Procurement Question: How much OVER does the gov usually spend on items?

[madoka]

$20 million on firewood. Your tax dollars at work.

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/201...stification-for-20-million-in-aghan-firewood/

During a House Oversight Committee hearing on Thursday, Rep. Jason Chaffetz (R-Utah) revealed that the U.S. military is currently spending about $20 million on firewood. That’s right, firewood.

“It mentions in your report that the U.S. military is spending $20 million for firewood. Is there any justification for $20 million in Aghan firewood?” Chaffetz asks John F. Sopko, special inspector general for Afghanistan Reconstruction.

“Mr. Chairman that was one of the more interesting comments my auditor told me is that — you are absolutely correct we are paying…approximately $20 million a year for firewood,” Sopko confirmed. “And when my auditors asked for documentation on what we spent on firewood, we were basically told ‘we don’t have the records, we just spend the money.’”

 

[[DHT]Osiris]

To be fair, it's probably cheaper to buy firewood and burn it at night to keep warm in Afghanistan at night/in winter than it is to build a heating infrastructure in the desert. I agree that the recordkeeping should be better, but it probably just goes into a 'misc costs' bucket for the various camps or something.

 

[madoka]

To be fair, it's probably cheaper to buy firewood and burn it at night to keep warm in Afghanistan at night/in winter than it is to build a heating infrastructure in the desert. I agree that the recordkeeping should be better, but it probably just goes into a 'misc costs' bucket for the various camps or something.

That's still $2000 per soldier per year for firewood.

What are they using? Artisanal firewood?

 

[piasabird]

This depends. When a professional developer/software vendor comes in with a package of goods, for like a server or a database, they usually have some things to look at. When you get an estimate of the size of the files, you have to guess that upgrades and expansion will expand the project to about 200% in 5-10 years. In other words you need to plan for growth and also PEAK usage events. Then there is the initial cost of the hardware and software licenses, Then there is a fee for development and implementation and possibly switch-over from old hardware. This may include a conversion from the old database, including cleaning up the old data and then transferring files to the new hardware. Then most software has some kind of a maintenence fee.

 

[IronWing]

That's still $2000 per soldier per year for firewood.

I wonder if the U.S. is supplying firewood to the locals as a form of assistance, buying wood at inflated prices to help wood cutters and then giving it to people who can't afford the now inflated price (or any price)?

 

[local]

In my experience the product does not start out overpriced but by the end of the contract so many changes have been made it becomes a bloated job that make people scratch their head. Those $20m bridges that become $480m boondoggles actually started out as $20m contracts. As a contractor that doesn't mean I get an 80% profit margin because my own costs are just as bloated. But like any change on an ongoing job it is valued at a premium and that is true on any kind of job not just the gov projects.

 

[HumblePie]

The biggest problem with government expenses is getting NEW expenses versus continuation budgets.

The way most government funding is set up is that if you spend ALL your yearly allocated budget, regardless how it is basically spent if it can be "justified" on an expense report, then you can easily ask for at least that much the following year.

This is why are the end of the year some projects scramble to do all sorts of training seminars, order tons of extra $1000 toilet seats, or whatever it takes to spend up all their allocated budget if they are way under. By legal definition it's technically not fruad waste and abuse (FWA), but anyone with a brain knows different.

There is few good reasons though to do this. It costs money to review every year the budgets of every government expenditure. LOTS of money for that review process. It takes a whole let of a review required if the program used all their allocated funds and are basically asking for a continuous of their previous budget. It's basically a rubber stamp at that point and the review board can move to the next item without having to look to deeply and auditing every program. They do occasionally audit a bit more deeply programs, but they are only required to audit a specific amount which they don't go over. Why? audits cost more money.

So the government tends to be more focused on saving money on the audit process versus putting every spending budget item under a microscope for better or worse.

So as to the OP's question? It depends. Usually the first few years of a programs budget isn't usually over by much if at all. If a program goes on long enough, the overage cost goes up a bit.

 

[smackababy]

Government will always go with the absolute lowest bid. And then, go with the lowest bid again when someone has to come in and fix whatever is fucked up from the first bid.

 

[Brainonska511]

The biggest problem with government expenses is getting NEW expenses versus continuation budgets.

The way most government funding is set up is that if you spend ALL your yearly allocated budget, regardless how it is basically spent if it can be "justified" on an expense report, then you can easily ask for at least that much the following year.

This is why are the end of the year some projects scramble to do all sorts of training seminars, order tons of extra $1000 toilet seats, or whatever it takes to spend up all their allocated budget if they are way under. By legal definition it's technically not fruad waste and abuse (FWA), but anyone with a brain knows different.

