Trump unveils plan to privatize US air traffic control system (Read 16877 times)

Inspector

Re: Trump unveils plan to privatize US air traffic control system
« Reply #40 on: June 08, 2017, 07:13:37 AM »
I have clients who have to deal with NAVFAC and Corp of Engineers. It is their sworn duty to make sure that no contractor makes a profit from any project. It's amazing how they can pull the most obscure voluntary standard out of their ass and make it required.
It's amazing to me how many contractors don't fully read the project specs nor the referenced documents such as the building codes prior to bidding. And then when they are caught not complying to the contract they signed and are legally obligated to comply with, they whine like a bunch of little babies. There is no such thing as a standard (no matter how obscure) that the contractors don't have access to and don't know about prior to bidding and signing contracts. Especially if it is so known that the NAVFAC and Corp of Engineers Inspectors and Quality Control people are going to hold them to the entire set of specs and the referenced building codes then they should pad their bids and contracts accordingly. I have no sympathy for contractors who whine and complain they are not making anything on a contract. Yet how long have they been in business? And how many jobs have they had with NAVFAC? And they continue to bid? If they don't take the time to read and understand all the plans, specs and codes they are obligating themselves to abide by then they are not very smart and deserve to not make any money.

I have been doing this as an Inspector and QA/QC person and representing the Feds and States and private owners on construction projects for almost 40 years. It's the same complaint, same issues and same people over and over again. And they try to get away with the same things over and over again. Yet they keep bidding for contracts knowing that everyone vows they won't be allowed to make money on?  Yeah, right.

These guys know the game. And NAVFAC, Corp of Engineers and their representatives know the games they play, too. The contractors just hate getting caught not doing the right thing in the first place. JMHO
SCIENCE THAT CAN’T BE QUESTIONED IS PROPAGANDA!!!

drck1000

Re: Trump unveils plan to privatize US air traffic control system
« Reply #41 on: June 08, 2017, 09:32:58 AM »
It's amazing to me how many contractors don't fully read the project specs nor the referenced documents such as the building codes prior to bidding. And then when they are caught not complying to the contract they signed and are legally obligated to comply with, they whine like a bunch of little babies. There is no such thing as a standard (no matter how obscure) that the contractors don't have access to and don't know about prior to bidding and signing contracts. Especially if it is so known that the NAVFAC and Corp of Engineers Inspectors and Quality Control people are going to hold them to the entire set of specs and the referenced building codes then they should pad their bids and contracts accordingly. I have no sympathy for contractors who whine and complain they are not making anything on a contract. Yet how long have they been in business? And how many jobs have they had with NAVFAC? And they continue to bid? If they don't take the time to read and understand all the plans, specs and codes they are obligating themselves to abide by then they are not very smart and deserve to not make any money.

I have been doing this as an Inspector and QA/QC person and representing the Feds and States and private owners on construction projects for almost 40 years. It's the same complaint, same issues and same people over and over again. And they try to get away with the same things over and over again. Yet they keep bidding for contracts knowing that everyone vows they won't be allowed to make money on?  Yeah, right.

These guys know the game. And NAVFAC, Corp of Engineers and their representatives know the games they play, too. The contractors just hate getting caught not doing the right thing in the first place. JMHO
Pretty much spot on. I'm on travel right now, otherwise I would have a lengthy response. While the system isn't perfect, rklapp's second hand information is misinformed at best.

Most times contractors play stupid when they knew exactly what they were doing to try to gain a competitive edge. Yeah, there are times when you get a stickler construction manager that "tries too hard",  but they are trying to ensure the government isn't ripped off. Ok, so the same person who complained about not the government not doing a good job to be fiscally responsible all of a sudden wants his contractor clients to get lucrative contracts?

I have so many stories that will make you :facepalm: at what contractors will claim as "they didn't know". Well, when I show them where it is in the specs or contract, they often back off. Yeah, there can be times when direction wasn't given or ambiguous. Well, in that case we do a MOD or if one side doesn't agree, we can head to litigation.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

rklapp

Re: Trump unveils plan to privatize US air traffic control system
« Reply #42 on: June 08, 2017, 02:20:14 PM »
Yet they keep bidding for contracts knowing that everyone vows they won't be allowed to make money on?  Yeah, right.
The definition of insanity.

