DISQUS

DISQUS Hello! The Washington Independent is using DISQUS, a powerful comment system, to manage its comments. Learn more.

Community Page

The Washington Independent

Jump to original thread »
Author

Reigning in Military Contracts

Started by washingtonindependent · 9 months ago

Budget cuts in the 1990s forced the Pentagon’s skilled contracting workforce to shrink by more than half. When defense budgets doubled in the wake of the Sept. 11 attacks, this workforce was overwhelmed. So the Pentagon handed the responsibility for overseeing lucrative weapons programs ... Continue reading »

2 comments

  • nolo

    9 months ago

    I love the reporting, but please quit messing up the spelling and/or word use in the headline. It should be "REINING in Military Contracts," not "REIGNING in Military Contracts." The idiomatic term "reining in" comes from horsemanship (as in "reining in" a horse by using the reins on the bridle to control it or slow it down), not some kind of analogizing to a monarchical exertion of power. Really.

    OK, I'm done now. I guess I should go back to work
    reply
  • Michael DeKort

    9 months ago

    The 2010 start is very important relative to Deepwater. it means that the ICGS parties still wield too much power and will do so for several more years which means most if not every first in class will be awarded and or constructed. That means the damage is done and the LCI's will get most of what they wanted as the rest of the assets are copies of the original. The bill the congress put out while helpful in some areas doesn't address the root causes and basically changes nothing on the ground. Case in point. The CG just awarded the new FRC design and manufacturing contract to Bollinger. it is worth up to $1.5 billion. Bollinger is part of Northrop who is part of ICGS. They never figured out where the 123 hull designs went wrong and ignored the government engineers advice on the NSC hull design and only made changes to them when under pressure, no one was held accountable and the government has still yet to see its refund. Under those conditions how did the ICGS parties get to be part of a new surface asset bid and win? The Commandant and ICGS are running all over congress, the DHS IG and the rest of us. (At one point the VP of Bollinger government contracts, T.R. Hamblin was asked what happened relative to the flawed design of the 123 extensions. He told the reporter he thought the computer used for the design had a power hit. That is analogous to my dog ate my homework. Given the ICGS parties never figured out where they screwed up the 123 extension design why would we think they are competent enough to handle the FRCs?)
    reply

Add New Comment

Returning? Login