Obama seeks major change in federal contracting

[dbackjon]

President Barack Obama on Wednesday ordered an overhaul of the way the U.S. government awards contracts for private sector work, reversing a Bush administration policy that in some cases led to federal investigations of procurement practices and no-bid contracts.

Obama joined Republican Sen. John McCain, his presidential campaign rival, and other congressional figures to announce an executive memorandum that commits his administration to a new set of marching orders for awarding contracts. Obama said "the days of giving government contractors a blank check are over" and said changes could save up to $40 billion a year.

One area in particular that is targeted is no-bid contracts, which the administration is seeking to change so that there will be more competition for government-paid work.

"Even if these were the best of times, budget reform would be overdue in Washington," Obama said.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090304/ap_ ... bama_waste

[hank scorpio]

I think the cost-plus part escapes a lot of people compared to the no-bid contracts.

Personally, whenever I do any kind of purchasing for our coutny, I try to get a quote before telling a contractor who I am with. As soon as they hear government I can see $'s in their eyes, and you can expect a 30% markup.

[Gil Dobie]

...........and the new federal contract winner is.................

[travelinman67]

I think the cost-plus part escapes a lot of people compared to the no-bid contracts.

Personally, whenever I do any kind of purchasing for our coutny, I try to get a quote before telling a contractor who I am with. As soon as they hear government I can see $'s in their eyes, and you can expect a 30% markup.

...finish the story...

Because govt work requires the contractor pay prevailing wages (union rate), submit certified payrolls weekly, maintain payroll records for public review at all times, submit and comply with EEO and setaside provisions, made in America/regional requirements, anal retentive-out of touch-inflexible architects...

I did, and taught, estimating for the past 25 years...the program I helped write and marketed for 13 years was principally designed to estimate and track manufacturing and construction costs...down to the penny...including all labor burdens, overhead, and administrative time.

There's a reason govt. pays more than the private sector. There's a reason the word "bureaucracy" is synonymous with "government".

[dbackjon]

So T-man - what is your solution?

[hank scorpio]

I think the cost-plus part escapes a lot of people compared to the no-bid contracts.

Personally, whenever I do any kind of purchasing for our coutny, I try to get a quote before telling a contractor who I am with. As soon as they hear government I can see $'s in their eyes, and you can expect a 30% markup.

...finish the story...

Because govt work requires the contractor pay prevailing wages (union rate), submit certified payrolls weekly, maintain payroll records for public review at all times, submit and comply with EEO and setaside provisions, made in America/regional requirements, anal retentive-out of touch-inflexible architects...

I did, and taught, estimating for the past 25 years...the program I helped write and marketed for 13 years was principally designed to estimate and track manufacturing and construction costs...down to the penny...including all labor burdens, overhead, and administrative time.

There's a reason govt. pays more than the private sector. There's a reason the word "bureaucracy" is synonymous with "government".

You mean transparency? Yeah, that's a bitch!

[travelinman67]

So T-man - what is your solution?

Not sure what "rule" needed fixing. Rule of thumb has always been out here...$50,000 and under can be discretionary, everything else goes to bid.

I think this is nothing more than a way the Obama hacks can rewrite the rules to favor THEIR social engineering/public wealth theft agenda. You mentioned Sacramento earlier in a post. They're a perfect example. Sacto ALWAYS incorporates setasides in their contracts. Even when the courts struck it down in CA, Sacto IGNORED the court ruling and continued to do it...few challenged it as that would "bite the hand that feeds it". Most of the major non-setaside contractors out here are so fat, and get so much work, they can sleep walk and survive. Any small non-setaside contractor doesn't dare rock the boat...there's so many things a vindictive govt. agency can do to destroy a company, and everyone in the business generally knows someone who's received "the treatment". In Sacto, the heaviest hitter is the Regional Transit District...the King Solomon of public contracts...and the most vindictive. If they tell you to hire frogs as carpenters, you buy belts to keep the hammer from falling out when they hop.
Anyway...they get away with this because of a "Joint City/County Certification Agency", which verifies every MBE/WBE/DBE/DVBE for setaside eligibility. The certification process is akin to a mafioso becoming "made" by "The Family". Once in, you are wealthy for life. You can do no wrong. And the local agencies THROW CONTRACTS your direction. There's hundreds of way they can cockblock non "Family" contactors...a common one I found was use of the General Contractor's in-house "Approved Purchaser" list...i.e., regardless of anything else on the planet...setasides, whatever...once the General took control of the project...and before putting the job out to bid to the subs...the subs had to obtain pre-approval by the General's purchasing agent. Their "criteria" could be whatever they wanted it to be, so long as it was EEO/Housing non-discriminatory...and they would make it up as they went along. A company I worked with tried for years to get on Turner Constructions list of "approved" subs...filled out reams of paperwork...letters from banks and bonding agents...even signed personal indemnity agreements...but alas...everytime a job came up to bid when they were the General...this sub company could never obtain approval.
In contrast...I know of another MBE contractor in the D.C. area, who routinely receives unbonded, no-bid, "pass-through" subcontracts directly from the District, often in amounts between $100-500k, then re-subs the work to a "legitimate" non MBE subcontractor, who actually completes the work. Sub #1, takes their cut, and weekly makes the rounds shaking hands with politicians, union hall bosses, handing out "donations" of (typically) $500-$1,000, AND HAS NEVER BEEN AUDITED!!! I know of MANY similar situations out here in CA.

