New Orleans:8-13-07 University of Alambama gets 10 condo projects with Katrina Aid money despite not getting affected by

dmcowen674

No Lifer
Oct 13, 1999
54,889
47
91
www.alienbabeltech.com
This saddens me and angers me at the same time.

Pumps of any kind are usless anyway with broken levees.

The whole situation down there just stinks like rotten fish.

Why does America put up with this blatant corruption in it's face?

3-13-2007 Jeb Bush former business partner wins contract for New Orleans pumps and delivers faulty units

MWI is owned by J. David Eller and his sons.

Eller was once a business partner of former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush in a venture called Bush-El that marketed MWI pumps.

And Eller has donated about $128,000 to politicians, the vast majority of it to the Republican Party, since 1996, according to the Center for Responsive Politics.

The drainage-canal pumps were custom-designed and built under a $26.6 million contract awarded after competitive bidding to Moving Water Industries Corp. of Deerfield Beach, Fla.

MWI has run into trouble before. The U.S. Justice Department sued the company in 2002, accusing it of fraudulently helping Nigeria obtain $74 million in taxpayer-backed loans for overpriced and unnecessary water-pump equipment. The case has yet to be resolved.

Because of the trouble with the New Orleans pumps, the Corps has withheld 20 percent of the MWI contract, including an incentive of up to $4 million that the company could have collected if it delivered the equipment in time for the 2006 hurricane season.

The pumps, 60 inches in diameter and capable of moving 200 cubic feet of water per second, are run by pressurized hydraulic oil. The supercharged oil cranks up a hydraulic motor, which in turn spins water-moving propellers.

The pumps failed less-strenuous testing than the original contract called for, according to the memo. Originally, each of the 34 pumps was to be "load tested" ? made to pump water ? but that requirement for all the pumps was dropped, the memo said.

Of eight pumps that were load tested, one was turned on for a few minutes and another was run at one-third of operating pressure, the memo said. Three of the other load-tested pumps "experienced catastrophic failure," Garzino wrote.
=====================================================
Did she really not know the pumps installed were junk?

3-14-2007 La. governor outraged over faulty pumps

NEW ORLEANS - Louisiana Gov. Kathleen Blanco lashed out at the Army Corps of Engineers on Wednesday for installing defective pumps at three major drainage canals just before the start of last summer's hurricane season.

"This could put a lot of our people in jeopardy," Blanco said. "It begs the question: Are we really safe?"

She called for a congressional investigation into how the Corps allowed it to happen.

Citing internal documents, The Associated Press reported Tuesday that the Corps installed the 34 pumps last year in a rush to fix the city's flood defenses, despite warnings from one of its experts that the machinery was defective and likely to fail in a storm.

At the same time, the Corps, the White House and state officials were telling residents that it was safe to come back to New Orleans, which was devastated in August 2005 when Hurricane Katrina breached the city's floodwalls.

On Wednesday, Donald Powell, the administration's Gulf Coast hurricane recovery czar, said that he was never shown the memo, and that assurances he made that New Orleans was as safe as or safer than it was before Katrina were based on information he got from the Corps.

As for whether the city was as safe as the Corps claimed, Powell said: "We got through a hurricane season without a hurricane so we didn't have to answer that question."

But he said residents should not panic as the new hurricane season approaches. "The corps is working as fast it can to get the systems back up. The levee system is better than it has ever been," he said.
 

ProfJohn

Lifer
Jul 28, 2006
18,161
7
0
This is a mess, but I don't know if we go and blame Jeb for these problems.

Let's see.... Hillary used to work for Wal-Mart, so let's blame everything Wal-Mart does on her...
Edwards is a lawyer, so let's blame all bad lawsuits on him...
Bush was an oil man, so obviously high gas prices are his fault...
etc etc etc
 

dahunan

Lifer
Jan 10, 2002
18,191
3
0
A case since 2002 has yet to be resolved? WTF .. Better get rid of any Government attorneys who might sue companies that donate to Republicans
 

johnnobts

Golden Member
Jun 26, 2005
1,105
0
71
jeez... the whole us attorneys thing ticks me off. they all serve at the pleasure of the president, he can fire them whenever he pleases. you get all whiney they let 8 go, remember, back in 93, clinton fired them all. but that's ok, right?
 

dahunan

Lifer
Jan 10, 2002
18,191
3
0
Originally posted by: johnnobts
jeez... the whole us attorneys thing ticks me off. they all serve at the pleasure of the president, he can fire them whenever he pleases. you get all whiney they let 8 go, remember, back in 93, clinton fired them all. but that's ok, right?

