Korean Job Discussion Forums :: View topic - The sleaze that shames Seoul

Speak Korean Now!

Teach English Abroad and Get Paid to see the World!

Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"

FAQ

Memberlist

Usergroups

Profile

The sleaze that shames Seoul
Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 Next

Korean Job Discussion Forums Forum Index -> General Discussion Forum

View previous topic :: View next topic

Author

Message

atwood

Joined: 26 Dec 2009

Posted: Sun Feb 05, 2012 3:05 pm Post subject:

TheUrbanMyth wrote:

atwood wrote:

TheUrbanMyth wrote:

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/14/business/14prosecute.html?_r=2&pagewanted=all

Quote:

But several years after the financial crisis, which was caused in large part by reckless lending and excessive risk taking by major financial institutions, no senior executives have been charged or imprisoned, and a collective government effort has not emerged.

Quote:

But legal experts point to numerous questionable activities where criminal probes might have borne fruit and possibly still could.

Investigators, they argue, could look more deeply at the failure of executives to fully disclose the scope of the risks on their books during the mortgage mania, or the amounts of questionable loans they bundled into securities sold to investors that soured.

Prosecutors also could pursue evidence that executives knowingly awarded bonuses to themselves and colleagues based on overly optimistic valuations of mortgage assets � in effect, creating illusory profits that were wiped out by subsequent losses on the same assets. And they might also investigate whether executives cashed in shares based on inside information, or misled regulators and their own boards about looming problems.

As the NYT notes there has not been a SINGLE case of a really high flyer being prosecuted for the collapse of the economy.

Certainly nobody on the scale of Kim Seung-youn. Or Jeong-Mong Koo. Or Lee Gun Hee.

At least charges were/are being bought against them as opposed to passively turning a blind eye. So spare us the talk about consequences.

That story is dated April 14. Things have changed since then.
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/26/business/new-housing-task-force-takes-aim-at-wall-st.html?pagewanted=all

But you're presupposing that the economy collapsed due to illegal activity. Last I looked stupidity and greed weren't illegal.

I am presupposing nothing of the kind. That is what the GOVERNMENT is doing. Otherwise there would be no task force. And no things have not changed all that much...there are still no major prosecutions as the article itself states.

Anyway my point was clear. If in Korea the top 1% are getting prosecuted and sentenced (even if pardoned later on by their cronies in government) that still seems to be better than in the States where it seems so far to be swept under the rug.

This for example does not look serious

Quote:

With only a year left in the president�s term, the task force also has a limited amount of time to produce results.

Any decent lawyer (and you can bet Wall Street has some of the best) can stonewall or throw up roadblocks until the task force simply runs out of time.
Nor as the article makes clear am I the only skeptic.

But it's not being swept under the rug in the U.S.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-16296146
http://www.pressherald.com/business/bank-gets-_108-million-fine_2010-06-08.html
http://www.boston.com/business/articles/2004/03/11/bank_of_america_fined_record_10m/
http://www.ketknbc.com/news/bank-america-fined-150-mil
http://www.fiercefinance.com/story/goldman-sachs-fined-trader-huddles/2011-06-09
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-11-09/goldman-sachs-fined-650-000-for-failing-to-disclose-sec-probe.html
http://content.usatoday.com/communities/ondeadline/post/2010/05/goldman-sachs-fined-censured-over-naked-short-sales-/1
http://www.bvonmoney.com/2010/07/16/goldman-sachs-550-million-fine-subprime-mortgages/
http://www.politicker.com/2012/02/03/eric-schneiderman-suing-three-major-banks-for-deceptive-and-fraudulent-foreclosure-practices/

Plenty of consequences there.

atwood

Joined: 26 Dec 2009

Posted: Sun Feb 05, 2012 3:11 pm Post subject:

Steelrails wrote:

atwood wrote:

The Tea Party movement has nothing to do with corruption and the OWS movement very little. You're reaching, per your SOP.

You're the one who's been bamboozled by headlines.

And dude, that has to be one of the weakest apologies yet for Korea- a multi-party system is inherently corrupt. Why is that?

The Tea Party movement and Occupy have nothing to do with Corruption?

This from one movement where many people claim that Obama is not a US Citizen and some sort of Islamo-Communist? and that the Republican Party has sold out its principles?

And the other movement that says that the top 1% are getting away with "Crony Capitalism" and the fleecing of America?

Yeah, doesn't sound like corruption at all to me...

Again you twist my words. I didn't say OWS had NOTHING to do with corruption. But it's mostly about inequality and lack of opportunity.

Besides, everything "sounds like corruption" to you, undercutting any point you might someday actually make.

Steelrails

Joined: 12 Mar 2009
Location: Earth, Solar System

Posted: Sun Feb 05, 2012 4:51 pm Post subject:

atwood wrote:

TheUrbanMyth wrote:

atwood wrote:

TheUrbanMyth wrote:

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/14/business/14prosecute.html?_r=2&pagewanted=all

Quote:

With only a year left in the president�s term, the task force also has a limited amount of time to produce results.

