1
   

Federal Gov't DoD Procurement Insourcing Directive & Minority Owned/ Small Businesses

 
 
Reply Tue 27 Jul, 2010 08:18 am
I am a college student and I recently found out that my dad's company will be going out of business due to the Department of Defense procurement insourcing directive. I was wondering if anyone out there knows how to estimate how many minority owned and small businesses will go out of business as a result of the new procurement DoD insourcing directive?
  • Topic Stats
  • Top Replies
  • Link to this Topic
Type: Question • Score: 1 • Views: 4,785 • Replies: 40
No top replies

 
Butrflynet
 
  2  
Reply Tue 27 Jul, 2010 07:13 pm
@bamabelle,
I don't have an answer for you, but after Googling "Department of Defense procurement insourcing directive" and seeing this same question posted on dozens of forums today, I'm sure one of the sites you've spammed with it will respond to you.
bamabelle
 
  1  
Reply Fri 30 Jul, 2010 10:21 am
@Butrflynet,
I am not trying to spam anything. I am truly concerned with this and I know if I put it on only one site...I am less likely to get a response. It is a very important topic, but apparently no one cares about it.
Cycloptichorn
 
  2  
Reply Fri 30 Jul, 2010 10:23 am
@bamabelle,
bamabelle wrote:

I am not trying to spam anything. I am truly concerned with this and I know if I put it on only one site...I am less likely to get a response. It is a very important topic, but apparently no one cares about it.


It's more likely that people simply don't know. I mean, this is hardly public information you are asking about.

Sorry 'bout your dad, but let's face it, DoD procurement is a ******* mess and a gigantic waste of money for the rest of us.

Cycloptichorn
Butrflynet
 
  2  
Reply Fri 30 Jul, 2010 09:46 pm
@bamabelle,
Reading on the other sites, apparently you (if you are the same author of the posts) already have lots of info on it that you are offering to email to others to inform them of your view of the new regulations.
bamabelle
 
  1  
Reply Sat 31 Jul, 2010 08:53 am
@Butrflynet,
I do have information and I do think it's wrong for the government to be doing this. But I am one person. If I, being one person, just sat there and had my own opinion about this insourcing directive, but said nothing to anyone else about it, that would still leave me with just my opinion. On the other hand, if I put my opinion out there for others to see (as I have been doing), and I supply addition information and I offer even more official documentation upon request, that leaves me with the hope that someone else would want to discuss the insourcing directive with me and be just as concerned with the matter.

It has been said that I am trying to spam discussion sites. I am not trying to spam anything. I am simply trying to make it known that this is a problem that is affecting real people. The government doesn't care how this affects real people. They have it set in their minds that this insourcing directive is right and they are not going to waiver on that.

If your family was being affected by this in an already screwed up economy/ job market, wouldn't you be concerned and want others to know about the problems at hand?!

Also....the information that I am offering to send is not written by me. It is all articles concerning the insourcing directive, official documentation of what the directive actually is, and things of the like. None of it is written by me or anyone that I personally know. It is all information that I have gathered in an attempt to get a small grasp of what the insourcing directive actually means for me and my family, as well as other citizens that work in the private sector.

Smile
0 Replies
 
bamabelle
 
  1  
Reply Mon 2 Aug, 2010 08:43 am
@Cycloptichorn,
That is just what I am worried about....No one knows anything about this. What is even more scary....No one cares to know about it. All I am trying to do is get people thinking. I know I am just one person against EVERYONE, but I am doing all I know to do: talk about it and hope that someone will be as concerned as I am.
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Mon 2 Aug, 2010 10:10 am
@bamabelle,
bamabelle wrote:

That is just what I am worried about....No one knows anything about this. What is even more scary....No one cares to know about it. All I am trying to do is get people thinking. I know I am just one person against EVERYONE, but I am doing all I know to do: talk about it and hope that someone will be as concerned as I am.


Are you against the basic mission of the Pentagon and DoD trying to save money?

Cycloptichorn
bamabelle
 
  1  
Reply Mon 2 Aug, 2010 10:14 am
@Cycloptichorn,
No. They need to save money. Insourcing 30,000+ jobs is not how they are going to save money though. The directive says that is it is in place to save the government money. Really they are spending more money to insource these jobs than they would be to just leave them alone. If you think about it, with small businesses out there, you have more people paying taxes. When you take the small businesses away, you have less people paying taxes, which means less money being brought into the government and how do they normally “fix” that problem: raise the taxes for everyone else. How is that saving money for the government?
Cycloptichorn
 
  2  
Reply Mon 2 Aug, 2010 10:18 am
@bamabelle,
bamabelle wrote:

No. They need to save money. Insourcing 30,000+ jobs is not how they are going to save money though. The directive says that is it is in place to save the government money. Really they are spending more money to insource these jobs than they would be to just leave them alone.


Is this true? It sounds an awful lot like an assertion.

Quote:
If you think about it, with small businesses out there, you have more people paying taxes. When you take the small businesses away, you have less people paying taxes, which means less money being brought into the government and how do they normally “fix” that problem: raise the taxes for everyone else. How is that saving money for the government?


This is a mostly bullshit right-wing talking point you are spouting here on taxation. It doesn't save the government money, for them to waste money, only to recoup a tiny bit of it from tax returns from the people profiting off of the waste. It is far more efficient to save the money on the front end.

Do you believe that DoD suppliers made an normal or higher than normal profit on their business with the DoD?

