The other companies. Try and keep up.
Again, the rules were changed at the last minute so this company could bid without any oversight. Secondly this company has a history of FRAUD, RACKETEERING, and OVERCHARGING. This company has a proven history of high cost overruns. You really going to sit there and claim it was a sensible decision with taxpayer money to alter bidding rules so a corrupt company with a history of rampant overcharging could win the contract? This is a company that has even recently been busted for money laundering in NY.
Here is their "history" of fraud:
DOT - The United States and Tutor Perini Corporation Settle Civil Fraud Claims for $9.75 Million | Office of Inspector General
Benton J. Campbell, United States Attorney for the Eastern District of New York, today announced the settlement of claims that Tutor Perini Corporation, formerly Perini Corporation (“Perini”), a publicly–traded construction services corporation, falsely and fraudulently reported that certain minority and disadvantaged business enterprises (“DBEs”) were performing subcontracted work on federally funded public works contracts with the City and State of New York, when in fact non–DBE subcontractors were performing the work. Pursuant to the settlement, Perini has paid the United States $9,750,000. The settlement does not constitute an admission of liability by Perini.
But you still haven't answered a single one of my question in your endless parade of blogs. How do they not meet standards? Why shouldn't they be allowed to do the job if they not only meet the standards but are also cheaper? There isn't a single blog from the examiner or whatever other nonsensical airheaded blog that will answer those questions.
Yea ok :lol: I'm sure the fact that the bidding rules were changed at the last minute so the least technically competent company with a history of fraud and racketeering could bid was just a coincidence. :roll:
Smarmy little replies won't get you off the fire. Prove Feinstein helped in changing the rules otherwise you've got nothing like all the other little blogs and backseat journalists you've cited.
His company wasn't allowed to bid on the project until the rules were changed at the last minute
As his company was one of 5 companies to be considered
AND SUBMIT A BID IN A SEALED ENVELOPE, that is demonstratively false.
What part of a rampant history of FRAUD, CORRUPTION, and RACKETEERING do you not understand? Why award taxpayer dollars to a company that has committed fraud and overcharged taxpayers in the past? Why alter the rules at the last minute to award this company a 1billion dollar contract? I will sig bet you right now this project goes over budget by millions.
Just because the company bids at a specific price doesn't mean that's what the project is going to cost taxpayers.
Actually, that's more than likely what it will cost tax payers considering:
1. Cost of similar projects.
2. Project cost overruns.
Sig bet you? I don't play for sigs. I play money and bragging rights. Here is what I'll bet you though: 1 platinum donation, exile from the forum. I win, you make a platinum donation and leave the forum. I lose, I do the same.
Now here are the rules to be met in order to win:
1. You have to prove Feinstein had a role in changing the rules (as that was your original claim).
2. Project has to cost
substantially more than 10% of projected costs (10% is pretty standard in budget overruns). I'd say considering all your false claiming and blog citing that you should show it will run over 50% of projected costs.
Here is what I will have to meet in order to win.
1. Show that final project costs are far less than similar competitors (ie. project will have to cost more than 300 million less than the $1.4B bid made by competitors.
2. Show Tutor-Perini did not have a role in changing the rules.
As was pointed out in the previous post (which you ignored) this same company overcharged the city of LA by millions on a previous contract.
I looked up "Tutor-Peririni" overcharged LA, found nothing on the matter other than people giving their opinion. Why is it that it's only in opinions that he "overcharged" anyone?
4 posts and you still can't answer:
Why is it that the best cost per mile and meeting technical standards is considered "corruption"?
Bronson, you're arguing against your own sources and scrambling for opinions from blogs faster than you answer the original question:
1. Does this company NOT meet technical standards?
2. Did this company and any related parties play a role in changing the rules?
3. How does the ruling body changing the rules to include both cost per mile and safety standards equal corruption?
You can't answer those simple questions and it seems none of your blogs can either. Maybe you should try using less red font, less blogs and maybe come up with something other than weak assumptions to substantiate your low level bias?