Environmental Improvement

For John, BLUF:  I am not sure banning straws is going to break the camel's back.  We are seeing the leading edge of a moral panic.  We are making progress and we need to remain calm and carry on.  Nothing to see here; just move along.

---

When It Comes To The Environment, These Are The Good Ol' Days

From Investor's Business Daily, a 2 August 2018 Editorial.

Here are three key paragraphs, excerpted by Law Professor Glenn Harlan Reynolds in his blog post:

From 1970 to 2017, the six major pollutants monitored by the EPA plunged by 73%.  By comparison, during that time the U.S.’ economy grew 262% and its population by 60%.

The decline in pollution is steep. Carbon monoxide, down 77%. Lead, 80%.  Nitrogen oxide, 56%.  Ozone, 22%.  Particle pollution, off an average 38%. Sulfur dioxide, 88%.

Not included in the report, but equally if not more significant, is the fact that CO2 — the main greenhouse gas — overall has plunged 29% since peaking in 2007.  That’s been the relentless focus of global warming activists and the left-leaning power elites from their policy perches at think tanks, NGOs, and global government organizations such as the U.N.

Then Professor Reynolds goes on to say:

Meanwhile, Europe, despite all the sanctimony, is making no such progress.

Is it possible that for the Europeans it isn't so much about the results as it is about the process?  I recall a quip, attributed to a German Professor out of Heidelberg:♠

That Works Very Well in Practice, But How Does It Work In Theory?

By the way, here is the US EPA Report.

Hat tip to the InstaPundit.

Regards  —  Cliff

♠  Attributed here to a Boston based magazine back in 1911.

Dining Out/Dining In

For John, BLUF:  I don't think we want businesses rejecting customers on political grounds.  Nothing to see here; just move along.

---

Would you ask someone to leave your restaurant?  Boston owners say that’s tricky

From The Boston Globe, by Reporter Janelle Nanos, 26 June 2018.

I guess it's OK.  Although once the person or party has been seated it seems not just rude, but also a sign of incompetence.  How did they get past the person seating people?

On the other hand, if one is looking for political theater the time with the most drama is best.

On the other other hand, you throw out A, not realizing her cousin, B, is your lawyer in your divorce case and in court B tells the judge she can no longer represent you because you are an Un-American slimeball and an admirer of L. Beria.  Awkward.

You want more Trump?  This is how you get more Trump.

Regards  —  Cliff

A Bus Contract

For John, BLUF:  This Special Education bus contract imbroglio does not seem perfectly clear and straight forward.  Nothing to see here; just move along.

---

Lowell board delays decision on special-ed transportation pact

That would be the Lowell School Committee.

This article is from The [Lowell] Sun, by Reporter Todd Feathers (tfeathers@lowellsun.com), 10 November 2017.

Here is the lede plus two:

After weeks of deliberation and a lengthy executive session on Thursday, the School Committee voted 5-1 to delay making a decision on the district's special-education transportation contract.

The committee has been considering terminating the current contract with SP&R Transportation after a 5-year-old boy was left on a bus for five hours earlier this year.&Nbsp; School administrators have been in talks with Pridestar EMS to take over the contract, and the company presented a detailed proposal on Thursday.

But after an executive session, the committee reconvened and with no discussion voted to table the issue until Nov. 15.

This leaves me with three questions:

1. If the Contract Incumbent is in breach of contract (incompetent), why have they not been terminated?
2. Does the School Committee, or the School Administration have contracting authority?
3. Shouldn't the issuing of a new contract require free and open competition between all qualified parties, with the award going to the lowest responsible bidder?

Regards  —  Cliff

New SecDef

For John, BLUF:  The Inner Circle is in the Bunker and no one is getting in.  Nothing to see here; just move along.

---

It has been suggested this is "inside baseball" stuff, but the Obama Administration is changing out out its SecDef (Secretary of Defense).  Former Republican Senator Chuck Hagel is being jettisoned from the National Security Team in the Obama Administration and the rumor is that Harvard Professor Ashton Carter is going to be nominated to replace Mr Hagel.

Some see the prospects for reform in the appointment of Professor Carter.  On the other hand, here is a comment from my youngest brother:

I can’t help but recall what young Natalie Wood said about acquisition reform in Miracle on 34th Street, "I believe, I believe.  It's stupid but I believe."

I think that captures it.

In an EMail thread this morning someone asked:

Where is Colin Powell when we need him?

I think that is a good question.  Former SecState (Secretary of State) Colin Powell would do an excellent job holding the Pentagon together for these last two years of the Obama Administration.  The only problem is he might feel compelled to speak truth to power, which the inner circle of this Administration might find offensive.

Regards  —  Cliff

Government Win $400 Million Judgement (If Congress Passes a Law)

For John, BLUF:  Reach for the stars, but expect problems once in a while.  Nothing to see here; just move along.

---

This is from Friday, but it is still an interesting and informative piece of news.  The source is Reuters and the Reporter is Mr David Alexander.  The headline is After two decades, U.S. Navy near deal to settle 'Flying Dorito' suit.

