Military contractors are hard to fire

[thefarmer]

By RICHARD LARDNER, Associated Press Writer Sat Feb 2, 6:00 AM ET

WASHINGTON - ITT Federal Services International, a defense contractor hired to maintain battle gear for U.S. troops in Iraq, repeatedly failed to do the job right.

Combat vehicles ITT declared as repaired and ready for action flunked inspections and had to be fixed again. Equipment to be sanitized for return to the United States was found caked with dirt. And ITT's computer database for tracking the work was rife with errors.

Formal "letters of concern" were sent to the contractor. Still, the Army didn't fire ITT. Instead, it gave the Colorado Springs, Colo.-based company more work to do. Since October 2004, ITT has been paid $638 million through the Global Maintenance and Supply Services contract.

The Army's ongoing arrangement with ITT, detailed in an audit from the Government Accountability Office, shows how captive the military has become to the private sector for overseas support. Even when contractors don't measure up, dismissing them may not be an option because of the heavy pace of operations.

Sen. Claire McCaskill, D-Mo., co-author of legislation creating a special commission to examine wartime contracting, said poor-performing contractors are more likely to get bonuses than to be penalized.

"It has just been a mess," McCaskill, a former state auditor, said in an interview with The Associated Press. "It's bad enough how much this war is costing. But it's heartbreaking the amount of money that has just gone up in smoke."

In ITT's case, there were too few soldiers to handle the maintenance duties and no other contractors ready to step in quickly, according to Redding Hobby, the Army Sustainment Command's executive director for field support operations.

"I'm not sure that our manning levels would have allowed us to do anything except wring our hands and worry and work people harder and work people overtime," Hobby said in a telephone interview.

In a brief statement, ITT said it objected to the GAO's conclusions and has "taken numerous corrective actions." The company also said it has met the Army's requirements.

Contract personnel working for the Defense Department now outnumber U.S. forces in Iraq and Afghanistan; there are 196,000 private-sector workers in both countries compared to 182,000 troops.

Contractors are responsible for a slew of duties, including repairing warfighting equipment, supplying food and water, building barracks, providing armed security and gathering intelligence.

The dependence has come with serious consequences.

During a congressional hearing on Jan. 24, Jack Bell, a senior Pentagon acquisition official, called the situation "unprecedented" and one "that, frankly, we were not adequately prepared to address."

A shortage of experienced federal employees to oversee this growing industrial army is blamed for much of the waste, fraud and abuse on contracts collectively worth billions of dollars.

"We do not have the contracting personnel that we need to guarantee that the taxpayer dollar is being protected," said William Moser, the State Department's deputy assistant secretary for logistics management.

"We are very, very concerned about the integrity in the contracting process," added Moser, who appeared at the same hearing as Bell. "We don't feel that we've had major scandals up to now, but we don't feel like that we can continue in the same situation."

The office of the Special Inspector General for Iraq Reconstruction has 52 open cases related to bribery, false billing, contract fraud, kickbacks and theft; 36 of those cases have been referred to the Justice Department for prosecution, according to the inspector general's office.

The Army Criminal Investigation Command is busy, too. The command has 90 criminal investigations under way related to alleged contract fraud in Iraq, Kuwait and Afghanistan, according to spokesman Chris Grey. Two dozen U.S. citizens have been charged or indicted so far — 19 of those are Army military and civilian employees — and more than $15 million in bribes has changed hands, Grey said.

To deal with the problem, the Army is implementing many of the recommendations of a blue-ribbon panel formed last year to reform contracting procedures. The most significant are the creation of a contracting command to be led by a two-star general and the addition of 1,400 acquisition personnel.

David Maddox, a retired four-star general who served on the panel, said the Army understands the need to change. He's less sure the message has spread throughout the Defense Department. That's necessary to drive the broader changes needed to curb future problems in defense contracting.

"The Army is moving out," Maddox said. "I'm a little more concerned with the degree DoD is moving out."

The audit by the GAO, Congress' investigative arm, does not say there were any improprieties stemming from the ITT contract. Rather, neither the contractor nor the government were ready for the demands placed on each.

