4 ms·

> because they have to be contracted out to private developers The problem is not the people completing the work; it's not like Aldi's has their own paving mac

by coryrc 4y ago

> because they have to be contracted out to private developers The problem is not the people completing the work; it's not like Aldi's has their own paving machine in the back. It's that the government doesn't have employees who know how to specify the project and nobody has an incentive to finish in a timely manner.

93po 4y ago
> nobody has an incentive to finish in a timely manner. I think the real problem is more that there is accountability for job performance in the private sector (you get fired if you suck and waste your boss's money) and very little to none in the public sector. No one votes for politicians based on objective performance data. It'd wild to me how it's considered American to have this sort of bid process because "free markets" and "small government" but the results are everything Americans accuse socialist countries of being.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
asdff 4y ago
Its also that you have thousands of miles of road in disrepair, and you have budget to deal with 1% of that so to be pragmatic you triage but people miss that and equate such pragmatism with incompetence.
bumby 4y ago
The government has lots of employees who came from the private sector and know exactly how that side of the house works. They aren't really this disjointed set of workers. IMO, a lot of the differences come from the different set of rules that govt work has to run by. For example, Aldi can just decide to hire a contractor that they know does good work at a reasonable price. In contrast, the govt has to use a lengthy fair and open bid process and if they want to select a bid that isn't the lowest, it's a painstaking process to justify that selection. Govt work must adhere to certain laws that tend to push up labor wages (see: Davis Bacon Act). Plus, the govt has lots of other competing goals, like supporting minority or veteran-owned business etc. A simple comparison misses all of those nuances.
- JonChesterfield 4y ago
  It's absurd really. Massive pressure to pick the cheapest bid, then very slowly discover that the cheapest option can't actually do a reasonable job in a reasonable timeframe, then some years later try again with the same cheapest must win premise. It's kind of optimising for cost but poorly and with no feedback loop.
  - nradov 4y ago
    There is a feedback loop. Under a firm fixed price contract, the vendor has to eat any cost overruns. Contacts can include bonuses for finishing ahead of schedule, or penalties for being late. And there are administrative procedures for barring vendors who fail to deliver as promised from bidding on future contracts.
    - bumby 4y ago
      There are second order effects on those, though. Fixed price contracts incentivize contractors to cut corners to make up for cost overruns or to pad their profits (doubly so if it’s a contractor who underbid to win the contract). Unless you’re willing to pay for a lot of govt oversight, many of those won’t be noticed until the contract is long complete. Even if noticed, you need an organization willing to engage in that legal fight. The administrative controls are lagging indicators at best, and administrative controls are usually one of the least preferable control mechanisms.
- ProblemFactory 4y ago
  > For example, Aldi can just decide to hire a contractor that they know does good work at a reasonable price. In contrast, the govt has to use a lengthy fair and open bid process and if they want to select a bid that isn't the lowest, it's a painstaking process to justify that selection. It's unfortunate, but probably better than the corruption that anything else will enable in the long run. Churchill said that democracy is the worst form of government, except for all the others. For government spending, lowest bidder is the worst form of contracts, except for all the others.
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]

by coryrc 4y ago

93po 4y ago

> nobody has an incentive to finish in a timely manner. I think the real problem is more that there is accountability for job performance in the private sector (you get fired if you suck and waste your boss's money) and very little to none in the public sector. No one votes for politicians based on objective performance data. It'd wild to me how it's considered American to have this sort of bid process because "free markets" and "small government" but the results are everything Americans accuse socialist countries of being.

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]

asdff 4y ago

Its also that you have thousands of miles of road in disrepair, and you have budget to deal with 1% of that so to be pragmatic you triage but people miss that and equate such pragmatism with incompetence.

bumby 4y ago

The government has lots of employees who came from the private sector and know exactly how that side of the house works. They aren't really this disjointed set of workers. IMO, a lot of the differences come from the different set of rules that govt work has to run by. For example, Aldi can just decide to hire a contractor that they know does good work at a reasonable price. In contrast, the govt has to use a lengthy fair and open bid process and if they want to select a bid that isn't the lowest, it's a painstaking process to justify that selection. Govt work must adhere to certain laws that tend to push up labor wages (see: Davis Bacon Act). Plus, the govt has lots of other competing goals, like supporting minority or veteran-owned business etc. A simple comparison misses all of those nuances.

JonChesterfield 4y ago
It's absurd really. Massive pressure to pick the cheapest bid, then very slowly discover that the cheapest option can't actually do a reasonable job in a reasonable timeframe, then some years later try again with the same cheapest must win premise. It's kind of optimising for cost but poorly and with no feedback loop.
- nradov 4y ago
  There is a feedback loop. Under a firm fixed price contract, the vendor has to eat any cost overruns. Contacts can include bonuses for finishing ahead of schedule, or penalties for being late. And there are administrative procedures for barring vendors who fail to deliver as promised from bidding on future contracts.
  - bumby 4y ago
    There are second order effects on those, though. Fixed price contracts incentivize contractors to cut corners to make up for cost overruns or to pad their profits (doubly so if it’s a contractor who underbid to win the contract). Unless you’re willing to pay for a lot of govt oversight, many of those won’t be noticed until the contract is long complete. Even if noticed, you need an organization willing to engage in that legal fight. The administrative controls are lagging indicators at best, and administrative controls are usually one of the least preferable control mechanisms.
ProblemFactory 4y ago
> For example, Aldi can just decide to hire a contractor that they know does good work at a reasonable price. In contrast, the govt has to use a lengthy fair and open bid process and if they want to select a bid that isn't the lowest, it's a painstaking process to justify that selection. It's unfortunate, but probably better than the corruption that anything else will enable in the long run. Churchill said that democracy is the worst form of government, except for all the others. For government spending, lowest bidder is the worst form of contracts, except for all the others.

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]