Author Topic: New Contract  (Read 5267 times)

Gman

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 1
    • View Profile
New Contract
« on: March 11, 2009, 11:55:23 PM »
This may or not be news you can use ,but here is the Federal Business Opportunities Solicitation for the upcoming Contract renewal. Public info should be public.

https://www.fbo.gov/index?s=opportunity&mode=form&id=c1e901b8038634972985b9c31d5e2955&tab=core&_cview=1

Copy and paste into your browser, or open the link, and peer into the mind numbing game of government contracting......

homelessdiver

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 3
  • rum is for breakfast
    • View Profile
    • Homeless Diver
Re: New Contract
« Reply #1 on: April 02, 2009, 04:11:15 AM »
but this one:

KBR - that place is fucked with a quickness then. 1/3rd of the slots wont be filled and the HR morality police will make the current crop look like care-bears.[/li][/list]

I see KIRA is trying as well. They're the ones that screwed up the NEC in Baghdad so bad they were kicked off before halfway completion.

...........

Contracts,
SBA Certified Hub Zone Firm,
 Minority-Owned business,
 Self-Certified Small Disadvantaged Business,
For-Profit Organization,
Service Provider,
Woman-Owned Business,
Hispanic American Owned

I'm sorry, when did we go back to racism and awarding priorities to minority, woman, and disadvantaged companies? What kind of shit is that? Werent those days over with?... guess not.

Ohai, i haz cunt, kan plz u giv kontrak?

Meat Popsicle

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 4
    • View Profile
Re: New Contract
« Reply #2 on: August 02, 2010, 11:54:22 PM »
Well folks, it's August the 2nd 2010 and the "official" news about the contract is that there is still apparently no news.  NSF apparently still hasn't cut down the list of bidders and everybody is still hanging in the breeze.

I'm smelling a 1 year extension followed by a congressional investigation.  But that's just me... I'm an optimist.

Meat Popsicle

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 4
    • View Profile
Re: New Contract
« Reply #3 on: September 02, 2010, 12:25:41 AM »
Just heard the NSF has contacted bidders to notify if they've made it onto the short list.

Don't know who's on it, but something is being done somewhere... (theoretically)
 8)

Sheriff

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 25
    • View Profile
Re: New Contract
« Reply #4 on: September 07, 2010, 05:31:24 PM »
TransPolar did not make the shortlist.  The rumored shortlist is:

KBR
Lockheed
CM2Hill

Meat Popsicle

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 4
    • View Profile
Re: New Contract
« Reply #5 on: September 09, 2010, 03:19:39 AM »
The two companies I was really hoping would not make the cut were Transpolar, and ARS-CSC.  So that's a good thing.

I need to contact my contacts at ITT, KBR, and Lockheed Martin.

Meat Popsicle

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 4
    • View Profile
Re: New Contract
« Reply #6 on: September 21, 2010, 05:47:37 AM »
My prediction of another 1 year extension has come to pass.

Anyone want to bet me about a congressional investigation?

Anyone?

Anyone?

Bueller?

Nick

  • Nick
  • Administrator
  • Newbie
  • *****
  • Posts: 32
    • View Profile
    • Big Dead Place
Raytheon Polar Services Audit from 2005
« Reply #7 on: December 06, 2010, 10:04:17 AM »
Here is an audit of RPSC by the Defense Contract Audit Agency in 2005:  It is long, but worth reposting as evidence that Raytheon should not be considered for future contracts in the Antarctic Program.

Excerpts:

"We reviewed the contractor’s petty cash policy for the Denver Headquarters (HQ) office and did not see any direction as it pertains to the treatment of unallowable costs. We tested the contractor’s policy for petty cash against actual costs incurred through the petty cash process and determined that 60% of the transactions that flow through petty cash are unallowable based on FAR 31.205. Most of the items related to gifts and prizes for HQ personnel for non-contract type events such as an Extreme Cube Makeover, Photography Interest Group, Summer Picnic Food and Prizes, and Clean Your Workstation Day."

----------

"The lack of sufficient and compliant controls has resulted in (1) numerous instances of expressly
unallowable costs being charged to the government and, (2) insufficient documentation of
transactions for costs incurred and billed to the contract for which the allowability of the costs to
the contract can not be readily determined. Some examples of transactions that demonstrate the
lack of internal controls are as follows:

•An invoice from Harry & David’s gourmet was reviewed which disclosed that a tower of chocolates was purchased as a holiday gift from the Program Manager to an unspecified recipient.

•Two (2) charges for Dave and Busters on a pro-card statement with no supporting documentation. The charges were for $998.00 and $972.57. This would have been considered entertainment expense based on FAR 31.205-14.

•The contractor submitted a Lowes Home Improvement receipt with a pro-card statement
for air conditioning supplies. The purpose of the purchase was not stated. The
documentation is considered insufficient.

•The contractor paid charges on a pro-card statement for various amounts that were not
supported and are likely personal purchases. Purchases at Virgin Body Care Inc. which
sells herbal, nutritional and food supplement items. Purchases were also made at the
Raining Rose which specialize in all natural, handcrafted body care products, soaps,
shampoos, lotions, shower gels, and so forth. These costs are considered unallowable
based on FAR 31.201-2(d). There was also a charge for a Colorado Restaurant
Association membership. The association with the Polar Services contract was not
established.

•The contractor submitted invoices related to the rental of tables, chairs, water barrels,
and so forth for purposes of a barbeque. The rental equipment was provided by Butler
Rents. The barbeque was catered by Franks Barbeque. No purpose was stated. The
function was held around the time frame of the 4th of July. The charges were related to
the pro-card statement. The credit card statement was approved by management and the
amounts appear to be expressly unallowable although no purpose was stated for the
costs.

•An invoice for 548 Souvenir Baseball caps was questioned. The invoice was presented
with a purchase order which failed to identify the purpose of the baseball caps in relation
to the performance of the contract. The invoice was initialed by a finance person and the
purchase order was not signed. This cost is considered unallowable based on FAR
31.205-13(b).

•Several transactions related to the pre-season social to include wine, ice sculptures,
quartets, flowers, and so forth were charged direct to the contract. These items while
approved by management for reimbursement under the contract are unallowable based
on FAR 31.205-13, FAR 31.205-14, and FAR 31-.205.51.
« Last Edit: December 06, 2010, 02:36:04 PM by Nick »