At one point, although the Army had documented several incidents of poor performance, ITT was paid an additional $33 million to overhaul 150 Humvees a month. Over a nearly yearlong period, the contractor never came close to meeting the mark but still got the money, according to the GAO.

Many of the problems occurred in 2005 and 2006, when the insurgency in Iraq was at its height and there was a heavy burden on the contractor to get equipment back into the fight as quickly as possible, according to Hobby, the Army Sustainment Command official.

The terms of the contract called for ITT to be compensated for all labor costs. That meant the company was often paid twice to fix equipment it didn't repair correctly the first time.

"Although it sounds bad economically, back at the time we were trying to (implement) a repair program that would maintain equipment for our soldiers, and that was a good alternative," Hobby said of the ITT contract. "It was expensive. We knew there were risks there. And, quite frankly, we didn't have the government (personnel) in place to ensure success. But we've learned an awful lot of lessons from this."

The ITT contract and other similar support arrangements will be changed so a company's profits are linked to performance, Hobby said.

"We are transitioning to a contract that gives an incentive to the contractor," Hobby said. "Our argument would be, 'We paid you to fix these vehicles, they didn't get fixed on time, so you lose your award fee.' A penalty, so to speak."

ITT's performance has improved substantially, Hobby said, and the Army will decide in the next few months whether to extend the arrangement for another year.

Still, he doesn't diminish the gravity of the GAO's audit.

"I think if Joe Sixpack or Sally Homemaker read that report, they would probably have the same feeling," Hobby said when asked why ITT's contract was not terminated. "I share your pain."
________________________________________

Somehow this doesn't surprise me one bit.

[radamanthys]

The same thing happens in pretty much every federal system. The military is just under greater scrutiny. A government, by its very nature, is (for most things) an inefficent vehicle to use to spend your money. For the sole reason that they have no bottom line.

I imagine the same will be true for universal healthcare, and any other socialist system we attempt to implement.

[Daniel]

Lol. This has absolutely nothing to do with a socialist system.

In fact, it's quite the opposite.


The problem is that we tried to "Privatize" the military system because "Markets are always better". However, we ddn't tak into account the fact that with such a high supply that no one would have an incentive to actually provide quality work.

You can thank Donald Rumsfield for that.

[Stanley Burrell]

Lol. This has absolutely nothing to do with a socialist system.

In fact, it's quite the opposite.


The problem is that we tried to "Privatize" the military system because "Markets are always better". However, we ddn't tak into account the fact that with such a high supply that no one would have an incentive to actually provide quality work.

You can thank Donald Rumsfield for that.

Mos def. Except, when it's not Rumsfeld, it's the rest of the administration hampering government funding. You know what it means for our country to have the NIH support grant submission with a 14%?

Fuckin'... Cameroon is going to surpass our human health + research organizations. Which is cool, I guess. I secretly root for Cameroon in the World Cup, but still.

This is also the same reason I'm against the Social Security overhaul and people in Berkley protesting against the USMC. And Connecticut.

[Soulpieced]

.... your posts make no sense.

[Stanley Burrell]

Neither does your slant-eyed face.

I think Mel is like the one person who could understand the referencing.

[Asha]

Wait wait wait, SP has a slanty eyed face lol?

[Soulpieced]

Last time I checked I was white. Again, more posts that make no sense.

Anyway, the problem with the Government contracting process is something called the moving target. Government requirements always change (after award), which results in unrealistic technical issues, cost overruns, non-performance, etc. It's a combination of the inflexibility of FAR and individual agency contract regulations, as well as Government technical monitors trying to do too much within and outside the scope of contracts.

Terminating contracts also typically costs MORE than actually completing the contract in a large number of cases.. which is why contracts are VERY rarely terminated.

[Latrinsorm]

I think it's obvious that George Bush personally allowed this to continue so his buddies at Halliburton could...

...wait, ITT? Well I'm sure somebody Bush knows is or was once somehow involved with them to some degree too.

[Stanley Burrell]

That is weird as hell, man. I always thought you were yellow for some reason, and not just because I don't make sense.

Are you sure?

