LightNews LightNews
margar8.bsky.social
@margar8.bsky.social
12 followers 9 following 1 posts
Posts Replies Media Videos
margar8.bsky.social
Quickly found several USDA contracts, T4Ced shortly after inauguration. DEI services, saving $25m! Except they’re BPAs-never had any taxpayer funds obligated, and cancelled with $0 ordered. What’s saved is purely hypothetical, not knowing the negotiated terms applied to each order under the BPAs.
goldengateblond.bsky.social shauna @goldengateblond.bsky.social · Feb 19
helluva thread from the hellsite about the comically bad “savings” doge claims to have found (sorry for the weirdly sized screenshots, I had to squeeze everything into only 4 of them)
from @electricfutures After several delays, @DOGE has finally posted its purported savings. Why did it take so long to create a simple webpage with a 1000-row table? Who knows! Let's dig in. Headline number: $55B saved. They list the savings per nixed contract. This should be easy to verify then. It's Monday. @DOGE is the laziest, most overpaid bunch of incompetent, unelected bureaucrats we've ever seen. The first thing I did is add up the "saved" column for all canceled contracts and real estate. The numbers are $16.5B and $O.14B, respectively. Odd... Since almost all of the purported savings come from contracts, we'll focus on that. The single biggest ticket item is a DHS contract listed as saving $8 billion. Wow, that's a huge contract! Actually no, it's $8 million. They must have tried to automate scraping the FPDS form and failed. That means we're down to $8.5B in savings. 3/ The next 3 biggest ticket items are all USAID contracts listed as $655M each, so $2B total. Wow, pretty big. Wait, these are IDVs, not contracts. $655M is the entire set-aside, being triple counted. In the first 5 years, only $73M was awarded, and only 2 years remain. 4/ So we're down to $6.5B in savings, and an alarming trend emerges: @DOGE does not seem to understand how the government contracts they are canceling work. The savings they are claiming are not annual savings, but rather hypothetical savings if we spent every unobligated penny. 5/ And more importantly, they are just getting it *wrong*, with alarming consistency. These numbers are erroneous. This "select group of geniuses" has not double checked even the LARGEST items accounting for the bulk of their claimed savings. This is a sad, pathetic farce Here's the next biggest item: an IT services contract for the Social Security Administration worth $1B. That's a lot of savings! Well, again, this contract spanned 6 years. 80% has already been spent. Ah well, more like $240M in savings spread over the next 3 years. $80M/year. In 2023, this contract funded 1000 FTEs working $100/hr. Did we need 1000 SWEs working on SSA infrastructure? Probably not - these could be valid savings (disclaimer: no idea what they actually did). But worth noting that these cuts will impact many private sector jobs as well. And if anyone is curious, there are currently 17 lines that say "SEE FPDS" rather than the savings amount, I guess because their automated scraping failed. I did it manually and it took roughly ~10 minutes. But that's too much to ask of super geniuses working 120 hours/week!
February 19, 2025 at 6:45 PM
Reposted
goldengateblond.bsky.social
helluva thread from the hellsite about the comically bad “savings” doge claims to have found (sorry for the weirdly sized screenshots, I had to squeeze everything into only 4 of them)
from @electricfutures After several delays, @DOGE has finally posted its purported savings. Why did it take so long to create a simple webpage with a 1000-row table? Who knows! Let's dig in. Headline number: $55B saved. They list the savings per nixed contract. This should be easy to verify then. It's Monday. @DOGE is the laziest, most overpaid bunch of incompetent, unelected bureaucrats we've ever seen. The first thing I did is add up the "saved" column for all canceled contracts and real estate. The numbers are $16.5B and $O.14B, respectively. Odd... Since almost all of the purported savings come from contracts, we'll focus on that. The single biggest ticket item is a DHS contract listed as saving $8 billion. Wow, that's a huge contract! Actually no, it's $8 million. They must have tried to automate scraping the FPDS form and failed. That means we're down to $8.5B in savings. 3/ The next 3 biggest ticket items are all USAID contracts listed as $655M each, so $2B total. Wow, pretty big. Wait, these are IDVs, not contracts. $655M is the entire set-aside, being triple counted. In the first 5 years, only $73M was awarded, and only 2 years remain. 4/ So we're down to $6.5B in savings, and an alarming trend emerges: @DOGE does not seem to understand how the government contracts they are canceling work. The savings they are claiming are not annual savings, but rather hypothetical savings if we spent every unobligated penny. 5/ And more importantly, they are just getting it *wrong*, with alarming consistency. These numbers are erroneous. This "select group of geniuses" has not double checked even the LARGEST items accounting for the bulk of their claimed savings. This is a sad, pathetic farce Here's the next biggest item: an IT services contract for the Social Security Administration worth $1B. That's a lot of savings! Well, again, this contract spanned 6 years. 80% has already been spent. Ah well, more like $240M in savings spread over the next 3 years. $80M/year. In 2023, this contract funded 1000 FTEs working $100/hr. Did we need 1000 SWEs working on SSA infrastructure? Probably not - these could be valid savings (disclaimer: no idea what they actually did). But worth noting that these cuts will impact many private sector jobs as well. And if anyone is curious, there are currently 17 lines that say "SEE FPDS" rather than the savings amount, I guess because their automated scraping failed. I did it manually and it took roughly ~10 minutes. But that's too much to ask of super geniuses working 120 hours/week!
February 19, 2025 at 12:56 AM
Reposted
7295murphy.bsky.social
A. Who was given Contracting Officer authority to terminate these contracts?
B. These dumbasses obviously have no idea what is entailed in doing a Termination for Convenience. The contractors get to submit their costs expended, plus a percentage of the profits that they will lose, & they’ll get paid
February 11, 2025 at 10:08 PM