President Biden, critics corner

[billeisele 122]

The administration has decided to cancel all projects involving the wall and return funds to the Pentagon. Biden administration to return billions in border wall funding diverted from Pentagon (msn.com)

For those familiar with government contracting they are aware of the Termination Clause that exists in federal contracts. The contractors will be paid for work-in-process to the extent the expenses can't be recovered, along with other termination charges. That means that pre-fabricated wall sections waiting for installation will be paid for, materials ordered that can't be canceled will be paid for, housing, transportation, food, leases, rentals, and other contracts that can't be canceled will be paid for, the cost to demobilize will be paid, the costs to cancel the contracts and unwind subcontracts will be paid. Yes the termination cost will be less than the cost to continue. The difference being that the government, the taxpayers, get nothing in the termination except rusting materials.

And then will be the cost of the contracts to address the erosion and levee issues. Those would have been taken care of with the wall construction. Essentially that work will almost be paid for twice due to remobilization and contracting costs. 

I'm wondering if the $17 billion is the net number? Regardless, it would be enlightening to see the numbers in the whole process.

[Phil1111 908]

Biden beats Trump in poll of first 100 days by 12 points

'Biden’s overall approval rate was 60 percent, well above Trump’s 48 percent approaching 100 days in office."

The bar wasn't high.

 

[billvon 2,380]

1 hour ago, billeisele said:

The administration has decided to cancel all projects involving the wall and return funds to the Pentagon . . ..the government, the taxpayers, get nothing in the termination except rusting materials.

Biden doesn't immediately cancel the wall:  "Biden is a HYPOCRITE!  He said he'd cancel the wall then he DIDN'T!!!"

Biden cancels the wall:  "Biden is a fool!  He is wasting taxpayer money."

Somehow I don't think Biden (or anyone else) is going to lose sleep over the latest attacks.

[kallend 1,621]

1 hour ago, billeisele said:

The administration has decided to cancel all projects involving the wall and return funds to the Pentagon. Biden administration to return billions in border wall funding diverted from Pentagon (msn.com)

For those familiar with government contracting they are aware of the Termination Clause that exists in federal contracts. The contractors will be paid for work-in-process to the extent the expenses can't be recovered, along with other termination charges. That means that pre-fabricated wall sections waiting for installation will be paid for, materials ordered that can't be canceled will be paid for, housing, transportation, food, leases, rentals, and other contracts that can't be canceled will be paid for, the cost to demobilize will be paid, the costs to cancel the contracts and unwind subcontracts will be paid. Yes the termination cost will be less than the cost to continue. The difference being that the government, the taxpayers, get nothing in the termination except rusting materials.

And then will be the cost of the contracts to address the erosion and levee issues. Those would have been taken care of with the wall construction. Essentially that work will almost be paid for twice due to remobilization and contracting costs. 

I'm wondering if the $17 billion is the net number? Regardless, it would be enlightening to see the numbers in the whole process.

Money well spent to neutralize the stupidest policy of 2016-2020.

[gowlerk 1,903]

2 hours ago, billeisele said:

The administration has decided to cancel all projects involving the wall and return funds to the Pentagon. Biden administration to return billions in border wall funding diverted from Pentagon (msn.com)

For those familiar with government contracting they are aware of the Termination Clause that exists in federal contracts. The contractors will be paid for work-in-process to the extent the expenses can't be recovered, along with other termination charges. That means that pre-fabricated wall sections waiting for installation will be paid for, materials ordered that can't be canceled will be paid for, housing, transportation, food, leases, rentals, and other contracts that can't be canceled will be paid for, the cost to demobilize will be paid, the costs to cancel the contracts and unwind subcontracts will be paid. Yes the termination cost will be less than the cost to continue. The difference being that the government, the taxpayers, get nothing in the termination except rusting materials.

And then will be the cost of the contracts to address the erosion and levee issues. Those would have been taken care of with the wall construction. Essentially that work will almost be paid for twice due to remobilization and contracting costs. 

I'm wondering if the $17 billion is the net number? Regardless, it would be enlightening to see the numbers in the whole process.

I'm sure Mexico will be quick to cover the loss as Trump promised.

