On Aug 3, 8:31?pm, "jmcquown" > wrote:
> Dave Smith wrote:
> > Dan wrote:
>
> >> Either Ray is an idiot or you were drunk at the time (or both). A
> >> contract is a contract. If they "go over cost" they eat it. They
> >> don't pass it on to the government and they wouldn't be at risk of
> >> not getting another government job.
>
> > Around here, companies bidding on government contracts have to submit
> > a fitness report to show they are capable of performing the job. If
> > they bid too low they eat the loss. I have never heard of a case
> > where that has happened.
>
> Which rather proves my point. They use substandard materials so they don't
> go over cost and can win the next big government contract by lowballing the
> bid.
>
> I see "Dan" (whoever the hell he is) has elected himself my new Steve Wertz.
> He apparently didn't read my post. I said they have to low-ball the bids to
> win the contract then try to get the work done with quality materials so
> they don't go over budget. I *never* said the government would pay for the
> overages. Dude can't read, obviously.

They didn't read the word "graft" either... gotta be very naive to
think the construction/politico businesses are honest.

Sheldon Payola-Greasypalm-Underthetable