There is few good reasons though to do this. It costs money to review every year the budgets of every government expenditure. LOTS of money for that review process. It takes a whole let of a review required if the program used all their allocated funds and are basically asking for a continuous of their previous budget. It's basically a rubber stamp at that point and the review board can move to the next item without having to look to deeply and auditing every program. They do occasionally audit a bit more deeply programs, but they are only required to audit a specific amount which they don't go over. Why? audits cost more money.

So the government tends to be more focused on saving money on the audit process versus putting every spending budget item under a microscope for better or worse.

So as to the OP's question? It depends. Usually the first few years of a programs budget isn't usually over by much if at all. If a program goes on long enough, the overage cost goes up a bit.

They are required by law to spend their entire budget that's been appropriated. At least when it comes to federal spending, funds can't be not spent (aka, impounded) by the executive.

 

[[DHT]Osiris]

That's still $2000 per soldier per year for firewood.

What are they using? Artisanal firewood?

It might be $2000/yr per soldier because it has to come from a source guaranteed to not plant c4 in the logs, to basically bribe them to cart it across the desert, where they may/may not get fired upon for supplying the US, as well as being wrapped up in a multi-year contract with a sole supplier that can charge what they want. And it's *still* probably cheaper than building the heating infrastructure.

 

[Thebobo]

We have Gov credit cards we use to purchase repair parts or services under 2k, We still have to justify with a procurement officer large ticket items and then we have write up a contract. So items under 2k we just purchase items we need at a store or contractor. Unless we have a contract with businesses we pay the same as anyone else for items.

 

[momeNt]

As others have possibly alluded to, if you are using the facilities of your employer to in any way coordinate, procure, make phone calls, or basically anything that uses their capital resources or time, like their internet. And they find out, it could end up poorly for you. With procurement contracts you are supplying them also with a waiver of lien and promise to hold them harmless for any lawsuits originating from the sourcing and delivery of the products or services. Let's say company sues them, you'll get stuck with all the legal costs protecting them from a claim originating that they are partially responsible for the overhead included in your bid to supply.

Do it on your own time or not at all. It's too risky.

 

[John Connor]

Was thinking of this scene...

 

[Red Squirrel]

Lol I can get a full cord of firewood for under $100. I think it goes for around $80 or so these days if you buy it from a company as opposed to getting it yourself. You'd think it would be even cheaper in bulk. Governments are so ridiculously inefficient. How much firewood do soldiers in the middle of a hot desert even need? If it's for cooking you'd think they could use fuel that they already have, they have trillion dollar budgets I'm sure they can come up with a portable cooking appliance that runs off diesel or gas without exposing the food directly to the fumes.

 

[[DHT]Osiris]

Lol I can get a full cord of firewood for under $100. I think it goes for around $80 or so these days if you buy it from a company as opposed to getting it yourself. You'd think it would be even cheaper in bulk. Governments are so ridiculously inefficient. How much firewood do soldiers in the middle of a hot desert even need? If it's for cooking you'd think they could use fuel that they already have, they have trillion dollar budgets I'm sure they can come up with a portable cooking appliance that runs off diesel or gas without exposing the food directly to the fumes.

It gets cold in Afghanistan at night and in the winter. You can get a cord of firewood for $100 in the US, it'd be more expensive in the desert, unsurprisingly due to the lack of trees. I'm really just speculating about all this but I imagine there's a reason they aren't trucking around heating/cooking elements and buying firewood instead.

 

[Rubycon]

A cord of wood is pretty vague, right?
Is it seasoned?
Split?
Cut to stove length?
Slab wood?
Oak?
Poplar?
Mixed hard/soft wood?
True cord, i.e. 4x4x8? (feet)

All about specifics!

 

[Red Squirrel]

Measurements Canada is actually trying to stop people from using the word cord as it is very vague. They're trying to move to cubic metre. It's suppose to be tightly stacked. But even then that's kinda hard to adjust for. Unsplit is going to leave more air void, and should be cheaper, but you also get less wood.

Suppose they can go by actual volume, you place it in a vat of water and measure how much water is displaced.

 

[Rubycon]

They can cheat by adding salt to the water.

 

[IronWing]

It's a tough one. If one uses weight, folks will sell green wood.

 

[superstition]

So now what is a "Pomes".

Pome is the nickname of tennis player Cibulková.

Additionally:

In botany, a pome (after the Latin word for fruit: pōmum) is a type of fruit produced by flowering plants in the subtribe Malinae of the family Rosaceae. Pome's origin of the word came from the Middle English (fruit), from Anglo-French pume, pomme (apple, fruit) and, ultimately from Late Latin pomum.