Quote:
Originally posted by: kg_veteran
Mavdog - A couple of thoughts:
1) Why take things to a personal level? Was there really a need to call LRB "ADD"? Don't be an ass, man.
|
??? that's taking it to a personal level? what do you call the "idiot"s and the "stupid"s?
I try to keep it straightforward. dare I say more than most do.
Quote:
2) Thanks for the links about the contracts being awarded, and it appears that some of them were no-bid. Re: your implication that there is something fraudulent or wrong about them being no-bid, however, I'd offer this comment from the article you linked:
---------------------------------
And you know what? I think that's great. I don't want government waste, nor do I want contracts going to companies that won't do the work as effectively and cost-efficiently as possible. But your implication that the contracts are no-bid and therefore corrupt is, so far, without any foundation.
|
we're in total agreement on the checks and balances of contracts.
I am fundamentally opposed to a contract award that is not bid upon. there is no reason for the provider to be efficient, the lack of competition is not good. all government contracts should be competitively bid.
If I said that they were corrupt, I should not have, although the article surprised me in mentioning there are reports of corruption already. no bid contracts have inherent ease for fraud/corruption.
Quote:
|
3) Back to the issue of wages, I see nothing based on the stories you graciously linked which suggests that the contracts are fixed in price. In fact, the Post story suggests the opposite. There will be certain "fixed price task orders," but it appears quite certain that there will also be time plus materials and cost plus arrangements as well. Bottom line, my suspicion is that the federal contractors are going to have to answer for how much they're actually paying in wages when submitting their bills to the federal government.
|
that is the purpose of the executive order by bush, if the contractors submitted cost of labor expenses below the "prevailing wage" without the order they woiuld be violating the law. now that the order frees them, they can pay whatever they can employees to accept.
I don't see that this is a time to apply market principles to wages that are to be earned by these affected workers.