Yes, the "Flying Dorito".  You remember how the Dorito has a triangular shape?  So would have had the Navy's A-12 Avenger II attack aircraft, if it had actually been rolled out and flown.  The A-12 was to replace the aging A-6 Intruder, many of which now make up artificial reefs off Florida.  Their replacement was the F-18.  Not the same.

Here is a key paragraph from the story:

The radar-evading, carrier-based McDonnell Douglas plane was 18 months behind schedule and about $1.4 billion over cost when then-Defense Secretary Dick Cheney canceled the $57 billion program back in 1991.

That would be $1.4 billion over cost before production began.  Heck, before flight testing began.

When the contract was cancelled the Navy demanded $1.35 billion back from the contractors.

The two companies countered by suing the government, and the case has been in court ever since. Judgments have see-sawed back and forth between rulings in favor of the companies and the government.

In 2011 the Supreme Court set aside an appeals court ruling that the Navy had been justified in canceling the contract. The court found one main issue could not be litigated because it involved classified information that could not be disclosed in court.

But the case was sent back to a lower court for decisions on other issues, and it has remained there since then.

[Maine Senator Susan] Collins said the settlement reached this week was good for the Navy at a time of tight budgets and "incredible fiscal challenges."

"The taxpayers benefit because there's no guarantee that the government will ultimately prevail in the ongoing litigation," she said.  "And finally there would be a settlement that would end decades, literally decades, of litigation."

The big thing is that we are not wasting money on lots of lawyers trying to find some loophole they can drive a truck load of money through.

One important lesson to learn is that big, complicated projects, using new technology, often fail.  It isn't so much as it is someone's fault as it that when you reach for the high fruit you are sometimes a little short in your reach.  However, progress comes from that reaching.  That said, an informed process can accomplish big things.  Think of the US ballistic missile programs, which were all fairly successful, and in particular the Ballistic Missile Submarine program.  Or putting a man on the Moon.

Regards  —  Cliff

Speaking of the Living Dead

It is back, per The Hill.  Reporter Kevin Bogardus gives us "White House donor order becomes flashpoint in Congress".

I am just not sure what this is all about unless it is some sort of intimidation.  The Administration wants federal contractors to reveal their political donations.  OK.  What about unions in firms that have federal contracts?  Shouldn't they also have to disclose political donations?  Do members of Congress not respond to the pleas of union members?

And, there is the question of how this will be implemented.  Will this be a once a year or twice a year revelation or will it be a report submitted with every proposals submitted?

How will it influence the contracting itself?  Perhaps at first it will just be information to the public, but will it have to be, at some point, taken into consideration by the Procuring Contracting Officer, the Procurement Committee Review or the Legal Review?  Will we create a whole new organization to do the "Political" Review?

But, here is the key thing.  Mr Eric Schultz, a White House spokesman, says:

But broadly speaking, the president is committed to improving our federal contracting system, making it more transparent and more accountable.  He believes that American taxpayers deserve that, and that is why he has asked Congress to pass a full disclosure law.

The first step to improving federal contracting is to go "power down" (as we used to say).  That is, give more authority closer to the action.  Part of doing that would be to cut the Gordian Knot of regulation.

I have seen some strange decisions by Government Acquisition personnel in the name of fairness, including squeezing out a bidder because of the fact that being the incumbent gives them an unfair advantage over the competition.  Does this make sense? We wouldn't shun Shredded Wheat just because that was the cereal we last purchased.

Finally, if this is really about political clout, then the place to deal with it is in Congress itself.  Members of Congress putting in "earmarks" distorts the contracting effort.  On the other hand, sometimes the US Congress uses an earmark to move the military along when there is reluctance to do so on the part of the military bureaucrats.  My recollection is that the Light Weight Fighter Competition, which led to the F-16 and F-17, was because of Congressional pressures.

I am sure there are those who think that federal procurement is corrupt, but I would like it noted that when I was involved in Air Force R&D Procurement my work was NOT corrupt.

Regards  —  Cliff

Government Contracting Corruption

Recently the issue of corruption in Government Contracting has been discussed on this blog site, for instance here.  And, it was a subject for discussion yesterday while we were counting money, with one participant noting that the spouse thought there was a lot of corruption in the space and missile business and one company was singled out for receiving favoritism.

I still maintain that the Federal Government is trying to do the People's work in a fraud free manner and usually succeeding.  But, that is just my experience.  Below is a comment from a person who has seen contracting in the Air Force, the Marine Corps, the IRS and BATF.