I've had two experiences where the Corp and NAVFAC cited voluntary standards that were not in the specs. However, it does say in the contract that they have the right to do so. Fortunately for both times, the Corp and NAVFAC caved. I've seen instances where the contractor walked away from the project. I suspect it was because the contractor realized they were losing too much money on the project and decided that being blacklisted from Federal projects is a better option. The bitch of it is that the project has to be rebid which could take over a year until the new contractor can start to complete what the previous contractor began.
Yahh! Freedom and justice shall always prevail over tyranny, Babysitter Girl!
https://ronsreloading.wordpress.com/

drck1000

Re: Trump unveils plan to privatize US air traffic control system
« Reply #43 on: June 08, 2017, 02:33:52 PM »
The definition of insanity.

I've had two experiences where the Corp and NAVFAC cited voluntary standards that were not in the specs. However, it does say in the contract that they have the right to do so. Fortunately for both times, the Corp and NAVFAC caved. I've seen instances where the contractor walked away from the project. I suspect it was because the contractor realized they were losing too much money on the project and decided that being blacklisted from Federal projects is a better option. The bitch of it is that the project has to be rebid which could take over a year until the new contractor can start to complete what the previous contractor began.
What was the "voluntary" standard?

There's permissive language (should) and requirement language (shall). Yes, there are sometimes things that the faculty owner or contract sponsee wants but wasn't in the contract, but it's usually pretty common to pursue a mod in those cases.

And is this a construction contract? Or O&M (operations and maintenance) service type of contract? I have little to no experience in the service contract side. But construction contract should not take a year to rebid. Even for contracts in the 100s of millions which needs peer review prior to award, that happens in 4-6 months.

Still think you're getting fed exaggerations or misrepresentations.

rklapp

Re: Trump unveils plan to privatize US air traffic control system
« Reply #44 on: June 08, 2017, 07:37:52 PM »
What was the "voluntary" standard?
There's permissive language (should) and requirement language (shall). Yes, there are sometimes things that the faculty owner or contract sponsee wants but wasn't in the contract, but it's usually pretty common to pursue a mod in those cases.
And is this a construction contract? Or O&M (operations and maintenance) service type of contract? I have little to no experience in the service contract side. But construction contract should not take a year to rebid. Even for contracts in the 100s of millions which needs peer review prior to award, that happens in 4-6 months.
Still think you're getting fed exaggerations or misrepresentations.
It was a trade association guideline. Like I said, it wasn't in the specs.
Sorry to have offended your delicacies. Seriously, you are the first person I've ever heard who has publicly defended the current federal bidding process. Of all my clients, you're the first.
Yahh! Freedom and justice shall always prevail over tyranny, Babysitter Girl!
https://ronsreloading.wordpress.com/

drck1000

Trump unveils plan to privatize US air traffic control system
« Reply #45 on: June 08, 2017, 08:39:37 PM »
It was a trade association guideline. Like I said, it wasn't in the specs.
Sorry to have offended your delicacies. Seriously, you are the first person I've ever heard who has publicly defended the current federal bidding process. Of all my clients, you're the first.
You haven't offended anything. I'm not defending anything, just countering the stuff you're spewing. And I said that both sides aren't perfect. I've worked on both sides. First on the private consulting and contractor side, so I know their angles. And now on the government side. You seem to respect Inspector and even he said you're off.

I am not and have not defended the process. Again, just explaining that you're saying was off. I don't know much about how FAA management works, but I know a lot about facility contracting. Then the second example is one that I have DIRECT first hand experience in, on both sides. Again, this is where even Inspector has concurred that what you're saying just doesn't work that way. I asked about specific examples of what happened, and you fire back with a "trade guideline".  It may happen the way you said, so I asked for an example. If it wasn't in the specs and the government asked for it, then the contractor should have told the government to go pound sand.


