MinnPost: Senate passes Franken amendment aimed at defense contractors

[ACW]

http://www.minnpost.com/stories/2009/10/06/12247/senate_passes_franken_amendment_aimed_at_defense_contractors

WASHINGTON, D.C. — In one of the most public tests of his political skills since taking office in July, Sen. Al Franken pushed through an amendment Tuesday that would withhold defense contracts from companies like Halliburton if they restrict their employees from taking workplace sexual assault, battery and discrimination cases to court.

Passed 60-38. Looks like he may have some political skills!

[twa]

:cool:

Of course it will indirectly increase contracting costs,which will likely result in more of it returning to govt workers/military.

I wonder if they thought ahead enough to include subcontractors to the contractors?

[Jumbo]

I don't care what it says, or what you guys say, I told ya before, and since this forum is usually more full of **** than an elephants GI tract, I'll say it again, I have always thought Al Franken was swell.

[twa]

I have always thought Al Franken was swell.

Get a room ya leg humper:silly:

[Jumbo]

Get a room ya leg humper:silly:

I can still feel affection for other people. I know I can.

[@DCGoldPants]

I want a bill that says....when a contractor misses their deadline....an future payments to them are put on hold until they catch up.

Sick of us paying for something that isn't delivered.

[PeterMP]

I have to think what this ammendment does is illegal. If I'm assulted at work it is legal for my company to say that if you take it to court we are going to punish (i.e. a restriction infers that there is some penalty (i.e. being fired) if you do) you in some manner?

If that's not illegal, they should have passed a law that makes it illegal for EVERY company. Not just defense contractors.

[ACW]

Peter, good point, but here's the text:

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/F?r111:1:./temp/~r111HvVu8K:e0:

SA 2588. Mr. FRANKEN (for himself and Ms. Landrieu) submitted an amendment intended to be proposed by him to the bill H.R. 3326, making appropriations for the Department of Defense for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2010, and for other purposes; as follows:

On page 245, between lines 8 and 9, insert the following:

Sec. 8104. (a) None of the funds appropriated or otherwise made available by this Act may be used for any existing or new Federal contract if the contractor or a subcontractor at any tier requires that an employee or independent contractor, as a condition of employment, sign a contract that mandates that the employee or independent contractor performing work under the contract or subcontract resolve through arbitration any claim under title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 or any tort related to or arising out of sexual assault or harassment, including assault and battery, intentional infliction of emotional distress, false imprisonment, or negligent hiring, supervision, or retention.

It was the defense bill, hence why it's only defense contractors.

[twa]

If that's not illegal, they should have passed a law that makes it illegal for EVERY company. Not just defense contractors.

It is illegal in the US, this extends jurisdiction to US contractors outside the US(Iraq ect)...or at least the way it was explained to me.

I wonder how many unintended consequences will come from this ?....I like it

added

Sessions said that the Department of Defense opposed Franken's amendment in part because it determined that enforcement would be problematic.

Oh yes problematic is putting it mildly,especially dependent on how how contractor and subcontractor are defined:D

It would be pretty cool to impose our morality by way of defense contracts.

[Mad Mike]

I want a bill that says....when a contractor misses their deadline....an future payments to them are put on hold until they catch up.

Sick of us paying for something that isn't delivered.

Great. Then when contractors start pushing out inferior weapons in order to make deadlines we can celebrate about how we got them on time.

I'm not trying to be an ass here but I feel the need to make a point. Every action has unintended consequences. In this case, the bill you want would likely cause more problems than it solves.

Defense contractors are in effect technology companies who advance the technology of weapons systems with each new product. More often than not, with ANY new technology, things don't go as planned. How often has a new version of Windows been delayed? What about the times they rushed the product out the door only to find a few million bugs that take a year or more to squash? Do you want to do that with a targeting system?

Or suppose they take the cash hit in order to get the product right. Do you think less cash flow is going to help get it done sooner?

Bad idea man.

Does anyone remember a post I made about using the ideas from any ideology without prejudice when and where they are needed? Here's an example.

