| | | I found this article to be nothing short of a joke. Which is what one expects from the NYT on a hit piece against Trump. So, that's fine.
The only reasonably analyzable item was this:
DIVERSITY, EQUITY, INCLUSION AND ACCESSIBILITY (DEIA) PROFESSIONAL SUPPORT SERVICESContract #70RSAT23FR0000139 awarded by DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY to THE MILLENNIUM GROUP INTERNATIONAL, LLC$7,500,000 Total Value–$2,100,000 Obligated spending$5,400,000 SavingsTake this contract for D.E.I. services for the Department of Homeland Security. DOGE says canceling it saved $5.4 million.To arrive at this figure, it started with the contract’s total potential value: around $7.5 million.Then it subtracted the amount that appears to have already been spent.At first glance, this seems straightforward …Figures are rounded.But such savings estimates can be too high, several experts said, for a few reasons.For one, the spending figure may undercount what the government has already spent, because the data in the federal contracting system can be several months out of date.The numbers shown above also don’t account for additional termination costs the government will have to pay to close these contracts, making them a “meaningless metric,” said Steven Schooner, a professor of government procurement law at George Washington University Law School. And the criticism of the estimated "savings" by cancellation is sheer stupidity.
>> Figures are rounded". LMAO.
>> Figures too high because of zero or more of the following items (i.e., they didn't bother to do the legwork)
>> the spending figure may undercount what the government has already spent, because the data in the federal contracting system can be several months out of date.
>> the figures don't account for additional termination costs the government will have to pay to close these contracts
>> "Making it a meaningless metric"???
>> "said Steven Schooner, a professor of government procurement law at George Washington University Law School.
>> What did Mr. Schooner actually recommend in lieu of cancelling the contract?
I have not looked at the NYT in ages, and try to avoid any article from that incompetent team of nutbags.
Whose fault is it the systems are "slow"? So, is that a feature or a bug? I'm not clear on what they are claiming.
Just messing with you. Ten told me I needed rush over here read this article.
Thanks, Ten.
But this was funny.
I would just say this much. If it ends up being, say, 75%, that will be a humongous win for the American People. It could just as easily be 125%. Because the recordkeeping is pretty terrible, we can already see.
HOWEVER: Those not familiar with governmental accounting, should know that journal entries for project contracts should be entered at the maximum amount authorized, NOT at "actual cost" (in the interest of conservative treatment). So, I can't really say if they were doing it wrong, but looks okay to me. |
|
