isohume Posted May 30, 2012 Share Posted May 30, 2012 Move forecasting to the private sector. I'm all for that. I say let the private sector do the public forecast. The NWS could finally axe the AFD, lose the public line and point & click grids. We could then do in-house forecasting to maintain SA for upcoming storm/hazard watches/warnings, as well as aviation, marine and fire wx products. Issuing life-protecting products for hazardous wx is our highest mission statement anyway. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wxman_ind Posted May 30, 2012 Share Posted May 30, 2012 I enjoy doing the public forecasts and hate to give it up. Also, the public has already paid for their forecasts from us via taxes, so why should they have to pay or have advertisements to get a basic forecast? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MN Transplant Posted May 30, 2012 Share Posted May 30, 2012 The money was shifted to give bonuses to contractors....not to prevent a riff and certaintly not to save the ITOs. That's not how I am reading this. The memo from Lubchenco (http://cdn.govexec.c.../052912cc2b.pdf) basically lays out the reprogramming problem. The budget folks didn't do their job well enough (request-wise), and then when they were actually in the fiscal year they had to move around money to make the ends meet. Congress doesn't like when you do that without their knowledge and approval. There was no personal gain from this for any employee/contractor. The contractor problem was identified in the OIG report (http://www.oig.doc.g...Extensions.aspx). Basically that comes down to crappy documentation and too easy to reach contractor incentives. It does not include reprogrammed funds away from the NWS core activities, and actually doesn't include any extra money at all. NOAA gave contractors high ratings, resulting in substantial award fees or extended contract periods of performance, for eight of nine contracts. However, the ratings associated with four of these contracts lacked sufficient support to demonstrate that the contractor met or exceeded the award-fee or award-term evaluation criteria. As a result, approximately $43.8 million was paid in award fees or contract extensions without proper justification. On some contracts, the performance monitors did not maintain documentation to support the ratings, and on other contracts, the examples and comments provided did not contain enough information to determine whether the ratings, award fees, and award terms were warranted. In addition, NOAA’s award-fee payment structures provided little incentive for contractors to excel in executing their contracts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
isohume Posted May 30, 2012 Share Posted May 30, 2012 Okay...not bonuses then. "$43.8 million was paid in award fees or contract extensions without proper justification." Looks like it was improper award fees and contract extensions to contractiors. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MN Transplant Posted May 30, 2012 Share Posted May 30, 2012 Okay...not bonuses then. "$43.8 million was paid in award fees or contract extensions without proper justification." Looks like it was improper award fees and contract extensions to contractiors. Well, improperly documented at the very least. Unless they do more investigation, we won't know whether those funds went out wrongly or not. Evidently they were budgeted for. It sounds more like a "yeah, yeah, you guys are doing fine, here's your contract extension". Not appropriate for a government bureaucracy which is supposed to have a better check on these things, but not necessarily just a handout to the contractors. I'm not defending NOAA brass, they did a crap job on both items. Did money go out that wouldn't have gone out with a thorough review? That is the question that should be answered. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
isohume Posted May 30, 2012 Share Posted May 30, 2012 Well, improperly documented at the very least. Unless they do more investigation, we won't know whether those funds went out wrongly or not. Evidently they were budgeted for. It sounds more like a "yeah, yeah, you guys are doing fine, here's your contract extension". Not appropriate for a government bureaucracy which is supposed to have a better check on these things, but not necessarily just a handout to the contractors. I'm not defending NOAA brass, they did a crap job on both items. Did money go out that wouldn't have gone out with a thorough review? That is the question that should be answered. It's a crap load of public money to be sloppy with. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ALhurricane Posted May 30, 2012 Share Posted May 30, 2012 http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/senators-tell-weather-service-congress-wont-authorize-plan-to-shift-money/2012/05/29/gJQAgvVS0U_story.html?wpisrc=nl_fedinsider Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
das Posted May 30, 2012 Share Posted May 30, 2012 The money was shifted to give bonuses to contractors....not to prevent a riff and certaintly not to save the ITOs. Not accurate. Okay...not bonuses then. "$43.8 million was paid in award fees or contract extensions without proper justification." Looks like it was improper award fees and contract extensions to contractiors. Again, not accurate. If you really care about this (as you seem to) it probably would make sense to read and understand the auditors report. Remember, "without proper justification" does not mean something improper took place. It can just as easily mean their was an error in following the bureaucratic process or that the existing process was fundamentally flawed. I'll repeat what i said earlier, Hayes FinOps team let him down. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
isohume Posted May 30, 2012 Share Posted May 30, 2012 Not accurate. Again, not accurate. If you really care about this (as you seem to) it probably would make sense to read and understand the auditors report. Remember, "without proper justification" does not mean something improper took place. It can just as easily mean their was an error in following the bureaucratic process or that the existing process was fundamentally flawed. I'll repeat what i said earlier, Hayes FinOps team let him down. Cool deal....someone f-d up. The info coming out has changed, but to repeat what I said earlier, JH is the man responsible for his FinOps team screw up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.