John Adams Posted October 29, 2006 Share Posted October 29, 2006 anyways, as someone who has worked on gov't contracts you probably know quite well that something that isn't defined within the contract doesn't get done unless the contract is amended 819263[/snapback] That's a good theory. You live in a textbook somewhere? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bungee Jumper Posted October 29, 2006 Share Posted October 29, 2006 That's a good theory. You live in a textbook somewhere? 819447[/snapback] Actually, he's pretty much right. I get in serious trouble all the time for doing things that are outside the scope of the contract, even if said things save time and money. And my employer's actually pretty lenient about such things - the worst case I know of is where a consulting firm was asked if they could transmit data via secure FTP instead of https, and responded "We'd need a contract mod to do it." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chilly Posted October 29, 2006 Share Posted October 29, 2006 anyways, as someone who has worked on gov't contracts you probably know quite well that something that isn't defined within the contract doesn't get done unless the contract is amended 819263[/snapback] Then again, the constitution doesn't have any money tied directly to it. Actually, he's pretty much right. I get in serious trouble all the time for doing things that are outside the scope of the contract, even if said things save time and money. And my employer's actually pretty lenient about such things - the worst case I know of is where a consulting firm was asked if they could transmit data via secure FTP instead of https, and responded "We'd need a contract mod to do it." doh.gif Obviously moving from one secure platform to another is a security risk. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Adams Posted October 29, 2006 Share Posted October 29, 2006 Actually, he's pretty much right. I get in serious trouble all the time for doing things that are outside the scope of the contract, even if said things save time and money. And my employer's actually pretty lenient about such things - the worst case I know of is where a consulting firm was asked if they could transmit data via secure FTP instead of https, and responded "We'd need a contract mod to do it." 819601[/snapback] We have different experiences with government contracts then. I used to do exclusively government construction and environmental cleanup. And while the contract was a nice guide, we often worked without change orders outside the contract. Not because it was the right thing to do, but because it was often more practical than going through the change order process. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ExiledInIllinois Posted October 30, 2006 Share Posted October 30, 2006 Actually, he's pretty much right. I get in serious trouble all the time for doing things that are outside the scope of the contract, even if said things save time and money. And my employer's actually pretty lenient about such things - the worst case I know of is where a consulting firm was asked if they could transmit data via secure FTP instead of https, and responded "We'd need a contract mod to do it." 819601[/snapback] That is why you don't contract out. I do work for the fed... Yet, I am one of the few (Corps is changing though) old school do everyhthings out there... Just a stiff that will do "all duties as assigned" type. Keep everything in house... People slack the Corps (USACE)... Right now we can be self-sufficiant in what we do... Those in-house capabilities are being stripped away though. I began to see it a few years ago when our motor vehicle fleet switched to GSA plates from in-house CE plates... Again... We have the equipment, vessels, floating plants, machine shop, computer capability, etc... ie: everything and anything at our disposal. Yet, they would like to take it all away to become like the dysfunctional agencies... The thing is the higher-ups want to eliminate that overhead... Thus contract out... You then get the mess you explained... Again... Keep it in house... You can tell me to to do anything, from welding a bulkhead along out gates to time-keeping to cleaning the head... Need to trench a fence line? Mow the +20 acres around the site to the security/computer upgrades... Keep it in house. What so bad about that?... You eliminate the middle man and get quality work from quality people who take pride in the area they are in charge of... You get security 24/7/365... And you can work "opposite" of how you would under a contract employee... My guess is PEOPLE DON'T WANT TO WORK... Or sweat... They want OTHER people to do the dirty work... That is where the government is going wrong and being wasteful... I am blessed because my job contains a lot... There is times I am out with the work crew, there are times when I am in the office... There are times when my job enables me to do many things at once, complete my tasks AND CONVEY THOSE HAPPENINGS TO YOU... I am lucky because that is a voice, POV, that you don't hear too much in this day and age... A college grad that digs ditches some weeks and does the computer/office end other weeks... Again, what is wrong with that?... You get a lotta bang for your buck... With a security/safety angle that is invaluable in today's world. Sorry for the rant... Carry on! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alaska Darin Posted October 30, 2006 Share Posted October 30, 2006 That is why you don't contract out. I do work for the fed... Yet, I am one of the few (Corps is changing though) old school do everyhthings out there... Just a stiff that will do "all duties as assigned" type. Keep everything in house... People slack the Corps (USACE)... Right now we can be self-sufficiant in what we do... Those in-house capabilities are being stripped away though. I began to see it a few years ago when our motor vehicle fleet switched to GSA plates from in-house CE plates... Again... We have the equipment, vessels, floating plants, machine shop, computer capability, etc... ie: everything and anything at our disposal. Yet, they would like to take it all away to become like the dysfunctional agencies... The thing is the higher-ups want to eliminate that overhead... Thus contract out... You then get the mess you explained... Again... Keep it in house... You can tell me to to do anything, from welding a bulkhead along out gates to time-keeping to cleaning the head... Need to trench a fence line? Mow the +20 acres around the site to the security/computer upgrades... Keep it in house. What so bad about that?... You eliminate the middle man and get quality work from quality people who take pride in the area they are in charge of... You get security 24/7/365... And you can work "opposite" of how you would under a contract employee... My guess is PEOPLE DON'T WANT TO WORK... Or sweat... They want OTHER people to do the dirty work... That is where the government is going wrong and being wasteful... I am blessed because my job contains a lot... There is times I am out with the work crew, there are times when I am in the office... There are times when my job enables me to do many things at once, complete my tasks AND CONVEY THOSE HAPPENINGS TO YOU... I am lucky because that is a voice, POV, that you don't hear too much in this day and age... A college grad that digs ditches some weeks and does the computer/office end other weeks... Again, what is wrong with that?... You get a lotta bang for your buck... With a security/safety angle that is invaluable in today's world. Sorry for the rant... Carry on! 819957[/snapback] The government is simply reacting to years of alot of its own workers who wouldn't work. So it manages by crisis and goes directly the other way, by hiring nothing but contractors. Eventually, the contracting process will become so tedious(we're pretty much there) that they'll go back to hiring their own and the cycle will begin anew. Welcome to large entities and how they work. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ExiledInIllinois Posted October 30, 2006 Share Posted October 30, 2006 The government is simply reacting to years of alot of its own workers who wouldn't work. So it manages by crisis and goes directly the other way, by hiring nothing but contractors. Eventually, the contracting process will become so tedious(we're pretty much there) that they'll go back to hiring their own and the cycle will begin anew. Welcome to large entities and how they work. 819968[/snapback] You are right Darin. I wanted to post something along these lines. I fear we haven't hit bottom yet... There has got to be an equilib... And it starts with mgmt. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rockpile Posted October 30, 2006 Share Posted October 30, 2006 Im pretty much against the goverment funding anything. The government cannot be trusted with money. Period. There is so much waste and abuse out there its sick. For every dollar of productive work, there are about 10 wasted. 818099[/snapback] The government does not fund anything. They take it from me and you and spend it on whatever they want. That system makes as much sense as handing your kid your credit card, and driving them to the mall. I guess my feeling would be if they are going to spend billions of dollars on something, maybe medical research would be more productive than, oh, new sports stadiums? Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheMadCap Posted October 30, 2006 Share Posted October 30, 2006 The government does not fund anything. They take it from me and you and spend it on whatever they want. That system makes as much sense as handing your kid your credit card, and driving them to the mall. I guess my feeling would be if they are going to spend billions of dollars on something, maybe medical research would be more productive than, oh, new sports stadiums? Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm. 820161[/snapback] Yeah, they jack you before you even get your paycheck. The money is already gone, I didn't pay taxes, they were stolen from me... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JimBob2232 Posted October 30, 2006 Share Posted October 30, 2006 The government does not fund anything. They take it from me and you and spend it on whatever they want. That system makes as much sense as handing your kid your credit card, and driving them to the mall. I guess my feeling would be if they are going to spend billions of dollars on something, maybe medical research would be more productive than, oh, new sports stadiums? Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm. 820161[/snapback] Oh Contraire... The government is very good at funding things. What they dont do good is manage things in a fiscally responsible manner. Not that I support this, but paying for a stadium build is a relatively minor job. Cut a check and let someone manage the project. Pretty simple. When you talk about medical research, or health care, or social security, welfare, etc., you are talking about creating massive inefficient burocracies. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ExiledInIllinois Posted October 30, 2006 Share Posted October 30, 2006 The government does not fund anything. They take it from me and you and spend it on whatever they want. That system makes as much sense as handing your kid your credit card, and driving them to the mall. I guess my feeling would be if they are going to spend billions of dollars on something, maybe medical research would be more productive than, oh, new sports stadiums? Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm. 820161[/snapback] Yes... They do take the money from you... Say in my case, they take it form the taxpayer and right into the hands of the special interests that use the inland river system. Be it a pleasure craft using the system like a freeway or commercial interests that bring millions if not billions into the federal economy... You might not see it personally per say... But, from what I am told the tangible benefits help the economy for the whole nation... And yes... I am biting the hand that feeds me... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ExiledInIllinois Posted October 30, 2006 Share Posted October 30, 2006 Oh... Then again, "our" nations's infrastructure could like... Say, Mexico... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts