Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
The Shadow

NO BID CONTRACT: Michelle O's Princeton Classmate is Executive at Company that Built Obamacare Website'

46 posts in this topic

Of course, any connection between the company winning a $500 million bid on Obama's signature legislation and Michelle's former sorority sister/fellow member of the Black something or other.......is pure coincidence.

 

On the other hand, any contract awarded to Halliburton during **** Cheney's term.....

 

Liberals are such hypocrites, lol

And the conservatives are such poor losers.  :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

pretty smart the way the statist are making this health care disaster all about the technical problems with the website ......

 

positioning it so that when the website is fixed the low info voters think the problem has been resolved when that's when the real problems start ......

Edited by Eastside Terp

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It was awarded on best value not price alone. 

 

Could you please provide proof, back up your accusations?

 

Looks like he has failed to do that, yet again.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Looks like he has failed to do that, yet again.

 

I guess it's time to "pull a Calamari" and introduce the fake hate crime note to bolster my position....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Of course, any connection between the company winning a $500 million bid on Obama's signature legislation and Michelle's former sorority sister/fellow member of the Black something or other.......is pure coincidence.

 

On the other hand, any contract awarded to Halliburton during **** Cheney's term.....

 

Liberals are such hypocrites, lol

And people like you continue to sniff under every rock looking for a cover-up or conspiracy.

 

Do you have any proof that undo influence was instrumental in the decision? Anything besides your paranoid suspicions? Show us your proof.

 

Fundamentally, those on the Government selection committees, have great - legal - immunity from any biases/influences from higher ups. On the other hand, if someone on the selection committee "threw their vote" , in favor a less qualified company, because of some pressure to do so....they would open themselves up to not only firing, but criminal prosecution. I don't know of any Gov employee who would expose themselves to such retribution, just because their boss suggested they look the other way.

 

Finally, as is the right of every company that is not selected, they can demand (legally) a debriefing on how their proposal was scored, etc. When the stakes are high enough, it's pretty common that a losing company will challenge the decision. At that point, everything that the selection committee did, all the paper work, meeting notes, etc will need to presented and examined.

 

If there is anything that smacks of political favoritism, it's the selection of this Agency, in the first place, to run and administer the work/web site. They clearly did not have the in house expertise to carry out that mission. In that regard, there is NO Gov selection committee that evaluates agencies to determine who should administer. That's handed down by political cronyism.

Edited by slapshot

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And people like you continue to sniff under every rock looking for a cover-up or conspiracy.

 

Do you have any proof that undo influence was instrumental in the decision? Anything besides your paranoid suspicions? Show us your proof.

 

Was there any proof re Halliburton?  Didn't seem to stop the leftinistas and the MSM from speculating back then, did it?  Anyone ask for their proof before they made the allegations?

 

:rolleyes:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Was there any proof re Halliburton?  Didn't seem to stop the leftinistas and the MSM from speculating back then, did it?  Anyone ask for their proof before they made the allegations?

 

:rolleyes:

Stop it. I didn't bring up Halliburton.

 

Focus.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Three years was ample time to set the specifications and solicit bids from qualified firms.  This thing was handled horribly and rushed through without proper testing.  As a result, we get the collosal disaster that we're seeing.

It reminds me of the disaster in '06 when the Prescription drug part D was brought on line.  The Democrats effed that one up too.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've been on several proposal evaluation committees, and never once did "best value" come up as a criteria to be ranked. In fact, when i give a justification to my Gov sponsor for wanting to buy this piece if equipment, over another piece of equipment, i am specifically told that i can't use such phraseology as, "best value". If i do, my purchase request will get bounced back. The press and the public like to think awards are made on "best value", but that's really an indirect reference to the true evaluation criteria, which go to technical merit, requested funds, schedule and quality of personel running/administering the work.