I didn't even follow the Clinton thing.. but I believe he fired them IMMEDIATELY after taking office -

Just wait until you read more about the current scandal.. you will not like what you read.. unless you are a blind partisan
 

dmcowen674

No Lifer
Oct 13, 1999
54,889
47
91
www.alienbabeltech.com
Originally posted by: dahunan
Originally posted by: johnnobts
jeez... the whole us attorneys thing ticks me off. they all serve at the pleasure of the president, he can fire them whenever he pleases. you get all whiney they let 8 go, remember, back in 93, clinton fired them all. but that's ok, right?

I didn't even follow the Clinton thing.. but I believe he fired them IMMEDIATELY after taking office -

Just wait until you read more about the current scandal.. you will not like what you read.. unless you are a blind partisan

Interesting. I didn't know about Clinton getting rid of them all either.

Should it be policy to start with a clean slate of only your puppets in place?
 

EagleKeeper

Discussion Club Moderator<br>Elite Member
Staff member
Oct 30, 2000
42,589
5
0
Originally posted by: dmcowen674
Originally posted by: dahunan
Originally posted by: johnnobts
jeez... the whole us attorneys thing ticks me off. they all serve at the pleasure of the president, he can fire them whenever he pleases. you get all whiney they let 8 go, remember, back in 93, clinton fired them all. but that's ok, right?

I didn't even follow the Clinton thing.. but I believe he fired them IMMEDIATELY after taking office -

Just wait until you read more about the current scandal.. you will not like what you read.. unless you are a blind partisan

Interesting. I didn't know about Clinton getting rid of them all either.

Should it be policy to start with a clean slate of only your puppets in place?
Do you want people that you have confidence in or some-one who's loyalties may be to the other guy.

They fall under the Justice Department which gets swept whenever a new incoming administration happens.
 

dahunan

Lifer
Jan 10, 2002
18,191
3
0
Originally posted by: EagleKeeper
Originally posted by: dmcowen674
Originally posted by: dahunan
Originally posted by: johnnobts
jeez... the whole us attorneys thing ticks me off. they all serve at the pleasure of the president, he can fire them whenever he pleases. you get all whiney they let 8 go, remember, back in 93, clinton fired them all. but that's ok, right?

I didn't even follow the Clinton thing.. but I believe he fired them IMMEDIATELY after taking office -

Just wait until you read more about the current scandal.. you will not like what you read.. unless you are a blind partisan

Interesting. I didn't know about Clinton getting rid of them all either.

Should it be policy to start with a clean slate of only your puppets in place?
Do you want people that you have confidence in or some-one who's loyalties may be to the other guy.

They fall under the Justice Department which gets swept whenever a new incoming administration happens.

Justice.. knows no loyalty.. right? ONly thing it is loyal to is TRUTH and Truth is not friends with this administration
 

JD50

Lifer
Sep 4, 2005
11,874
2,740
136
Originally posted by: dahunan
Originally posted by: EagleKeeper
Originally posted by: dmcowen674
Originally posted by: dahunan
Originally posted by: johnnobts
jeez... the whole us attorneys thing ticks me off. they all serve at the pleasure of the president, he can fire them whenever he pleases. you get all whiney they let 8 go, remember, back in 93, clinton fired them all. but that's ok, right?

I didn't even follow the Clinton thing.. but I believe he fired them IMMEDIATELY after taking office -

Just wait until you read more about the current scandal.. you will not like what you read.. unless you are a blind partisan

Interesting. I didn't know about Clinton getting rid of them all either.

Should it be policy to start with a clean slate of only your puppets in place?
Do you want people that you have confidence in or some-one who's loyalties may be to the other guy.

They fall under the Justice Department which gets swept whenever a new incoming administration happens.

