The RetrieverTraining.Net Forums The Retriever Academy
Total Retriever Training with Mike Lardy
Hawkeye Media Gunners Up Tritronics Outdoor Media
Page 1 of 5 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 45

Thread: Hey Roger Perry, expain this one ???

  1. #1
    Senior Member Lucky Seven's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Posts
    338

    Default Hey Roger Perry, expain this one ???

    Hey Roger,

    I dont think you, the left wing media or any other nut jobs can ever say anything about Chaney/Halliburton no-bid contracts ever again.

    Obama Administration Steers Lucrative No-Bid Contract for Afghan Work to Dem Donor

    The Obama administration this month awarded a $25 million federal contract for work in Afghanistan to a company owned by a prominent Democratic campaign contributor without entertaining competitive bids.

    Despite President Obama's long history of criticizing the Bush administration for "sweetheart deals" with favored contractors, the Obama administration this month awarded a $25 million federal contract for work in Afghanistan to a company owned by a Democratic campaign contributor without entertaining competitive bids, Fox News has learned.

    The contract, awarded on Jan. 4 to Checchi & Company Consulting, Inc., a Washington-based firm owned by economist and Democratic donor Vincent V. Checchi, will pay the firm $24,673,427 to provide "rule of law stabilization services" in war-torn Afghanistan.

    A synopsis of the contract published on the USAID Web site says Checchi & Company will "train the next generation of legal professionals" throughout the Afghan provinces and thereby "develop the capacity of Afghanistan's justice system to be accessible, reliable, and fair."

    The legality of the arrangement as a "sole source," or no-bid, contract was made possible by virtue of a waiver signed by the USAID administrator. "They cancelled the open bid on this when they came to power earlier this year," a source familiar with the federal contracting process told Fox News.

    "That's kind of weird," said another source, who has worked on "rule of law" issues in both Afghanistan and Iraq, about the no-bid contract to Checchi & Company. "There's lots of companies and non-governmental organizations that do this sort of work."
    Chad Radt
    HR Wildrose Theodores Lucky Seven MH, "Seven"
    Say Good Night Irene QAA, "Peace"


    Fuel the Champion Within, PURINA ProPlan Performance
    TriTronics Dealer

  2. #2
    Senior Member road kill's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    New Berlin, WI
    Posts
    10,592

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Lucky Seven View Post
    Hey Roger,

    I dont think you, the left wing media or any other nut jobs can ever say anything about Chaney/Halliburton no-bid contracts ever again.

    Obama Administration Steers Lucrative No-Bid Contract for Afghan Work to Dem Donor

    The Obama administration this month awarded a $25 million federal contract for work in Afghanistan to a company owned by a prominent Democratic campaign contributor without entertaining competitive bids.

    Despite President Obama's long history of criticizing the Bush administration for "sweetheart deals" with favored contractors, the Obama administration this month awarded a $25 million federal contract for work in Afghanistan to a company owned by a Democratic campaign contributor without entertaining competitive bids, Fox News has learned.

    The contract, awarded on Jan. 4 to Checchi & Company Consulting, Inc., a Washington-based firm owned by economist and Democratic donor Vincent V. Checchi, will pay the firm $24,673,427 to provide "rule of law stabilization services" in war-torn Afghanistan.

    A synopsis of the contract published on the USAID Web site says Checchi & Company will "train the next generation of legal professionals" throughout the Afghan provinces and thereby "develop the capacity of Afghanistan's justice system to be accessible, reliable, and fair."

    The legality of the arrangement as a "sole source," or no-bid, contract was made possible by virtue of a waiver signed by the USAID administrator. "They cancelled the open bid on this when they came to power earlier this year," a source familiar with the federal contracting process told Fox News.

    "That's kind of weird," said another source, who has worked on "rule of law" issues in both Afghanistan and Iraq, about the no-bid contract to Checchi & Company. "There's lots of companies and non-governmental organizations that do this sort of work."


    Yeah--But......!!



    rk
    Stan b & Elvis

  3. #3
    Senior Member kjrice's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    Las Vegas, NV
    Posts
    2,405

    Default

    That was Bush's fault!
    A lot of people are afraid of heights. Not me, I'm afraid of widths.

