GAO Now Investigating DHS Ammo Purchases [Archive] - Glock Talk

PDA

View Full Version : GAO Now Investigating DHS Ammo Purchases


HerrGlock
04-30-2013, 02:33
http://www.usnews.com/news/blogs/washington-whispers/2013/04/29/gao-now-investigating-dhs-ammo-purchases

CAcop
04-30-2013, 02:41
Next up a law saying no federal agency can buy more than 10,000 rounds in a fiscal year without an authorizing act of Congress with a study required to determine if the ammo requirements are in line with past ammo purchases regardless of staffing levels and training requirements.

kingclassic
04-30-2013, 02:50
The Committee on Oversight and Government Reform had hearings on the subject.
This is part one (fast forward about 8 minutes). There are 4 or 5 parts that can be accessed directly on YouTube.

"Oversight of the Federal Government's Procurement of Ammunition" Part I - YouTube

DanaT
04-30-2013, 03:33
Next up a law saying no federal agency can buy more than 10,000 rounds in a fiscal year without an authorizing act of Congress with a study required to determine if the ammo requirements are in line with past ammo purchases regardless of staffing levels and training requirements.

Are you implying that congressional oversight on how money is spent is a bad thing? Or are you saying that jsutification (i.e. a study) of why increased expenditures by government agencies are actually necessary?

I am not understanding you comments. Are you against oversight of spending by the GAO and congress or are you saying there should be oversight by the GAO and congress on how money is spent by govt agencies?

Peace Warrior
04-30-2013, 03:35
The social security administration officials agents need hundreds of thousands of rounds to make sure those checks/debit cards get there on time! :upeyes:

DanaT
04-30-2013, 03:38
Next up a law saying no federal agency can buy more than 10,000 rounds in a fiscal year without an authorizing act of Congress

You do realize that a federal agencies right now cannot spend any money on anything without an act of congress? Congress, and only congress, must authorize federal budgets and/or spending every year. So what changes?

Bruce M
04-30-2013, 06:10
I wonder how much DHS spends on fuel?

CAcop
04-30-2013, 09:02
You do realize that a federal agencies right now cannot spend any money on anything without an act of congress? Congress, and only congress, must authorize federal budgets and/or spending every year. So what changes?

What I am saying is that tinfoil hatters or people with poor comprehension are not going to like what the GAO says. So they will ***** and some loon like one of the Paul boys will propose a law that all ammo and firearms purchases must be run past congress prior to purchase with a study and justification for the necessity. Past practice will not be allowed. Of course this will be the only budget area under such scrutiny. They can buy as many pens and notepads as they want. Hell, I wouldn't be surprised if they have a contract with Staples that essentially reads the same for pens and notepads.

Of course people are lapping up all the hysteria because the politicians with an agenda need cash for the next campaign cycle.

Go check out all the threads where we in LE, you know, subject matter experts, are saying the amount of rounds is not out of line with training needs.

Of course you watch COPS so you know better than people in the business so we are evil jackbooted thugs.

Every time you and others like you open your mouths or type on your keyboards you show just how ignorant and foolish you are. You really should stop. But you can't. I don't really care because in the end you are an outlier.

GSD17
04-30-2013, 09:05
With the size of DHS and it's adjunct training, I don't think that 1.6 billion rounds is out of reach of it's ammo needs.

fwm
04-30-2013, 09:20
With the size of DHS and it's adjunct training, I don't think that 1.6 billion rounds is out of reach of it's ammo needs.

I think the point is, that is a wars worth of ammunition. Just maybe there are too many people in the DHS.

DanaT
04-30-2013, 09:21
Go check out all the threads where we in LE, you know, subject matter experts, are saying the amount of rounds is not out of line with training needs.

Of course you watch COPS so you know better than people in the business so we are evil jackbooted thugs.

Every time you and others like you open your mouths or type on your keyboards you show just how ignorant and foolish you are. You really should stop. But you can't. I don't really care because in the end you are an outlier.

Funny, that you extrapolate that. I said nothing about the amount of rounds purchased or used for training. Please show me where I said anything about the amount of ammo used from training. In fact, you have extrapolated something about LE when I expressly said “congressional oversight on how money is spent” and “government agencies”

Are you implying that congressional oversight on how money is spent is a bad thing? Or are you saying that jsutification (i.e. a study) of why increased expenditures by government agencies are actually necessary?

I am not understanding you comments. Are you against oversight of spending by the GAO and congress or are you saying there should be oversight by the GAO and congress on how money is spent by govt agencies?

