I have some thoughts on cost overruns on federal transportation projects, including space transportation, over at Open Market.
6 thoughts on ““Strategic Misrepresentation””
Comments are closed.
I have some thoughts on cost overruns on federal transportation projects, including space transportation, over at Open Market.
Comments are closed.
These cost underestimation cannot be explained by error and seems to be best explained by strategic misrepresentation, i.e., lying.
Not a problem of course, because they aren’t responsible to anyone. So just shut up and bend over.
What portion of those inflated costs come not from “strategic misrepresentation” but from the customer shifting the scope of the project after award and directing frequent changes with little regard for the cost and disruption that result?
It takes two to dance. Awards are contracts, changing the terms would mean a new contract. But it’s free money, isn’t it?
How it works in the rest of the world: you underbid? You cover the overruns and try to make it up on the next job.. or, failing that, you beg for forgiveness.. or, failing that, you go bankrupt.
How it works at NASA: you underbid? Oh that’s ok, we’ll just take the money from the projects that came in under budget.. hell, they take the money from the projects that come in on budget and refuse to fund the mission extensions when the project somehow manages to limp to the finish line anyway.
In other words, at NASA, it’s from each according to his ability and to each according to their need.
The Space Show had an interesting interview with someone who actually did government procurement a few months back.
What portion of those inflated costs come not from “strategic misrepresentation” but from the customer shifting the scope of the project after award and directing frequent changes with little regard for the cost and disruption that result?
I wonder how hard it is to bribe the customer to shift the scope enough that you have to endure a profitable alteration of your contract?