  4. #4
    Senior Member YardleyLabs's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Yardley, PA
    Posts
    6,639

    Default

    Personally, I'm outraged and ready to become a Republican. At least the GOP understands that the minimum price for aloyalty contract is at least $100 million. I'm assuming he as shortchanged since he supported Edwards during the primary.

  5. #5
    Senior Member Pals's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Central Illinois
    Posts
    2,684

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by YardleyLabs View Post
    Personally, I'm outraged and ready to become a Republican.

    About time! I'll send you the honorary nose plugs and shovel-keep an eye on the mail!

  6. #6
    Senior Member Bayou Magic's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    OK via LA
    Posts
    890

    Default

    Did you really expect anything different? It's just another lie and spoonful of excrement from our career politicians.

    fp
    www.BayouMagicRetrievers.com
    FC AFC Wing Magic's Louisiana Roux MH "Roux"
    Bayou Magic's Rouxster Bleu QAA "Bleu"
    Bayou Magic's Dave Robicheaux QAA "Burke"
    Bayou Magic's Cletus Purcell (Knucklehead Puppy)


    "Never let the fear of striking out get in your way." -- George Herman Ruth

  7. #7
    Banned
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Location
    Port St. Lucie, Fl
    Posts
    3,611

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Lucky Seven View Post
    Hey Roger,

    I dont think you, the left wing media or any other nut jobs can ever say anything about Chaney/Halliburton no-bid contracts ever again.

    Obama Administration Steers Lucrative No-Bid Contract for Afghan Work to Dem Donor

    The Obama administration this month awarded a $25 million federal contract for work in Afghanistan to a company owned by a prominent Democratic campaign contributor without entertaining competitive bids.

    Despite President Obama's long history of criticizing the Bush administration for "sweetheart deals" with favored contractors, the Obama administration this month awarded a $25 million federal contract for work in Afghanistan to a company owned by a Democratic campaign contributor without entertaining competitive bids, Fox News has learned.

    The contract, awarded on Jan. 4 to Checchi & Company Consulting, Inc., a Washington-based firm owned by economist and Democratic donor Vincent V. Checchi, will pay the firm $24,673,427 to provide "rule of law stabilization services" in war-torn Afghanistan.

    A synopsis of the contract published on the USAID Web site says Checchi & Company will "train the next generation of legal professionals" throughout the Afghan provinces and thereby "develop the capacity of Afghanistan's justice system to be accessible, reliable, and fair."

    The legality of the arrangement as a "sole source," or no-bid, contract was made possible by virtue of a waiver signed by the USAID administrator. "They cancelled the open bid on this when they came to power earlier this year," a source familiar with the federal contracting process told Fox News.

    "That's kind of weird," said another source, who has worked on "rule of law" issues in both Afghanistan and Iraq, about the no-bid contract to Checchi & Company. "There's lots of companies and non-governmental organizations that do this sort of work."
    Fox entertainment as a source?

  8. #8
    Senior Member huntinman's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Tennessee
    Posts
    6,761

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Roger Perry View Post
    Fox entertainment as a source?
    As opposed to DNC TV (ABC,CBS,NBC,CNN,MSNBS and Headline news)??
    Bill Davis

  9. #9
    Senior Member YardleyLabs's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Yardley, PA
    Posts
    6,639

    Default

    I don't question the accuracy of the story. Vincent Checci and Adam Checci (principals in the firm) each gave a little over $4000 to Obama's Presidential campaign and Vincent Checci also gave $1600 to the Edwards primary campaign. Neither appears to have been very politically active otherwise. Their financial donations are consistently to liberal groups (e.g. moveon.org). I didn't find anything suggesting that the Checci's were "aggregators" -- the approach optimized under Bush for circumventing donation limits by having people put together "packages" of donors (oddly enough, often employees of the aggregator) from whom total donations could be $100k, $500 k, or more.

    $4000 would be comparable to what I routinely spent attending things like the Governor's Ball in NJ or the Mayor's birthday party in NYC. Of course, that was money "voluntarily" contributed by partners of the firm to advance the firm's interests. About 85% of our donations went to Republicans and the balance to Democrats. Usually the donations were made in response to specific requests from other Corporate clients who made it clear that they preferred to do business with professional service firms that supported the candidates they believed were important to their business. If that sounds crude, it is a lot less crude than the manner in which requests were actually made.