So, spending is the issue as a previous posted had mentioned fuel usage and you mentioned pens. All spending needs to be carefully looked at because govt agencies are not spending THEIR money, they are spending the PEOPLES money. It is easy for a govt agency to say we need $XXXXXX to be able to do our job because it is not THEIR money and they do not have to worry about earning more of it. They simply take money others earn and have the mentality that there is a never ending fountain of money.

So, yes, if the DHS came with a budget that was 250 pens per employees per year, that is something that needs to be questioned. They may THINK they need 250 pens per year, but maybe they could really get by with only 125 pens and re-use a pen a second day instead of a new one every day.

It is always easy to spend someone elses money.

So lets now get to you comment about ammo. What I would do is give each employee somewhere in the range of $750 to $1000 for ammo per year. They can then choose how much practice they really need. I suspect that if they had the choice of keeping the extra $1000 in their pocket and spending the extra $1000 on ammo, they would keep most of the $1000 and the amount of ammo “needed” would go down a lot.

This is a very similar situation to uniforms. Employees that are given free uniforms tend to go through a lot of them; employees that have to pay for uniforms tend to take better care of them and use their resources more efficiently.

CAcop
04-30-2013, 09:35
Funny, that you extrapolate that. I said nothing about the amount of rounds purchased or used for training. Please show me where I said anything about the amount of ammo used from training. In fact, you have extrapolated something about LE when I expressly said “congressional oversight on how money is spent” and “government agencies”



So, spending is the issue as a previous posted had mentioned fuel usage and you mentioned pens. All spending needs to be carefully looked at because govt agencies are not spending THEIR money, they are spending the PEOPLES money. It is easy for a govt agency to say we need $XXXXXX to be able to do our job because it is not THEIR money and they do not have to worry about earning more of it. They simply take money others earn and have the mentality that there is a never ending fountain of money.

So, yes, if the DHS came with a budget that was 250 pens per employees per year, that is something that needs to be questioned. They may THINK they need 250 pens per year, but maybe they could really get by with only 125 pens and re-use a pen a second day instead of a new one every day.

It is always easy to spend someone elses money.

So lets now get to you comment about ammo. What I would do is give each employee somewhere in the range of $750 to $1000 for ammo per year. They can then choose how much practice they really need. I suspect that if they had the choice of keeping the extra $1000 in their pocket and spending the extra $1000 on ammo, they would keep most of the $1000 and the amount of ammo “needed” would go down a lot.

This is a very similar situation to uniforms. Employees that are given free uniforms tend to go through a lot of them; employees that have to pay for uniforms tend to take better care of them and use their resources more efficiently.

This is where you show your ignorance.

Officers who pay for their own ammo do not practice and put the city at higher risk for lawsuits. Your plan is foolish. The government would be laying out cash that would just go into pockets rather than needed practice. Then the government would have to pay out more money on lawsuits.

Officers who buy their own uniforms wear them until they are trashed. Officers who don't have to buy them just ask for new ones when they are worn.

As to pens. If there are boxes of pens left over then too many pens were bought. If they are scrounging for pens at the end of the year or they have to make a special purchase costing more per pen then if they bought the right amount.

Or in the case of this ammo purchase they secured the right to buy up to a certain amount.

Remember they haven't actually bought all the rounds. They secured the right to buy all those if needed.

There is plenty of outrage to find in government. This isn't one of them unless you just need to find more hate fuel for the police.

DanaT
04-30-2013, 09:48
You seen to be misunderstanding.

The govt needs to cut 50% of spending. I dont give a damn if it is on welfare recipients, SS, pens, new shiny cars, etc. There is a govt spending problem and I applaud any efforts to get it under control. People in govt tend to see it as a revenue problem and they just arent getting enough of other peoples money.

DanaT
04-30-2013, 09:55
\This is where you show your ignorance.

Officers who pay for their own ammo do not practice and put the city at higher risk for lawsuits.

It is always easy to spend someone elses money.

Golly gee. Didn't I just say that its always easier to spend someone elses money?

If something is important to me, I will spend money on it. If its not important, I probably wouldnt spend my money on it.

Let me give you an example that I see. I fly a few miles per year (ok, more than a few). I like to fly in comfort. when someone else is paying for it, I buy expensive tickets because it is a "necessity". However, when I calculate that to sit in the nice section of the airplane and have a cheese plate and ice cream sundaes for dessert, it costs about $400/hr more (and we are talking 12hrs) than getting no ice cream, it is hard to really justify as a "necessity". How many people in the nice section of the airplane do you think actually pay for their own tickets? How many people in row 79 do you think pay for their own tickets?

