18-Nov-13 World View -- Cholera epidemic reaches Cuba,Mexico

Discussion of Web Log and Analysis topics from the Generational Dynamics web site.
anon

Re: 18-Nov-13 World View -- Cholera epidemic reaches Cuba,Me

Post by anon »

No, on an add on contract extension, there's literally no possible way to sort out the costs without a GAO audit. And that hasn't been done AFAIK, and you might note that there isn't any loud call for an actual audit of hours and equipment worth.

These numbers are just quotes of something some congressman said. What's he got? Contract data for an extension, I'm sure. So did they drop all other work and work only on this single little website? Believe me, that's just not how it goes. This 300 to 600 million sounds about right for an extension for a year, but what else were they doing? What did they do the year before?

It's just numbers and from my standpoint, without that audit you can just pull up any figure you like, up to the total cost of that extension, and it'll probably be supportable.

NoOneImportant

Re: 18-Nov-13 World View -- Cholera epidemic reaches Cuba,Me

Post by NoOneImportant »

Ok, but how does the poor SOB keep from getting his hands dirty? He get's an initial $50 Meg contract extension(CX). He acquires the hardware(HW) for the CX, from the fed's junk pool - GAO surplus pool - and really doesn't care at what cost it comes into the CX at. He gets all the old junk HW he needs, then the SOB upgrades the drives, and the vulnerable moving parts stuff - again paid for out of maintenance-and-repair as part of the CX, and transfers physical possession of the HW to the Favored-son, with whom he has contracted for engineering services in support of the CX. The HW may be accounted for in several ways - it may be held in ownership in the CX at fairy-dust cost(GAO acquisition cost) - and it really makes no difference what the HW cost is as it's acquired from the GAO, as the magic is that it doesn't have to be bought from the outside, and go through a formal bidding process - thus causing an spending of real money, not just accounting adjustments. The Favored-son will get physical possession of the HW on a $1 a year lease, or any other form of deferred payment price, as it makes little administrative difference as any lease price is going to go back to the CX as a billing plus profit anyway from the Favored-son as he is providing CX engineering services anyway. And it's no one else business how the SOB chooses to run his business, or administer the CX, so long as obvious criminal fraud isn't involved - for when the SOB runs out of cash he is fed another CX. In any case, the HW comes in at a fairy-dust cost - GAO cost has no relationship to market value - but the real expense is in the labor to cobble together the mess they're going to foist off on the public - as 500k lines of code means 100s of man-years of high-priced SW development labor. The SOB either hires the SW guys to the contract - not desired - or more probably folds them into the "buy" of the engineering services that he will buy in the form of contracted labor from the Favored-son priced on a time-and-material(T&M) no-bid basis - most desired. The SOB and the CX is a conduit for everything - the hardware, the T&M SW labor, and all the costs plus the profits for the Favored-son who appears from the outside to look like prime, but is not - and it's all accounted for under the original contract-extension. The Johnson Space Center is run almost completely by contract - as is every other major federal facility - AIMS, Kennedy, etc.... The facilities are federally owned, and operations are contracted out - first hand information.

The Favored-son has the HW, the development SW guys, and begins to create his "magic" - or mess in our case - and it's all paid for by a simple existing contract's CX; all costs go to an alread-in-place government contract - and the original contract can be for anything: a weapons system in development(not the norm), facilities operation, or more appropriately something completely expendable so that there is little of residual value to account for. So long as everything works, and no one looks all that closely, everything is good. And even if all the transactions are scrutinized, technically the only marginal item that might be considered fraud is the contract-extension, and a case might me made for that being a discretionary administrative decision caused by the exigencies of time that are warranted by the necessity for a rapid start-up. Those "exigencies" are also used as justification to award no-bid engineering-development contracts. Those exigencies or conditions are "necessary" until congressional funding can be appropriated - an appropriation that never happens - as the administration has no intention of ever telling congress how the system is being paid for. Number wise everything remains and is fed as part of the original unrelated contract, thus a new contract, completely unrelated to the original contract, is fed by stealth - only the initiated really understand what's happening. At some point all of the new costs - costs that are going into the original contract - are going to warrant scrutiny as all the contract-extension costs go toward the original contract's costs in the form or cost over-runs.

So long as the original contract is for something that is not jeopardized by the cost over-runs, everything works. Congress never gets a look - or has the ability to kill the project's funding, as they don't have a clue - the Favored-son gets hundreds of millions - and the public gets drilled when the unqualified, and inept are in charge of something they are unqualified to manage with zero oversight. Only the SOB is at risk - he is doing all the heavy lifting - as he is charged ultimately with the original contract's administration, and tainted by the admin of the CX performance, and"cost over-runs," if scrutinized. Should he choose not to "go-along" he jeopardizes the entire original contract - usually in the billions, as small contracts don't provide sufficient cover for this to work.

NoOneImportant

Re: 18-Nov-13 World View -- Cholera epidemic reaches Cuba,Me

Post by NoOneImportant »

The form described above has it place and purpose - not to hide stealth project per se, although it does that too. But in a system - the Federal budgeting system - that appropriates money on a yearly basis this system has its place. It permits emergency start-ups of necessary projects between budgetary cycles that can't be anticipated, or budgeted for in prior years. It usually works because of transparency, and the honesty of most people. When the corrupt obtain control it is subject to abuse, and if no one cares, or is watching the store it becomes the norm over time - and whistle-blowers get crucified, as fraud is very difficult to prove.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 41 guests