Sorry if I find Bank of America's 100 million dollar fine a yawn compared to its $20 billion bailout.

That's like sending Al Capone to community service.

Quote:

Besides, everything "sounds like corruption" to you, undercutting any point you might someday actually make.

Because if you really look at things you understand how they are corrupt. You think environmental laws are there to prevent corruption? You do realize those laws are there to make it easier for large corporations to seize property, right? Lobbying? Pork-Barrel? We want to bomb Iraq. Will you build a weapons factory in my state? Absolutely Senator.

What you think the judicial system is there to protect you? You think the Judge is a neutral arbiter between the prosecution and defense? You think the police are there to serve you?

And yes, sometimes they get caught and punished. Often nothing happens and you don't even learn until they're dead.

Dude, 90% of the posters on the CE forums in Dave's think the US is corrupt and they're getting away with it. Please don't kid us.

atwood

Joined: 26 Dec 2009

Posted: Sun Feb 05, 2012 7:41 pm Post subject:

Steelrails wrote:

atwood wrote:

TheUrbanMyth wrote:

atwood wrote:

TheUrbanMyth wrote:

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/14/business/14prosecute.html?_r=2&pagewanted=all

Quote:

With only a year left in the president�s term, the task force also has a limited amount of time to produce results.

Sorry if I find Bank of America's 100 million dollar fine a yawn compared to its $20 billion bailout.

That's like sending Al Capone to community service.

Quote:

Besides, everything "sounds like corruption" to you, undercutting any point you might someday actually make.

That says more about the posters than the U.S.

Dude, your whole argument is that everyone and every institution is corrupt. Prove it. Start with yourself.

As for the environment: http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/keystone-pipeline-opponents-pin-hopes-on-nebraska/2011/09/25/gIQAh6qaxK_story.html

I've been to court and got more than a fair shake from the judge, etc. I guess I'm just one out of 350 million Americans who somehow got lucky.

And how about some proof of large corporations seizing property for environmental purposes?

Steelrails

Joined: 12 Mar 2009
Location: Earth, Solar System

Posted: Sun Feb 05, 2012 8:50 pm Post subject:

Quote:

Dude, your whole argument is that everyone and every institution is corrupt. Prove it. Start with yourself.

Prove that they are not.

Are you seriously that naive that you believe most government run institutions back home are not corrupt?

Well you've already proven it for me. We have quite a large sample already on this thread of corruption, just from examples you've posted.

Let's see for the Congress we could start with the numerous scandals as well as the culture of lobbying and pork-barrel. Over to the Executive branch and we could look at Presidential Pardons of donors and people who "took a fall" for the administration, such as Scooter Libby (Yeah, I'm sure Libby is bemoaning being disbarred as he acts as a consultant for some firm- wooooo big scary punishment there).

The Judiciary seems to fare a little better, though there was still the recent Kids for Cash scandal.

Quote:

As for the environment: http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/keystone-pipeline-opponents-pin-hopes-on-nebraska/2011/09/25/gIQAh6qaxK_story.html

This just proves my point. It's not about principle's, it's about interests. Republicans are suddenly pro-environment? No, it's because in this case it's in their interests to be opposed to the pipeline. That's corruption, albeit in a much milder form.

If that pipeline went through Kansas tand would ravage the environment there, but wouldn't do so to Nebraska and they promised to employ a bunch of workers from Nebraska in exchange for support, do you think those lawmakers would have the same view?

Quote:

I've been to court and got more than a fair shake from the judge, etc. I guess I'm just one out of 350 million Americans who somehow got lucky.

I've been in front of a judge and gotten a fair shake. In fact all but one. But the one...

Well go to 14-X District Court in Michigan if you want to see a "fair" judge. It's an open secret but no one cares because the majority white voters are happy to see a black judge throw in jail as many black people in jail as he can. Judge X (On the off-chance that somehow this is noticed in a web search and I'm hunted down for slander or something- He's like that). Dude is a character. Having sat in on his court for Law classes I was absolutely stunned at the antics that went on in his courtroom. Prosecutor doesn't even have to say anything, Judge does all the talking for em. The Probation officer openly complained about how his court was a circus, shortly before she was forced out. Everyone knew he was into the blow to. But like I said, he was "Tough on Crime". That and the Bar Association loved him because he would sentence people completely differently based on if they just had a lawyer present. Word got around that in his court you had to have a lawyer. Lawyer wouldn't do nothing but just stand there and get paid. Not say one word. But if you had one there you'd get Sentence package B instead of A. Everyone in the Bar gets paid. What are normal folk going to do? File a lawsuit alleging violations of civil rights? Word was if you tried anything you'd end up getting either A) Sued (if you were middle class) or B) Arrested (If you were poor) and that if anyone spilled real dirt, well it "looks like a drug murder". It was comedy. An open secret. But it was a game with rules. And if those getting run through the system played ball and went along, things would be smooth. You sentence cost you big bucks and sounded tough on paper, but no one ever got dropped for random or called out on their obviously fake AA attendance reports. All a game.

