Milwaukee To Pay Absurd Price for Police Uniforms Due to PC Regulations
Yet another blow to the taxpayers because of idiotic PC regulations.
It looks like the Milwaukee Police Department will get the new uniform style it wants, but it could come at a significant price.
The only supplier that made City Hall’s first cut, Goldfish Uniforms, submitted the highest-cost bid by $340,000, a 33% premium compared with one of its main competitors, city records show.
Goldfish, for example, would charge the city $72 for each pair of navy-blue uniform pants, compared with the $53 or $59 bid by two competitors. The contract calls for 9,000 pairs over several years.
The apparent low bidder, current supplier Badger Uniforms, was disqualified along with another contender, Lark Uniform. They did not propose a subcontract with a disadvantaged business, as required by the city, purchasing officials said.
Emphasis mine. This inane feel-good requirement does nothing but drive up the cost of government. Perhaps if we chose our contractors based on the content of their character (and price) and not on the color of their skin, we’d be a better society.
Milwaukee and it’s absurd liberal leaders have step by step dismantled a good city over the 40 years that I have lived in this county. The uniforms, the police chiefs, the social disasters and leaky left wing social programs have slowly sent all of th intelligent, hard working taxpayers out of the city leaving mostly tax eaters and whiners.
The uniforms are just one nutty thing, there is the refusal to have Wal-Mart build a good job facilty on the west side, the useless regualtions on housing, MMSD and on. The population has gone down with tax eaters replacing tax payers.
Right next door we have a very thriving county with everything on the upgrade yet the city and county deteriorate.
Milwaukee wants to put money to silly projects like KRM, Light Rail etc. and forget economic development. They ridicule the “greedy corporations”.
It will never end.Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on December 26, 2008 at 1754 hrs
Or…if the vendors were willing to comply with the requirements of the bid they could win the contracts. It just sounds as if Badger and Lark weren’t willing to do what it takes to win the bid.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on December 26, 2008 at 2059 hrs
Grumps, if you only knew how much time and money is wasted on pointless bid requirements like this.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on December 26, 2008 at 2106 hrs
This inane feel-good requirement does nothing but drive up the cost of government. Perhaps if we chose our contractors based on the content of their character (and price) and not on the color of their skin, we’d be a better society.
If people didn’t choose by the color of the skin in the first place, they wouldn’t need those “inane” requirements.
And given that Dohnal backs up your position, makes my position all the stronger.
Posted by capper on December 26, 2008 at 2213 hrs
...if the vendors were willing to comply with the requirements of the bid…
The point was about the absurdity of the requirements themselves, not an argument that these companies should get the contract. It’s one thing to “encourage” MBE/WBE/EBE participation, or to make their use a factor in the final decision…but to essentially blacklist certain companies because they do not have the correct type of employees, or do not normally utilize a minority subcontractor…is not looking out for the taxpayers.
What this creates is another bidding game. Many times, sham companies are set up in the name of the wife, or a minority employee, just so a box can be checked on a form…and so the politicians can tout the “participation level” in their next campaign. Sometimes, there’s only one subcontractor in town that complies with the requirements - which negates the entire idea of the competitive bid process.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on December 27, 2008 at 0011 hrs
Governement costs what it does largely because people like capper believe cappers’ comments are true. We just elected a “Black” President. I think we’re past set-asides.
Posted by Steve on December 27, 2008 at 0645 hrs
Steve,
There were lots and lots of people that voted against him, just because he was black. A guy down south threatened poll workers with a gun, because he wanted his ballot to vote to keep “that nigger out of the White House”. The RNC just issued a CD including Limpball’s “Barack the Magic Negro”. There’s the video of the guy with the Curious George doll mocked up to be Obama.
No, no racism in this country. Get your head out of the sand, man.
Posted by capper on December 27, 2008 at 1050 hrs
Racism exists on both sides. Liberals are just as racist as conservatives.
As far as the contract, why should there be subcontractors? Obviously, this raised the price of the uniforms and of course the City of Milwaukee is swimming in cash nowdays, isn’t it?
In addition, $72 for a pair of pants? Wow!Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on December 27, 2008 at 1113 hrs
Obama and his guys are just as guilty as the supposed racists elsewhere. Look how he voiced his disgust over the “Bible Belters and the gunowners” when talking to the movie industry elite. They are hardly the center of intellectual thought in this country.. The cultural elite in this country think very poorly of those who reside in “Redneck country”.
Even though history has shown that the greatest area for producing top industry leaders has always been the MIdwest.
When do those people get some favoritism?Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on December 27, 2008 at 1154 hrs
Capper: Your arguments are absurd. You are saying that until there arre no racists, we should continue set-asides. That’s crazy. There will always be racists of all colors and/or ethnicities. Let’s evaluate bids on their merits, not who gets a set-aside. If there is REAL racism, fine. Deal with the problem, not some perception.
Posted by Steve on December 27, 2008 at 1158 hrs
(Sarcasm On)
Dohnal: You just don’t get it, do you? Only Whites can be racists because they have all the power.