[JerryBaumchen 1,046]

3 hours ago, billeisele said:

The administration has decided to cancel all projects involving the wall and return funds to the Pentagon. Biden administration to return billions in border wall funding diverted from Pentagon (msn.com)

For those familiar with government contracting they are aware of the Termination Clause that exists in federal contracts. The contractors will be paid for work-in-process to the extent the expenses can't be recovered, along with other termination charges. That means that pre-fabricated wall sections waiting for installation will be paid for, materials ordered that can't be canceled will be paid for, housing, transportation, food, leases, rentals, and other contracts that can't be canceled will be paid for, the cost to demobilize will be paid, the costs to cancel the contracts and unwind subcontracts will be paid. Yes the termination cost will be less than the cost to continue. The difference being that the government, the taxpayers, get nothing in the termination except rusting materials.

And then will be the cost of the contracts to address the erosion and levee issues. Those would have been taken care of with the wall construction. Essentially that work will almost be paid for twice due to remobilization and contracting costs. 

I'm wondering if the $17 billion is the net number? Regardless, it would be enlightening to see the numbers in the whole process.

Hi Bill,

After working in US gov't. contracting for 30 yrs, your premise may be credible.

But, I doubt it.  Usually, ( and I know it is not universal ) long-term contracts have cancellation clauses in them.  

One of the last contracts that I worked on was for a 5-yr period.  It was cancelled after 1-yr due to budget changes.  The agency paid no money ( as you list in your post ) to the contractor due to the cancellation.

If you have specific knowledge of these contracts, I will yield to your knowledge.

Jerry Baumchen

PS)  Most US gov't. contracts have that 'small print' about budgets being cut by Congress.  It's usually in the boilerplate that no one reads.

[JerryBaumchen 1,046]

On 4/27/2021 at 10:49 AM, JerryBaumchen said:

Hi jakee,

Re:  I see no reason why anyone wouldn’t prefer Biden by comparison.

That is why, about two yrs ago, I put a sticker on my car that said:  Any Functioning Adult 2020

And, that is why I have previously posted my reason for voting for Biden:  He is not Trump

Jerry Baumchen

Hi folks,

Re:  He is not Trump

Jerry Baumchen

 

[billeisele 122]

3 hours ago, kallend said:

Money well spent to neutralize the stupidest policy of 2016-2020.

DHS stated that the wall allowed them to focus their immigration efforts at controlled entry points, and that the wall significantly reduced drug, gun, and human smuggling. Are there certain parts of this that you disagree with?

[JoeWeber 2,294]

2 minutes ago, billeisele said:

DHS stated that the wall allowed them to focus their immigration efforts at controlled entry points, and that the wall significantly reduced drug, gun, and human smuggling. Are there certain parts of this that you disagree with?

Well I'll be damned, the Mexicans have been smuggling guns into the USA? 

[billeisele 122]

2 hours ago, JerryBaumchen said:

Hi Bill,

After working in US gov't. contracting for 30 yrs, your premise may be credible.

But, I doubt it.  Usually, ( and I know it is not universal ) long-term contracts have cancellation clauses in them.  

One of the last contracts that I worked on was for a 5-yr period.  It was cancelled after 1-yr due to budget changes.  The agency paid no money ( as you list in your post ) to the contractor due to the cancellation.

If you have specific knowledge of these contracts, I will yield to your knowledge.

Jerry Baumchen

PS)  Most US gov't. contracts have that 'small print' about budgets being cut by Congress.  It's usually in the boilerplate that no one reads.

Jerry - Yes almost all contracts have the standard Termination Clause, 52.249-2 is for a fixed price contract. It's a mandatory clause. I use the word "almost" to avoid an argument but I've never seen or heard of a contract that did not have a Termination Clause. There is termination for cause, default and convenience.

This one is a Termination for Convenience, commonly called T for C. It protects the government and the contractor. The premise is simple to follow but the details can be complex based on the complexity of the contract. Building an aircraft carrier vs. a wall would be the two ends of the spectrum. A wall contract would not be difficult to write. The complexity would be in handling differences in terrain and site access. Usually the government places the burden of these type things on the contractor and it's their responsibility to figure it into the price. This is most likely a Fixed Price Contract and there may be some type of adjustment for swings in material (mostly steel) costs. It's expected that the contractor can predict labor costs.

The contract you worked under was most likely a 1-year contract with four optional extensions, they are typically called 5-year contracts. They are fairly common and often used for Service Contracts that are primarily labor. If they are canceled at the end of a period it's simple.

The wall would not have been a Service Contract. Mostly likely a Firm Fixed Price Construction Contract. There may have been allowances for changes in material (steel) prices because of the length of the contract. The government expects the contractor to be able to predict labor costs. Info on the clause is 52.249-2 Termination for Convenience of the Government (Fixed-Price). | Acquisition.GOV  Note that in a termination the contractor recovers the cost to provide the accounting and everything else it takes to settle the contract, and profit on those costs. 