I've made no bones about my opinion that the libertarian cause is insane extremism. HOWEVER, sometimes the principles do apply.

In this case I've shown how the legislation you propose would be harmful. So, IN THIS CASE, I believe it is best to rely on the free market system. The military can and does consider a companies track record of delivering on it's promises on time and on budget when deciding who to award a contract to. (Assuming of course that the weapons systems or products are equal.) Considering the lofty requirements that the military often demands, that's about all we can do.

_____________

Back to the original topic... I'm no big fan of Franken and this is one example of why.

A) There are laws that require employers to provide a workplace safe from sexual assault and discrimination. ENFORCE THEM.

Why only target only defense contractors? I'll tell you why... He has an agenda that has less to do with preventing assault and discrimination than it does with hurting defense contractors.

[Thiebear]

Least he's doing something.. (A NEW GUY) is better than 40years Rangel.

[PeterMP]

Great. Then when contractors start pushing out inferior weapons in order to make deadlines we can celebrate about how we got them on time.

The contracts also stipulate that the weapons meet certain requirements. A weapon that doesn't meet such requirements should result in a breach of contract requiring the contractor to return at least some of the money.

People in private life normally get what they ask for on time when a contract is involved. There is no REAL reason that the defense industry should be any different.

What might happen is that defense contractors would be more realistic about what they can deliver and in what time frame they can deliver it, instead of making promises they know that they essentially have no hope of delivering on.

[@DCGoldPants]

The contracts also stipulate that the weapons meet certain requirements. A weapon that doesn't meet such requirements should result in a breach of contract requiring the contractor to return at least some of the money.

People in private life normally get what they ask for on time when a contract is involved. There is no REAL reason that the defense industry should be any different.

What might happen is that defense contractors would be more realistic about what they can deliver and in what time frame they can deliver it, instead of making promises they know that they essentially have no hope of delivering on.

ding ding ding.

If they can't do it in the time they agreed. Then they should LOSE their contract.

[Corcaigh]

I want a bill that says....when a contractor misses their deadline....an future payments to them are put on hold until they catch up.

Plenty of performance based contracts are structured like that. The issue is about how individual contracts are written and enforced, which gets back to the skills of government contracting officers and their time to write appropriate contracts given external pressures and time available.

Reform is needed in government contracting for sure but if you take a look at the Federal Acquisition Regulations (currently knocking up against 2000 pages) and think we need more rules, well ...

[Mad Mike]

SA 2588. Mr. FRANKEN (for himself and Ms. Landrieu) submitted an amendment intended to be proposed by him to the bill H.R. 3326, making appropriations for the Department of Defense for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2010, and for other purposes; as follows:

On page 245, between lines 8 and 9, insert the following:

Sec. 8104. (a) None of the funds appropriated or otherwise made available by this Act may be used for any existing or new Federal contract if the contractor or a subcontractor at any tier requires that an employee or independent contractor, as a condition of employment, sign a contract that mandates that the employee or independent contractor performing work under the contract or subcontract resolve through arbitration any claim under title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 or any tort related to or arising out of sexual assault or harassment, including assault and battery, intentional infliction of emotional distress, false imprisonment, or negligent hiring, supervision, or retention.

OK on the whole this doesn't sound too bad until you get to the part I highlighted in red. WTF is that supposed to mean? I know what it is supposed to mean, but it seems to be far to broad in it's interpretation.

Still. it seems that this amendment is intended only to prevent employers from forcing bad contracts on employees as a condition of employment. I don't have a problem with that.

[Corcaigh]

If they can't do it in the time they agreed. Then they should LOSE their contract.

And they do.

People lose contracts everyday and get prohibited on bidding on others, including for reasons such as inadequate audit trails on timesheets.

[Mad Mike]

The contracts also stipulate that the weapons meet certain requirements. A weapon that doesn't meet such requirements should result in a breach of contract requiring the contractor to return at least some of the money.

People in private life normally get what they ask for on time when a contract is involved. There is no REAL reason that the defense industry should be any different.