Oh: If you read/are referring to my one-to-three-liner closing statements, then I just post that retarded shit because I'm usually mistaken for someone who gives a fuck. It's... Different. I.e.:

P.S. You sure, dude? Not even, like, eggshell/off-white?

Edit: In response to above-Latrinsorm.

[Parkbandit]

It has zero to do with the capitalist society and everything to do with the ineffective way the Government conducts business.

Government is THE most ill run 'business' ever. Because they really answer to no one.. ie - they don't answer to owners, shareholders, etc.. . Until we, the owners and managers of the Government.. start firing the ineffective CEOs (Congress) and start hiring (electing) capable stewards of our money, it is and always will be business as usual.

[Stanley Burrell]

I think it's obvious that George Bush personally allowed this to continue so his buddies at Halliburton could...

...wait, ITT? Well I'm sure somebody Bush knows is or was once somehow involved with them to some degree too.

The thing is that you can sell a right-wing agenda for funding it shouldn't receive under this administration as if the U.S. were actually international arms marketers with a +50 stick up frustration up the collective anuses of upgraded car salesmen who remain allowed to peddle bullshit agendas that move money they shouldn't be entitled to in the first place.

[TheEschaton]

But this story is all about private contractors not doing the work they were hried to do, PB, how is this about gov't inefficiency? We don't monitor them enough, crack the whip?

[thefarmer]

It has zero to do with the capitalist society and everything to do with the ineffective way the Government conducts business.

Government is THE most ill run 'business' ever. Because they really answer to no one.. ie - they don't answer to owners, shareholders, etc.. . Until we, the owners and managers of the Government.. start firing the ineffective CEOs (Congress) and start hiring (electing) capable stewards of our money, it is and always will be business as usual.

I'm surprised you would blame a government that was mainly (From what I gather) Republican lead.

[Daniel]

It has zero to do with the capitalist society and everything to do with the ineffective way the Government conducts business.

Government is THE most ill run 'business' ever. Because they really answer to no one.. ie - they don't answer to owners, shareholders, etc.. . Until we, the owners and managers of the Government.. start firing the ineffective CEOs (Congress) and start hiring (electing) capable stewards of our money, it is and always will be business as usual.

*Edit.

You are so stupid it's not even funny.

[875000]

But this story is all about private contractors not doing the work they were hried to do, PB, how is this about gov't inefficiency? We don't monitor them enough, crack the whip?

I'll take a stab at that one.

The short answer is that by and large the government does turn a blind eye towards contractor performance. And, there are institutional barriers to ensuring that the most appropriate contractor is selected in the first place, ensuring that problems will occur. Poor performance of contractors should be viewed as a symptom of a larger disease, rather than the illness itself.

The remedies?

1. Better contracts: Government procurement is particularly slapshot, especially with regards to contracting and staff augmentation. Sometimes contracts are written to be vague, allowing a contractor to either get away with murder or the government project manager to make unreasonable requests. People modify the scope of work after an award, entirely changing the nature and focus on the project. Additionally, most contracts either fail to spell out what specifically will happen if a contractor is in noncompliance or cause the government to incur significant penalties if the agreement is severed. Contracts should spell out a specific objectives with milestones, detail penalties for noncompliance, and specify a set payment as opposed to a time and materials reiumbursement.
2. Better compensation: Cost is a signifcant part of the decision of who to award a contract to. Unfortunately, in many instances the proposed rates are either unreasonable or so low as to ensure that only those offering low quality services actually get the award. Better performance costs more money.
3. Better monitoring: The Federal government is notoriously bad at monitoring contractor performance. Usually, by the time a problem arises it is too late to do anything about it without incurring significant cost.
4. Better enforcement: Often times when a problem is discovered or a contractor falls short, no signficant action is taken against the contractor.
5. Assignment of Responsibility: Government managers supervising contractors often do not have their performance evaluated based on contractor results. Those that do often have little to fear as well -- outside of the military, goverment workers tend to be given high performance marks, regardless of their actual performance.

[Daniel]

The problem with accountability is that there is such a high demand for their services that contractors do not have any incentive to actually fulfill the terms of their contract. They know that regardless of how shitty they are, the government needs them so they can continue to defraud and assfuck uncle sam as much as they want.

