First, this seems to me to be quite a turnaround for House Democrats -- that they should suddenly develop a sense of fiscal responsibility gives one either hope or pause... mostly pause. This is, after all, an election year. And they don't seem to be all that gung-ho about Porkbusters efforts to get some control over, among other thhings, the earmark system. Still, if they're raising their voices in favor of controlling spending, maybe we have a tool to use against their (and the Republicans') profligate ways.
But, my second thought is on this no-bid contract thingy. After having watched my friends go through the torment of taking state funding to bring their homes up to code, and their having been forced to accept the lowest bid, regardless of known quality of work, I'm inclined to skip the down-and-dirty part where they have to study every last bid and go with the lowest one. I'd rather take bids from three or four contractors I know I can trust, and then selecting the one of them with the best offer. And it may not even be the lowest bid. I want work I can continue to look at, years from now, without growning queasy from frustration and anger.
Granted, when one is answerable to the taxpayers regarding, say, the installation of wiring and plumbing, one who has a conscience may be apt to want to scrimp a bit. But not at the expense of having to completely redo it less than a year later. My best friend is doing just that, with her plumbing, with drywall, even with the hanging of rain gutters and downspouts, since the "professionals" who did the work last year left the project in such a manner that there were wires exposed, some not grounded, the bathroom sink drained uphill and the toilet and tub were installed without shoring up (or leveling) the century-old floorboards, and the rains dripped over the edge of the gutter and inside the walls, plus undermining her foundations. This entire project was signed off by a government office, who took the word of the contractor, even though an independent inspection stated the work was "borderline at best".
They "worked" on a sporadic schedule, often leaving windows open or holes in exterior walls in mid-winter. When they finished with their projects, they left scrap and tools and other garbage lying around the yard, so that my friend received warnings from the city. They nearly killed her pet cat through negligence, leaving a gas-powered generator running indoors for more than an hour while they went off to lunch -- and refused to pay the veterinary bills.
Worse, they didn't even start on the work until it was almost the end of the time frame allotted for pay from the state of IL. It forced her and the state to rush paperwork, as well as, due to the delay, forcing acceptance of the work simply because otherwise the state budget would not cover it, and all their work would have had to come from her own pockets.
On the other hand, my insurance company offered me a recommendation, to repair my front porch this summer. The chief was out at my door precisely on time, the crew have actually shown up to work and have done what is expected of them -- and asked permission to do things which might distress a homeowner. They have been courteous, and responsive, and all-around not bad (all things considered, a couple hours late on one day didn't kill me or cause the house to collapse). And, I'm going to have newly painted trim, the way I want it, without I should be doing all that crap myself. All it took was having a hunk of tree fall on it.
So, when somebody says that some contractors are getting jobs without having been the lowest bid in a government job, maybe there's some reasonable sort of rationale involved.
Of course, the thing in the ABC report about
... 19 contracts worth $8.75 billion were found to have wasted taxpayer money at least in part, costing taxpayers hundreds of millions of dollars, according to the report. It cited numerous instances of double-billing by contractors and cases of trailers meant as emergency housing sitting empty in Arkansas.Well, that, I have to admit, is not how I want tax dollars spent. Although I would like to hear the specifics as to how they "wasted taxpayer money at least in part". Did they buy fancy fixtures which weren't necessary? Did they charge the taxpayers for hand-cut parquetry? Or was it a case of tossing aside a lot of not-quite perfect lumber and supplies? Maybe it was legal fees for all the "undocumented workers" they had to bail out to get back on the projects?
Details, people! I want details!
No comments:
Post a Comment