What might happen is that defense contractors would be more realistic about what they can deliver and in what time frame they can deliver it, instead of making promises they know that they essentially have no hope of delivering on.

The military makes HUGE demands both in the requirements of the product itself and terms of delivery. On top of that, companies are competing for the contracts and in order to make the sale, are pushing the limits of their capabilities. Problems with delivery are going to happen.

Now, if you can PROVE that a company deliberately falsified information in order to get a contract, then you have a real issue. But I'm pretty sure there are already means of addressing that problem without resorting to new legislation.

BTW. In real life, products and services are often late. Mechanics for example may need an extra day or week because of the difficulty of the job or availability of parts. The reality of life is that things often don't go as planned. If you haven't learned that lesson by now in your own life, you must be truly blessed.

[PeterMP]

The military makes HUGE demands both in the requirements of the product itself and terms of delivery. On top of that, companies are competing for the contracts and in order to make the sale, are pushing the limits of their capabilities. Problems with delivery are going to happen.

Now, if you can PROVE that a company deliberately falsified information in order to get a contract, then you have a real issue. But I'm pretty sure there are already means of addressing that problem without resorting to new legislation.

BTW. In real life, products and services are often late. Mechanics for example may need an extra day or week because of the difficulty of the job or availability of parts. The reality of life is that things often don't go as planned. If you haven't learned that lesson by now in your own life, you must be truly blessed.

You can't simultaneously claim that military contractors routinely deliver products on time and at specs and claim that laws forcing them to do so would unnecessarily burden them.

Either contractors routinely over estimate what they can do and the time they can do it in to the point that it essentially is fraud and their expert experience should result in them understanding that their promises are unrealistic in the real world or they normally deliver what they promise on time and any enformcent of time and quality promises wouldn't be a huge issue.

I actually do a lot w/ contractors w/ respect to various pieces of equipment. We routinely have issues, BUT I've never had a contractor NOT make up for it. Either I get a reduction in price or some sort of increase in services (e.g. free extensions in service agreements).

[@DCGoldPants]

You can't simultaneously claim that military contractors routinely deliver products on time and at specs and claim that laws forcing them to do so would unnecessarily burden them.

Either contractors routinely over estimate what they can do and the time they can do it in to the point that it essentially is fraud and their expert experience should result in them understanding that their promises are unrealistic in the real world or they normally deliver what they promise on time and any enformcent of time and quality promises wouldn't be a huge issue.

I actually do a lot w/ contractors w/ respect to various pieces of equipment. We routinely have issues, BUT I've never had a contractor NOT make up for it. Either I get a reduction in price or some sort of increase in services (e.g. free extensions in service agreements).

I was thinking the same thing.

Can't have it both ways pal.

Either you complete what you promised....or you don't. But under no situation should you keep getting paid when you don't deliver.

This doesn't mean lowering standards. The deal isn't for lower standards. Its for a product as agreed on.

[sacase]

The contracts also stipulate that the weapons meet certain requirements. A weapon that doesn't meet such requirements should result in a breach of contract requiring the contractor to return at least some of the money.

People in private life normally get what they ask for on time when a contract is involved. There is no REAL reason that the defense industry should be any different.

What might happen is that defense contractors would be more realistic about what they can deliver and in what time frame they can deliver it, instead of making promises they know that they essentially have no hope of delivering on.

First, there are several different types of contracts, its hard to just blanket your statements to all government contracts.

But what you are talking about here is new technology. People dont' go to companies and ask them to create new technologies. They ask them to do something like build a home with these specifications. Those specifications are not new technolgies.

It could be something like thing. DoD wants a predator suit that will cover a soldier from head to toe, work in rain and underwater, work in temperatures from -50C to 100C, can fit on a soldiers basic combat load, the power source can weigh no more than 5lbs and must power the suit for 10 hours of extreme use.

The company must then develop at least 2 different brand new technologies, not to mention all of the sub components that have to go with it. You honestly can't expect them to say we will have this to you on April 15, 2015. That is an estimate at best and the government realizes that when developing new technology, it may take more time than intended, which is why they allow cost overruns as long as significant progress is being made.

[Mad Mike]

I was thinking the same thing.

Can't have it both ways pal.

Either you complete what you promised....or you don't. But under no situation should you keep getting paid when you don't deliver.

This doesn't mean lowering standards. The deal isn't for lower standards. Its for a product as agreed on.

Show me where I claimed that they routinely deliver products on time.

You cant. Because I didn't. :doh:

What I said was that delays are impossible to legislate away. What I said was that no new technology comes without delays and setbacks, and taking money and contracts away from companies for those inevitable delays is foolish and harmful to the process.

What I said was that if you can PROVE that the company lied to get the contract, then you have a case to demand corrective action.

[PeterMP]

First, there are several different types of contracts, its hard to just blanket your statements to all government contracts.

But what you are talking about here is new technology. People dont' go to companies and ask them to create new technologies. They ask them to do something like build a home with these specifications. Those specifications are not new technolgies.

It could be something like thing. DoD wants a predator suit that will cover a soldier from head to toe, work in rain and underwater, work in temperatures from -50C to 100C, can fit on a soldiers basic combat load, the power source can weigh no more than 5lbs and must power the suit for 10 hours of extreme use.

The company must then develop at least 2 different brand new technologies, not to mention all of the sub components that have to go with it. You honestly can't expect them to say we will have this to you on April 15, 2015. That is an estimate at best and the government realizes that when developing new technology, it may take more time than intended, which is why they allow cost overruns as long as significant progress is being made.

Over time, if estimates are given in good faith with real world expert experience guiding them, then the error rate should cancel out. That is things should go unexpectedly well and the product should be delivered below costs and ahead of scheduele as frequently as they are delivered late and over costs, and over time with different contracts and projects on average, things should be delivered on time and at cost.

That isn't the case.

The only argument that makes sense is that defense contractors routinely ignore their real world expertise and experience when giving the government estimates, which essentially amounts to fraud.

[Mad Mike]

First, there are several different types of contracts, its hard to just blanket your statements to all government contracts.

But what you are talking about here is new technology. People dont' go to companies and ask them to create new technologies. They ask them to do something like build a home with these specifications. Those specifications are not new technolgies.

It could be something like thing. DoD wants a predator suit that will cover a soldier from head to toe, work in rain and underwater, work in temperatures from -50C to 100C, can fit on a soldiers basic combat load, the power source can weigh no more than 5lbs and must power the suit for 10 hours of extreme use.

The company must then develop at least 2 different brand new technologies, not to mention all of the sub components that have to go with it. You honestly can't expect them to say we will have this to you on April 15, 2015. That is an estimate at best and the government realizes that when developing new technology, it may take more time than intended, which is why they allow cost overruns as long as significant progress is being made.

Exactly. And to add to the complexity of the problem the contractor must rely on any number of subcontractors to deliver parts to make the suit. Any of which may not be up to spec or on time.

You simply CANNOT legislate perfection in cost estimates and time of delivery. It's impossible.

[Titaw]

I want a bill that says....when a contractor misses their deadline....an future payments to them are put on hold until they catch up.

Sick of us paying for something that isn't delivered.

You can't put this into a bill because the contracting company may be delayed by the government processes in place. This happens all of the time where the contracting company misses its deadline due to the ineptitude of the government and the 13,000,000 processes the contracting company has to go through is insane. I have worked in the contracting world for 5 years now and everytime we have missed a deadline it was due to the government, not the contractor.

[PeterMP]

You can't put this into a bill because the contracting company may be delayed by the government processes in place. This happens all of the time where the contracting company misses its deadline due to the ineptitude of the government and the 13,000,000 processes the contracting company has to go through is insane. I have worked in the contracting world for 5 years now and everytime we have missed a deadline it was due to the government, not the contractor.

But your company knows it is dealing with the government. It knows the government is going to do things and require things that can and will cause delays.

Are you saying your company gives estimates to the government based on what it would expect if the contract wasn't with the government, despite the fact that it does know the contract is with the government?