Jump to content



Recent headlines from The Baltimore Sun

Photo
* - - - - 1 votes

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


  • Please log in to reply
45 replies to this topic

#21 slapshot

slapshot

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 24,925 posts

Posted 26 October 2013 - 09:44 AM

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.

True.

It's pretty clear that the H&HS folks tasked to administer the implementation of the site, were way over their heads....technically.

Edited by slapshot, 26 October 2013 - 09:52 AM.

You miss 100% of the shots you never take.
I skate to where the puck is going to be, not to where it has been.

- Wayne Gretzky

#22 slapshot

slapshot

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 24,925 posts

Posted 26 October 2013 - 09:51 AM

(speaking of bootlickers and the lengths they'll go.....)

Her testimony is in the Congressional Record, a credible source. :rolleyes:

http://docs.house.go...lC-20131024.pdf


If the process had played out like it was suppose to, she should not have had that information. However, after the submital deadline has come and gone, I've known several Gov program managers that have shared the number (but never any mention of names of other submitters) of proposals that were submitted. After the fact, I gain no advantage (as a bidder) by knowing there were 5 proposals.

As I said, proposals often get kicked out of the evaluation process for a number of reasons. Maybe the other 4 bids were way above what was allocated for the project. Again, bidders are not suppose to know how much the Gov has to spend on the effort....and if these other 4 bidders were thinking big $$$, they could have been shot down right at the starting line. Could be as simple as that?

Edited by slapshot, 26 October 2013 - 10:02 AM.

You miss 100% of the shots you never take.
I skate to where the puck is going to be, not to where it has been.

- Wayne Gretzky

#23 songfourone

songfourone

    #"Sir Why was I shot"?

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 13,049 posts

Posted 26 October 2013 - 10:05 AM

(speaking of bootlickers and the lengths they'll go.....)

 

Her testimony is in the Congressional Record, a credible source. :rolleyes:

 

http://docs.house.go...lC-20131024.pdf

It was awarded on best value not price alone. 

 

Could you please provide proof, back up your accusations?


Edited by songfourone, 26 October 2013 - 10:07 AM.

"Morality cannot be legislated but behavior can be regulated. Judicial decrees may not change the heart, but they can restrain the heartless.” MLK

#24 slapshot

slapshot

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 24,925 posts

Posted 26 October 2013 - 10:32 AM

It was awarded on best value not price alone.

Could you please provide proof, back up your accusations?

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.

Edited by slapshot, 26 October 2013 - 10:56 AM.

You miss 100% of the shots you never take.
I skate to where the puck is going to be, not to where it has been.

- Wayne Gretzky

#25 Jeebus

Jeebus

    Molon Labe

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 13,514 posts

Posted 26 October 2013 - 11:02 AM

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.

 

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



#26 songfourone

songfourone

    #"Sir Why was I shot"?

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 13,049 posts

Posted 26 October 2013 - 11:13 AM

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.  :)


"Morality cannot be legislated but behavior can be regulated. Judicial decrees may not change the heart, but they can restrain the heartless.” MLK

#27 Eastside Terp

Eastside Terp

    Fairtax & Term Limits

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 23,653 posts

Posted 26 October 2013 - 11:16 AM

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, 26 October 2013 - 11:17 AM.

They've got a name for the winners in the world
I want a name when I lose
They call Alabama the Crimson Tide
Call me Deacon Blues
~WB & DF

FairTax - because the Government shouldn't use the tax code to pick the winners and losers ........

#28 Calamari

Calamari

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 39,978 posts

Posted 26 October 2013 - 11:42 AM

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.


"As Mankind becomes more liberal, they will be more apt to allow that all those who conduct themselves as worthy members of the community are equally entitled to the protections of civil government. I hope ever to see America among the foremost nations of justice and liberality."
~George Washington


Has Obama Taken Away Your Guns Yet?

#29 Jeebus

Jeebus

    Molon Labe

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 13,514 posts

Posted 26 October 2013 - 12:24 PM

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....



#30 slapshot

slapshot

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 24,925 posts

Posted 26 October 2013 - 01:07 PM

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, 26 October 2013 - 01:14 PM.

You miss 100% of the shots you never take.
I skate to where the puck is going to be, not to where it has been.

- Wayne Gretzky

#31 Jeebus

Jeebus

    Molon Labe

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 13,514 posts

Posted 26 October 2013 - 01:24 PM

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:



#32 slapshot

slapshot

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 24,925 posts

Posted 26 October 2013 - 01:27 PM

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.
You miss 100% of the shots you never take.
I skate to where the puck is going to be, not to where it has been.

- Wayne Gretzky

#33 Creekman

Creekman

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 3,933 posts

Posted 26 October 2013 - 03:00 PM

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.



#34 SteamChief

SteamChief

    Just call me Chief

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 679 posts

Posted 26 October 2013 - 03:37 PM

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, 26 October 2013 - 03:47 PM.


#35 slapshot

slapshot

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 24,925 posts

Posted 26 October 2013 - 04:10 PM

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, 26 October 2013 - 04:26 PM.

You miss 100% of the shots you never take.
I skate to where the puck is going to be, not to where it has been.

- Wayne Gretzky

#36 Jeebus

Jeebus

    Molon Labe

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 13,514 posts

Posted 26 October 2013 - 04:47 PM

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.



#37 caliber45

caliber45

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 310 posts

Posted 26 October 2013 - 05:16 PM

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:



#38 Calamari

Calamari

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 39,978 posts

Posted 26 October 2013 - 05:16 PM

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

http://crooksandliar...-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?


"As Mankind becomes more liberal, they will be more apt to allow that all those who conduct themselves as worthy members of the community are equally entitled to the protections of civil government. I hope ever to see America among the foremost nations of justice and liberality."
~George Washington


Has Obama Taken Away Your Guns Yet?

#39 Eastside Terp

Eastside Terp

    Fairtax & Term Limits

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 23,653 posts

Posted 26 October 2013 - 05:25 PM

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  .......


They've got a name for the winners in the world
I want a name when I lose
They call Alabama the Crimson Tide
Call me Deacon Blues
~WB & DF

FairTax - because the Government shouldn't use the tax code to pick the winners and losers ........

#40 slapshot

slapshot

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 24,925 posts

Posted 26 October 2013 - 06:10 PM

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, 26 October 2013 - 06:18 PM.

You miss 100% of the shots you never take.
I skate to where the puck is going to be, not to where it has been.

- Wayne Gretzky




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users