We fucked ourselves royally when we told ourselves that it would be "cheaper" to let the market take care of essential combat services. You wouldn't have this problem if the US military was self sustaining like they were before you wouldn't be having these problems.

[Latrinsorm]

We fucked ourselves royally when we told ourselves that it would be "cheaper" to let the market take care of essential combat services. You wouldn't have this problem if the US military was self sustaining like they were before you wouldn't be having these problems.Not that I'm pro-contractors, but doesn't the US military have a long history of poor supplying? I remember stories of soldiers training for WW2 with mops because we couldn't make enough guns.

[Daniel]

Not that I'm pro-contractors, but doesn't the US military have a long history of poor supplying? I remember stories of soldiers training for WW2 with mops because we couldn't make enough guns.

The difference being that WW2 was the biggest military operation ever undertaken, and they eventually got the job done.

The US wars in Iraq and Afghanistan are not even a blip on that measure and yet they've cost more than any other operation, by far.

See the difference?

[Parkbandit]

But this story is all about private contractors not doing the work they were hried to do, PB, how is this about gov't inefficiency? We don't monitor them enough, crack the whip?

Who is the boss? The US Government is. I work with subcontractors EVERY day.. and if a job doesn't pass my inspections.. guess what.. they don't get paid until it does. The JOB of the US Government in this case is to get qualified individuals to do more inspections and hold the subcontractor responsible for the shit work they perform.

[Parkbandit]

I'm surprised you would blame a government that was mainly (From what I gather) Republican lead.

This has ZERO to do with a party affiliation and everything to do with the job you are supposed to be performing. Unlike your pals across the isle.. I don't give two shits if you have an R or a D behind your name.. do your fucking job or I'll call you out.

[Daniel]

Yea. We'll just keep sendnig those HMVVS back until they get it right. It's not like we need them right this second...ooops.

[Parkbandit]

The problem with accountability is that there is such a high demand for their services that contractors do not have any incentive to actually fulfill the terms of their contract. They know that regardless of how shitty they are, the government needs them so they can continue to defraud and assfuck uncle sam as much as they want.

We fucked ourselves royally when we told ourselves that it would be "cheaper" to let the market take care of essential combat services. You wouldn't have this problem if the US military was self sustaining like they were before you wouldn't be having these problems.

It's still the Government's responsibility to inspect whatever they contract out. If the incentives are not in place, it's the Government's responsibility to put them in place.

I know.. you would rather play the victim role and blame someone else for what clearly is Governmental issue. Same ol' song and dance from you always.

You are so stupid.. you are funny... in a sad way.

[Parkbandit]

Yea. We'll just keep sendnig those HMVVS back until they get it right. It's not like we need them right this second...ooops.

I've never heard of an inspection process for such large orders ONLY coming at the delivery point. Usually in big business, there are checks during the processing of the order.. not just at the delivery.

[Daniel]

I find it amazing that you can't comprehend that war =! big business.

[Latrinsorm]

The difference being that WW2 was the biggest military operation ever undertaken, and they eventually got the job done.I agree it was much larger on scale, but I would suggest that the costs of war per soldier have increased dramatically. How many guys in WW2 had night vision equipment, for instance? Also, perhaps the people in charge felt that "eventually" wouldn't be good enough and this would get people gear faster (although that obviously didn't turn out to be the case).
The US wars in Iraq and Afghanistan are not even a blip on that measure and yet they've cost more than any other operation, by far.I'm not sure what you mean by "operation", but from what I can find WW2 cost $2+ trillion to less than $1trillion for Iraq and Afghanistan (projected to $1.7 in ten years), and that doesn't even factor in the Marshall Plan or reconstruction of Japan.

[Daniel]

Feel free to scale those numbers.

[Parkbandit]

I find it amazing that you can't comprehend that war =! big business.

I find it amazing that you don't agree that the US Government is responsible for the contractors it hires. That the Government is somehow a victim here.

Amazing.. but typical from you.

[Daniel]

Actually, I believe I did put the blame on the government. I just correctly attributed the problem.

Reading comprehension for the win.