Justice.. knows no loyalty.. right? ONly thing it is loyal to is TRUTH and Truth is not friends with this administration


:roll:
 

dahunan

Lifer
Jan 10, 2002
18,191
3
0
Originally posted by: JD50
Originally posted by: dahunan
Originally posted by: EagleKeeper
Originally posted by: dmcowen674
Originally posted by: dahunan
Originally posted by: johnnobts
jeez... the whole us attorneys thing ticks me off. they all serve at the pleasure of the president, he can fire them whenever he pleases. you get all whiney they let 8 go, remember, back in 93, clinton fired them all. but that's ok, right?

I didn't even follow the Clinton thing.. but I believe he fired them IMMEDIATELY after taking office -

Just wait until you read more about the current scandal.. you will not like what you read.. unless you are a blind partisan

Interesting. I didn't know about Clinton getting rid of them all either.

Should it be policy to start with a clean slate of only your puppets in place?
Do you want people that you have confidence in or some-one who's loyalties may be to the other guy.

They fall under the Justice Department which gets swept whenever a new incoming administration happens.

Justice.. knows no loyalty.. right? ONly thing it is loyal to is TRUTH and Truth is not friends with this administration


:roll:

Truth hurts :p

 

JD50

Lifer
Sep 4, 2005
11,874
2,740
136
Originally posted by: dahunan
Originally posted by: JD50
Originally posted by: dahunan
Originally posted by: EagleKeeper
Originally posted by: dmcowen674
Originally posted by: dahunan
Originally posted by: johnnobts
jeez... the whole us attorneys thing ticks me off. they all serve at the pleasure of the president, he can fire them whenever he pleases. you get all whiney they let 8 go, remember, back in 93, clinton fired them all. but that's ok, right?

I didn't even follow the Clinton thing.. but I believe he fired them IMMEDIATELY after taking office -

Just wait until you read more about the current scandal.. you will not like what you read.. unless you are a blind partisan

Interesting. I didn't know about Clinton getting rid of them all either.

Should it be policy to start with a clean slate of only your puppets in place?
Do you want people that you have confidence in or some-one who's loyalties may be to the other guy.

They fall under the Justice Department which gets swept whenever a new incoming administration happens.

Justice.. knows no loyalty.. right? ONly thing it is loyal to is TRUTH and Truth is not friends with this administration


:roll:

Truth hurts :p

I wasn't rolling my eyes at you saying "Truth is not friends with this administration", I was rolling my eyes at "Justice.. knows no loyalty.. right?".



 

Fern

Elite Member
Sep 30, 2003
26,907
174
106
Why does America put up with this blatant corruption in it's face?

AND

awarded after competitive bidding to Moving Water Industries Corp. of Deerfield Beach, Fla.

AND

Because of the trouble with the New Orleans pumps, the Corps has withheld 20 percent of the MWI contract, including an incentive of up to $4 million that the company could have collected if it delivered the equipment in time for the 2006 hurricane season.


How is it corruption? The contract was awarded according to a competitive bidding process. Isn't that how it's supposed to be done?

I read a local NYT paper, no friend of the Bush Admin etc. But even they noted that the MWI company was under tremendous time pressure to supply the custom made pumps. I note that inability to perform to specs is costing them quite a bit of money (20% retainage plus $4M incentive to complete).

What happened to the original pumps?

Fern
 

dmcowen674

No Lifer
Oct 13, 1999
54,889
47
91
www.alienbabeltech.com
Originally posted by: Fern
Why does America put up with this blatant corruption in it's face?

AND

awarded after competitive bidding to Moving Water Industries Corp. of Deerfield Beach, Fla.

AND

Because of the trouble with the New Orleans pumps, the Corps has withheld 20 percent of the MWI contract, including an incentive of up to $4 million that the company could have collected if it delivered the equipment in time for the 2006 hurricane season.

How is it corruption? The contract was awarded according to a competitive bidding process. Isn't that how it's supposed to be done?

I read a local NYT paper, no friend of the Bush Admin etc. But even they noted that the MWI company was under tremendous time pressure to supply the custom made pumps. I note that inability to perform to specs is costing them quite a bit of money (20% retainage plus $4M incentive to complete).

What happened to the original pumps?

Competetive my ass.

The original pumps were destroyed as they went under water in Katrina.
 