ETA: One does have to be careful of standards referenced by the specs. I've been caught by it, but it is something that is legally in the contract.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
« Last Edit: June 08, 2017, 08:44:41 PM by drck1000 »

Inspector

Re: Trump unveils plan to privatize US air traffic control system
« Reply #46 on: June 09, 2017, 04:48:26 AM »
Don't let the term "Voluntary Standard" or "Voluntary Trade Standard" fool you. However you look at it, it means a standard or code or design specification produced by a trade organization that has to be followed if part of the contract documents. As an example NAVFAC might reference ASME in their contracts. ASME promotes standards to be used in mechanical design and engineering. The only time a contractor does not have to follow a "VS" is if it is not part of the contract in which case the contractor has an avenue to object and fight and win. But the fact you make it sound like it cost your client lost money, then it was obviously in the contract and your client had to follow it. And since you were adamant that everyone knows that this sort of thing is going to be costly to him, the fact that you stated that he lost money means he is not a smart contractor.
SCIENCE THAT CAN’T BE QUESTIONED IS PROPAGANDA!!!

Inspector

Re: Trump unveils plan to privatize US air traffic control system
« Reply #47 on: June 09, 2017, 05:59:41 AM »
It was a trade association guideline. Like I said, it wasn't in the specs.
Sorry to have offended your delicacies. Seriously, you are the first person I've ever heard who has publicly defended the current federal bidding process. Of all my clients, you're the first.
I guarantee you if was not in the specs directly then it was in the specs indirectly and therefore it was in the contract. Otherwise your client did not have to follow it nor be bound by it. But chances are it was in the specs and your client is being ignorant or not being fully honest with you because he was probably embarrassed by being caught with his pants down.

Here is how these things end up getting into the specs. As an example, the International Code Council (ICC) writes the Building Code Book called the International Building Code (IBC). The IBC is nothing more than a reference book. In other words, for concrete construction they reference the standards written by the trade association called American Concrete Institute (ACI). And for reinforcing Steel they reference the standards written by CRSI which is the trade group that writes the standards for rebar. For masonry, they reference the Masonry Institute. But for each reference there may be several books and pamphlets used to enforce the voluntary standards by which contractors like your client are bound to in their contract. That one book that is referenced would be the IBC. Your client, if he had a contract that referenced the IBC would need to purchase literally hundreds of books. pamphlets, white papers and other documents all referenced in the IBC (and he would need to know everything in those documents) in order to make sure they stay within compliance of whatever they may be building. This is how things are done these days. One book is referenced but hundreds are referenced out of that book. And the contractors need to be smart and know and understand everything in each of those books, pamphlets, white papers, etc. There is no pulling something out that is not in the specs. It may not be referenced directly but I guarantee if your client was forced to follow the standard then it was referenced either directly or indirectly in the specs and contract. There are no secrets or pulling something out ones ass like contractors like to say. The same documents are used to guide contracts as they are used to enforce the contract. And your client had a way out if he was not in the wrong. This is how it is done.
SCIENCE THAT CAN’T BE QUESTIONED IS PROPAGANDA!!!

Inspector

Re: Trump unveils plan to privatize US air traffic control system
« Reply #48 on: June 09, 2017, 06:14:16 AM »
You haven't offended anything. I'm not defending anything, just countering the stuff you're spewing. And I said that both sides aren't perfect. I've worked on both sides. First on the private consulting and contractor side, so I know their angles. And now on the government side. You seem to respect Inspector and even he said you're off.

I am not and have not defended the process. Again, just explaining that you're saying was off. I don't know much about how FAA management works, but I know a lot about facility contracting. Then the second example is one that I have DIRECT first hand experience in, on both sides. Again, this is where even Inspector has concurred that what you're saying just doesn't work that way. I asked about specific examples of what happened, and you fire back with a "trade guideline".  It may happen the way you said, so I asked for an example. If it wasn't in the specs and the government asked for it, then the contractor should have told the government to go pound sand.


ETA: One does have to be careful of standards referenced by the specs. I've been caught by it, but it is something that is legally in the contract.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
I have worked both sides myself. Including not only being the Inspector representing the Feds, State or Owner. In that role I could enforce the specs/standards/codes/design by which the contract was guided and drawn up. Or I could also enforce the contract that was agreed to by both sides like when I worked for the DoT here in Hawaii. But I have also been the marketing guy negotiating contracts and answering RFP's. As well as right now I am working QA/QC on the contractor's side. I have seen it all and heard it all.