    On an annual basis, each Partner was told how much they were expected to contribute to the firm's PAC and how much they were expected to contribute for political causes over and above the PAC contributions. The suggestions were provided in writing and actuals were verified before decisions were made on annual compensation levels for the following year. We were ecstatic when an entity - NYC, for example - passed bills prohibiting donors from receiving contracts.

    However, most places, like New Jersey, were explicitly "pay to play." As I was told at one point, every firm was expected to give to both parties. Campaigns were expensive and paid for primarily by corporations. If companies were not interested in helping to finance this necessary public cost, then they were not committed to the public sector market and did not deserve to be awarded any contracts. Washington, unhappily, has always been a "pay to play" kind of place. However, the numbers are much bigger and the mechanisms used to channel money more complex.

  10. #10
    Senior Member Bayou Magic's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    OK via LA
    Posts
    890

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by YardleyLabs View Post
    I don't question the accuracy of the story. Vincent Checci and Adam Checci (principals in the firm) each gave a little over $4000 to Obama's Presidential campaign and Vincent Checci also gave $1600 to the Edwards primary campaign. Neither appears to have been very politically active otherwise. Their financial donations are consistently to liberal groups (e.g. moveon.org). I didn't find anything suggesting that the Checci's were "aggregators" -- the approach optimized under Bush for circumventing donation limits by having people put together "packages" of donors (oddly enough, often employees of the aggregator) from whom total donations could be $100k, $500 k, or more.

    $4000 would be comparable to what I routinely spent attending things like the Governor's Ball in NJ or the Mayor's birthday party in NYC. Of course, that was money "voluntarily" contributed by partners of the firm to advance the firm's interests. About 85% of our donations went to Republicans and the balance to Democrats. Usually the donations were made in response to specific requests from other Corporate clients who made it clear that they preferred to do business with professional service firms that supported the candidates they believed were important to their business. If that sounds crude, it is a lot less crude than the manner in which requests were actually made.

    On an annual basis, each Partner was told how much they were expected to contribute to the firm's PAC and how much they were expected to contribute for political causes over and above the PAC contributions. The suggestions were provided in writing and actuals were verified before decisions were made on annual compensation levels for the following year. We were ecstatic when an entity - NYC, for example - passed bills prohibiting donors from receiving contracts.

    However, most places, like New Jersey, were explicitly "pay to play." As I was told at one point, every firm was expected to give to both parties. Campaigns were expensive and paid for primarily by corporations. If companies were not interested in helping to finance this necessary public cost, then they were not committed to the public sector market and did not deserve to be awarded any contracts. Washington, unhappily, has always been a "pay to play" kind of place. However, the numbers are much bigger and the mechanisms used to channel money more complex.
    Now we all know how the political system works. Great.

    The response to the Fox story from the Checci firm is they didn't know the contract was a non-competitive (sole source) procurement. The arrogance of that statement is beyond absurd.

    I have written competitive and sole source government procurement solicitations for over 25 years during my employment with the Army, Air Force, and now the EPA. The Federal Acquisition Regulations (FARs) provide a strict process by which government projects are contracted and purchases are made. Every sole source solicitation is clearly identified as such from the start of the process. Contractors and venders are even provided a reasonable time, typically 30 days, to contest a solicitation identified as a sole source procurement. When a contractor or vender is contacted they are provided a detailed statement of work and a price is negotiated with the procuring government agency. Depending on the scope of the project the negotiations can be quite laborious and lengthy. There is no way on Godís earth a company can sign onto a 25 million dollar project and not know it was a sole source procurement! Impossible!

    This is the kind of BS that people are tired of enduring. Throw them out. Throw them all out. Give us term limits and kill the future for the career politicians.

    fp
    www.BayouMagicRetrievers.com
    FC AFC Wing Magic's Louisiana Roux MH "Roux"
    Bayou Magic's Rouxster Bleu QAA "Bleu"
    Bayou Magic's Dave Robicheaux QAA "Burke"
    Bayou Magic's Cletus Purcell (Knucklehead Puppy)


    "Never let the fear of striking out get in your way." -- George Herman Ruth

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •