IMPORTANT question for those w/experience in gov't contracts (from either side - contractor or contractee):
Last edited Thu Feb 27, 2025, 12:09 PM - Edit history (2)
So, Mush's dodgy list of "savings" included a number of contracts which they took credit for closing, even though the contracts had already been paid out completely, and no savings resulted (~40% of the list, actually).
I'm curious -- was there some inobvious reason those contracts hadn't been closed already ?? Mush and DODGY seem to imply it was carelessness. Considering the fate of their claims re. 150-yr olds and dead people collecting SS (they weren't -- their accounts were still "open" since no date of death was recorded, but no payments were made) and the reasons they were debunked ("open" doesn't imply payments, only that they are still accessible; and need to stay that way so that survivors' benefits can be figured, paid, and recorded), I'm wondering if a similar situation couldn't exist with "open" contracts. Say, for example, a contract required a guarantee that either services or equipment would fill their intended purpose, and accounts were left open to allow refunds, payments, or even bonuses, all of which could extend beyond the date specified for the end of the work. That doesn't strike me as something one couldn't expect, if one were familiar with such contracts.
Anything to that ? Or are there other reasons they hadn't been closed ?
= new reply since forum marked as read