Quote:

And how about some proof of large corporations seizing property for environmental purposes?

Few years back out by neighborhood the city wanted to buy up the property as part of a greenbelt. This included places where people already lived. City pitched a fair price,some people refused. Lo and behold a year of haggle later they all had to do soil tests and those that were found to have contamination would have to pay huge money in cleanup/fines.

Now you may go ahead and dismiss these as anecdotes, fine. But given the daily headlines we read of corruption going on in the states, is it really safe to assume that "Everyone who gets caught, is everyone who is doing it?" And that if you are caught, you don't get off with a slap on the wrist.

I mean look at this list and look at some of the "punishments" given.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_federal_political_scandals_in_the_United_States

David Safavian GSA (General Services Administration) Chief of Staff,[46] found guilty of blocking justice and lying,[47] and sentenced to 18 months[48]
Roger Stillwell (R) Staff in the Department of the Interior under President George W. Bush (R). Pleaded guilty and received two years suspended sentence. [9]
Susan B. Ralston (R) Special Assistant to the President and Senior Advisor to Karl Rove, resigned October 6, 2006 after it became known that she accepted gifts and passed information to her former boss Jack Abramoff.[49]
J. Steven Griles (R) former Deputy to the Secretary of the Interior pleaded guilty to obstruction of justice and was sentenced to 10 months.[50]
Italia Federici (R) staff to the Secretary of Interior, and President of the Council of Republicans for Environmental Advocacy, pled guilty to tax evasion and obstruction of justice. She was sentenced to four years probation.[51][52][53]
Jared Carpenter (R) Vice-President of the Council of Republicans for Environmental Advocacy, was discovered during the Abramoff investigation and pled guilty to income tax evasion. He got 45 days, plus 4 years probation.[54]
Mark Zachares (R) staff in the Department of Labor, bribed by Abramoff, guilty of conspiracy to defraud.[45]
Robert E. Coughlin (R) Deputy Chief of Staff, Criminal Division of the Justice Department pleaded guilty to conflict of interest after accepting bribes from Jack Abramoff. (2008) [52]

Now that's what I call getting tough!

Seriously, what makes you believe that non-corruption is the norm?

atwood

Joined: 26 Dec 2009

Posted: Sun Feb 05, 2012 11:47 pm Post subject:

Steelrails wrote:

Quote:

Dude, your whole argument is that everyone and every institution is corrupt. Prove it. Start with yourself.

Quote:

As for the environment: http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/keystone-pipeline-opponents-pin-hopes-on-nebraska/2011/09/25/gIQAh6qaxK_story.html

Quote:

I've been to court and got more than a fair shake from the judge, etc. I guess I'm just one out of 350 million Americans who somehow got lucky.

Quote:

And how about some proof of large corporations seizing property for environmental purposes?

You went to law school and you use hearsay--"everyone knew he was into the blow" to support your admitted anecdote. It's nice that you admit it, throwing yourself on the mercy of the court, so to speak. Odd though when you say all the courts are corrupt.

Wrong on the headline exaggeration. Wrong on what's "tough"and what's not because you've got no context to judge by. For example, Griles' sentence was double the recommended sentence.

You're grasping at straws. That list shows there are consequences, proving my point. Again and again and again.

Steelrails

Joined: 12 Mar 2009
Location: Earth, Solar System

Posted: Mon Feb 06, 2012 12:09 am Post subject:

Quote:

You're grasping at straws. That list shows there are consequences, proving my point. Again and again and again.

So do you believe that the U.S. is a non-corrupt place? Do you believe that non-corruption is the general order? Do you believe that people who get caught are all the people who get caught? Do you believe that the punishments dished out to them are "stiff"?

Yes in Korea you get caught you thrown up as well and get a sham sentence and a pardon/joke jail time.

And what you think these people in the U.S. live forever in disgrace after their sentence? You think they aren't hired by some lobbying firm or defense company regardless of if they had been disbarred or not?

I'm not saying Korea is not corrupt. I'm merely suggesting that the U.S. isn't the non-corrupt place you think it is.

Seriously, how can you talk about being "Tough on Corruption" when you have this:

Quote:

pled guilty to income tax evasion. He got 45 days, plus 4 years probation

Oooo 45 days. That's some hard time!

And seriously, look at Chicago and the regime of the two Daleys. Look at George W. Bush. The man's regime cooked up evidence of WMDs to start a war that's killed over a hundred thousand Iraqis while giving contracts to all of its military-industrial complex buddies. And the closest they got in all of this was Scooter Libby. No Wolfowitz or Rumsfeld or George "Slam Dunk" Tenet.

But you say the Tea Party and Occupy aren't anti-corruption also. Rolling Eyes

atwood

Joined: 26 Dec 2009

Posted: Mon Feb 06, 2012 4:02 am Post subject:

Steelrails wrote:

Quote:

You're grasping at straws. That list shows there are consequences, proving my point. Again and again and again.

Quote:

pled guilty to income tax evasion. He got 45 days, plus 4 years probation

Again, no facts. Again, putting words in my mouth. Again, changing the argument. You've got nothing.

As for your example, it was tax evasion. You want someone to go to prison for life for tax evasion? And giving up all your personal freedoms is hard time. Prison is no joke.

Defense contracts are bid on. They aren't just handed out like party favors.

Steelrails

Joined: 12 Mar 2009
Location: Earth, Solar System

Posted: Mon Feb 06, 2012 8:05 am Post subject:

atwood wrote:

Steelrails wrote:

Quote:

You're grasping at straws. That list shows there are consequences, proving my point. Again and again and again.

Quote:

pled guilty to income tax evasion. He got 45 days, plus 4 years probation

As for your example, it was tax evasion. You want someone to go to prison for life for tax evasion? And giving up all your personal freedoms is hard time. Prison is no joke.

No, but I don't if its big time, I don't want them doing 45 days either. There are people doing more time for a personal use bag of pot.

TheUrbanMyth

Joined: 28 Jan 2003
Location: Retired

Posted: Mon Feb 06, 2012 8:52 am Post subject:

atwood wrote:

TheUrbanMyth wrote:

atwood wrote:

TheUrbanMyth wrote:

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/14/business/14prosecute.html?_r=2&pagewanted=all

Quote:

With only a year left in the president�s term, the task force also has a limited amount of time to produce results.

Apples and oranges.

We are talking about people from the 1% being charged with a crime and going to jail.
Not corporations/banks being fined.

THAT is what is being swept under the rug. Also most of these fines are a drop in the bucket compared to what these institutions have made over the years and the bailout they received.

TheUrbanMyth

Joined: 28 Jan 2003
Location: Retired

Posted: Mon Feb 06, 2012 9:01 am Post subject:

atwood wrote:

[Defense contracts are bid on. They aren't just handed out like party favors.

Nonsense. The Pentagon hands out plenty of "sole source contracts" up to $140 billion or so in 2010. To put that in perspective "sole source contracts" only amounted to $50 billion in 2001. So in only nine years...it's about tripled.

http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2011/08/the-yearly-bill-for-the-pentagons-no-bid-contracts-140-billion/?utm_source=Contextly&utm_medium=RelatedLinks&utm_campaign=Previous

Quote:

The bomb fighting contract is a small example of a problem that�s been exacerbated by ten years of war: awarding contracts without competition. While Pentagon statistics say the overall level of competition has remained steady during the past decade, publicly available data show that Defense Department dollars flowing into non-competitive contracts have almost tripled since the terrorist attacks of 9/11. According to analysis by the Center for Public Integrity�s iWatch News, the value of Pentagon contracts awarded without competition topped $140 billion in 2010, up from $50 billion in 2001. That�s almost 40 percent of all Pentagon contract dollars

atwood

Joined: 26 Dec 2009

Posted: Mon Feb 06, 2012 4:37 pm Post subject:

TheUrbanMyth wrote:

atwood wrote:

TheUrbanMyth wrote:

atwood wrote:

TheUrbanMyth wrote:

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/14/business/14prosecute.html?_r=2&pagewanted=all

Quote:

With only a year left in the president�s term, the task force also has a limited amount of time to produce results.

There's no we here. I stated consequences. You've shifted the argument to the 1% blah, blah, blah.

The investigations are ongoing. The fines are going to be in the tens of billions of dollars with more fines in the offing if all conditions are not met.

I bet the folks who will be getting that money will be happy, just like these folks were:

Quote:

More than 450,000 borrowers who were charged excessive fees by Countrywide Home Loans when they fell behind on their mortgages will finally begin receiving the $108 million the company agreed to pay in a settlement struck with the Federal Trade Commission in June 2010, the agency said Wednesday.

The number of consumers recovering money in the settlement is one of the largest in the F.T.C.�s history and wound up being double what the commission had estimated. Most will get $500 or less, but 0.16 percent will receive $5,000 or more, the trade commission said.

atwood

Joined: 26 Dec 2009

Posted: Mon Feb 06, 2012 4:44 pm Post subject:

TheUrbanMyth wrote:

atwood wrote:

[Defense contracts are bid on. They aren't just handed out like party favors.

Quote:

So the majority are bid on. The growth in single source contracts and their greater possibility for fraud has already been addressed by the DOD.
And unlike what the post I was replying to implied, contracts, even single source ones, are not just handed out willy-nilly:

Quote:

Subpart 6.3�Other Than Full and Open Competition
6.300 Scope of subpart.

This subpart prescribes policies and procedures, and identifies the statutory authorities, for contracting without providing for full and open competition.
6.301 Policy.

(a) 41 U.S.C. 253(c) and 10 U.S.C. 2304(c) each authorize, under certain conditions, contracting without providing for full and open competition. The Department of Defense, Coast Guard, and National Aeronautics and Space Administration are subject to 10 U.S.C. 2304(c). Other executive agencies are subject to 41 U.S.C. 253(c). Contracting without providing for full and open competition or full and open competition after exclusion of sources is a violation of statute, unless permitted by one of the exceptions in 6.302.

