Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!sun-barr!decwrl!uunet!dg!dg-rtp.dg.com!ahughes From: ahughes@dg-rtp.dg.com (Arch Hughes) Newsgroups: sci.space.shuttle Subject: Re: Solving The Shuttles Problems? Message-ID: <1028@dg.dg.com> Date: 8 Oct 90 12:50:19 GMT References: <1990Oct1.160100.389@vaxa.strath.ac.uk> <5689@mace.cc.purdue.edu> <1018@dg.dg.com> <5700@mace.cc.purdue.edu> Sender: root@dg.dg.com Reply-To: ahughes@dg-rtp.dg.com (Arch Hughes) Organization: Data General Corporation, Research Triangle Park, NC Lines: 114 In article <5700@mace.cc.purdue.edu>, dil@mace.cc.purdue.edu (Perry G Ramsey) writes: |> In article <1018@dg.dg.com>, ahughes@dg-rtp.dg.com (Arch Hughes) writes: |> > What is really the trade off that is being proposed here, |> > though? Are you suggesting that the US government buy/rent |> > the facilities to engineer, develop, and produce space |> > shuttles, F15s, surface fleets, tanks, and so on? At what |> > point do you cut it off or draw the line between "make versus |> > buy"? |> |> In most cases, the Federal Government already owns the plant which is |> being occupied by the contractor. Drive by the General Dynamics |> plant in Ft. Worth. It says Air Force Plant No. 6. Drive by |> the Palmdale, CA plant where Lockheed, Rockwell, and others |> build stuff for the Gov. It says Air Force Plant No. 42. I have |> worked at three contractor facilities. Two were leased, and the |> lease was paid by the government, and the other (Rockwell/Downey) |> was Government owned. |> |> Where do you cut it off? It's a judgement call, but it seems clear |> to me that military aircraft programs (with the exception of |> transports which are similar to commercial transports) are cases |> of the Government providing everything and the stockholders getting a profit. |> |> > It seems to me that the current system SHOULD promote a more |> > efficient system and serve to engender capitalism. Isn't the |> > biggest force in capitalism a market with lots of money and |> > some need looking to be filled? |> |> It is if there are proper competitive methods. The only real competition |> in the current system is to get the contract in the first place, |> so the proper policy is to underbid everybody and then stick it |> to the customer. Which is exactly what they do. As you mention |> below, they're just responding to the environment which they |> have been put in. I don't consider the contractors basically |> dishonest, but they operate in an environment which fosters fudging the truth. |> |> > |> > I think that its capitalism at its finest |> > to stand up and soak the government for all you can get away |> > with! |> Well, I'm not so sure about this. Dishonesty and mistrust |> are not good for any society. In principle the dishonest |> operator eventually gets his due, but in the mean time it |> disrupts the system. |> |> It's really a problem when you have a customer who can't go |> broke. |> |> > Fix the government regulations and |> > enforcement systems, not our economic system. |> |> So we agree here? |> |> > |> > Arch Hughes |> > One man's oppinion. |> |> And one more man's opinion. |> |> -- |> Perry G. Ramsey Department of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences |> perryr@vm.cc.purdue.edu Purdue University, W. Lafayette, IN USA |> dil@mace.cc.purdue.edu We've looked at clouds from ten sides now, |> And we REALLY don't know clouds, at all. Case in point. I own (along with certain lending institutions 8-)) a house. I am having it painted. Before starting, I contacted 3 local painters and got information on methods and price. I selected one. I supply the facilities (my house), and some of the equipment (the paint...they bring ladders, brushes, and solvents). They supply labor, expertise that I don't have, and some specialty tools (mentioned above). What's the risk? The price might not be fair. They might screw up the job. The paint may not be the color I want. The task might not have been well defined as I might also want my deck painted. They might hurt themselves. I might not pay them. They might engage in fraud by not putting the second coat on all the way around or by not washing out some mildew as they said they would. Sounds a lot like a government contract to me! I only hope I've made a good choice and I monitor their progress as they go to satisfy myself with their part of the deal. If I don't like the job or otherwise refuse to pay, barring a fist fight, we go to court to settle the difference. I believe through the selection process that they price is fair, that the methods are appropriate, and that they painters are basically trustworthy. Only time will tell if I am wrong. Naturally, the color is not exactly what we wanted! Why does government contracting break down? If the contractors are not fair or honest, one lesson should teach the government this. If the government specs are not clear, better specs should be written next time or room for definition left in the contract. However, if the government shows by action or inaction that it doesn't care, the door for abuse is left open. Though perhaps below the highest morale standards, such an open door will be walked through and advantage taken within the bounds of the law. We may be offended by this, but you can't punish children for eating candy left lying about when you haven't restricted them from doing so. If someone came to my house and wanted to pay $8000 for my Mr. Coffee, I'd sure part with it! Arch Hughes