Why is that I could find it cheaper for work done than the Government?

[aerofan]

Recently it was reported that the federal government spent about $1,500 to have a bed headboard removed and around $2,500 to have a chandelier raised both at the same hotel. If I had to hire someone to get these items done, it wouldn't have cost that much. So what gives? Especially during these times of austerity economics.

[Jennings]

Several questions come to mind:

1. Where was "it reported"?

2. Were the facts established as facts wherever this was that it was reported?

3. What are the *rest* of the facts about the situation that weren't reported?

4. What was the motivation of whomever was doing the reporting? Was there an agenda, hidden or otherwise, or was this objective, fact-based reporting?

In medicine nothing is true until it's proven true by research. That means that objective, verifiable facts must be obtained. Reporting, especially of a potentially inflammatory item such as this should be treated the same way. Don't believe it as fact until it's proven to be fact, and until all the surrounding facts are known.

Contrary to popular belief, not everyone who works for the government is out to spend $2 million for a toilet seat.

[aerofan]

Jennings,

This was reported from the national television stations, not Fox News. The bill for such items could be obtained from the freedom of information act if the government officials have not decided to block it from public viewing / scrutiny.

Paul MacCready,

I like to build models other than airplanes. Does this mean I'm a loose cannon? LOL.

[CorsairMan]

In journalism there are two ways of writing a story:

The first involves the obtaining of a tip or the acquiring of some information that requires the journalist to conduct an intensive study of that information in order to obtain actual facts, to pursue directed research to better understand the surrounding context, to chase down of all leads, to consider other points of view and finally to carefully construct prose that conveys all this information while not attempting to lead, frame or favour one side of the issue.

The other is simply writing nothing more than opinion piece that will be well received by your target audience.

Both pay the same.

[Wayne S]

Recently it was reported that the federal government spent about $1,500 to have a bed headboard removed and around $2,500 to have a chandelier raised both at the same hotel. If I had to hire someone to get these items done, it wouldn't have cost that much. So what gives? Especially during these times of austerity economics.

King size bed and headboard.

Just going off my own thoughts on this with contracting background.

When a job is done there usually is a bid, the job is broking down into a list for pricing things in said bid. Sometimes hourly rate must be kept above minimum union rate.

I am sure it was not the same people who moved the bed who raised the chandelier. Tho it could have been in the same bid.

Side note: Those that got the bid are doing it cheaper, they won the bid.

Others can always say they can do it cheaper, tho they are not the one doing the job.

Edited December 1, 2011 by Wayne S

[Jennings]

I didn't any news outlet. I'm just asking questions that need to be asked of *any* story, especially one you read on the internet, and ***especially*** one that give yet another alleged example of extravagant waste and abuse. Nobody cited any sources for this. I'm not saying it is or isn't true. But the questions need to be asked, whether it was reported on Fred Schmedlap's blog or in the New York Times or on Fox or wherever...

This was reported from the national television stations, not Fox News. The bill for such items could be obtained from the freedom of information act if the government officials have not decided to block it from public viewing / scrutiny.

[Wayne S]

I didn't any news outlet. I'm just asking questions that need to be asked of *any* story, especially one you read on the internet, and ***especially*** one that give yet another alleged example of extravagant waste and abuse. Nobody cited any sources for this. I'm not saying it is or isn't true. But the questions need to be asked, whether it was reported on Fred Schmedlap's blog or in the New York Times or on Fox or wherever...

This had to do with the G8 deal in Canada, I looked into it a tad, the bed deal had to do with actual removal of the bed that was built to a wall, repairing the wall and repainting etc. like it was never there.

Picture having all these governments coming into a hotel, each gov has a floor and trying to turn it into something for their needs, be it turning rooms into offices and other things that deal with security etc.

[kg4kpg]

.... Contrary to popular belief, not everyone who works for the government is out to spend $2 million for a toilet seat.

As a purchasing agent for the government it is not only the law that I find the lowest price, it is also my personal mission to get the best price. That being said, I can justify and will pay more for better quality as everything I buy is for the veterans care at my hospital and sometimes the lower bid also means more paid visits to service items of lower quality. It isn't cheap to repair an MRI machine and when it is of lower quality it can be really expensive to maintain. There are a lot of rules to spending that also include rules on justifying the purchase of items. You should see the Federal Acquisition Regulation, it's bigger than the Bible.

[dmk0210]

I don't know how it is for the federal govt, but I work for NC state. When I purchase something at work, I do have to get at least three bids and pick the lowest bidder. However, I can not just purchase from anyone. I have to purchase from "approved vendors". These business must apply for approval and have to pay a fee for the privilege of doing business with NC. Often I can get a better product/service for cheaper, but can not purchase it because it is not from one of the approved vendors. It is a broken system that ends up costing the taxpayers more money and is very frustrating for the purchaser, especially with this economy's lean budgets.

[ixgr1]

....and no one's mentioned toxic building material, yet ?

