by reader ilsm
From the comments, CoRev states:
“ILSM, breaking the rqmts [requirements] into bite sized chunks (design or parts of it) can work if the rqmts are reasonably well defined. Buying an entire Weps [weapon system], even with a fly-off, is/was ludicrous. Every engineering change and there will ALWAYS be many open/re-opens and re-re-opens (ad infinitum) negotiations. Ends up in a near continuous loop of negotiations with few deliveries.”
Thanks for capitalizing ilsm.
I have extensive experience watering down specifications, allowing substandard materials and generally portraying the changes as ‘enhancements’ and when the costs go out of sight, alleging that the government made all these chnages because it needed better performance.
CoRev makes points which are valid if frightening.
One, the whittlers are not up to doing airplanes or anything large and need to stop doing what they always fail at. Which is sort of the purpose of me writing whittle posts. Thanks CoRev.
The inept need to refrain from doing what they cannot do. Such a logical propostion is alien inside the belt way.
“Ends up in a near continuous loop of negotiations with few deliveries.”
Great catch. The endless negotiations are caused by two things: the government (the original management team already escaped) has no idea what it has “required” the suppliers to do, and the suppliers could not deliver even the easiest engineering task. It is very profitable to keep doing things over and over. CoRev is correct here, it is a miracle if anything of use is delivered.
The point of fixed price versus cost plus is the profit margin is much better in fixed price. In both forms the fraud, waste and abuse of the tax payer and the soldier are the same.
Final point, change proposals (which are sent in after the incompetent government has control of the design) and change notices (when the industry side is charging to water down the “requirement”) are a continuous, expensive and unproductive loop which marks CoRev’s first point.
After the series of continuous changes and renegotiations neither the government nor the suppliers remember that what they were supposed to deliver was something that is worth the expenditure of the taxpayers’ grand kids’ scarce resources.
Better to whittle beaks than try to get the pentagon to buy anything more complex than a mouse trap.