Genx87

Lifer
Apr 8, 2002
41,091
513
126
Originally posted by: dahunan
Originally posted by: johnnobts
jeez... the whole us attorneys thing ticks me off. they all serve at the pleasure of the president, he can fire them whenever he pleases. you get all whiney they let 8 go, remember, back in 93, clinton fired them all. but that's ok, right?

I didn't even follow the Clinton thing.. but I believe he fired them IMMEDIATELY after taking office -

Just wait until you read more about the current scandal.. you will not like what you read.. unless you are a blind partisan

I fail to see how this is even a scandal at all. The president and executive branch is granted the duty to prosecute the laws congress enacts. If the executive branch wants to fire their grunts who carry out their duties, it is within their right to do so.

One thing I have noticed about 24 hour news channels. Mountains out of molehills is a common theme. Apparently the executive branch doing its own business is considered a scandal.

What next, Congress passes a law and it is a scandal?
The judicial branch makes a decision about the law being constutional?

Oh the horror!
 

EagleKeeper

Discussion Club Moderator<br>Elite Member
Staff member
Oct 30, 2000
42,589
5
0
Originally posted by: dmcowen674
Originally posted by: Fern
Why does America put up with this blatant corruption in it's face?

AND

awarded after competitive bidding to Moving Water Industries Corp. of Deerfield Beach, Fla.

AND

Because of the trouble with the New Orleans pumps, the Corps has withheld 20 percent of the MWI contract, including an incentive of up to $4 million that the company could have collected if it delivered the equipment in time for the 2006 hurricane season.

How is it corruption? The contract was awarded according to a competitive bidding process. Isn't that how it's supposed to be done?

I read a local NYT paper, no friend of the Bush Admin etc. But even they noted that the MWI company was under tremendous time pressure to supply the custom made pumps. I note that inability to perform to specs is costing them quite a bit of money (20% retainage plus $4M incentive to complete).

What happened to the original pumps?

Competetive my ass.

The original pumps were destroyed as they went under water in Katrina.
Do you have proof that the contract was not competitive?

 

BaliBabyDoc

Lifer
Jan 20, 2001
10,737
0
0
I do find it interesting that an alleged 'competitive' bidding process generates a 'best' candidate that gets offered $4million EXTRA just to do the job they agreed to do for a set fee.

Corruption is a reasonable charge when the firm that gets the contract just happens to have associations with Jeb. Kinda like TX pushing for education software and the US Dept of Ed pushing for identical software . . . both initiatives occurred under GWB when one of the most prominent sources (and the one with the contracts) just happens to be run by Neil Bush.

Correlation is not causation . . . but it certainly deserves scrutiny.
 

5to1baby1in5

Golden Member
Apr 27, 2001
1,248
109
106
Originally posted by: Fern
Why does America put up with this blatant corruption in it's face?

AND

awarded after competitive bidding to Moving Water Industries Corp. of Deerfield Beach, Fla.

AND

Because of the trouble with the New Orleans pumps, the Corps has withheld 20 percent of the MWI contract, including an incentive of up to $4 million that the company could have collected if it delivered the equipment in time for the 2006 hurricane season.


How is it corruption? The contract was awarded according to a competitive bidding process. Isn't that how it's supposed to be done?

I read a local NYT paper, no friend of the Bush Admin etc. But even they noted that the MWI company was under tremendous time pressure to supply the custom made pumps. I note that inability to perform to specs is costing them quite a bit of money (20% retainage plus $4M incentive to complete).

What happened to the original pumps?

Fern


The only 'corruption' here is that the customer (city of NO?) did not require field acceptance testing done at the supplier's shop prior to shippment (repeating the tests at the final site too). Kind of a forced accountability thing.

That and that the project was most likely: a fixed price bid, over-ran the budget due to redesign issues, and was behind schedule.
 

Fern

Elite Member
Sep 30, 2003
26,907
174
106
Originally posted by: BaliBabyDoc
I do find it interesting that an alleged 'competitive' bidding process generates a 'best' candidate that gets offered $4million EXTRA just to do the job they agreed to do for a set fee.

Umm.. That's quite normal for large projects. Our school system here, which is now building new schools, has those provisions in the contract with the builder. I don't think I've ever seen a large design/build or contruction project etc with out that type of clause.