(Sarcasm Off)
Posted by Steve on December 27, 2008 at 1204 hrs
Steve,
I don’t know what your life experiences are, but the FACT that there is still such a prevalence of racism, how do we know that the bid selection will be on merit vs. race? You can talk idealistic, but the harsh reality is that there are people that make decisions based on race, and not because of equality laws, but despite of them.
How do you propose to resolve that. Go with the cheapest, and then hope that things are OK? Pay through the nose for every lawsuit of discrimination?
And for Dohnal and Steve, what, the last couple hundred plus years wasn’t good enough for you?
Posted by capper on December 27, 2008 at 1206 hrs
As it is, the decisions are definitely based on race. I would rather do away with racial requirements and take the risk rather than guarantee that the decision will be based partly on race.
Posted by Owen on December 27, 2008 at 1208 hrs
I have a life experience of judging people on the merits, not who or what they are. I disagree with the merits of your arguments, for example.
I also have a life experience of being told I have to like someone because of who they are, not on their merits.
Posted by Steve on December 27, 2008 at 1209 hrs
The sub contractor program is racist or sexist.
how do we know that the bid selection will be on merit vs. race?
Well, considering the oversight on the process and I believe this is the second time this was opened, I think the process was well scrutinized.
Unless there is evidence that Badger Uniform has a history of racism, they should have had the winning bid.Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on December 27, 2008 at 1501 hrs
I have a fair amount of knowledge in the DBE process.
The DBE program is tightly monitored to ensure that any Joe Black, Sue Woman, or Johnnie Vet isn’t a front for a scam. In fact I was aware of a woman trying to get this status and she was flatly denied for damn good reason.
The process has some self policing. If Minority A looses to Minority C and Minority C is a scam, Minority A will have no hesitation turning him in.
The other aspect of this is to have the big companies contract with smaller companies that draw workers from the inner city, etc. Nothing wrong with that. It also helps vets who are trying to start a biz.
It also placates the idiots who are trying to make this a recist/sexist thing because they are easily opiated with gesture like this but quick to anger when you question the merits of the program.
Badger Uniform just didn’t know how to play the game, or maybe didn’t want to. Their bad. In this case it cost the city more money but I don’t believe that is the norm at all.
WisDOT programs and just about every gov bid has DBE requirements in it and DBEs have to bid against each other to get the relationship with the master bidder (now don’t anyone start reading racsist into that phrase) which goes into the master bid.
BTW these DBEs pay taxe like everyone else or go to jail like everyone else.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on December 27, 2008 at 1748 hrs
Hence the ridiculous cost of government.
Posted by Steve on December 27, 2008 at 1854 hrs
As it is, the decisions are definitely based on race. I would rather do away with racial requirements and take the risk rather than guarantee that the decision will be based partly on race.
Spoken like someone who has the upper hand in that scenario.
I fail to see what the issue is for their to be racial equality, and why it has to come to this point. I reckon the fact that you all don’t see the issue is some clue. Perhaps, now that Christmas is over, you can change the bogus “War on Christmas” meme to a bogus “War on Whitey” meme.
BTW, when I had to buy my HOC uniforms from Badger, they were over $50 a pair of pants, and $40 for a shirt. I had my wife alter the long sleeve shirts I got at the beginning to short sleeves as that the clothing allowance wouldn’t go very far. That was over seven years ago. I seriously doubt they went down since then, and we were not allowed to do comparative shopping either. We could only go to Badger.
Posted by capper on December 27, 2008 at 1931 hrs
Hence the ridiculous cost of government.
Righty-O! I said I understand the process. I didn’t say I liked it. As far as stupid gov programs go, DBE is pretty low on the list, cost wise vs benefit wise. The government bidding process is the second stupidist process I have ever seen. There is far more contaminate waste in it than the DBE.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on December 27, 2008 at 2046 hrs
If you write the RFP tight enough on what you are having everyone bid on, cost should be the only consideration. (Total cost….obviously with some purchases you have to figure in differences in ongoing costs, failure rates, etc…but in the end that is quantifiable) Making the decision entirely on a number takes color out of the equation in either direction. I’ve done this for decades in the private sector. and like most people analyzing bids, I couldn’t tell you anything about the makeup of the ownership of any of the vendors I’m studying. I only look at the bid, and their financial statements to make sure I’m dealing with a firm that will be able to deliver on it’s promises.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on December 29, 2008 at 1055 hrs
I’ve done this for decades in the private sector. and like most people analyzing bids, I couldn’t tell you anything about the makeup of the ownership of any of the vendors I’m studying.
...which is exactly the point here! That’s the way the private sector works, but in government, you must know all about the race/gender/economic status of the vendor so that you can pick and choose those needing special treatment.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on December 29, 2008 at 1146 hrs
Total Entries: 19998
Total Comments: 134037
Most Recent Entry: 05/24/2012 05:43 pm
Most Recent Comment on: 05/25/2012 12:32 am
Total Members: 9751
Total Logged in members: 0
Total guests: 89
Total anonymous users: 0
Most Recent Visitor on: 05/25/2012 03:39 am
The most visitors ever was 538 on 12/01/2007 02:11 pm
Protected and licensed under a Creative Commons License (some rights reserved).