[Latrinsorm]

Feel free to scale those numbers.Scale what numbers? They're both in near-present dollar values, if anything WW2 would be slightly higher (I found a 1990$ figure).

[Daniel]

To the size of the operation. To the results. Whatever you want.

The military never had a problem taking care of itself, and in fact was the best in the world at doing it. However, it was felt neccessary to outsource this to contractors.

We're paying for it now.

[Parkbandit]

The only reason we're paying for it 'now' is because we didn't do the job we were supposed to do.. manage the contractors.

[Daniel]

Say what you want.

The outsourcing of the military was (is) a mistake and a failure.

It's kinda like how socialism is a good theory but doesn't work too well in reality.

[Parkbandit]

Say what you want.

The outsourcing of the military was (is) a mistake and a failure.

It's kinda like how socialism is a good theory but doesn't work too well in reality.

You are partially correct (the part about socialism.. there really might be hope for you yet) And I don't disagree with you about it being a failure.. but it's OUR (ie our Government's) fault it failed.

A government or large company IS responsible for the work their contractors provide. Essentially, they are working FOR the Government... why wouldn't the Government have the final say so?

I do understand your argument of that we have pushed so much onto the civilian sector to do things for us.. but that doesn't change the fact that it is the Governments responsibility to inspect the work the contractors are being paid for throughout the contract... not just at the delivery.

[Daniel]

Yes. You are right. It is our responsibility. However, it is unfeasible to do so. There is a reason we just don't hire out mercenaries to fight our wars.

We shouldn't be in the habit in putting our national security in the hands of those who have a buck to make off of it.

Period.

[Parkbandit]

Yes. You are right. It is our responsibility. However, it is unfeasible to do so. There is a reason we just don't hire out mercenaries to fight our wars.

We shouldn't be in the habit in putting our national security in the hands of those who have a buck to make off of it.

Period.

Why is it unfeasible? Take some of the money we are saving by subcontracting it out and put it into a comprehensive inspection program.

We have always been in the habit of putting our national security in the hands of those who have a buck to make off of it... that's nothing new. Do you think that the military makes the guns, weapons, etc... needed to fight war? No, it's companies that make money from selling them to the US Government.

[sst]

I think another one of the problems is the contractors cant be replaced very easily due to the need for the equipment they are working on or their services.

A few days without those guys doing the major repairs to our trucks and we would have been SOL equipment wise with how often we got blown up

[Warriorbird]

War profiteering has been a treasonous offence at times in America.

[Daniel]

Why is it unfeasible? Take some of the money we are saving by subcontracting it out and put it into a comprehensive inspection program.

We have always been in the habit of putting our national security in the hands of those who have a buck to make off of it... that's nothing new. Do you think that the military makes the guns, weapons, etc... needed to fight war? No, it's companies that make money from selling them to the US Government.

It's not quite the same.

You can build a gun in peace time with the expectation that it would be used at a later date. However, the problem, as Dave pointed out, is that in war time you can not afford to trouble shoot or hold people as accountable as you should. In the business world if your supplier is flaking out, or your operations is being shoddily run, you have the time and the luxury to find someone else to do it.

As has been shown, that doesn't work out too well in a war time environment. What are you going to do? Not give soldiers HMMVEE's? Send em out there for a few days with a flak vest? Not likely. You'll pay whatever it is you need to pay to get your people out ASAP, because if you don't YOU'LL LOSE THE WAR.

There is no room and there is no time for a market in this scenario. There is virtually no supply and a ridiculous amount of demand. What do you think busineses are going to do? It's insane to think that we'll somehow come out on top of that scenario.

You're better off leaving the responsibility to those have the vested interest in making sure it goes right. Not those who know that can probably make a few bucks by fucking over a couple joes.

[Clove]

...As has been shown, that doesn't work out too well in a war time environment. What are you going to do?...

Use multiple suppliers. Next.

[Daniel]

Use multiple suppliers. Next.

They do. There is still a massive shortage.

Next stupid point.

[Warriorbird]

Gosh! Clove just solved all of our military equipment issues in Iraq! It's a wonder they're not paying him.

[Clove]

In ITT's case, there were too few soldiers to handle the maintenance duties and no other contractors ready to step in quickly, according to Redding Hobby, the Army Sustainment Command's executive director for field support operations.

You can STFU now Daniel and Warriorbird.

[Clove]

Gosh! Clove just solved all of our military equipment issues in Iraq! It's a wonder they're not paying him.

No it isn't. There's more money in the private sector. Thanks for trolling though. Read the fucking article next time.

[Warriorbird]

Notice one of those highlighted words. "Quickly." This has been an issue since 2004. Why haven't alternate contracting sources been developed? Why isn't one being developed now?

From the same Herald article...

"At one point, although the Army had documented several incidents of poor performance, ITT was paid an additional $33 million to overhaul 150 Humvees a month. Over a nearly yearlong period, the contractor never came close to meeting the mark but still got the money, according to the GAO.

Many of the problems occurred in 2005 and 2006, when the insurgency in Iraq was at its height and there was a heavy burden on the contractor to get equipment back into the fight as quickly as possible, according to Hobby, the Army Sustainment Command official.

The terms of the contract called for ITT to be compensated for all labor costs. That meant the company was often paid twice to fix equipment it didn’t repair correctly the first time."

CYA from Hobby.

And you critiquing ME for trolling?

Ha.

[Clove]

Notice one of those highlighted words. "Quickly." This has been an issue since 2004. Why haven't alternate contracting sources been developed? Why isn't one being developed now?

Why indeed? Having multiple contractors in the solution sure would help wouldn't it?



CYA from Hobby.

And you critiquing ME for trolling?

Ha.

Yes.

[Warriorbird]

My response was sarcastic because I think there's a suspicious lack of multiple sources for contracts in Iraq and seeing you suggest it (a simple solution) struck me as somewhat funny. Being a supporter of the war of course you'll somehow make this out as being the fault of Congress and evil liberals rather than the President, the Cabinet, or the military.

[sst]

I kinda have to say things really are not simple when it comes to having anything to do with the military. There are always shortages and we would often have to cannibalize other trucks to get items replaced. I know the contractors that were over there with us from General Dynamics were awesome guys and worked their asses off for long hours to keep our stuff running smoothly and there were many times after a large engagement that they would work though the night to get our trucks back up and running. Some are good and some are bad I guess... I'm sure you can vouch for the guys I'm talking about too Daniel.

[Clove]

Being a supporter of the war of course you'll somehow make this out as being the fault of Congress and evil liberals rather than the President, the Cabinet, or the military.

Right because one has to do with the other.

[Warriorbird]

To find someone who'd admit that they did something wrong you'd generally have to find a Democratic supporter of the war... a camp that I don't believe you belong in. It is simply how things are in divided America.

[Daniel]

There are multiple contracting sources. There is still a massive shortage. Next stupid point. Did you not hear me the first time? Nice of you to gloss over that.

Yes, Dave. I realize that there are alot of contrators in Iraq that work their asses off. They also get paid like 3x what we did. That also has nothing to do with the contractor COMPANIES that trtied to dick over uncle sam every chance it got.

[Clove]

There are multiple contracting sources. There is still a massive shortage. Next stupid point. Did you not hear me the first time? Nice of you to gloss over that.

I heard you, except for the scope of the article under discussion, there was only one contractor. Reading comprehension FTW!

[Daniel]

Except, there is more than one contractor refurbing Humvees. Reality FTW!!

[sst]

There are multiple contracting sources. There is still a massive shortage. Next stupid point. Did you not hear me the first time? Nice of you to gloss over that.

Yes, Dave. I realize that there are alot of contrators in Iraq that work their asses off. They also get paid like 3x what we did. That also has nothing to do with the contractor COMPANIES that trtied to dick over uncle sam every chance it got.

i wasn't saying anything like that. Some are good some are bad, i was just using the GD guys as a example of the good folks working out there with us. I know I wouldn't go to Iraq willingly for 29k a year, so i understand why they get paid a fair sum more than we do. I 100% agree that they need more checks and balances in place to over watch contractors over there. I wish we have the military capability to do the work that contractors do.

[Daniel]

I wish we have the military capability to do the work that contractors do.