 

Generally, there are two proposals submitted by bidders: (1) technical proposal and (2) finance and management proposal. Whomever is in charge (from the Gov side), they determine the ranking criteria, and weighting factor for each criteria. The only way that "best value" would enter the equation would be indirectly, by the weighting given to criteria that indirectly measures, "bang for the buck". That said, not clear to me how you measure (quantify) the "bang" factor in setting up a web site? If it does what it was specified to do, and is in place by the scheduled deadline - which I'm sure all proposals complied (they would be foolish to say anything else) - then it should score highly. But the "buck" factor can vary widely from bidder to bidder. Despite the movie portray of the Gov always buying from the "lowest bidder", that simply isn't the case. Where $$ factor into the equation - is the cost to do the work outside the scope of the funding level? Proposals that come in at a cost of 2X, while allocated Gov funding is at X, are routinely kicked out of any further evaluation.

What you are describing is "best value".

 

Of course, any connection between the company winning a $500 million bid on Obama's signature legislation and Michelle's former sorority sister/fellow member of the Black something or other.......is pure coincidence.

 

On the other hand, any contract awarded to Halliburton during **** Cheney's term.....

 

Liberals are such hypocrites, lol

 

 

Halibuton got the no bid contracts, actually KBR got them because they could put people on the ground quickly, had done things like this before and had the resources to make it happen. Them getting the contracts ongoing after the first 6 months(remember no one expected, especially Bush and Cheney for the debalce to last) was the problem.

Edited by SteamChief

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What you are describing is "best value".

.

Not exactly. There is a difference.

 

As I said, I have never seen, nor heard of a selection criteria (evaluated by the proposal review committee) that was deemed, "best value".

 

As I said, a number of the criteria that are rated, indirectly measure "best value".

 

But "best value" is very subjective, and so long as a proposal does not exceed the Government's ability to pay for the product/service (ie, allotted funding), what's always the most important criteria are technical and scheduling compliance. Case in point - if my company offers features in our proposal that your company does not, or, those features are deemed better somehow......but my company's proposal is more expensive.....which proposal offers the "best value"? As I said, so long as my company's proposal does not exceed the Gov's funding level, then many times, cost doesn't impact the decision.

 

All things being equal however, if all the proposals promise the same thing, with the same level of confidence of being able to deliver on time, then yes, the cheaper proposal will win as it offers better value. But the reality is - no two proposals, with technical capabilities of the companies, are ever the same. A little talked about criteria - do evaluators have a high confidence level a company can actually deliver on their promises. Let's face it - most companies over promise on things to win the contract. What is the company's track record on actually delivering and meeting schedules on prior Gov contracts? If an evaluator doesn't have much confidence in a company's reputations, pretty much everything else they say is moot.

Edited by slapshot

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The crony contractor who effed up the website is the same contractor who was selected to administer almost $2 Billion dollars to the victims of the NJ Superstorm Sandy last year..

 

A software company?  

 

Why?  Oh that's right, Black Sorority Sistas.

 

Gutter trash, common thieves.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It figures that POS Hussein Obama and his ugly wife would pull a scam like this. :mad:  I wonder how much kick back they get from it since they gave the contract to a "homie". :huh:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The facts just came out, and down this latest clownish attack on Obama goes:
 

http://crooksandliars.com/jamie/daily-callers-failed-attempt-tying-obama-cg

 

In attempts to find scandal, collusion and anything else they can manufacturer against healthcare.gov, the Daily Caller has reached a new low. Here's their latest revelation, which also happens to be at the top of Drudge right now..

First Lady Michelle Obama’s Princeton classmate is a top executive at the company that earned the contract to build the failed Obamacare website.

Toni Townes-Whitley, Princeton class of ’85, is senior vice president at CGI Federal, which earned the no-bid contract to build the $678 million Obamacare enrollment website at Healthcare.gov. CGI Federal is the U.S. arm of a Canadian company.

So because two people were in the same class at Princeton, that means that they not only know each other, but that one would give the other an enormous government contract? And speaking of that contract, well let's say facts are a stubborn thing. CGI Federal's part of the healthcare pie was actually just under $94 million. They were only one of 47 contractors that worked on the massive project.