I.E. ...all this "bid" talk is just so much bullsh!t...if a government agency chooses to award a job to a particular contractor, they'll "fix" the bid so their favorite walks away with the work. Anyone who works in sales knows that the first thing to guaranteeing a sale to a government agency is to get them to "spec" your products "unique" design...et voila...goodbye competition.

Obama's Admin is just rewriting things to favor their group of thieves/friends.

[dbackjon]

Thanks.

I guess it is our thieves turn after their thieves porked up

[travelinman67]

...finish the story...

Because govt work requires the contractor pay prevailing wages (union rate), submit certified payrolls weekly, maintain payroll records for public review at all times, submit and comply with EEO and setaside provisions, made in America/regional requirements, anal retentive-out of touch-inflexible architects...

I did, and taught, estimating for the past 25 years...the program I helped write and marketed for 13 years was principally designed to estimate and track manufacturing and construction costs...down to the penny...including all labor burdens, overhead, and administrative time.

There's a reason govt. pays more than the private sector. There's a reason the word "bureaucracy" is synonymous with "government".

You mean transparency? Yeah, that's a bitch!

If by "transparency", you mean requiring non-union contractors making all their payroll records available to union shills at any time during regular business hours, including allowing them to make copies and remove them...even though there's no govt. or civil penalties against the unions for misuse of that information...like, say for example, going to the non-union employees residence and questioning them about their pay, requiring proof of receipt, and disposal of said pay as "verification" the employee was paid the correct rate...

...then, I guess "transparency" has a different meaning that what I inferred.

Earth to Scorpio...

NO WHERE IN THE CONSTITUTION OR ANY AMENDMENT IS THERE ANY STATEMENT WHICH EMPOWERS THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT TO DICTATE TO BUSINESS HOW MUCH PROFIT THEY CAN MAKE

...yet with dishonest "bureaucrats" disingenuously, consciously, generating ambiguous plansets and design specifications, knowing the courts have allowed the government to "fix" the profit and overhead on "extra" work at 15%, which as a rule DOES NOT cover most company's overhead, much less leaving them a profit, government has in fact established itself as the defacto "owner" of every public contractor, by, as you suggest, forcing them to open their books to the world to verify they are not making a profit any higher than the government allows...

...which is, ahem...

UNCONSTITUTIONAL!



Get a clue.

I know quite a few local government agencies who have stopped playing that game...play straight up...don't attempt to "hide" essential work, pay promptly without playing the "paperwork game", don't try to "balance the books" with backcharges or grind contractors down with illegitimate inspection and testing harassment, and require and ENFORCE a pay-when-paid clause with their Generals.

As a result, most contractors working for those agencies can cut 10-25% out of their bids.

Think about that.

[Appaholic]

You mean transparency? Yeah, that's a bitch!

If by "transparency", you mean requiring non-union contractors making all their payroll records available to union shills at any time during regular business hours, including allowing them to make copies and remove them...even though there's no govt. or civil penalties against the unions for misuse of that information...like, say for example, going to the non-union employees residence and questioning them about their pay, requiring proof of receipt, and disposal of said pay as "verification" the employee was paid the correct rate...

...then, I guess "transparency" has a different meaning that what I inferred.

Earth to Scorpio...

NO WHERE IN THE CONSTITUTION OR ANY AMENDMENT IS THERE ANY STATEMENT WHICH EMPOWERS THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT TO DICTATE TO BUSINESS HOW MUCH PROFIT THEY CAN MAKE

...yet with dishonest "bureaucrats" disingenuously, consciously, generating ambiguous plansets and design specifications, knowing the courts have allowed the government to "fix" the profit and overhead on "extra" work at 15%, which as a rule DOES NOT cover most company's overhead, much less leaving them a profit, government has in fact established itself as the defacto "owner" of every public contractor, by, as you suggest, forcing them to open their books to the world to verify they are not making a profit any higher than the government allows...

...which is, ahem...

UNCONSTITUTIONAL!



Get a clue.

I know quite a few local government agencies who have stopped playing that game...play straight up...don't attempt to "hide" essential work, pay promptly without playing the "paperwork game", don't try to "balance the books" with backcharges or grind contractors down with illegitimate inspection and testing harassment, and require and ENFORCE a pay-when-paid clause with their Generals.

As a result, most contractors working for those agencies can cut 10-25% out of their bids.

Think about that.

I'm all for transparency, but I gotta agree with TMan on this one......the requirements for government contractors is BS....jacks up the cost to the taxpayer, slows the construction/implementation of said project and sometimes even negates the supposed benefit of the transparency in the end...seriously, when has the spectre of transparency really ever kept a politician or his buddy from getting a kickback? Just makes it harder for the honest contractors to compete to the detriment of the taxpayers.