Do you hear stories about bad, even rotten, apples in our business?  Yes.  But, the likes of Major John Cockerham and Major Charles J. Bowie, Jr, et al. are few and far between.  [Not to mention She, who must not be named.]  Do you hear the stories about the good, honest hard-working apples in our business?  No.  There are 147,705 people in the Defense Statutory Acquisition Workforce, as of 1 December 2010.  That's not even counting the thousands of support contractors.  In fiscal year 2009, we, the DoD, accomplished 3,553,207 contract actions, enlisting the contractual efforts of thousands of companies around the globe.  Is there fraud, waste, and abuse?  Yes.  Do we try to find it and rip it out by its roots?  You bet.  Do we wish there was none?  Absolutely.  Unfortunately, last time I checked, we were still living outside of the Garden of Eden, and some use their free will in the wrong-headed exercise of the freedom they have been granted.

On the other hand, if you'd like to compare the DoD's 147,705 to another Federal Government organization that only has 535, then . . . .

That said, corruption does exist, and not just in our fair Commonwealth.  Here is an article from yesterday's Baltimore Sun on one DoD organization (The National Security Agency—sometimes referred to as No Such Agency) that has a number of contractor prosecutions under its belt (or the belt of the Baltimore US Attorney.

The article states:

The Baltimore Sun identified 11 defendants accused within the past five years of bilking the agency.  Nine of the cases were filed in the past two years, even though some of the alleged crimes reach back to the late 1990s and mid-2000s.

The cases are listed in the article.  In one of the cases, the defendants admitted their guilt when taking a lie detector test in order to get a security clearance to obtain more contracts.  I put that down to lack of judgement.

While you may say the glass is half empty, I say it is half full, and that efforts to "make it better" may actually, over the long run, make it worse.  It is my belief that to the degree we drive people down Maslow's "Hierarchy of Needs", to that degree we make them less engaged and more like automatons, and thus the higher the chances that creativity and initiative will be lacking.  That is to say, if you treat people like they are incapable of independent thought and action, that is what you will get.  They will be stuck at the level of "Love and Belonging" and will not advance to "Esteem" and then to "Self-actualization".  The problem with self-actualization is that sometimes a person will go off the rails.

Regards  —  Cliff

Government Contracting

On 20 April The Washington Post published an article on a draft Administration Executive Order regarding disclosure of political contributions when submitting bids to the Federal Government in response to Government requests for proposal.

There was a follow-up article today, by opinion writer Marc A Theissen.  He noted that last week the second-ranking House Democrat, Rep. Steny Hoyer (D-MD), noted:

The issue on contracting ought to be on the merits of the contractors’ bid and capabilities. I think there are some serious questions as to what implications there are if somehow we consider political implications in the context of awarding contracts.

Representative Steny Hoyer is correct.

Regards  —  Cliff

Is God Speaking to Me?

I got a short EMail this AM from my youngest Brother.  In his capacity as an instructor at Defense Acquisition University, Defense Systems Management College, School of Program Managers, he was doing some research.

I went to the National Archives and Records Administration Code of Federal Regulations on the Government Printing Office website to look at Title 48, Federal Acquisition Regulations System.  When I clicked on Department of the Treasury, I got USAID.  Is GPO warning me to cash in my savings bonds now?

Interesting.

Regards  —  Cliff

Pork Isn't Always Pork

Here is a report on the new F-35B aircraft for the US Marine Corps.  The aircraft line (F-35A/B/C) is a tri-service aircraft (and also for eight international customers).  The international partners are contributing $4 billion dollars to the Research and Development costs.  Plus they will purchase a large number of aircraft, thus keeping production costs down (the famous "Learning Curve").

A write-up on the program, from Wikipedia, can be found here.

My reason for writing is the question of the "Second Engine".  Is it another Ear Mark boondoggle or is it a wise hedge?  I will state my bias up front.  When I was commanding the 86th Fighter Wing (Ramstein AB, FRG) we were the first unit to field the F-16 with the GE second source jet engine.  It was a marked improvement in performance over the Pratt Whitney engined jets. That said, a later model of the PW engine matched the GE engine.  The story of this engine competition is written up in The Air Force and the Great Engine War.

The second engine for the F-35 was a pet project for Senator Ted Kennedy.  Maybe it was for the jobs in Lynn—Pork.  From my perspective it was about pushing the technology and having options.  It is also about the benefits of competition.  Competition extracts better performance.  See the F-16 engine competition.

Whatever the late Senator Kennedy's reason for backing the second engine, it was a good idea.

The second engine may be what allows the F-35B to achieve a positive production decision and operational success.

Regards  —  Cliff

Federal Acquisition is Going Down Hill

Here is a blog post on the National Reconnaissance Office (NRO), as it was and as it has become.  One man's opinion.

I would like to start by saying that I know nothing about the NRO.

The thrust of the Blog Post is that we had an excellent system for building reconnaissance satellites and then messed it up because folks in DC thought that the Project Managers had too much freedom.

This brings up the question.  Do we get, overall, better Government Acquisition when we empower managers (think the Navy Polaris Missile System) or do we get better Government Acquisition when we make sure the managers are guided by a large number of specific rules to guide decision making and the application of many reviews (think most recent projects within DoD).

Regards  —  Cliff

PS:  Hat tip to my Brother, Lance.