(b) Each contract awarded without providing for full and open competition shall contain a reference to the specific authority under which it was so awarded. Contracting officers shall use the U.S. Code citation applicable to their agency (see 6.302).

(c) Contracting without providing for full and open competition shall not be justified on the basis of�

(1) A lack of advance planning by the requiring activity; or

(2) Concerns related to the amount of funds available (e.g., funds will expire) to the agency or activity for the acquisition of supplies or services.

(d) When not providing for full and open competition, the contracting officer shall solicit offers from as many potential sources as is practicable under the circumstances.

(e) For contracts under this subpart, the contracting officer shall use the contracting procedures prescribed in 6.102(a) or (b), if appropriate, or any other procedures authorized by this regulation.
6.302 Circumstances permitting other than full and open competition.

The following statutory authorities (including applications and limitations) permit contracting without providing for full and open competition. Requirements for justifications to support the use of these authorities are in 6.303.
6.302-1 Only one responsible source and no other supplies or services will satisfy agency requirements.

(a) Authority.

(1) Citations: 10 U.S.C. 2304(c)(1) or 41 U.S.C. 253(c)(1).

(2) When the supplies or services required by the agency are available from only one responsible source, or, for DoD, NASA, and the Coast Guard, from only one or a limited number of responsible sources, and no other type of supplies or services will satisfy agency requirements, full and open competition need not be provided for.

(i) Supplies or services may be considered to be available from only one source if the source has submitted an unsolicited research proposal that�

(A) Demonstrates a unique and innovative concept (see definition at 2.101), or, demonstrates a unique capability of the source to provide the particular research services proposed;

(B) Offers a concept or services not otherwise available to the Government; and

(C) Does not resemble the substance of a pending competitive acquisition. (See 10 U.S.C. 2304(d)(1)(A) and 41 U.S.C. 253(d)(1)(A).)

(ii) Supplies may be deemed to be available only from the original source in the case of a follow-on contract for the continued development or production of a major system or highly specialized equipment, including major components thereof, when it is likely that award to any other source would result in�

(A) Substantial duplication of cost to the Government that is not expected to be recovered through competition; or

(B) Unacceptable delays in fulfilling the agency�s requirements. (See 10 U.S.C. 2304(d)(1)(B) or 41 U.S.C. 253 (d)(1)(B).)

(iii) For DoD, NASA, and the Coast Guard, services may be deemed to be available only from the original source in the case of follow-on contracts for the continued provision of highly specialized services when it is likely that award to any other source would result in�

(A) Substantial duplication of cost to the Government that is not expected to be recovered through competition; or

(B) Unacceptable delays in fulfilling the agency�s requirements. (See 10 U.S.C. 2304(d)(1)(B).)

(b) Application. This authority shall be used, if appropriate, in preference to the authority in 6.302-7; it shall not be used when any of the other circumstances is applicable. Use of this authority may be appropriate in situations such as the following (these examples are not intended to be all inclusive and do not constitute authority in and of themselves):

(1) When there is a reasonable basis to conclude that the agency�s minimum needs can only be satisfied by�

(i) Unique supplies or services available from only one source or only one supplier with unique capabilities; or

(ii) For DoD, NASA, and the Coast Guard, unique supplies or services available from only one or a limited number of sources or from only one or a limited number of suppliers with unique capabilities.

(2) The existence of limited rights in data, patent rights, copyrights, or secret processes; the control of basic raw material; or similar circumstances, make the supplies and services available from only one source (however, the mere existence of such rights or circumstances does not in and of itself justify the use of these authorities) (see Part 27).

(3) When acquiring utility services (see 41.101), circumstances may dictate that only one supplier can furnish the service (see 41.202); or when the contemplated contract is for construction of a part of a utility system and the utility company itself is the only source available to work on the system.

(4) When the agency head has determined in accordance with the agency�s standardization program that only specified makes and models of technical equipment and parts will satisfy the agency�s needs for additional units or replacement items, and only one source is available.

(c) Application for brand name descriptions. An acquisition that uses a brand name description or other purchase description to specify a particular brand name, product, or feature of a product, peculiar to one manufacturer does not provide for full and open competition regardless of the number of sources solicited. It shall be justified and approved in accordance with FAR 6.303 and 6.304. The justification should indicate that the use of such descriptions in the acquisition is essential to the Government�s requirements, thereby precluding consideration of a product manufactured by another company. See 5.102(a)(6) for the requirement to post the brand name justification. (Brand-name or equal descriptions, and other purchase descriptions that permit prospective contractors to offer products other than those specifically referenced by brand name, provide for full and open competition and do not require justifications and approvals to support their use.)

(d) Limitations.

(1) Contracts awarded using this authority shall be supported by the written justifications and approvals described in 6.303 and 6.304.

