The EU

Google says the EU requires a notice of cookie use (by Google) and says they have posted a notice. I don't see it. If cookies bother you, go elsewhere. If the EU bothers you, emigrate. If you live outside the EU, don't go there.

Monday, February 13, 2012

DoD Contracts in the Local Area

While there is talk of cuts to the Department of Defense budget, the contracts are still flowing.  Here are three Army contracts from a 13 February press release:
Watermark - ECC, L.L.C., Lowell, Mass. (W912DR-12-D-0001); H&S - Zapata, J.V., Westborough, Mass. (W912DR-12-D-0002); Chimera - ERRG, Martinez, Calif. (W912DR-12-D-0003); TPMC/ARM Environmental Solutions, Irving, Texas (W912DR-12-D-0004); and Coastal Environmental Group, Inc., Central Islip, N.Y. (W912DR-12-D-0005), were awarded a $49,700,000 firm-fixed-price contract between five contractors.   The award will provide for the environmental services to various federal, state, and local agencies.   Work location will be determined with each task order, with an estimated completion date of Jan. 31, 2017.   Twelve bids were solicited, with 12 bids received.   The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Baltimore, Md., is the contracting activity.
And, in the neighborhood, there is this:
Raytheon Integrated Defense Systems, Andover, Mass., was awarded a $15,705,172 cost-plus-fixed-fee contract.   The award will provide for the services in support of the Patriot Missile Support Center.   Work will be performed in Chambersburg, Pa.; Andover, Mass.; Burlington, Mass.; and Germany, with an estimated completion date of Jan. 31, 2014.   One bid was solicited, with one bid received.   The U.S. Army Contracting Command, Redstone Arsenal, Ala., is the contracting activity (W31P4Q-11-C-0156).
And just up Route 3:
BAE Systems - Information and Electronic Systems Integration, Nashua, N.H., was awarded a $38,010,103 cost-plus-fixed-fee contract.   The award will provide for the services in support of furthering the technology development phase of the Common Infrared Countermeasure Program.   Work will be performed in Nashua, N.H., with an estimated completion date of Oct. 30, 2013.   The bid was solicited through the Internet, with five bids received.   The U.S. Army Contracting Command, Redstone Arsenal, Ala., is the contracting activity (W58RGZ-12-C-0045).
These sound like "shovel ready" projects.  And, it contributes to national security.

But, we still need to ask the question, "How much is enough?"

Regards  —  Cliff

2 comments:

Anonymous said...

I won't argue that the money flowing into the area helps, but one cannot forget that when it is a Federal contract, we are essentially taking money out of our back pocket and putting it in our front pocket. More important than that however is the question about the necessity of creating the contracts to begin with.

Ref the environmental services contract. Given the track record of the EPA over its lifetime, I seriously question the validity of any of the work they will mete out to various vendors. There exists an entire laundry list of programs masked under the banner of Environment that have been little more than local or state or Federal boondoggles with absolutely no tangible or useful ROI.

The BAE contract is an exploratory one. IF they can develop the technology, and IF it is needed, and IF there is money in the kitty to pay for whatever system is dreamed up to employ it...then one might argue that it is an important technological search. In fact...if it is that probable...if it is potentially that valuable.....BAE would go ahead and do the necessary R&D in house and claim total ownership of the technology. They aren't...so it is likely that it isn't. We HAVE to stop pumping money into companies so that they can develop technologies and charge the American taxpayer exorbitant fees to produce it. We are simply screwing ourselves. BTW...technologies such as the helicopter were developed initially without the benefit of government contracts. Just as an example.

The Patriot Missile Support Center is simply and addition to the contract to produce the Patriot missile. In other words, when Ratheon began production, it was with the understanding that they would provide technical support for the system....very likely from lust to dust. This merely funds that......but is it necessary? Could the Army provide that same support organically? The answer is probably...but they are likely unable to do so because of exclusionary language in the contract.

Once again...the taxpayer is being shaken down...shamelessly.....and all this does is to guarantee the growth of Big Government and the diminishment of private enterprise to provide the same sort of product/service.

C R Krieger said...

I caught the "from lust to dust" phrase.  It is new to me and I like it.

Regards  —  Cliff