Department of Government Efficiency - DOGE

#76
#76
TN-POSSUM said:
🧐

😂



Tim Irwin is a good man and does a lot for the Boy and Girls Clubs of Tennessee. Why do not like good people? Since you're throwing the word around, I thought what you said about Irwin was pretty dumb
Click to expand...
The football forum and political forum should be kept separate. Not kind of dumb on your part.
 
#81
#81
McDad said:
DOGE feels more like political theater than political reformation to me.

I am not expecting much in results. I expect a whole lot of noise.
Click to expand...


Al Gore was put in charge of an entity with the same task in the 90s. While Elon Musks runny dumps have more braincells than Gore, their hands will be tied just the same sadly...

They can only point out inefficiencies, redundancies, and utter BS in our government...Congress is the only one with the power to get rid of the waste and restructure. They will likely do nothing...as that's what Congress does...nothing. Except enrich themselves.
 
  • Like
Reactions: GroverCleveland and norrislakevol
#87
#87
BernardKingGOAT said:
The impact his decisions could have with his business interests
Click to expand...
Fair. I suppose I will have to see how it plays out. I also suppose this applies to Vivek or any other individuals chosen to be part of DOGE.

At some level, potential conflict seems like it may be an issue with any advisor to an Administration. Advisors are chosen for their knowledge and experience, so it seems to me that most advisors probably are giving advice that potentially impacts their business interests.

I am not sure how much authority DOGE has, how they make decisions, and whether or not they simply make recommendations or actually implement change.

Thanks for your response. I hadn’t thought about the potential conflict issue. Something to keep an eye on, for sure.
 
  • Like
Reactions: BernardKingGOAT
#88
#88
Ritzwatch said:
Fair. I suppose I will have to see how it plays out. I also suppose this applies to Vivek or any other individuals chosen to be part of DOGE.

At some level, potential conflict seems like it may be an issue with any advisor to an Administration. Advisors are chosen for their knowledge and experience, so it seems to me that most advisors probably are giving advice that potentially impacts their business interests.

I am not sure how much authority DOGE has, how they make decisions, and whether or not they simply make recommendations or actually implement change.

Thanks for your response. I hadn’t thought about the potential conflict issue. Something to keep an eye on, for sure.
Click to expand...
👍 I'm on the record multiple times stating my preference would be for Trump to win for the entertainment factor it would provide.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Ritzwatch
#89
#89
BernardKingGOAT said:
Not sure how Musk involved is anything but a HUGE conflict of interest
Click to expand...
you could say this with pretty much every single government appointee ever. What do you think "qualified" means in the government? It means connected to those industries they are supposed to be checking.
 
  • Like
Reactions: TN-POSSUM, whodeycin85, Vol since 77 and 1 other person
#90
#90
Grand Vol said:
Move ALL government contracts to fixed price awards. The largest government contractors hate fixed price contracts which means that's probably the way we should go.

If you can't build it at what you said you could, you give up the right to finish the project and must turn over all work or fund it from internal means.

That would help make the bidding process more accurate and fair.
Click to expand...
I love fixed price contracts because I am good at my job.
 
#91
#91
lawgator1 said:
Obviously, a lot has to do with how one does the accounting, i.e.:

1) Buy hammer for $10,000 from Home Depot; or,

2) Calculate cost of making a hammer by the US gov't and include in that some pro rata share for the cost of materials, cost of design, cost of transport, and some 20 other myriad expenses along the way.

The goal of such citations is to misleadingly take the number generated by the second approach and make it sound like it is the equivalent of the firs,t i.e. that we actually paid $10,000 for a hammer.
Click to expand...
its far closer to number 1 while using number 2 as post-fact justification. there are some of the mark ups you mentioned included, but the government is still way overpaying for the individual item too. its just the way they write contracts, after they got input from the industries.
 
#92
#92
rjd970 said:
Not taking away from the point because it is valid, but a $10,000 hammer is kind of misleading. The hammer only costs $10, the other $9,990 is for the design, labor, and testing requirements needed. You don’t want to get to outer space or all the way to the moon and have your hammer not work.

Kind of a silly example, but provides some explanation at what is going on. I would agree there is a lot of bloat in that $9,990 that isn’t really needed though.
Click to expand...
I can speak first hand to seeing what the fed gov pays for office furniture. They weren't spending 5k with 10k of bs added on, on a 5k piece of furniture. they were spending 5k on a 1k piece of furniture with 10k of added bs on top of the 4k "government approved commercially available product" mark up.

it was great seeing some of the mark ups from the vendors. They included design costs by the architect. we were contracted thru the government, nothing to do with the vendor, but the vendor charged the government for the work the government was paying us to do. and usually those mark ups were far more than we were ever paid.
 
#93
#93
LouderVol said:
I can speak first hand to seeing what the fed gov pays for office furniture. They weren't spending 5k with 10k of bs added on, on a 5k piece of furniture. they were spending 5k on a 1k piece of furniture with 10k of added bs on top of the 4k "government approved commercially available product" mark up.

it was great seeing some of the mark ups from the vendors. They included design costs by the architect. we were contracted thru the government, nothing to do with the vendor, but the vendor charged the government for the work the government was paying us to do. and usually those mark ups were far more than we were ever paid.
Click to expand...
The worst racket is companies that get some sort of underserved or set-aside status and just act as a reseller to the government with insane markups just to help the government meet its own rules on set-aside utilization.
 