Cycloptichorn
djjd62
 
  1  
Reply Mon 2 Aug, 2010 10:25 am
@Cycloptichorn,
well, i'm wondering what i'm gonna do with all these $50,000 hammers i was trying to sell to the army
0 Replies
 
bamabelle
 
  1  
Reply Tue 3 Aug, 2010 02:36 pm
@Cycloptichorn,
Yes!!! This is true! I have research to prove it if you would like to see it!!!

The first thing that was said when the insourcing directive came into play at the DoD: that this was being done to save money. Now, if the subject of money and savings is addressed when it comes to insourcing, the subject is promptly changed because they know that they are digging themselves into an even deeper hole.

If you don't want to look at the taxation portion of plan, then look at the realistic portion of the plan: how are they going to be saving money when they have to pay salary to the thousands of new employees, provide quality insurance for each employee and their families, provide a place for all of them to work, pay for added expenses, training, etc.
It would be better for the government to simply leave all of these jobs outsourced.

Let me say though, if there is a contractor who is abusing the position that they hold in the contract, the problem with that specific contractor should be handled. Not a punishment enforced on ALL private sector contractors/ small businesses and ultimately the rest of the american people.
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Tue 3 Aug, 2010 04:58 pm
@bamabelle,
bamabelle wrote:

Yes!!! This is true! I have research to prove it if you would like to see it!!!


Link to it then.

Quote:
The first thing that was said when the insourcing directive came into play at the DoD: that this was being done to save money. Now, if the subject of money and savings is addressed when it comes to insourcing, the subject is promptly changed because they know that they are digging themselves into an even deeper hole.


This is, once again, an assertion with no facts to back it up. If you do have facts, link to them.

Quote:
If you don't want to look at the taxation portion of plan


Oh, but I do! Your reasoning regarding the government 'losing money on taxes due to lost small businesses...' is specious.

Quote:
then look at the realistic portion of the plan: how are they going to be saving money when they have to pay salary to the thousands of new employees,


They pay them less money than the current bunch are being paid. I'm sure that you are aware that DoD contracts are often extremely lucrative. What exactly do you think that means?

Quote:
provide quality insurance for each employee and their families, provide a place for all of them to work, pay for added expenses, training, etc.
It would be better for the government to simply leave all of these jobs outsourced.


This is once again an assertion with no facts to back it up. Why is it more expensive, exactly? You haven't shown why it would be better for the gov't to do this, only SAID that it would. That's not compelling.

Quote:
Let me say though, if there is a contractor who is abusing the position that they hold in the contract, the problem with that specific contractor should be handled. Not a punishment enforced on ALL private sector contractors/ small businesses and ultimately the rest of the american people.


Insourcing doesn't affect the 'American people' as a whole one whit - other than the fact that it cuts money out of the wasteful DoD budget, which means less taxes from our pocket going to war. And I applaud that. I'm sorry that it causes problems for your pop's company, but at the end of the day we can't make strategic decisions that affect all Americans based on the lives of a tiny few who rely upon the gov't for money.

Cycloptichorn
bamabelle
 
  1  
Reply Wed 11 Aug, 2010 12:49 pm
@Cycloptichorn,
Sorry it has taken me so long to get back to you. I have been busy with school. I can email you the things because they are in pdf form. Will that work?
0 Replies
 
bamabelle
 
  2  
Reply Thu 12 Aug, 2010 09:13 am
@Cycloptichorn,

http://www.govexec.com/dailyfed/0810/081010rb1.htm?rss=getoday&oref=rss

Even Secretary Gates is admitting that it is not saving money!
parados
 
  1  
Reply Thu 12 Aug, 2010 09:56 am
@bamabelle,
This from your link bababelle

Quote:
Industry groups, which had criticized the department's insourcing agenda as capricious and poorly implemented, were pleased with Defense's decision to end the initiative,


The initiative is ended. Nothing to worry about any more.
bamabelle
 
  1  
Reply Thu 12 Aug, 2010 11:50 am
@parados,
It hasn't ended. This is another article on the same topic. All that Secretary Gates is saying is that it isn't going to save money like they had originally stated. The insourcing initiative is still out there and being put into affect.

http://www.govexec.com/story_page.cfm?filepath=/dailyfed/0510/050410rb1.htm
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Thu 12 Aug, 2010 11:52 am
@bamabelle,
bamabelle wrote:

It hasn't ended. This is another article on the same topic. All that Secretary Gates is saying is that it isn't going to save money like they had originally stated. The insourcing initiative is still out there and being put into affect.

http://www.govexec.com/story_page.cfm?filepath=/dailyfed/0510/050410rb1.htm


This is all I really needed to read from that article:

Quote:
An Arlington, Va.-based contractor trade association


A contractor trade association raising concerns about policies which are designed to lower the amounts of money that their constituents will be sucking off the public tit?

Shocking!

Rolling Eyes

Cycloptichorn
parados
 
  1  
Reply Thu 12 Aug, 2010 02:31 pm
@bamabelle,
Huh?

You are going to use a May 4th story to show that the initiative that ended in August isn't ended?

You do realize that August is several months after May, don't you?
bamabelle
 
  1  
Reply Fri 13 Aug, 2010 10:13 am
@parados,
Haha....I am sorry. Smile I didn't mean to put that article up there. I have so many on this subject that I clicked the wrong article. Please forgive me. The correct article is :
http://www.poten.com/NewsDetails.aspx?id=10574568
It is addressing how the insourcing directive/ Secretary Gates plan is not doing any good. Insourcing has nto stopped. Gates never said that they were going to stop insourcing. All Gates has admitted to is that the directive is not saving money like it had hoped for.
 

Related Topics

 
  1. Forums
  2. » Federal Gov't DoD Procurement Insourcing Directive & Minority Owned/ Small Businesses
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 04/18/2024 at 10:08:22