[Aaronw]

As a purchasing agent for the government it is not only the law that I find the lowest price, it is also my personal mission to get the best price. That being said, I can justify and will pay more for better quality as everything I buy is for the veterans care at my hospital and sometimes the lower bid also means more paid visits to service items of lower quality. It isn't cheap to repair an MRI machine and when it is of lower quality it can be really expensive to maintain. There are a lot of rules to spending that also include rules on justifying the purchase of items. You should see the Federal Acquisition Regulation, it's bigger than the Bible.

I don't know how it is for the federal govt, but I work for NC state. When I purchase something at work, I do have to get at least three bids and pick the lowest bidder. However, I can not just purchase from anyone. I have to purchase from "approved vendors". These business must apply for approval and have to pay a fee for the privilege of doing business with NC. Often I can get a better product/service for cheaper, but can not purchase it because it is not from one of the approved vendors. It is a broken system that ends up costing the taxpayers more money and is very frustrating for the purchaser, especially with this economy's lean budgets.

It is a broken system with conflicting requirements. We are supposed to find the best deals, but then there is a whole list of preferred suppliers who rarely offer the best deal.

[aerofan]

This had to do with the G8 deal in Canada, I looked into it a tad, the bed deal had to do with actual removal of the bed that was built to a wall, repairing the wall and repainting etc. like it was never there.

Picture having all these governments coming into a hotel, each gov has a floor and trying to turn it into something for their needs, be it turning rooms into offices and other things that deal with security etc.

It was also reported that it was a French government official who didn't like having a headboard when sleeping. Looks like the French just wanted to waste Canadian Tax payers money as I can't see why a headboard would make you into an insominac; maybe it was so the prostitute would hit her head - the French people should look into that officials expense report to see if there's anything fishy taxpayers have to cough up for. Don't get me started on that $1 million dollar virtual lake that rarely anyone but the world news media used.

It is a broken system with conflicting requirements. We are supposed to find the best deals, but then there is a whole list of preferred suppliers who rarely offer the best deal.

Looks like those preferred suppliers are friends of government officials just like a recently withdrawn contract that my provincial government tried to pull over us until the local news media leaked it. This non open bid contract was granted to a firm which the owner is the husband of a woman who is a friend and a political organizor for our premier. The day after this was leaked by the local newspapers, the contract was nulified and now open bids for the contract are being processed.

[mlicari]

It is a broken system with conflicting requirements.

This.

Except that the system is broken BECAUSE of the conflicting requirements. It's a system trying to do everything, and make everyone happy, at the same time.

We have "approved vendors" to control contracting fraud, ensure quality, and meet other policy goals (like promoting small businesses, or American-made products). This sometimes drives up costs.

Then we have rules that require us to seek the lowest price; this sometimes means that the policy goals mentioned above would have to be ignored in order to save the most money.

The result is somewhere in the middle: we don't usually get the lowest price, and we don't usually meet all of our policy goals.

BUT...we rarely pay the highest price, and we typically meet some of our goals.

[TaiidanTomcat]

One personal example: If you want to fly in one of our helicopters its not a big deal, you pay the amount we set out and we fly you for however long you require and our pilots in shorts and a T-shirt. If its a flight for the government all that goes out the window. Helmets are required, flight suits are required, (for all) more safety measures are required (first aide kits, survival kits) We even had to add additional lettering to the underside of our aircraft, more expensive hi vis rotorblades are also required (that recently changed to nationally required for all helis though). you have to do "check flights" or as I like to call them "free ride for a bureaucrat day" we pay the tab for that ourselves but of course, we make up for it along with all the other expenses, on the contract later on.

We have to be approved by FAA and US Forest Service personnel in several inspections. Thus more gov people, more gov paperwork. Recently to due to a change in regulations we had to rewire the helicopters to accommodate headphones and mics for all passengers (and of course provide them), when the previous reg was just for the leader of the Firefighting team. To me, it seemed rather stupid that all 14 passengers hear the mundane chatter the whole flight while waiting for the "go" to exit the aircraft previously given by the team leader. (Hand signals are low tech but they are cheap and they work well) Again we make up for all of this with our contract, which we overcharge as best we can to make up for other unforeseen problems unrelated to murphy's law and more related to make up for other new regs and requirements that pop up often.

I hear a lot of criticism of "big business always cutting corners" and there is some truth to that of course, even though we are a small business. the government has to take every corner at a crawl and have several inspectors along with a safety overwatch to see around the corner, all so that it can decide it needs to stop and try turning a different corner the opposite direction :D

Its just the way of Government and I'm not trying to be political, its just how bureaucracies function its all about rules, forms, regulations, and process, all of which add time, people, and money to any project. Its like that game "Telephone" when you were a kid passing a message thru 20 other people and finding it altered at the end (sometimes unrecognizably) in the business world the person just screams to the person on the other end over the heads of the 20 people.

Economically, businesses don't usually operate on a fixed yearly budget. Governments do. If you are allocated 200 million dollars, at the end of the Fiscal year you had better have spent 200 million, or you risk not getting 200 million next year. In 1956 the USMC returned 2 million dollars it had saved from the year's budget. The reward was a 2 million dollar budget cut the next year. If thats how you reward smart spending, don't be surprised when there is never a dime left, the USMC never made that mistake again.