#94
#94
ButchPlz said:
The worst racket is companies that get some sort of underserved or set-aside status and just act as a reseller to the government with insane markups just to help the government meet its own rules on set-aside utilization.
Click to expand...
it was funny to me seeing what all could qualify under different requirements. Herman Miller qualified as a small local business under one of the contracts.
 
#95
#95
Sole Source Purchasing Contracts.

You write the purchasing order request with targeted specification justifications where only the company you want to have the contract, no matter the cost, has the capability to fulfill it.

In some cases these are appropriate requests but in many others they are simply used to line the pockets within the “buddy system”.
 
#96
#96
DynaLo said:
Sole Source Purchasing Contracts.

You write the purchasing order request with targeted specification justifications where only the company you want to have the contract, no matter the cost, has the capability to fulfill it.

In some cases these are appropriate requests but in many others they are simply used to line the pockets within the “buddy system”.
Click to expand...
Incorrect.

There are limits on the amount that can be sole sourced. Some of those limits are insane (I want to say it's like $20M for an 8(a) and $5M for an SDVOSB, but I am likely misremembering) but there are certainly limits and certainly restrictions at least with cost.

Now, that's not to say that a vendor may use white papers or other methods to influence the formation of technical specifications, ensuring their company is providing the only solution that can meet the requirements, but as far as "no matter the cost" that is untrue.
 
#97
#97
ButchPlz said:
Incorrect.

There are limits on the amount that can be sole sourced. Some of those limits are insane (I want to say it's like $20M for an 8(a) and $5M for an SDVOSB, but I am likely misremembering) but there are certainly limits and certainly restrictions at least with cost.

Now, that's not to say that a vendor may use white papers or other methods to influence the formation of technical specifications, ensuring their company is providing the only solution that can meet the requirements, but as far as "no matter the cost" that is untrue.
Click to expand...
Hendricks Motorsports, sole source of providing Dale Jr car wrap graphics and Dale’s event attendances.
Between 25-40 million dollars per contract year, increasing substantially annually depending on which year you look at.

You can always write (pad) a sole source to justify the costs involved.
 
#98
#98
DynaLo said:
Hendricks Motorsports, sole source of providing Dale Jr car wrap graphics and Dale’s event attendances.
Between 25-40 million dollars per contract year, increasing substantially annually depending on which year you look at.

You can always write (pad) a sole source to justify the costs involved.
Click to expand...
The only high ceiling contract I can find directly awarded to Hendrick Motorsports is a multi-year DoD IDIQ for vehicle mods. It isn't paying $25-40M per year and it has nothing to do with Dale Jr event attendances. Hendrick hasn't even topped out close to $25M on prime contracts over the last 10-ish years. Those are also not "sole sourced" as you're trying to explain, and no, even if you do it exactly as I explained, you can't exceed certain ceilings for set-aside awards, period. The bulk of Hendrick's work is as a subcontractor to major defense firms.

You're talking to someone that does this stuff. Unless you can give me an actual contract number that proves your case, I'm calling BS.
 
#99
#99
I’m not going to dox myself to give you anything, but you can shove your BS claim as I’ve seen the actual contract info but here’s a news source discussing some of those contract years.

www.usatoday.com

National Guard leaving Dale Earnhardt Jr., Graham Rahal

Military branch cites need to cut costs
www.usatoday.com

2014: “The Guard said it spent $32 million as a sponsor for Earnhardt this season, which includes appearing as the primary sponsor on Hendrick Motorsports' No. 88 Chevrolet for 20 races.”

www.usatoday.com

National Guard's NASCAR deal leads to virtually no recruits

The National Guard spends big on a NASCAR sponsorship but draws few recruits.
www.usatoday.com

“The National Guard spent $26.5 million to sponsor NASCAR racing in 2012”

“Even though the Guard spent $88 million as a NASCAR sponsor from 2011 to 2013,”
 
#100
#100
DynaLo said:
I’m not going to dox myself to give you anything, but you can shove your BS claim as I’ve seen the actual contract info but here’s a news source discussing some of those contract years.

www.usatoday.com

National Guard leaving Dale Earnhardt Jr., Graham Rahal

Military branch cites need to cut costs
www.usatoday.com

2014: “The Guard said it spent $32 million as a sponsor for Earnhardt this season, which includes appearing as the primary sponsor on Hendrick Motorsports' No. 88 Chevrolet for 20 races.”

www.usatoday.com

National Guard's NASCAR deal leads to virtually no recruits

The National Guard spends big on a NASCAR sponsorship but draws few recruits.
www.usatoday.com

“The National Guard spent $26.5 million to sponsor NASCAR racing in 2012”

“Even though the Guard spent $88 million as a NASCAR sponsor from 2011 to 2013,”
Click to expand...
I don't think the National Guard was paying 26 million to JUST wrap a car. I don't think advertising falls under the same requirements as procurement, but I have never dealt with that side of things and could be wrong.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top