We did before Rumsfield.

[Clove]

In ITT's case, there were too few soldiers to handle the maintenance duties and no other contractors ready to step in quickly, according to Redding Hobby, the Army Sustainment Command's executive director for field support operations.

Hey look, I can repeat myself too!

[Daniel]

Are you high?

[Clove]

Are you high?

No, but you're everything we've come to expect from years of government training.

[Daniel]

That makes sense.

P.s. I'm sorry your vageegee is all swollen today. I really am.

[TheEschaton]

It's pronounced vajayjay, Daniel, damn it.

[Daniel]

Vajayjay Vajeejee. Tomato Tomato.

[Parkbandit]

No, but you're everything we've come to expect from years of government training.

LOL.. I was thinking the same thing.

[Seran]

Currently working for a major equipment company often onsite during or immediately following disasters, I can tell you that the US Government is not an easy employer. It's one of the chief reason we will not work directly with FEMA, BLM, or ACE in any of it's projects due to burdensome papertrails and irresponsible government employees.

If you've the manpower, patience, and sustained capital to go six to eight month's without payment due to bureacracy, then by all means take a contact. In the meantime, we're at the top of the FEMA supplier list and enjoy the NET30 terms gotten out of the customers we sub-contract to.

[Keller]

No, but you're everything we've come to expect from years of government training.

What does that even mean?

[Clove]

What does that even mean?

So you can understand tax code, but not English?

[Gan]

LOL

[Clove]

Just to help you out Keller.

http://www.imdb.com/character/ch0002786/quotes

Second quote from Zed. It's an ironic statement (see irony in the dictionary for more details).

[Stanley Burrell]

Just to help you out Keller.

http://www.imdb.com/character/ch0002786/quotes

Second quote from Zed. It's an ironic statement (see irony in the dictionary for more details).

Best investigative reporting on the planet. But go ahead, read the New York Times if you want. They get lucky sometimes.

[Clove]

Best investigative reporting on the planet. But go ahead, read the New York Times if you want. They get lucky sometimes.

Quit playin, how many times'd you flashy thing me?!

[Stanley Burrell]

And we dress in black:

Uh, what? Yeah-yeah. Bussitbussitbussitbussit. (http://youtube.com/watch?v=aiNbBeJ1Ewg)

[Keller]

So you can understand tax code, but not English?

Plain English is pretty straight-forward. It's the failed attempts at vague personal insults that stem from an utter lack of alternative argument that are a little trickier.

[Clove]

Plain English is pretty straight-forward. It's the failed attempts at vague personal insults that stem from an utter lack of alternative argument that are a little trickier.

You've been in France too long. It was a pretty clear insult and a response to an "are you high" comment from Daniel (which wasn't much of an argument either). I see you have nothing to contribute either.

[Stanley Burrell]

Fuck all y'all. I speak Esperanto <^>

:heart:

[Parkbandit]

Just to help you out Keller.

http://www.imdb.com/character/ch0002786/quotes

Second quote from Zed. It's an ironic statement (see irony in the dictionary for more details).


It's not as funny if you have to help the dumb people understand it.

[Daniel]

You've been in France too long. It was a pretty clear insult and a response to an "are you high" comment from Daniel (which wasn't much of an argument either). I see you have nothing to contribute either.

Yes, because saying the article on specifically mentions one company when talking about a national problem is not retarded?

[Clove]

It's not as funny if you have to help the dumb people understand it.

Even Stanley got it.

[Clove]

Yes, because saying the article on specifically mentions one company when talking about a national problem is not retarded?

Because the article illustrated a specific problem using a specific example. Incidentally Warriorbird confirms my assessment when he gives his opinion that there is a
...suspicious lack of multiple sources for contracts in Iraq...

The Pentagon has been consolidating the military industry since the end of the Cold War and its effects really began to take hold in the mid-90's. They haven't stopped and it's creating bad monopoly-like situations.

What I said about multiple suppliers applies to both the article and the general problem although for the general problem, there are additional steps that need to be made (not the least of which is more self-sufficeincy in military logistics).

Really, it was a direct and germane statement. If you didn't understand it Daniel, you could have just PM'd me.

