GovernmentExecutive.com

Return to Article: Navy looks to lighten Intranet contractor's load

• 5478
  

  This development is very disturbing. We are falling back on the 1980's tactic of reducing requirements to meet a contract, then saying the program is not in trouble because we have met all the requirements, of course we have reduced the requirements to the point that they are meaningless. In the past year or so we have been reliving the times of $900 hammers, the B-1 bomber, the A-12 and the bradley fighting vehicle. We reduce requirements, fake tests, and put up meaningless statistics to justify a billion dollar program, just so some bureaucrat can say that they were not wrong. We are now paying more, for less capability! I guess corruption in the Pentagon never dies. There are enough cronies in uniform that lack integrity to make an ethical decision to hide or gloss over the truth. Bottom line, EDS and the Navy failed to do the proper planning, they failed to have a realistic assessment of the job required, and the Navy failed to hold a contractor to it's commitments. Now the Navy wants to save face instead of trying to address the problem.

  GovExec.com reader Posted July 18, 2004 2:22 PM
• 5285
  

  So the Navy wants to lighten the load for the NMCI contractor huh? Well boys and girls, I got a hot news flash for ya. There's a "load" that needs to be lightened, but ain't the darn vendor's!

  For crying out loud! You can't tell there's a guy from Texas in the White House with all the horse's hindparts running around Washington now can ya?! How about you all "T for D" this thing and be done with it? Oh ya, that's Termination for Default to all you admirals, SES'ers and other high brow muckee muckee folks. Or, in plain language, cut this sucker loose! Make like John Paul Jones and jump ship or go drown with the rats.

  Art Doss Posted July 4, 2004 1:09 PM
• 5185
  

  If this were a government agency that was failing miserably, there would be no load lightening. There would be outsourcing, and the failing agency would be phased out.

  I'd rather see mature and sensible management being applied in this instance than simple minded rhetoric.

  Government business which is funded with taxpayer dollars, is supposed to run like a business, not a charity to benefit already rich conglomerates.

  GovExec.com reader Posted June 24, 2004 11:41 AM
• 5172
  

  Let me get this straight. I beat out my competitors for a big buck contract with the Navy. I fail to meet all the requirements of the contract. My business starts sliding into trouble. And the Navy is going to bail me out. Doesn't sound fair to my competitors. So where do I sign up!

  GovExec.com reader Posted June 23, 2004 6:58 PM
• 5169
  

  Why?! If a company is not living up to its commitments, why would you seek to lighten their workload? It's equivalent to saying that if a sailor is not up to the job, then we should lighten his load.

  GovExec.com reader Posted June 23, 2004 2:31 PM