(2) For contracts awarded using this authority, the notices required by 5.201 shall have been published and any bids, proposals, quotations, or capability statements must have been considered.
6.302-2 Unusual and compelling urgency.

(a) Authority.

(1) Citations: 10 U.S.C. 2304(c)(2) or 41 U.S.C. 253(c)(2).

(2) When the agency�s need for the supplies or services is of such an unusual and compelling urgency that the Government would be seriously injured unless the agency is permitted to limit the number of sources from which it solicits bids or proposals, full and open competition need not be provided for.

(b) Application. This authority applies in those situations where�

(1) An unusual and compelling urgency precludes full and open competition; and

(2) Delay in award of a contract would result in serious injury, financial or other, to the Government.

(c) Limitations.

(1) Contracts awarded using this authority shall be supported by the written justifications and approvals described in 6.303 and 6.304. These justifications may be made and approved after contract award when preparation and approval prior to award would unreasonably delay the acquisition.

(2) This statutory authority requires that agencies shall request offers from as many potential sources as is practicable under the circumstances.

(d) Period of Performance.

(1) The total period of performance of a contract awarded using this authority�

(i) May not exceed the time necessary�

(A) To meet the unusual and compelling requirements of the work to be performed under the contract; and

(B) For the agency to enter into another contract for the required goods and services through the use of competitive procedures; and

(ii) May not exceed one year unless the head of the agency entering into the contract determines that exceptional circumstances apply.

(2) The requirements in paragraph (d)(1) of this section shall apply to any contract in an amount greater than the simplified acquisition threshold.

(3) The determination of exceptional circumstances is in addition to the approval of the justification in 6.304.

(4) The determination may be made after contract award when making the determination prior to award would unreasonably delay the acquisition.
6.302-3 Industrial mobilization; engineering, developmental, or research capability; or expert services.

(a) Authority.

(1) Citations: 10 U.S.C. 2304(c)(3) or 41 U.S.C. 253(c)(3).

(2) Full and open competition need not be provided for when it is necessary to award the contract to a particular source or sources in order�

(i) To maintain a facility, producer, manufacturer, or other supplier available for furnishing supplies or services in case of a national emergency or to achieve industrial mobilization;

(ii) To establish or maintain an essential engineering, research, or development capability to be provided by an educational or other nonprofit institution or a federally funded research and development center; or

(iii) To acquire the services of an expert or neutral person for any current or anticipated litigation or dispute.

(b) Application.

(1) Use of the authority in paragraph (a)(2)(i) of this subsection may be appropriate when it is necessary to�

(i) Keep vital facilities or suppliers in business or make them available in the event of a national emergency;

(ii) Train a selected supplier in the furnishing of critical supplies or services; prevent the loss of a supplier�s ability and employees� skills; or maintain active engineering, research, or development work;

(iii) Maintain properly balanced sources of supply for meeting the requirements of acquisition programs in the interest of industrial mobilization (when the quantity required is substantially larger than the quantity that must be awarded in order to meet the objectives of this authority, that portion not required to meet such objectives will be acquired by providing for full and open competition, as appropriate, under this part);

(iv) Limit competition for current acquisition of selected supplies or services approved for production planning under the Department of Defense Industrial Preparedness Program to planned producers with whom industrial preparedness agreements for those items exist, or limit award to offerors who agree to enter into industrial preparedness agreements;

(v) Create or maintain the required domestic capability for production of critical supplies by limiting competition to items manufactured in�

(A) The United States or its outlying areas; or

(B) The United States, its outlying areas, or Canada.

(vi) Continue in production, contractors that are manufacturing critical items, when there would otherwise be a break in production; or

(vii) Divide current production requirements among two or more contractors to provide for an adequate industrial mobilization base.

(2) Use of the authority in paragraph (a)(2)(ii) of this subsection may be appropriate when it is necessary to�

(i) Establish or maintain an essential capability for theoretical analyses, exploratory studies, or experiments in any field of science or technology;

(ii) Establish or maintain an essential capability for engineering or developmental work calling for the practical application of investigative findings and theories of a scientific or technical nature; or

(iii) Contract for supplies or services as are necessary incident to paragraphs (b)(2)(i) or (ii) of this subsection.

(3) Use of the authority in paragraph (a)(2)(iii) of this subsection may be appropriate when it is necessary to acquire the services of either�

(i) An expert to use, in any litigation or dispute (including any reasonably foreseeable litigation or dispute) involving the Government in any trial, hearing, or proceeding before any court, administrative tribunal, or agency, whether or not the expert is expected to testify. Examples of such services include, but are not limited to:

(A) Assisting the Government in the analysis, presentation, or defense of any claim or request for adjustment to contract terms and conditions, whether asserted by a contractor or the Government, which is in litigation or dispute, or is anticipated to result in dispute or litigation before any court, administrative tribunal, or agency; or

(B) Participating in any part of an alternative dispute resolution process, including but not limited to evaluators, fact finders, or witnesses, regardless of whether the expert is expected to testify; or

(ii) A neutral person, e.g., mediators or arbitrators, to facilitate the resolution of issues in an alternative dispute resolution process.