Corruption is a reasonable charge when the firm that gets the contract just happens to have associations with Jeb.

So, the company is based in FL and they have an association with Jeb the Governor of FL, and so that's suspcious? <shrug> What would be unusual is if Jeb the FL Gov had something to do with awarding contracts for NO in LA.

Kinda like TX pushing for education software and the US Dept of Ed pushing for identical software . . . both initiatives occurred under GWB when one of the most prominent sources (and the one with the contracts) just happens to be run by Neil Bush.

Yes, that looks suspicious. But that irrelevant here. The need ofr educational softwrae may be discretionary, but NO's need for pumps is not etc.

Correlation is not causation . . . but it certainly deserves scrutiny.

 

BaliBabyDoc

Lifer
Jan 20, 2001
10,737
0
0
I guess you've seen different large design/build projects than I have.

In my experience, the contract is for a set price for a project completed at a particular date. For highway projects (in my state) it is almost always carrots and sticks. Projects ahead of schedule qualify for PERFORMANCE bonuses while projects behind schedule have explicit penalties . . . often daily.

It's an egregious waste of public funds if the only contracts they sign give bonuses for doing adequate work, but don't punish poor performance.

My University actually canned a contractor b/c their work was so shoddy and they were so far behind schedule.

The Corps is pretty ridiculous if they fail to realize that having an adequate system that's somewhat late makes more sense than an inadequate one that's 'almost' on-time. Having the idiot Bush or incompetent Nagin claim the city is 'safe' b/c the Corp has 'certified' the pump system is an inherent danger to the public by providing a false sense of security.
 

piasabird

Lifer
Feb 6, 2002
17,168
60
91
Only thing I will say on this subject is that if you attempt to create your own engineering design to build a better pump you might have some problems getting it to function properly. I think this is worth some study before just crying wolf. Cars are recalled all the time, yet we still keep buying them.
 

Fern

Elite Member
Sep 30, 2003
26,907
174
106
Originally posted by: BaliBabyDoc
I guess you've seen different large design/build projects than I have.

In my experience, the contract is for a set price for a project completed at a particular date. For highway projects (in my state) it is almost always carrots and sticks. Projects ahead of schedule qualify for PERFORMANCE bonuses while projects behind schedule have explicit penalties . . . often daily.

I think they're pretty similar. If it's a "bonus" but you don't get it because you don't complete by a certain date, other than the "wording" it's the same as a "penalty" for being late.

I don't know, but suspect, it could be a function of applicable civil law (which will vary state-by-state, and LA has the weird & unique Napoleanic code, then there may be fed rules here). a penalty may be subject to tougher litigation/rules in some places then a "lost" bonus. I.e., if you got hit with a penalty it may be easier to seek relief in court. But I'm just guessing


It's an egregious waste of public funds if the only contracts they sign give bonuses for doing adequate work, but don't punish poor performance.

My University actually canned a contractor b/c their work was so shoddy and they were so far behind schedule.

The Corps is pretty ridiculous if they fail to realize that having an adequate system that's somewhat late makes more sense than an inadequate one that's 'almost' on-time.

No system, no matter how good is useless if installed after a hurricane. But the Corp asserts is was working when installed. Somebody from NO can prolly tell us more, but seems to me that these pump systems not only are used for hurricanes but also to move regular rainstorm waters out of the city (saw a show on Discovery channel some years ago on the older pump system). If so, they may have working, at least to some extent, since installed.

Having the idiot Bush or incompetent Nagin claim the city is 'safe' b/c the Corp has 'certified' the pump system is an inherent danger to the public by providing a false sense of security.

 

EagleKeeper

Discussion Club Moderator<br>Elite Member
Staff member
Oct 30, 2000
42,589
5
0
1) Dave still has not shown where the non-competitive issue exists.

2) Most companies will attempt to use any political influence that they can must to win large government related contracts, even to just get their foot in the door so a bid can be evaluated.

It is up to those that evaluate and award the contract to determine what is best.

3) The people that signed off on the pumps and allowed the reduced testing should be the ones that need to be investigated. Why they did so?

4) Politics generates a warm fuzzy to the population that they are doing something. Do you expect a political to tell the truth when there is bad news?