Need a book? Engineering books recommendations...

Return to index: [Subject] [Thread] [Date] [Author]

Re: California State Employees' Initiative

[Subject Prev][Subject Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
I thought I had this issue figured out when I read it, but now I'm a little
confused. Of course making the private sector compete purely on direct costs
and ignoring overhead will make it so that private firms will no longer be
able to compete for state work. This should be a "no brainer" and the
initiative, if it passes, will fail when the bids come in on the first
Request for Proposal.

However, after thinking about this issue from a Capitalist's viewpoint,
maybe it's a good thing. Based on supply and demand in a strong economy, the
"good" engineering firms will quit bidding on State work leaving the market
for "bottom feeders". The "bottom feeders" still want to make a living, so,
instead of cutting their rates, they will cut the hours and quality will go
down. Next thing you know, we have a major earthquake and we can pull out
our "panic" rate sheets and make a ton of money without the liability.

The initiative is sounding pretty good to me.

Bill Allen

-----Original Message-----
From: Richard_Ranous/OES(--nospam--at) <Richard_Ranous/OES(--nospam--at)>
To: seaoc(--nospam--at) <seaoc(--nospam--at)>
Date: Tuesday, April 07, 1998 8:40 AM
Subject: Re: California State Employees' Initiative

>You are nearly 100% correct in your evaluation.  Consultant "bids" will be
>evaluated against the direct salary (what an employee gets in his/her pay
>check) using the same number of engineers as the consultant.  It wil be
>hard for a consultant to compete on that basis.
>Secondly, this process would apply to ANY project where State money is