(c) Limitations. Contracts awarded using this authority shall be supported by the written justifications and approvals described in 6.303 and 6.304.
6.302-4 International agreement.

(a) Authority.

(1) Citations: 10 U.S.C. 2304(c)(4) or 41 U.S.C. 253(c)(4).

(2) Full and open competition need not be provided for when precluded by the terms of an international agreement or a treaty between the United States and a foreign government or international organization, or the written directions of a foreign government reimbursing the agency for the cost of the acquisition of the supplies or services for such government.

(b) Application. This authority may be used in circumstances such as�

(1) When a contemplated acquisition is to be reimbursed by a foreign country that requires that the product be obtained from a particular firm as specified in official written direction such as a Letter of Offer and Acceptance; or

(2) When a contemplated acquisition is for services to be performed, or supplies to be used, in the sovereign territory of another country and the terms of a treaty or agreement specify or limit the sources to be solicited.

(c) Limitations. Except for DoD, NASA, and the Coast Guard, contracts awarded using this authority shall be supported by written justifications and approvals described in 6.303 and 6.304.
6.302-5 Authorized or required by statute.

(a) Authority.

(1) Citations: 10 U.S.C. 2304(c)(5) or 41 U.S.C. 253(c)(5).

(2) Full and open competition need not be provided for when�

(i) A statute expressly authorizes or requires that the acquisition be made through another agency or from a specified source; or

(ii) The agency�s need is for a brand name commercial item for authorized resale.

(b) Application. This authority may be used when statutes, such as the following, expressly authorize or require that acquisition be made from a specified source or through another agency:

(1) Federal Prison Industries (UNICOR)�18 U.S.C. 4124 (see Subpart 8.6).

(2) Qualified Nonprofit Agencies for the Blind or other Severely Disabled�41 U.S.C. 46-48c (see Subpart 8.7).

(3) Government Printing and Binding�44 U.S.C. 501-504, 1121 (see Subpart 8. Cool

.

(4) Sole source awards under the 8(a) Program 15 U.S.C. 637 (see Subpart 19. Cool

.

(5) Sole source awards under the HUBZone Act of 1997�15 U.S.C. 657a (see 19.1306).

(6) Sole source awards under the Veterans Benefits Act of 2003 (15 U.S.C. 657f).

(c) Limitations.

(1) This authority shall not be used when a provision of law requires an agency to award a new contract to a specified non-Federal Government entity unless the provision of law specifically�

(i) Identifies the entity involved;

(ii) Refers to 10 U.S.C. 2304(j) for armed services acquisitions or section 303(h) of the Federal Property and Administrative Services Act of 1949 for civilian agency acquisitions; and

(iii) States that award to that entity shall be made in contravention of the merit-based selection procedures in 10 U.S.C. 2304(j) or section 303(h) of the Federal Property and Administrative Services Act, as appropriate. However, this limitation does not apply�

(A) When the work provided for in the contract is a continuation of the work performed by the specified entity under a preceding contract; or

(B) To any contract requiring the National Academy of Sciences to investigate, examine, or experiment upon any subject of science or art of significance to an executive agency and to report on those matters to the Congress or any agency of the Federal Government.

(2) Contracts awarded using this authority shall be supported by the written justifications and approvals described in 6.303 and 6.304, except for�

(i) Contracts awarded under (a)(2)(ii), (b)(2), or (b)(4) of this subsection; or

(ii) Contracts awarded under (a)(2)(i) of this subsection when the statute expressly requires that the procurement be made from a specified source. (Justification and approval requirements apply when the statute authorizes, but does not require, that the procurement be made from a specified source.)

(3) The authority in (a)(2)(ii) of this subsection may be used only for purchases of brand-name commercial items for resale through commissaries or other similar facilities. Ordinarily, these purchases will involve articles desired or preferred by customers of the selling activities (but see 6.301(d)).
6.302-6 National security.

(a) Authority.

(1) Citations: 10 U.S.C. 2304(c)(6) or 41 U.S.C. 253(c)(6).

(2) Full and open competition need not be provided for when the disclosure of the agency�s needs would compromise the national security unless the agency is permitted to limit the number of sources from which it solicits bids or proposals.

(b) Application. This authority may be used for any acquisition when disclosure of the Government�s needs would compromise the national security (e.g., would violate security requirements); it shall not be used merely because the acquisition is classified, or merely because access to classified matter will be necessary to submit a proposal or to perform the contract.

(c) Limitations.

(1) Contracts awarded using this authority shall be supported by the written justifications and approvals described in 6.303 and 6.304.

(2) See 5.202(a)(1) for synopsis requirements.

(3) This statutory authority requires that agencies shall request offers from as many potential sources as is practicable under the circumstances.
6.302-7 Public interest.

(a) Authority.

(1) Citations: 10 U.S.C. 2304(c)(7) or 41 U.S.C. 253(c)(7).

