Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site ncr-sd.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!philabs!cmcl2!seismo!harvard!talcott!panda!genrad!decvax!ittatc!dcdwest!sdcsvax!ncr-sd!greg
From: greg@ncr-sd.UUCP (Greg Noel)
Newsgroups: net.misc
Subject: Re: $1288 ashtrays
Message-ID: <250@ncr-sd.UUCP>
Date: Fri, 2-Aug-85 14:47:50 EDT
Article-I.D.: ncr-sd.250
Posted: Fri Aug  2 14:47:50 1985
Date-Received: Sun, 4-Aug-85 07:05:44 EDT
References: <537@leadsv.UUCP> <724@vortex.UUCP>
Reply-To: greg@ncr-sd.UUCP (Greg Noel)
Organization: NCR Corporation, Rancho Bernardo
Lines: 44

In article <724@vortex.UUCP> lauren@vortex.UUCP (Lauren Weinstein) writes:

>......  But just because someone occasionally
>acts in a non-optimal manner is still no excuse to steal
>his wallet.  Some contractors seem to have forgotten this,
>and they try to fleece the government (and thusly us) for all they
>think they can get away with.

I beg to differ on this, Lauren.  I speak as an expert, since I had
to fight this system from the other side.  It took me a long time to
find this out, but, despite the public image, the function of the
Government procurement process is \not/ to get the cheapest product,
or even to get the most cost-effective product.  \Nothing/ in the
processing is done to get a better price or even to see if the price
is reasonable.  The only thing that it does is to make sure that the
Govenment is \not/ \cheated/.

Now, given the $1288 for an ashtray, that may sound like a strange
statement, but 'tis true, 'tis true.  The ashtray probably cost three
dollars, but the supporting documentation that had to be provided
by the contractor (an allowable expense) to demonstrate beyond any
doubt that all of the costs were allowable probably cost $1285.  Then,
on top of that, the procurement branch gets to add in their costs, so
the total cost to the using agency is probably even more that $1288.

>......  How about the one for the little
>plastic feet on the bottom of office stools?  ....
>But when one of those little 25 cent
>suckers split, the replacement part cost was something like $150 from the
>stool manufacturer, apparently.  Nothing like cost effectiveness.

I lost an outstanding engineer over this nonsense.  We once needed a
part that was readily available at Radio Shack for $3.95.  But I wasn't
permitted to just send him down to get the part and have him submit
a voucher to petty cash.  I could go on for paragraphs about what we
had to go through to get that part -- specification, publishing, bids,
evaluations, and so forth -- but the final cost that came out of my
funds was over two hundred and twenty dollars.  And that doesn't even
include the labor costs of my engineer and myself.  But I had a shelf-foot
of paperwork that \proved/ that the Government hadn't been cheated.....

The engineer quit in disgust.  I didn't blame him.
-- 
-- Greg Noel, NCR Rancho Bernardo    Greg@ncr-sd.UUCP or Greg@nosc.ARPA