Trump Invites Bids to Build Wall, Cites Importance of ‘Aesthetics’

[Elderberry]

ProPublica, March 8, 2017 by T. Christian Miller

It’ll cost $20 billion or more. Mexico will pay for it, or it won’t. Amid uncertainty, Trump clearly seems intent on making the border wall handsome.

President Donald Trump built his campaign on the promise of a wall across the U.S.-Mexico border. Just a month after his inauguration, the Department of Homeland Security announced plans to begin construction.

And last Friday, the department took a step to make sure it will look good.

In a little-noticed update, the department now says it wants a wall that will be “nominally 30 feet tall,” and, importantly, that bids will be judged on “aesthetics,” as well.

The new language, perhaps coincidental but likely not, appears to be a bureaucratic translation of Trump’s oft-repeated promise to build a “beautiful” wall from 30 to 55 feet high.

Of course, the federal government does not typically focus on beauty in building its walls, fences and barriers. Procurement officers prefer to evaluate bids on concrete things such as price or a company’s past performance — or, for that matter, concrete itself. As a contract requirement, appearances usually only figure into high-end projects (think of the Vietnam Veterans Memorial).

But the Trump administration’s apparent demand for a wall with style is only one of the oddities that has arisen in planning for the massive project, estimated to cost as much as $21.6 billion and cross hundreds of miles.

The rush for raising the wall has veteran contracting officers comparing the process to the rebuilding of Iraq and Afghanistan, multibillion-dollar efforts widely considered failures because of poor planning.

“This isn’t normal,” said Steven L. Schooner, a professor of government contracting at George Washington University. “This is shoot first, aim later.”

A CBP spokesman said the agency was “not in a position” to conduct an interview for this story.

The initial request, released with fanfare on Feb. 24, was not for building the actual wall, but for a prototype of a “total wall solution.”

The real bidding specifications — where the government would lay out details about the size, shape and construction of the wall — have yet to be announced. It’s not clear when they will be.

[Excerpted] https://www.propublica.org/article/trump-invites-bids-to-build-wall-cites-importance-of-aesthetics

[Just_Victor]

It's all in the staffing....

[Elderberry]

                                                           How much do you think it'll pay?

[PoloSec]

I agree on the U.S. side of the wall it should be aesthetically pleasing, inviting and a glorious wonder to behold, the other side the wall should be dark, dank and extremely threatening.

[Smokin Joe]

“This isn’t normal,” said Steven L. Schooner, a professor of government contracting at George Washington University. “This is shoot first, aim later.”

Just an observation, but any time we have "professors of government contracting", it's small wonder things are the mess they are.

[Smokin Joe]

I agree on the U.S. side of the wall it should be aesthetically pleasing, inviting and a glorious wonder to behold, the other side the wall should be dark, dank and extremely threatening.

I think he wants more gilt...

[Just_Victor]

Just an observation, but any time we have "professors of government contracting", it's small wonder things are the mess they are.

I know it seems insane, but check with any government contractor.  Writing the proposal is a huge part of getting the contract, and the expertise that goes into that is indispensable.  Because the awarding of the contract is governed by law, the necessity for that expertise isn't going to go away even if our government eliminates lots of spending.

[Smokin Joe]

I know it seems insane, but check with any government contractor.  Writing the proposal is a huge part of getting the contract, and the expertise that goes into that is indispensable.  Because the awarding of the contract is governed by law, the necessity for that expertise isn't going to go away even if our government eliminates lots of spending.

You want a what? Where? When? Built how? Does what? Okay, to those specs, at that time, and location, it'll cost this much.
I guess the rest is mostly ass-kissing, kickbacks, and schmoozing.

[Just_Victor]

You want a what? Where? When? Built how? Does what? Okay, to those specs, at that time, and location, it'll cost this much.
I guess the rest is mostly ass-kissing, kickbacks, and schmoozing.

Congress/the law demands that work being done on the government $ be performed according to specific requirements.  It's about verifying that the work is done according to the law and meets the requirements of the contract.

[Smokin Joe]

Congress/the law demands that work being done on the government $ be performed according to specific requirements.  It's about verifying that the work is done according to the law and meets the requirements of the contract.

What, where, when, built how? pretty much covers that requirement angle. Those are all specifications. Following the law is just one more spec, and implied, but can be spelled out.

What it doesn't cover is the required number of gay transgender minority workers from the third congressional district of lower slobovia that are required to play tiddlywinks while the construction is done. Like I said, ass-kissing, kickbacks, and schmoozing.

[Victoria33]

Just an observation, but any time we have "professors of government contracting", it's small wonder things are the mess they are.

@Smokin Joe
@mystery-ak

The process, the paperwork, the language to use on a govn. contract, is complicated.  It is the same with a federal grant or state grant.  I have written both, but I had to study before I wrote the first one.  There is subtle wording that pleases the ears of the govn., and if you use it, you will likely get the grant.  With a govn. contract, that wording still needs to be there, plus, with a contract, you have to deal with how much to charge the govn. for doing/making it.  Will send you message about federal grant writing experience.

[driftdiver]

Just an observation, but any time we have "professors of government contracting", it's small wonder things are the mess they are.

As a small business owner its far worse then even that.   All the regulations, laws and oversight and it still comes down to relationships and laziness.   The contracting office can pick who they want for whatever reason they want and it usually comes down to whatever is less work for the contracting officer.

I am on two teams for a big DoD contract.   We originally submitted the proposals in fall of 2008.   The contracts were awarded in 2016.    Still dont have any revenue from those contracts.