[Gan]

Even Stanley got it.

That should be your baseline. No wait, Ilvane should be your baseline comparison point. Stan's about 50% higher. ;)

[Daniel]

It is a rather simple statement. However, it is false.

Per the GAO:

Based on our past work, several challenges will need to be addressed by DOD to improve the oversight and management of contractors supporting deployed forces in future operations and ensure warfighters are receiving the support they rely on in an effective and efficient manner. Those challenges include: (1) incorporating contractors as part of the total force, (2) determining the proper balance of contractors and military personnel in future contingencies and operations, (3) clarifying how DOD will work with other government agencies in future contingencies and operations, and (4) addressing the use and role of contractors into its plans to expand and transform the Army and the Marine Corps.

Thanks for playing.

[Clove]

It is a rather simple statement. However, it is false.

Per the GAO:

... (2) determining the proper balance of contractors and military personnel in future contingencies and operations, (3) ...

Thanks for playing.

:thinking:

[Daniel]

Don't think too hard.

[Daniel]

To put it in perspective, another GAO quote:

"The U.S. military has long used contractors to provide supplies and
services to deployed U.S. forces. However, the scale of contractor support
the Department of Defense (DOD) relies on today in locations such as Iraq
and elsewhere throughout Southwest Asia has increased considerably
from what DOD relied on during previous military operations, such as
Operation Desert Shield/Desert Storm and in the Balkans. Moreover,
DOD’s reliance on contractors continues to grow. The Army alone
estimates that almost 60,000 contractor employees currently support
ongoing military operations in Southwest Asia. By way of contrast, an
estimated 9,200 contractor personnel supported military operations in the
1991 Gulf War."

Adding more contractors is sure to make things better.

What was I thinking?

[Clove]

Adding more contractors is sure to make things better.
Glad you agree.



What was I thinking?

Who the fuck knows?

[Clove]

Don't think too hard.

Don't read much, Daniel, we don't want you straining your eyes.

None of the Government Office of Accountability's statements contradict what I said. The number of contractors increased because of a rise in outsourcing roles that were traditionally handled by the military; that isn't what I was referring to by consolidation. Things like Grumman merging with Marietta, plans since the 90's to consolidate (there's that word again) submarine production to one facility, or ITT being used too heavily.

[Daniel]

Don't read much, Daniel, we don't want you straining your eyes.
The number of contractors increased because of a rise in outsourcing roles that were traditionally handled by the military

Which is different from what I have been saying how?

Of course these companies are going to merge. It's within their self interest to create economices of scale within the market. That's what they do as a business. You can't just will multiple suppliers into a market, and even if you could, it won't mean anything if there is still insufficient supply to meet demand.

Period.

[Clove]

You can't just will multiple suppliers into a market, and even if you could, it won't mean anything if there is still insufficient supply to meet demand.

Period.

You don't need to "will" multiple suppliers IF supply is trailing so far behind demand THEN suppliers come to the market on their own (self-interested free will). UNLESS the Pentagon won't spend on alternate contractors.

[Daniel]

*In Theory, with no barriers to entry; this happens in the *long run*. The long run being specified as an indeterminate amount of time.

This is where theoretical does not always mesh well with practice. War is an inherently short term endeavor as A) It is always temporary and B) where requirements are often fluid and utterly unpredictable.

You do not have the time or the luxury to wait around for companies to create themselves. This may work with HDTV's but when soldiers lives and our national security is the on the line. It does not.


I've quoted below a post that you should take to heart.







Currently working for a major equipment company often onsite during or immediately following disasters, I can tell you that the US Government is not an easy employer. It's one of the chief reason we will not work directly with FEMA, BLM, or ACE in any of it's projects due to burdensome papertrails and irresponsible government employees.

If you've the manpower, patience, and sustained capital to go six to eight month's without payment due to bureacracy, then by all means take a contact. In the meantime, we're at the top of the FEMA supplier list and enjoy the NET30 terms gotten out of the customers we sub-contract to.

[Clove]

Ever hear of an Underwood or IBM M-1?

[Daniel]

The rifle used in WWII?