« | »

US Gov’t Has Given CGI At Least 5 More Contracts

From Fox News:

Government awards more contracts to company that created glitchy ObamaCare website

By Maxim Lott | November 05, 2013

CGI Federal Inc, the company that created large parts of the error-plagued ObamaCare exchange website, which it says it is scrambling to fix, has recently been awarded several other government contracts.

Since the ObamaCare exchange website launched on Oct. 1, government officials have signed at least five different agreements with CGI totaling $7 million, according to USASpending.gov, a government website that lists government contracts. The contracts were for computer and software development at the Department of Health and Human Services, the Department of Commerce, and the Environmental Protection Agency.

Well, let’s hope they do for the EPA what they did for Obama-Care.

One contract, for instance, was signed Oct. 19 by Department of Commerce officials that gives CGI Federal $266,164 to provide "IT and Telecom Systems Development" for the Patent Office…

There goes the Patent Office.

[C]ritics say it is absurd to give the company more government money and work at a time when other work they have done for the government is going poorly.

It may be absurd, but it is also a time-honored government tradition ‘to reward the incompetent and punish the competent.’

“This is a typical example of government creating perverse incentives,” George Mason University economics professor Donald Boudreaux told FoxNews.com. “Unlike, say, a private homeowner who fires a contractor who does a poor job, the government rewards such poorly performing contractors with new work at lucrative rates.”

CGI Federal was paid $290 million for its work in creating the ObamaCare exchange, and it was the one contractor that administration officials said failed to meet some expectations…

Notice that there is so little real oversight of government spending we have never been told the same number twice (or even once) as to how much the Obama-Care site has cost.

“CGI Federal has no real skillset and a lot of the projects they’ve worked on have failed,” Avik Roy, a senior fellow at the Manhattan Institute who attended congressional hearings on the ObamaCare exchange failures, told FoxNews.com. But he added that the failure is no surprise, considering the bureaucratic way that contracts are awarded…

Since contracts are given to reward failure, it’s a vicious cycle.

This article was posted by Steve Gilbert on Wednesday, November 6th, 2013. Comments are currently closed.

3 Responses to “US Gov’t Has Given CGI At Least 5 More Contracts”

  1. Right of the People

    I wish someone would investigate who the chief officers are of companies like this. Anyone want to bet they’re O-hole supporters?

  2. captstubby

    good work GBJ.

    “and the beat goes on”?

    Throw them all out: how politicians and their friends get rich.
    Peter Schweizer 2011

    Politicians are often extraordinarily good investors—too good to be true. They may not have figured out how to help our economy prosper, but the Permanent Political Class is itself prosperous to a degree that should make us all suspicious.
    A study in the Journal of Financial and Quantitative Analysis found that U.S. senators may have missed their calling: they should all be running hedge funds. How else to explain these results, based on 4,000 stock trades by senators:
    The average American investor underperforms the market.
    The average corporate insider, trading his own company’s stock, beats the market by 7% a year.
    The average hedge fund beats the market by between 7% and 8% a year.
    The average senator beats the market by 12% a year.
    When the same team looked at 16,000 trades by members of the House of Representatives, they found similar if less spectacular results. House members beat the market by 6% a year, almost as much as what corporate insiders achieve when trading their own stock. (It is unclear why senators are better investors than are representatives. Perhaps it is because they have relatively more power and therefore greater access to market-moving information.)
    Another study, by scholars at MIT and Yale, looked at a shorter period of time, from 2004 to 2008, and found that while many individual legislators do not beat the market, they do extremely well with stock in companies with which they are “politically connected.” They beat the market by almost 5% a year. As the researchers put it, “Members of Congress seem to benefit as investors from knowledge of companies to which they are politically connected (and particularly those headquartered in their districts), and they appear to take advantage of this knowledge by investing disproportionately in those companies.”
    “They seem to know something that other people don’t know,” said Jens Hainmueller, coauthor of the study and an assistant professor of political science at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology.

    Members of Congress have used federal earmarks to enhance the value of their own real estate holdings in several ways: by extending a light rail mass transit line near their property, by expanding an airport, or by cleaning up a nearby shoreline. Federal funds have been used to build roads, beautify land, and upgrade neighborhoods near commercial and residential real estate owned by legislators, substantially increasing values and the net worth of our elected officials, courtesy of taxpayer money. Not only is this legal—by the bizarre standards of the Permanent Political Class—it’s also deemed “ethical.” Congressional ethics rules simply say that as long as a member can demonstrate that at least one other person will benefit from an earmark, that earmark is in the “public interest.”