 

 

Will the righties move onto the next lie or continue flogging this non-story?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

remember folks, this is the easy part .......

 

even if you support the wealth redistribution plan that is obamacare, why would anyonr expect anything better from the government then this website screw up and why would anyone expect that they could possibly pull off running obamacare without totally screwing it up  .......

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The crony contractor who effed up the website is the same contractor who was selected to administer almost $2 Billion dollars to the victims of the NJ Superstorm Sandy last year..

 

A software company?

 

Why? Oh that's right, Black Sorority Sistas.

 

Gutter trash, common thieves.

Are you aware tat CGI is a Canadian company? Contractors don't "administer" Government programs, let alone foreign owned contractors.

 

They have many different divisions, including a Federal Division, that may, or may not do software development? Overall, they do a lot more than software.

Edited by slapshot

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The crony contractor who effed up the website is the same contractor who was selected to administer almost $2 Billion dollars to the victims of the NJ Superstorm Sandy last year..

 

A software company?  

 

Why?  Oh that's right, Black Sorority Sistas.

 

Gutter trash, common thieves.

 

 

And he is polling better than your team.

 

Simply put, your team is essentially circling the drain.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

“The Obama administration initially paid $678 million of your tax money on a ‘no-bid’ contract to the CGI Group, a Canadian firm, to create an Internet program to permit you to purchase your federally mandated Obamacare health insurance online. One might have expected the Internet access program to have functioned properly, since the CGI Group's Senior Vice President is Toni Townes-Whitley, a Princeton classmate of First Lady Michelle Obama; frequent White House visitor, and Presidential guest at a recent White House Christmas dinner."

 

"...  although the CGI group recently had a $46 million contract with the Canadian government cancelled due to poor performance ..."
President Obama has now pledged that after paying untold, additional hundreds of millions more to this same CGI Group to fix their own problem, the Obamacare Internet site will be up and running by month's end.

Never fear, American ingenuity to the rescue! Three young men, George Kalogeropoulos, Ning Liang, and Michael Wasser, stated that they, "Saw many individuals having trouble during the launch of Healthcare.gov and wanted to make a difference." So over a recent weekend, without costing taxpayers a single cent, they rolled out an insurance enrollment website of their own: thehealthsherpa.com. It is different. It works! Try it, you'll like it.
Just put in your zip code and it will pull up all the currently approved and available healthcare insurance plans from which you can make your choice. Here in Tennessee, Blue Cross/Blue Shield is the only approved choice, but thirty (30) different BC/BS plans are offered (North Carolina offers 28) and at varying costs. Then put in your age and approximate annual income, and it will calculate and show you the offsetting federal subsidies to which you may be entitled, deduct them from the regular monthly premiums for the various plans, and show your net premium costs. There are even instructions on how to purchase, should you wish to do so.

So what is the moral of all this? Federal cronyism, especially at the Presidential level, is very expensive, and it usually doesn't work so well either.


Obamacare Website: Corruption or Incompetence? Or Both? / FOP
http://www.freedomoutpost.com/2013/11/obamacare-website-corruption-incompetence/



CGI Federal earned 6 more CMS contracts after Obamacare website flop / Daily Caller (2/14)

http://www.dailycaller.com/2014/02/04/cgi-federal-earned-6-more-cms-contracts-after-obamacare-website-flop/
 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Big deal. Every Federal contract we have received has been "no bid". They are all "sole sourced"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Leave it to the gullible left wingers to cheer for a cheap common grifter like Michelle Obama.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Big deal. Every Federal contract we have received has been "no bid". They are all "sole sourced"

Your company must operate in a tiny niche of another niche with practically no competitors. The vast majority of large federal procurements result from a competitive process at least to some degree.

 

What business is your company in? Services? Products? Research?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To any American older than say....... 30, yes it does.

Hey dilbert

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0