Re: Problem contracts

[John Posada <posada -at- FAXSAV -dot- COM>]

No offense taken...

If it was for the money, why would we have turned the business away when we could have gotten even more money?

The reason for the inflated cost was to pay for all of the additional hoops that we had to jump through.  We had to carry 3 people on staff just to fill out forms and documents.  We needed to dedicate an office for the onsite inspector as required for producing mil-spec product.  We needed to turn a room into a vault just to store the documentation that we were working on.  We needed to build in X% of rework that we knew was more than suitable for use, but might have failed some spec that had nothing to do with the product, but hadn't been updated in the mil-spec.  In fact, some of the specs called for standards that were inferior to our commercial specs, but since they weren't mil-spec, we couldn't use them.

We could have just as easily produced lower cost product that would have complied with the spec, but since much of our production was for the private sector, it was sometimes difficult to produce material that in some cases was lower quality than commercial and not have the lower standard "pollute" our commercial business.

BTW...you will be happy to know that nothing we produced was life-dependant...we were in the business of microfilming documents and engineering drawings (not nuclear equipment or explosives)

John



If you stop and think about it  -  it is rather scary to read these kind
of comments!!  I wonder if your company, John, thought that they had to
do that to "cover" the admin. costs associated with the "time" spent in
the bidding "contest?"  Or was it to just do business with a "guaranteed"
paying vendor??    :)  Just kiding   -   No offense intended!!!!!!

>From one who has worked on active duty and as a civilian in the military,
it was ALWAYS scary for us to realize that we may trust our lives with
equipment and things that were built by the lowest bidder.  I'd hate to
be a pilot - knowing that I'm flying something that was built by a
company that was the lowest bidder, albeit several hundred millions or
even billions of dollars.  :)  Your right, a hammer does start looking
pretty good at this point!!

Alan Burke
Tech Writer Contractor
currently @ Lucent Technologies

 ----------
From:  posada[SMTP:posada -at- FAXSAV -dot- COM]
Sent:  Monday, January 12, 1998 10:42 AM
To:  LISTSERV.OKSTATE.EDU!TECHWR-L
Subject:  Re: Problem contracts

It's funny...people who don't know cannot believe why a toilet seat or =
hammer would cost $20,000

After you've gone through the process that Eric has gone through, and =
this doesn't even include the manufacturing to Mil-Spec standards, that =
hammer starts to look more and more like a bargain.

I was with a company that did work for both Federal and private sector.
 =
We charged 3X the price for the same product when done for the =
government, and after a couple of years, stopped taking the business =
even at those prices...and one agency pleaded with us to raise our price
=
even more rather than to stop talking orders.

John Posada, Technical Writer (and proud of the title)
The world's premier Internet fax service company: The FaxSav Global =
Network
 -work http://www.faxsav.com      -personal http://www.tdandw.com
 -work mailto:posada -at- faxsav -dot- com   -personal mailto:john -at- tdandw -dot- com
 -work phone: 732-906-2000 X2296  -home phone: 732-291-7811
My opinions are mine, and neither you nor my company can take credit for
=
them.

HEY! Are you coming to the NJ TechWriter lunch?  So far, about 10
of us are.  Ask me about it.=20

 -----Original Message-----
From:   geoff-h -at- MTL -dot- FERIC -dot- CA [SMTP:geoff-h -at- MTL -dot- FERIC -dot- CA]
Sent:   Monday, January 12, 1998 10:35 AM
To:     TECHWR-L -at- LISTSERV -dot- OKSTATE -dot- EDU
Subject:        Problem contracts

 Eric Ray reported a problem with a good contract gone bad
 as a result of the bureaucracy kicking in. Eric, I spent 6
 years working with the feds, so I know whereat you speak.