DanaT
04-30-2013, 09:59
Remember they haven't actually bought all the rounds. They secured the right to buy all those if needed.

Every contract that I have ever seen that guarantees production quantities to be delivered has required significant amounts of down payments that are non-refundable.

If I promise to make X qty of widgets when you demand them, that means I have to have at a minimum production capacity to make X qty of widgets. If I dont have this, I must build up the capacity. I will not build unused capacity in hopes you will buy something; I must have my fixed costs covered for your idle production capacity. The only thing I will not charge you up front is variable costs.

expatman
04-30-2013, 10:42
Every contract that I have ever seen that guarantees production quantities to be delivered has required significant amounts of down payments that are non-refundable.

If I promise to make X qty of widgets when you demand them, that means I have to have at a minimum production capacity to make X qty of widgets. If I dont have this, I must build up the capacity. I will not build unused capacity in hopes you will buy something; I must have my fixed costs covered for your idle production capacity. The only thing I will not charge you up front is variable costs.

I think the point he was trying to make was that these contracts are all Indefinite Delivery Indefinite Quantity (IDIQ) contracts. It secures the amount to buy "up to a certain amount" if desired and for a limited period of time. This ammo has yet to be physically purchased and delivered as of yet.

DanaT
04-30-2013, 10:54
I think the point he was trying to make was that these contracts are all Indefinite Delivery Indefinite Quantity (IDIQ) contracts. It secures the amount to buy "up to a certain amount" if desired and for a limited period of time. This ammo has yet to be physically purchased and delivered as of yet.

https://acquisition.gov/far/html/Subpart%2016_5.html




3) Indefinite-quantity contracts limit the Government’s obligation to the minimum quantity specified in the contract.

16.504 Indefinite-quantity contracts
(1) The contract must require the Government to order and the contractor to furnish at least a stated minimum quantity of supplies or services.

(2) To ensure that the contract is binding, the minimum quantity must be more than a nominal quantity, but it should not exceed the amount that the Government is fairly certain to order.

So he is trying to make the point that govt has already ordered a minimum quantity and is fairly certain to order this amount. A somehow this means they haven't committed to spend this amount of money?

expatman
04-30-2013, 11:03
I don't know what the gov. is committed to doing. I was just pointing out that I do not think they are required to purchase the entire maximum amount that everyone is getting excited about. They may decide to cut their purchases short of that amount at sometime.

certifiedfunds
04-30-2013, 11:16
Next up a law saying no federal agency can buy more than 10,000 rounds in a fiscal year without an authorizing act of Congress with a study required to determine if the ammo requirements are in line with past ammo purchases regardless of staffing levels and training requirements.

That sounds most excellent! I would certainly support a bill like this or something similar.

certifiedfunds
04-30-2013, 11:18
I think the point is, that is a wars worth of ammunition. Just maybe there are too many people in the DHS.

Winner!

certifiedfunds
04-30-2013, 11:24
Officers who pay for their own ammo do not practice and put the city at higher risk for lawsuits. Your plan is foolish. The government would be laying out cash that would just go into pockets rather than needed practice. Then the government would have to pay out more money on lawsuits.



How many times does the average officer fire his gun in the line of duty?

What is special about police officers that they won't/can't spend their own money becoming better at what they do? Everyone else does it in industries where taxpayers aren't footing the bill.

Officers who buy their own uniforms wear them until they are trashed. Officers who don't have to buy them just ask for new ones when they are worn.



Only 2 options?

Option 3: Implement standards that prohibit officers from wearing "trashed" uniforms......you know.....like most any other employer. Show up in a trashed uni? Go home. No pay.

Option 4: Let them wear "trashed" unis. Worse things could happen.

Option 5: Expect them to be professional no matter who pays for the uni.

What you're essentially saying is that officers will make more expeditious use of their own funds than they will of taxpayer funds. You've accidentally backed into the problem.

DanaT
04-30-2013, 11:27
Option 3: Implement standards that prohibit officers from wearing "trashed" uniforms......you know.....like most any other employer. Show up in a trashed uni? Go home. No pay.

Option 4: Let them wear "trashed" unis. Worse things could happen.

Option 5: Expect them to be professional no matter who pays for the uni.

No-one except me pays for the clothes I wear to work. Somehow, I manage to wear decent clothes even with no-one else paying for them. I wonder why I am not having problems with wearing trashed clothes to work even when someone else isnt paying for it?

CAcop
04-30-2013, 13:22
https://acquisition.gov/far/html/Subpart%2016_5.html




3) Indefinite-quantity contracts limit the Government’s obligation to the minimum quantity specified in the contract.