My main point was that the $17 billion savings figure may not be the real number. Would like to see the details.

[billeisele 122]

5 hours ago, billvon said:

Biden doesn't immediately cancel the wall:  "Biden is a HYPOCRITE!  He said he'd cancel the wall then he DIDN'T!!!"

Biden cancels the wall:  "Biden is a fool!  He is wasting taxpayer money."

Somehow I don't think Biden (or anyone else) is going to lose sleep over the latest attacks.

Bill - yes, IMO canceling the wall doesn't make sense. Especially in light of the statements made by DHS.

But that is not the point of my post. My point was the last paragraph about the accuracy of the $17 billion figure.

[JoeWeber 2,294]

5 minutes ago, billeisele said:

Bill - yes, IMO canceling the wall doesn't make sense. Especially in light of the statements made by DHS.

But that is not the point of my post. My point was the last paragraph about the accuracy of the $17 billion figure.

The wall isn't like the Keystone Pipeline, for example, in my analysis. There, cancelling the contracts amounts to lost value without any gain. Cancelling the wall not only cancels a dumb idea but also cancels a national embarrassment. For me, that alone justifies the cost.

[billvon 2,380]

2 hours ago, billeisele said:

DHS stated that the wall allowed them to focus their immigration efforts at controlled entry points, and that the wall significantly reduced drug, gun, and human smuggling. 

Really?  15 miles of new wall along a 2000 mile long border did all that?  Amazing!  They must have put up signs to direct smugglers to specific areas where new walls had been built.  "This way to new wall.  Do NOT go that way!  No wall there!"

[billvon 2,380]

1 hour ago, billeisele said:

Bill - yes, IMO canceling the wall doesn't make sense. Especially in light of the statements made by DHS.

DHS had two choices - say EXACTLY what Trump ordered them to say, or be fired.

Given that I am not surprised they were singing its praises.  No one wants to be fired, especially during COVID.

However, given all that, I suspect that if the RNC came up with the money (say, from all those donations that We Build The Wall collected) Biden would be amenable to letting them construct a few part of it - or complete construction already begun.  If it's that important to republicans, they should put their money where their mouths are.

 

[ryoder 1,381]

Breakdown of: 

• New wall
• Replaced existing barriers
• Under construction
• Pre-construction

BBC: Trump wall: How much has he actually built?

[kallend 1,621]

7 hours ago, billeisele said:

DHS stated that the wall allowed them to focus their immigration efforts at controlled entry points, and that the wall significantly reduced drug, gun, and human smuggling. Are there certain parts of this that you disagree with?

Good job Mexico paid for it, right?

 

We wouldn't want US taxpayers to pick up the tab for the perhaps the most stupid of Trump's many failed policies.

[sfzombie13 307]

7 hours ago, billeisele said:

My main point was that the $17 billion savings figure may not be the real number. Would like to see the details.

so no on seeing the contract and having any specific knowledge.  noted. 

5 hours ago, RobertMBlevins said:

 

Of course, we can't just take in everybody without some controls.

 

why not?  if i recall correctly, we had no immigration policy at all until the late 19th century, and for over 100 years did let everyone in without controls. 

[Phil1111 908]

13 hours ago, billvon said:

Biden doesn't immediately cancel the wall:  "Biden is a HYPOCRITE!  He said he'd cancel the wall then he DIDN'T!!!"

Biden cancels the wall:  "Biden is a fool!  He is wasting taxpayer money."

Somehow I don't think Biden (or anyone else) is going to lose sleep over the latest attacks.

Especially the "rusting materials" and "wall foundations" that will erode away. Sometimes the red meat that GOP supporters eat is just astonishing. Five day old skunk roadkill might be better for them.

[gowlerk 1,903]

1 hour ago, sfzombie13 said:

why not?  if i recall correctly, we had no immigration policy at all until the late 19th century, and for over 100 years did let everyone in without controls. 

Because the people coming in are not white and are not slaves.

[JerryBaumchen 1,046]

14 hours ago, billeisele said:

Jerry - Yes almost all contracts have the standard Termination Clause, 52.249-2 is for a fixed price contract. It's a mandatory clause. I use the word "almost" to avoid an argument but I've never seen or heard of a contract that did not have a Termination Clause. There is termination for cause, default and convenience.