    When President-elect Obama came to Washington in late 2008 following his electoral victory, he was outspoken about the need for an economic stimulus to revive a struggling economy. He wanted billions of dollars spent on “shovel-ready projects” to build roads; billions more for developing alternative energy projects; and additional billions for expanding broadband Internet access and creating a “smart grid” for energy consumption. After he was sworn in as President, he proclaimed that the allocation of taxpayer money would be based strictly on merit—not doled out to political friends. “Decisions about how Recovery Act dollars are spent will be based on the merits,” he said, referring to the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009. “Let me repeat that: Decisions about how Recovery money will be spent will be based on the merits. They will not be made as a way of doing favors for lobbyists.”

    The Years of Lyndon Johnson:
    vol.1
    the Path to Power

    “in 1941, when Johnson is only thirty-two years old.. A young man—desperately poor”

    for thirty more years: as Brown & Root became, thanks to Johnson, an industrial colossus, one of the largest construction companies—and shipbuilding companies and oil-pipeline companies—in the world, holder of Johnson-arranged government contracts and receiver of Johnson-arranged government favors amounting to billions of dollars, suave George Brown and his fierce brother Herman became, in return, the principal financiers of Johnson’s rise to national power.

    Brown…venture in the fabulous oil fields of West Texas; forests of derricks pumped black gold out of the earth for his sole profit. .. obtained his share in Richardson’s wells just by guaranteeing those bank loans years before. He would sell his share to Johnson at a low price, he said, and, he said, using a characteristic phrase: “I’ll sell it to you in a way you can buy it.” There was only one such way for a young man without resources, and that was the way Marsh was proposing: he offered to let the young Congressman buy his share in the Richardson enterprises without a down payment. “He told Lyndon he could pay for it out of his profits each year,” Brown explains. The share was probably not worth a million dollars, says Brown, who had seen the partnership’s balance sheets—but it was worth “close to” a million, “certainly three-quarters of a million.” Marsh was offering to make Lyndon Johnson rich, without Johnson investing even a dollar of his own.
    Johnson subordinated his desire for personal wealth to his desire to become President, he found, in 1942, a way to reconcile his two ambitions—and in years to come he found a dozen ways, and he entered the Oval Office perhaps the richest man ever to occupy it. Shortly after he assumed the Presidency, Life magazine, in the most detailed contemporary analysis of his wealth, estimated his “family’s” fortune at $14 million; Johnson’s representatives protested publicly that that estimate was far too high; privately, one of his key advisors now admits that it was far too low. Even had his wealth been no greater than $14 million, that means that during the twenty-one years between 1942 and his assumption of the Presidency in 1963—twenty-one years during which Johnson continually held public office—the Johnson fortune increased at a rate of well over half a million dollars a year.
    Although from time to time dedicated investigative journalists produced articles detailing one or another episode in that accumulation, these episodes were never linked to reveal the overall pattern, in large part because of Johnson’s genius for secrecy. The one aspect of his fortune that was explored in depth was the Johnson radio and television interests, which were in his wife’s name (although, as these articles show, the carefully nurtured legend that he had nothing to do with them was largely fiction). There existed a vague public awareness that Federal Communications Commission actions had favored the Johnson radio station and, later, the Johnson television station in Austin. There were jokes—bitter in Austin, knowing in Washington—about the fact that the capital of Texas had to make do with a single television channel. But little public understanding existed of the fact that the FCC not only created the Johnson broadcasting monopoly and insulated it against would-be competitors, but steadily expanded its sphere until it was a radio-television empire that was not limited to Austin or even to Texas. This empire grew from a radio station that was purchased in 1942 for $17,500. By the time Lyndon Johnson entered the Presidency, it was worth $7 million—and was producing profits of $10,000 per week. And the growth of this radio-television empire was only part of the history of his accumulation of wealth. Nor does any detailed exploration exist of the economic fate of those men who, owning their own television stations (or banks, or ranches), tried to compete with Lyndon Johnson, or simply to hold on, against his wishes, to their property—men who were broken financially on the wheel of his power.




« Front Page | To Top
« | »