16.504 Indefinite-quantity contracts
(1) The contract must require the Government to order and the contractor to furnish at least a stated minimum quantity of supplies or services.

(2) To ensure that the contract is binding, the minimum quantity must be more than a nominal quantity, but it should not exceed the amount that the Government is fairly certain to order.

So he is trying to make the point that govt has already ordered a minimum quantity and is fairly certain to order this amount. A somehow this means they haven't committed to spend this amount of money?

The round count isn't a min it's a max and either you failed to read or you are deliberately misleading.

CAcop
04-30-2013, 13:23
That sounds most excellent! I would certainly support a bill like this or something similar.

Because there would be no increased costs from doing it that way.:upeyes:

CAcop
04-30-2013, 13:26
How many times does the average officer fire his gun in the line of duty?

What is special about police officers that they won't/can't spend their own money becoming better at what they do? Everyone else does it in industries where taxpayers aren't footing the bill.



Only 2 options?

Option 3: Implement standards that prohibit officers from wearing "trashed" uniforms......you know.....like most any other employer. Show up in a trashed uni? Go home. No pay.

Option 4: Let them wear "trashed" unis. Worse things could happen.

Option 5: Expect them to be professional no matter who pays for the uni.

What you're essentially saying is that officers will make more expeditious use of their own funds than they will of taxpayer funds. You've accidentally backed into the problem.

Seriously? Who do you think pays for lawsuits for that "rare" shootout? After all it isn't like every 53 hours a cop gets killed. From gunfire alone it is probably around 72 hours. Throw in all the other nonfatal to police shootings. How many opportunities from missed shots?

Is it not in the government's and taxpayers' interests to have well trained officers to avoid lawsuits?

CAcop
04-30-2013, 13:42
How many times does the average officer fire his gun in the line of duty?

What is special about police officers that they won't/can't spend their own money becoming better at what they do? Everyone else does it in industries where taxpayers aren't footing the bill.



Only 2 options?

Option 3: Implement standards that prohibit officers from wearing "trashed" uniforms......you know.....like most any other employer. Show up in a trashed uni? Go home. No pay.

Option 4: Let them wear "trashed" unis. Worse things could happen.

Option 5: Expect them to be professional no matter who pays for the uni.

What you're essentially saying is that officers will make more expeditious use of their own funds than they will of taxpayer funds. You've accidentally backed into the problem.

Define unserviceable.

What about officers waiting for months for the uniform store to send the uniforms?

Then of course if you pay an officer a set amount for uniforms every year you are essentially paying him to buy them. Of course you could set up an account with a uniform store and get a discount because you are sending multiple officers per year to get uniforms. Even if you insist on doing it your way guess what my contract is going to read about uniforms? My cost not the city's cost if they were buying them.

If your employer wanted you to wear a uniform they would provide you it. They don't so they pay you extra to do it. Hell, our detectives get paid 5% more just for that reason.

GSD17
04-30-2013, 14:24
I think the point is, that is a wars worth of ammunition. Just maybe there are too many people in the DHS.

This, I could agree with.

DOWNSIZE the damn government.

certifiedfunds
04-30-2013, 14:44
Define unserviceable.

What about officers waiting for months for the uniform store to send the uniforms?

Then of course if you pay an officer a set amount for uniforms every year you are essentially paying him to buy them. Of course you could set up an account with a uniform store and get a discount because you are sending multiple officers per year to get uniforms. Even if you insist on doing it your way guess what my contract is going to read about uniforms? My cost not the city's cost if they were buying them.

If your employer wanted you to wear a uniform they would provide you it. They don't so they pay you extra to do it. Hell, our detectives get paid 5% more just for that reason.

:rofl: You realize most of the rest of the working world pays for their own work clothes, right? Show up sloppy you go home. My employer specifies business suits. They don't pay me any more to buy them and, yes, I've ruined several on the job.

It isn't as complicated as you make it. If I was on the other side of your contract negotiation your contract would say you provide your own uniforms and that they must be professional in appearance, with that defined in some way. The military manages to define it just fine as do many, many private employers across the country.

certifiedfunds
04-30-2013, 14:47
Because there would be no increased costs from doing it that way.:upeyes:

Ammo costs for government agencies are a rounding error. I have no expectation for competency or efficiency in government. Why should I start with ammo purchases?

certifiedfunds
04-30-2013, 14:52
Seriously? Who do you think pays for lawsuits for that "rare" shootout? After all it isn't like every 53 hours a cop gets killed. From gunfire alone it is probably around 72 hours. Throw in all the other nonfatal to police shootings. How many opportunities from missed shots?



