Posthuman Member
Posted 13 June 2012 - 03:20 PM
Parliament has wrongfully awarded large contracts that went to unqualified bidders, were signed retroactively or did not include any justification for being untendered, the Auditor-General has found.
Edited by cybercoma, 13 June 2012 - 03:21 PM.
"History I believe furnishes no example of a priest-ridden people maintaining a free and civil government. This marks the lowest grade of ignorance, of which their political as well as their religious leaders will always avail themselves for their own purpose."
Thomas Jefferson
Full Member
Posted 13 June 2012 - 03:46 PM
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/ottawa-notebook/auditor-general-sounds-alarm-on-house-and-senate-contracts/article4257405/
The article goes on to say that the AG has found that 70% of contracts have been handed out in this manner.
Are we still going to perpetuate the myth that the Conservatives are the best fiscal managers?
Junior Member
Posted 13 June 2012 - 03:50 PM
Good for harper in saving us money. No wonder the rest of the G20 are trying to adopt our model
Full Member
Posted 13 June 2012 - 03:57 PM
And what model is that? Is it awarding large contracts to unqualified bidders, signed retroactively without any justification?
Senior Member
Posted 13 June 2012 - 03:59 PM
If they want here is the price and here is when it will be done all they have to do is put that in the proposal. Which is what I am sure they did then when the bidder they wanted couldn't meet those requirements they gave them the bid anyway. If the bidders can't meet the MANDATORY requirements then draw up new requirements don't make a bid so difficult no one can meet it so you can give to your friends that is poor and non-transparent governance. I can't believe you would defend this practice.Or....... They knew where the good deals were! What's an "un qualified bidder"? Ohhh yea, someone in the INDUSTRY and not a lobbyist. NOWHERE in that article does it say money was lost???? Can you please point me to that?
A "quilified bidder" is a company or person who spends days working on 300 page preoposals that draw millions of inclusions and exclusions into it. Seems like the Tories like the "here's your price and here's when it will be done" method. And good for them!
New Member
Posted 13 June 2012 - 04:00 PM
Not following the guidelines set up for these sort of things. Makes me wonder just what you find acceptable in a government. If this sort of action is alright with you just about anything they think up should do. That's scary don't you think?Or....... They knew where the good deals were! What's an "un qualified bidder"? Ohhh yea, someone in the INDUSTRY and not a lobbyist. NOWHERE in that article does it say money was lost???? Can you please point me to that?
A "quilified bidder" is a company or person who spends days working on 300 page preoposals that draw millions of inclusions and exclusions into it. Seems like the Tories like the "here's your price and here's when it will be done" method. And good for them!
When I was at the NRC we were FORCED to only work with qualified bidders, and the NRC lost and still is losing, its shirt... I could have paid 900,000 for a Steinbickler digitizing system or 240,000 through a distributor.. No, we had to pay for the bidded 900,000 dollar system..
Good for harper in saving us money. No wonder the rest of the G20 are trying to adopt our model
Junior Member
Posted 13 June 2012 - 04:01 PM
If the bidders can't meet the MANDATORY requirements then draw up new requirements don't make a bid so difficult no one can meet it so you can give to your friends that is poor and non-transparent governance. I can't believe you would defend this practice.
Edited by Anti-Am, 13 June 2012 - 04:01 PM.
Senior Member
Posted 13 June 2012 - 04:02 PM
You know what the AG said in his report? He said this is all he can say about the bids because the GOVERNMENT WONT OPEN THEIR BOOKS to show him what the spending was on. Yah great transparency. Go read the report.OH NO!!!!!! Un-qualified?!?! Oh DEAR!!!! Retroactively!?!? For shame!!!!! Now point me to where we LOST money. Stop being a baby.. We are saving money and cutting red tape....
I'm glad there is FINALLY transparency now in Parliamnet however... Remember those days with that "Sponsorship" thing? I'm glad we now have visibility into this process...... However streamlined it has become.... Did I say streamlined? Feel free to use "efficient"...
And stop crying...
“It is difficult for the Administration [of the Senate] to clearly conclude that expenses are appropriate,” the report said. “Senators operate on the honour principle, with their signatures attesting that the expenditures have been incurred in carrying out the performance of parliamentary functions.”
Senior Member
Posted 13 June 2012 - 04:03 PM
Yep but they were the "closest" pretend jet to the bid so there you go.Isn't that what they did with the fighter jets and they didn't even meet the requirements that they made up? It takes a special kind of stupid to eff that up
Full Member
Posted 13 June 2012 - 04:09 PM
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/ottawa-notebook/auditor-general-sounds-alarm-on-house-and-senate-contracts/article4257405/
The article goes on to say that the AG has found that 70% of contracts have been handed out in this manner.
Are we still going to perpetuate the myth that the Conservatives are the best fiscal managers?
Senior Member
Posted 13 June 2012 - 04:10 PM
It is 500 million dollars is what it is. That is half a billion. Not small potatoes at all. It would be a whole lot less if we got rid of the Senate yes men that get paid to rubber stamp budgets.Calm down. These are expenditures by the Senate and the House of Commons for the upkeep and administration of their facilities. It's a quaint little non-partison bureaucracy.
Edited by punked, 13 June 2012 - 04:11 PM.
F-35 Cheerleader Member
Posted 13 June 2012 - 04:15 PM
Full Member
Posted 13 June 2012 - 04:16 PM
You know what the AG said in his report? He said this is all he can say about the bids because the GOVERNMENT WONT OPEN THEIR BOOKS to show him what the spending was on. Yah great transparency. Go read the report.
Edited by Fletch 27, 13 June 2012 - 04:19 PM.
F-35 Cheerleader Member
Posted 13 June 2012 - 04:18 PM
Really??? Won't open the books to the AG? But they can find a 14 dollar glass of OJ?? I read the report and the AG was just on "power and politics". NO where did he say there was a loss of money... And he ALSO commented on "streamlining"... Loss of money? Where the hell is it then? PROOF damn you! What happened to proof!?!?
"Conservatives are just giving away money"??? What kind of defamation and lie is that!?!?!?
