i was under the impression they were selling the Power Plants which would seem to indicate that they would seek the highest possible price…unless of course you do a no-bid. But I admit I could be wrong, are they just looking to contract out the operation and maintenance of the plants?
What sort of union butt-sucking luddite would argue this point to be the “inevitable” and “only” result from lowest bid contracting? It’s a common result, resulting far too frequently to be sustainable in the government contracting offices I HAVE WORKED IN. Go put words in somebody else’s mouth, fool.
Why does every asswipe idiot posting on this board think their personally held beliefs require repudiation? Gawddamn. :rolleyes:
Ooh, you showed him!. Now do Gangster Octopus…
What a crock. Highway projects are virtually always by low bidder. You draw up the plans and specifications and take bids. No matter what the price, you monitor the work and enforce the specifications. To say that the low bid process guarantees shoddy work is quite silly.
Correct. The key to making low-bid projects successful comes from a clear set of acceptance criteria and monitoring and enforcement of those criteria as the job progresses. Managed properly, low-bid contracts are perfectly useful vehicles for government work.
I personally feel the government does better by awarding contracts on a best value basis, rather than strictly low bid, but that has nothing to do with the claims here.
You said it, moron, not me. If you didn’t mean “inevitable” and “always” you should have put in qualifiers. You didn’t. Learn to make good arguments and people won’t call you out on the idiocy in your writing. But then, you’re an idiot so it’s gonna be hard to keep that out of your posts.
The state DOT budgets here have revealed that over the past ten years or so, we’ve spent more fixing prematurely crumbling highways and correcting engineering deficiencies in drainage and ramp construction built with low-bid contracts than we have in new work or regularly scheduled maintenance - all due to contractors who were not properly supervised or low bid contracts that did not adequately address the requirements.
That is just the tip of the iceberg. It gets much worse at the federal level.
Let me just re-post what I said quoted for you in case you want to point this out before you go skulking away, tail between legs. What I posted:
What you posted:
Care to explain what the fuck you are talking about, or just quit while you are ahead genius?
I presume you have cites for your accusations, no? The bidding process has nothing to do with the quality of work. If the plans and specifications are sound and the oversight adequate, most of the time good work is the result. Perhaps you should confine your posting to things you know something about. Maybe Justin Bieber’s hair or something.
Far more than you could ever dream of, I’m sure. But due to privacy concerms I will elect to allow you to continue digging (this particular hole you have started here).
At the time of the bidding process, true enough. No work has been done at that time now has it, Captain obvious? Why is it so many seem to have this difficulty with connecting the time and causality dots. Of course it has everything to do with the execution phase.
Golly gee whiz - another what-if game player are you? Try historical fact for the purpopse of conclusion drawing. Maybe you will learn something.
Perhaps you are just another driveling idiot with nothing more than an inclination to argue about things you have no knowledge of?
Yes, that would be the correct analysis, methinks.
Hey peckerwood, how long have you been in the highway business? I suspect a few decades less than myself.
I submit Iraq as an example of what happens when we just throw money at a problem. Billions missing in graft, work never completed. Surely, this can’t be the fault of low-bid contracts, right?
Perhaps it ALL has to do with the amount of supervision of a job. Rather than switching to no-bid contracting to save money, a dubious idea at best, perhaps we fund regulators to make sure people are doing the jobs for which they’re paid.
Well then, that certainly explains your penchant for defending it. Just like the Union supporters defend their interests.
Takes one to know one, I suppose. :rolleyes:
Judging by the “peckerwood” attribution, I’d go along with the idea you have been doing something for quite a long time. Whatever it was, it’s contribution to the highway system as I know it would certainly be called into question.
If you really want to go there. Wanna talk about bridges - as long as we’re in Wisconsin, that is. 
I know my counterpart in Wisconsin well enough that I can call him should I want to discuss his bridges, thanks.
What’s your particular expertise, Nadir? I mean, if it trumps others’ direct experience, it must be pretty good, so please tell this old project manager something: How exactly is the bid process a larger determining factor for project execution than planning, specifications and oversight, as listed by BobLibDem?
I’d love to know that, as it would greatly simplify risk management and government accounting. Please feel free to wow me with your dot connecting abilities.
As one old project manager to another xenophon41, it’s quite simple. I’d have thought you would be aware of these things, or at least see the connection to bidding issues as it relates to Wisconsin’s power plants - if you are in fact an “old project manager” as you seem to claim.
Rather that allow further obfuscation to derail the thread, I would implore** shit from guns** to elaborate on that, since she is so worried about it and the one who brought it up last in her vitriolic denouncement of the subject, sans any facts, details or explanation whatsoever - IT’S JUST GOT TO BE BAD!
Yes SFG, please explain exactly how bidding for power plant operations in Wisconsin is a good or bad thing, as the case may be. We are all ears.
But no brains. That explains a lot.
Because when you have a no-bid contract which you hand to your political cronies, there is even less oversight than with a low-bidder contract. In other news, you’re still an idiot.
Bullshit. You are the one insisting that low-bid government contracts lead to poor quality of work and inadequate resource management “time and time again” as a natural course. You are the one sneering at the importance of proper specifications, planning and oversight.
Since we both know project language, please walk me through that. It contradicts what I’m reasonably sure, given my obviously lesser understanding, PMI and other so-called authorities have been telling me for years.
Wow, you can’t even read your own words for comprehension; what a surprise. :rolleyes:
If you meant “Shoddy work, defective product, inadequate staffing and other features sometimes await the owners of lowest bidder government contractors” you should have written that.
If you meant “Shoddy work, defective product, inadequate staffing and other features usually await the owners of lowest bidder government contractors” you should have written that.
But you wrote
No qualifiers, no limits. The only interpretation of your words is that it always happens and is inevitable.
Your user name is well-chosen, at least. Did your mom help you with that?