Sounds like it's in cops' best interest to practice no matter who's buying the ammo.

Lawsuits aside, I'm sure they have a conscience.

Do you have any data showing bad shoot lawsuit damages awarded per year?

Is it not in the government's and taxpayers' interests to have well trained officers to avoid lawsuits?

Sure it is. I would think its in the officer's best interest too. Given that, how many times in an average officer's career does he fire his gun on duty?

Either way, like you say, cops are not unique. They make more expeditious use of their own resources than they do of taxpayer resources. Its human nature.

RonS
04-30-2013, 15:03
They can have all the ammo they want but they need to ban most federal agencies from having tac teams. Department of Education does not need a SWAT team. It has become a status symbol like who has the biggest desk or coolest car.

G19G20
04-30-2013, 15:21
CACop is right that I probably won't like what GAO has to say after the investigation but I will ALWAYS support an effort by Congress and the GAO to oversee whether money is being spent properly, for genuine needs, within any federal agency. There's absolutely nothing wrong with that when you're spending someone else's money and already deeply in debt.

DanaT
04-30-2013, 16:46
The round count isn't a min it's a max and either you failed to read or you are deliberately misleading.

Wrong.

Those are govt requirements for an indefinite supply contract. They guarantee a minimum quantity ordere but allow an additional quantity ordered. If you believe that being misleading is pointing to the us govt contract requirements for an indefinite supply contract is misleading, then it is obvious that people will be able to tell who is following an agenda.


Posted using Outdoor Hub Campfire (http://www.outdoorhub.com/mobile/)

DanaT
04-30-2013, 17:04
Is it not in the government's and taxpayers' interests to have well trained officers to avoid lawsuits?

This is simple to remedy. Pass a law that removes Qualified Immunity.

If a govt employee does something based upon what the employer directly requires, then the employer should be liable. However if the employee takes a decision on their own accord, then the employee is liable and not the govt.

Have it work just like the private sector. I suspect if the officers were personally liable for their actions and only the officers could be sued (i.e. limited amounts of money that could be recovered) if it wasnt a decision made by the employer, the number of lawsuits would go down.

What I dont get is with sovereign immunity and qualified immunity, why would a LE agency following the laws be worried about lawsuits based upon the amount of ammunition they did or did not purchase?

skeeter1959
04-30-2013, 23:06
I really don't think that DHS is out to buy up all of the ammo, but I thinks it's fun to watch any govt agency go under the microscope.

Haldor
04-30-2013, 23:26
:rofl: You realize most of the rest of the working world pays for their own work clothes, right? Show up sloppy you go home. My employer specifies business suits. They don't pay me any more to buy them and, yes, I've ruined several on the job.

It isn't as complicated as you make it. If I was on the other side of your contract negotiation your contract would say you provide your own uniforms and that they must be professional in appearance, with that defined in some way. The military manages to define it just fine as do many, many private employers across the country.

Not people in uniform. If your employer expects you to wear clothing that is not to be worn off the job then they normally pay for it.

eccho
05-01-2013, 00:56
What I am saying is that tinfoil hatters or people with poor comprehension are not going to like what the GAO says. So they will ***** and some loon like one of the Paul boys will propose a law that all ammo and firearms purchases must be run past congress prior to purchase with a study and justification for the necessity. Past practice will not be allowed. Of course this will be the only budget area under such scrutiny. They can buy as many pens and notepads as they want. Hell, I wouldn't be surprised if they have a contract with Staples that essentially reads the same for pens and notepads.

Of course people are lapping up all the hysteria because the politicians with an agenda need cash for the next campaign cycle.

Go check out all the threads where we in LE, you know, subject matter experts, are saying the amount of rounds is not out of line with training needs.

Of course you watch COPS so you know better than people in the business so we are evil jackbooted thugs.

Every time you and others like you open your mouths or type on your keyboards you show just how ignorant and foolish you are. You really should stop. But you can't. I don't really care because in the end you are an outlier.

Dude, nothing about that was necessary.

DanaT
05-01-2013, 01:23
The round count isn't a min it's a max and either you failed to read or you are deliberately misleading.

Wrong.

Those are govt requirements for an indefinite supply contract. They guarantee a minimum quantity ordere but allow an additional quantity ordered. If you believe that being misleading is pointing to the us govt contract requirements for an indefinite supply contract is misleading, then it is obvious that people will be able to tell which of us is following an agenda based upon our distorted world view


Posted using Outdoor Hub Campfire (http://www.outdoorhub.com/mobile/)


Posted using Outdoor Hub Campfire (http://www.outdoorhub.com/mobile/)