BTW, in my current role I have been caught off guard by one of the inspectors that knows certain aspects of the plumbing/mechanical/electrical codes that I don't since I am a structural guy. But as the contractor I have to investigate whether the inspector is correct, and if they are I have to comply. It really doesn't matter if I lose money or not as I agreed to abide by certain aspects in my contract. That is what really matters. Not that someone is making money or not. The contract is the living breathing document and we all (both sides) have to abide by the four corners of that contract.
SCIENCE THAT CAN’T BE QUESTIONED IS PROPAGANDA!!!

davgdavg

Re: Trump unveils plan to privatize US air traffic control system
« Reply #49 on: June 09, 2017, 08:22:50 AM »
You guys arguing illustrates exactly the point. Combining the gov. with private industry often creates a web of too much oversight and confusion to ever be efficient. :stopjack:

mauidog

Re: Trump unveils plan to privatize US air traffic control system
« Reply #50 on: June 09, 2017, 09:52:13 AM »
You guys arguing illustrates exactly the point. Combining the gov. with private industry often creates a web of too much oversight and confusion to ever be efficient. :stopjack:

5 Examples of Public-Private Partnerships (P3) In Action

Quote
EXAMPLE #1 - PARKS: Private maintenance and operations agreements for federal, state, and local parks

The US Forest Service in Arizona turned over operations of the Crescent Moon/Red Rock Crossing Recreation Area in Sedona, Arizona to Recreation Resource Management (RRM) in 1994.   RRM operates the park under a public-private partnership with the U.S. Forest Service.  This long-running P3 partnership stands out because RRM prepared and published a case study on the project in 2011.  RRM’s case study compared the privately-run Crescent Moon park to the nearby Red Rock State Park.  Red Rock State Park is operated by Arizona State Parks, a public agency.  RRM found that while the two parks in the study are geographically close and share similar entry-fees, attendance and overall revenue numbers,  Crescent Moon (operated under the P3 agreement with RRM) returns close to $45,000 to the U.S. Forest Service each year in the form of net revenue, while RRM claims the publicly operated Red Rock State Park operated by Arizona State Parks costs the U.S. Forest Service $234,000 per year.   

https://www.onvia.com/company/blog/5-examples-public-private-partnerships-p3-action
An unarmed man can only flee from evil, and evil is not overcome by fleeing from it.   -- Jeff Cooper

drck1000

Re: Trump unveils plan to privatize US air traffic control system
« Reply #51 on: June 09, 2017, 11:43:58 AM »
You guys arguing illustrates exactly the point. Combining the gov. with private industry often creates a web of too much oversight and confusion to ever be efficient. :stopjack:
No. The reference standard thing happens in projects that are exclusively private. For what I'm explaining, it's about misinformation and BS on one side.

As I said initially, I can see how privatization can inject a level of completion to "inspire" higher efficiency. It's the government machine that frankly can be more efficient, which I do see it changing towards. Just that it takes time.

There are rules to be followed. Whether it be building construction or contracting. Yes, federal projects can add requirements, restrictions, etc. but it's not so vastly different than private that one can't do both and succeed. Yes, prior experience does help, but that's the same for any "rodeo".

Regarding your initial reply regarding your opinion on things work in the defense world. RDT&E was one example that someone else addressed is where privatization of specific aspects of the process is privatized. Much like how drug development works. Is it perfect? No. My opinion is that in the drug development example that higher profits (and other considerations) had lead to some bad outcomes, like the whole epipen thing. However, I haven't looked into that issue very deeply so I'll just stop there. That said, it's not like the government is going to do drug development. The completion of private companies have generally helped in that regard.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

rklapp

Re: Trump unveils plan to privatize US air traffic control system
« Reply #52 on: June 09, 2017, 03:42:16 PM »
I guarantee you if was not in the specs directly then it was in the specs indirectly and therefore it was in the contract. Otherwise your client did not have to follow it nor be bound by it. But chances are it was in the specs and your client is being ignorant or not being fully honest with you because he was probably embarrassed by being caught with his pants down.
I don't want to get into specifics about a project I worked on. The examples you give are reasonable. In the situations I experienced, complying with the voluntary standard would set the project back a week. My statement was an obvious exaggeration so again, sorry for offending drck.
Yahh! Freedom and justice shall always prevail over tyranny, Babysitter Girl!
https://ronsreloading.wordpress.com/

Inspector

Re: Trump unveils plan to privatize US air traffic control system
« Reply #53 on: June 09, 2017, 06:47:43 PM »
I don't want to get into specifics about a project I worked on. The examples you give are reasonable. In the situations I experienced, complying with the voluntary standard would set the project back a week. My statement was an obvious exaggeration so again, sorry for offending drck.
Well, I can't speak for DRCK but I think he said he wasn't offended.

It is probably best you don't get into specifics. I don't get into specifics about my projects for probably the same reasons.

I will say that working on the contractor's side has been an eye opening experience. The contractor I work with wants to do things the right way. And for the most part they do. For me that makes working for them better than I expected.
SCIENCE THAT CAN’T BE QUESTIONED IS PROPAGANDA!!!

rklapp

Re: Trump unveils plan to privatize US air traffic control system
« Reply #54 on: June 09, 2017, 10:58:53 PM »
Well, I can't speak for DRCK but I think he said he wasn't offended.

It is probably best you don't get into specifics. I don't get into specifics about my projects for probably the same reasons.

I will say that working on the contractor's side has been an eye opening experience. The contractor I work with wants to do things the right way. And for the most part they do. For me that makes working for them better than I expected.
He sure sound offended.

My experiences showed me that this wasn't my thing (mostly for other reasons) and decided to go back into the insurance business. I'm in a much better place. I guess you could call me an insurance inspector.
Yahh! Freedom and justice shall always prevail over tyranny, Babysitter Girl!
https://ronsreloading.wordpress.com/

drck1000

Trump unveils plan to privatize US air traffic control system
« Reply #55 on: June 09, 2017, 11:10:04 PM »
I have worked both sides myself. Including not only being the Inspector representing the Feds, State or Owner. In that role I could enforce the specs/standards/codes/design by which the contract was guided and drawn up. Or I could also enforce the contract that was agreed to by both sides like when I worked for the DoT here in Hawaii. But I have also been the marketing guy negotiating contracts and answering RFP's. As well as right now I am working QA/QC on the contractor's side. I have seen it all and heard it all.

BTW, in my current role I have been caught off guard by one of the inspectors that knows certain aspects of the plumbing/mechanical/electrical codes that I don't since I am a structural guy. But as the contractor I have to investigate whether the inspector is correct, and if they are I have to comply. It really doesn't matter if I lose money or not as I agreed to abide by certain aspects in my contract. That is what really matters. Not that someone is making money or not. The contract is the living breathing document and we all (both sides) have to abide by the four corners of that contract.
If you ever want my personal (as in not related to my current position) professional opinion on anything structural, just let me know. My fee is 1 beer. Maybe 2 if it's a messed up situation. Haha.

We've chatted about inspection. I've been the construction and design QC on the contractor side in D/B contracts and I can't tell you how many times we were asked to look the other way. Even to the point where we are walking the line between client and professional duty. It's that messed up at times. And that's pressure on the private side of the equation. The government wouldn't have been the wiser.
« Last Edit: June 09, 2017, 11:41:35 PM by drck1000 »

Inspector

Re: Trump unveils plan to privatize US air traffic control system
« Reply #56 on: June 10, 2017, 06:38:23 AM »
If you ever want my personal (as in not related to my current position) professional opinion on anything structural, just let me know. My fee is 1 beer. Maybe 2 if it's a messed up situation. Haha.

We've chatted about inspection. I've been the construction and design QC on the contractor side in D/B contracts and I can't tell you how many times we were asked to look the other way. Even to the point where we are walking the line between client and professional duty. It's that messed up at times. And that's pressure on the private side of the equation. The government wouldn't have been the wiser.
Well, I am always up for dinner and a beer (or two). The three of us should do dinner again. JL?

I have never been asked so many times to look the other way as I have since working on the "dark side"  :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:
SCIENCE THAT CAN’T BE QUESTIONED IS PROPAGANDA!!!