This one is a Termination for Convenience, commonly called T for C. It protects the government and the contractor. The premise is simple to follow but the details can be complex based on the complexity of the contract. Building an aircraft carrier vs. a wall would be the two ends of the spectrum. A wall contract would not be difficult to write. The complexity would be in handling differences in terrain and site access. Usually the government places the burden of these type things on the contractor and it's their responsibility to figure it into the price. This is most likely a Fixed Price Contract and there may be some type of adjustment for swings in material (mostly steel) costs. It's expected that the contractor can predict labor costs.

The contract you worked under was most likely a 1-year contract with four optional extensions, they are typically called 5-year contracts. They are fairly common and often used for Service Contracts that are primarily labor. If they are canceled at the end of a period it's simple.

The wall would not have been a Service Contract. Mostly likely a Firm Fixed Price Construction Contract. There may have been allowances for changes in material (steel) prices because of the length of the contract. The government expects the contractor to be able to predict labor costs. Info on the clause is 52.249-2 Termination for Convenience of the Government (Fixed-Price). | Acquisition.GOV  Note that in a termination the contractor recovers the cost to provide the accounting and everything else it takes to settle the contract, and profit on those costs. 

My main point was that the $17 billion savings figure may not be the real number. Would like to see the details.

Hi Bill,

In  30 yrs I worked on very few Services contracts.  The 5-yr one was a materials contract.

Re:  Would like to see the details.

Yup.  And that would suggest that you have not see the contract(s).

Jerry Baumchen

[sfzombie13 307]

12 hours ago, gowlerk said:

Because the people coming in are not white and are not slaves.

let's see...italians aren't white or slaves, nor are irish, or most eastern europeans as well as most asians, all of which had no restrictions on immigrantion, that i recall until they started with the chinese around 1870(ish). 

Edited May 2, 2021 by sfzombie13

[JerryBaumchen 1,046]

5 hours ago, sfzombie13 said:

let's see...italians aren't white or slaves, nor are irish, or most eastern europeans as well as most asians, all of which had no restrictions on immigrantion, that i recall until they started with the chinese around 1870(ish). 

Hi 13,

Re:  all of which had no restrictions on immigrantion, that i recall

I would suggest that you do some homework.  All of those types were quite often turned back.

Jerry Baumchen

[sfzombie13 307]

turned back individually or by the boatload.  there was no official immigration policy in the us until the late 19th century.  since it has been a while, i will look into it further, as i could have mis-remembered something important.

[SkyDekker 1,121]

On 4/30/2021 at 7:49 PM, billeisele said:

DHS stated that the wall allowed them to focus their immigration efforts at controlled entry points, and that the wall significantly reduced drug, gun, and human smuggling. Are there certain parts of this that you disagree with?

Biden didn't say he was tearing down the few pieces that were built, so if this was true, it should still hold true.

Thought if I am to believe every Republican politician who went to the border, this isn't true at all. So was the DHS lying when they said this, or are those republican politicians lying now?

[JoeWeber 2,294]

On 5/1/2021 at 7:20 PM, RobertMBlevins said:

My solution(s) to the immigration crisis are well-known in certain circles. Here's my list:

• Offer everyone here now full amnesty and a road to citizenship, with a time limit to come forward. Anyone with a criminal record, at least a serious one, is disqualified, and if they are caught eventually...gets deported. 
• Anyone who gets caught crossing illegally after a certain date...gets deported and is permanently disbarred from coming in through the FRONT door. 
• No bank accounts, no renting of apartments, no schooling, stiffen penalties for hiring illegals, no purchasing contracts based in the US, no buying of a home, and no welfare to anyone who hasn't come forward and been issued either a Green Card or some equivalent, such as a National ID card. Implement this policy after a certain date, and after the offer to come forward. 
• Have the US Mint make the Green Cards and/or the National ID cards, to make them more difficult to forge. 
• The reasoning behind the 'no bank accounts' and everything else on that list is to remove the carrot from in front of the donkey. In other words, if you don't have an incentive to come here illegally, then you are much less likely to try it. This is how some other countries handle illegal immigration. You can't do a damn thing in some of those countries if you are an illegal. It's also why those countries don't need walls to keep out illegals. 
• Drop the limits on the number of people who can come in through the front door. Just make sure they DO come in through the front door. 

Please also tell us your enforcement plan, what penalties will be applied, and just who is going to be driving everyone to the border and watching that they do not return.