand a piece mind you. stuff like that.

And you blame this on the government? This is human/employee ineptitude, not government irresponsibility.

KatKanPlay · 10-17-2006, 09:32 PM

Originally Posted by ballz2wallz

And you blame this on the government? This is human/employee ineptitude, not government irresponsibility.

Accountability, tends to encourage human/employee eptitude. The open checkbook Haliburton has gives seems to encourage human/employee ineptitude. The government is responsible for oversight and accountability of tax dollars, but Haliburton isnt required to function with in the same scope as other contractors. Haliburton has been handpicked.

ballz2wallz · 10-18-2006, 07:33 AM

Originally Posted by KatKanPlay

Haliburton has been handpicked.

By who?

KatKanPlay · 10-18-2006, 07:39 AM

Originally Posted by ballz2wallz

By who?

Are you serious?

ballz2wallz · 10-18-2006, 07:42 AM

Originally Posted by KatKanPlay

Are you serious?

It's not who you think

7960 · 10-18-2006, 07:42 AM

Originally Posted by KatKanPlay

Are you serious?

yes.......who "handpicked" halliburton?

ballz2wallz · 10-18-2006, 07:47 AM

Originally Posted by 7960

yes.......who "handpicked" halliburton?

She's researching now

KatKanPlay · 10-18-2006, 06:56 PM

Originally Posted by ballz2wallz

She's researching now

NO I wasnt researching so wipe that smirk right of your face. I had to get myself ready for work and thought I had posted that but must have not hit submit. Now what were we taking about?? Oh, Haliburton's good fortune of gettin a cost plus profit 5 year contract, less the bid process. Now if no bids are required then the company granted the project would be hand picked. Now it is very crucial that this not lead back to Cheney, for reasons that might be considered "conflict of interest". This particular contract did not go through the standard channels for most other government contractors. Even though the whole Iraq affair was to be a coalition effort, no contractors outside of the US was allowed to be involved in the process.
That really narrowed the playing field. Without going after specific facts, that only left 2 maybe 3 contractors in this country capable of carrying out the project. The one with direct ties to the whitehouse was granted the contract. I would pretty much call that hand picked. In fact Dick Cheney is still getting paid by Haliburton, the funds are being held in a trust account. The defense department granted the contract, but the secretary of defense has very strong years long ties with both the president and the vice president.

OKAY,,,,, prove me wrong,, I know you cant wait to hit me with all kinds of stuff....

7960 · 10-19-2006, 12:39 AM

Originally Posted by KatKanPlay

NO I wasnt researching so wipe that smirk right of your face. I had to get myself ready for work and thought I had posted that but must have not hit submit. Now what were we taking about?? Oh, Haliburton's good fortune of gettin a cost plus profit 5 year contract, less the bid process. Now if no bids are required then the company granted the project would be hand picked. Now it is very crucial that this not lead back to Cheney, for reasons that might be considered "conflict of interest". This particular contract did not go through the standard channels for most other government contractors. Even though the whole Iraq affair was to be a coalition effort, no contractors outside of the US was allowed to be involved in the process.
That really narrowed the playing field. Without going after specific facts, that only left 2 maybe 3 contractors in this country capable of carrying out the project. The one with direct ties to the whitehouse was granted the contract. I would pretty much call that hand picked. In fact Dick Cheney is still getting paid by Haliburton, the funds are being held in a trust account. The defense department granted the contract, but the secretary of defense has very strong years long ties with both the president and the vice president.

OKAY,,,,, prove me wrong,, I know you cant wait to hit me with all kinds of stuff....

without addressing anything you wrote, exactly how does what you typed change when you consider Clinton did the exact same thing with/for Halliburton in Bosnia and Kosovo?

FrontPage magazine.com :: The Facts on Halliburton by Michael P. Tremoglie

and no this isn't be trying to drag clinton down because bush is going down. I honestly want to understand how clinton could give halliburton no-bid contracts in bosnia and kosovo and it's all good, but when bush does it he's accused of impropiety and needs investigation. Hell, clinton's commerce guy said

Halliburton has a distinguished track record,' he said. 'They do business in some 120 countries. This is a group of people who know what they're doing in a difficult business. It's a particularly difficult business when people are shooting at you.

Maybe bush "hand picked" them based on that recommendation