(2) Full and open competition need not be provided for when the agency head determines that it is not in the public interest in the particular acquisition concerned.

(b) Application. This authority may be used when none of the other authorities in 6.302 apply.

(c) Limitations.

(1) A written determination to use this authority shall be made in accordance with Subpart 1.7, by�

(i) The Secretary of Defense, the Secretary of the Army, the Secretary of the Navy, the Secretary of the Air Force, the Secretary of Homeland Security for the Coast Guard, or the Administrator of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration; or

(ii) The head of any other executive agency. This authority may not be delegated.

(2) The Congress shall be notified in writing of such determination not less than 30 days before award of the contract.

(3) If required by the head of the agency, the contracting officer shall prepare a justification to support the determination under paragraph (c)(1) of this subsection.

(4) This Determination and Finding (D&F) shall not be made on a class basis.
6.303 Justifications.
6.303-1 Requirements.

(a) A contracting officer shall not commence negotiations for a sole source contract, commence negotiations for a contract resulting from an unsolicited proposal, or award any other contract without providing for full and open competition unless the contracting officer�

(1) Justifies, if required in 6.302, the use of such actions in writing;

(2) Certifies the accuracy and completeness of the justification; and

(3) Obtains the approval required by 6.304.

(b) Technical and requirements personnel are responsible for providing and certifying as accurate and complete necessary data to support their recommendation for other than full and open competition.

(c) Justifications required by paragraph (a) of this section may be made on an individual or class basis. Any justification for contracts awarded under the authority of 6.302-7 shall only be made on an individual basis. Whenever a justification is made and approved on a class basis, the contracting officer must ensure that each contract action taken pursuant to the authority of the class justification and approval is within the scope of the class justification and approval and shall document the contract file for each contract action accordingly.

(d) The justifications for contracts awarded under the authority cited in 6.302-2 may be prepared and approved within a reasonable time after contract award when preparation and approval prior to award would unreasonably delay the acquisitions.
6.303-2 Content.

(a) Each justification shall contain sufficient facts and rationale to justify the use of the specific authority cited. As a minimum, each justification shall include the following information:

(1) Identification of the agency and the contracting activity, and specific identification of the document as a �Justification for other than full and open competition.�

(2) Nature and/or description of the action being approved.

(3) A description of the supplies or services required to meet the agency�s needs (including the estimated value).

(4) An identification of the statutory authority permitting other than full and open competition.

(5) A demonstration that the proposed contractor�s unique qualifications or the nature of the acquisition requires use of the authority cited.

(6) A description of efforts made to ensure that offers are solicited from as many potential sources as is practicable, including whether a notice was or will be publicized as required by Subpart 5.2 and, if not, which exception under 5.202 applies.

(7) A determination by the contracting officer that the anticipated cost to the Government will be fair and reasonable.

( Cool

A description of the market research conducted (see Part 10) and the results or a statement of the reason market research was not conducted.

(9) Any other facts supporting the use of other than full and open competition, such as:

(i) Explanation of why technical data packages, specifications, engineering descriptions, statements of work, or purchase descriptions suitable for full and open competition have not been developed or are not available.

(ii) When 6.302-1 is cited for follow-on acquisitions as described in 6.302-1(a)(2)(ii), an estimate of the cost to the Government that would be duplicated and how the estimate was derived.

(iii) When 6.302-2 is cited, data, estimated cost, or other rationale as to the extent and nature of the harm to the Government.

(10) A listing of the sources, if any, that expressed, in writing, an interest in the acquisition.

(11) A statement of the actions, if any, the agency may take to remove or overcome any barriers to competition before any subsequent acquisition for the supplies or services required.

(12) Contracting officer certification that the justification is accurate and complete to the best of the contracting officer�s knowledge and belief.

(b) Each justification shall include evidence that any supporting data that is the responsibility of technical or requirements personnel (e.g., verifying the Government�s minimum needs or schedule requirements or other rationale for other than full and open competition) and which form a basis for the justification have been certified as complete and accurate by the technical or requirements personnel.
6.304 Approval of the justification.

(a) Except for paragraph (b) of this section, the justification for other than full and open competition shall be approved in writing�

(1) For a proposed contract not exceeding $550,000, the contracting officer�s certification required by 6.303-2(a)(12) will serve as approval unless a higher approving level is established in agency procedures.

(2) For a proposed contract over $550,000 but not exceeding $11.5 million, by the competition advocate for the procuring activity designated pursuant to 6.501 or an official described in paragraph (a)(3) or (a)(4) of this section. This authority is not delegable.

(3) For a proposed contract over $11.5 million, but not exceeding $57 million, or, for DoD, NASA, and the Coast Guard, not exceeding $78.5 million, by the head of the procuring activity, or a designee who�

(i) If a member of the armed forces, is a general or flag officer; or

(ii) If a civilian, is serving in a position in a grade above GS-15 under the General Schedule (or in a comparable or higher position under another schedule).

(4) For a proposed contract over $57 million or, for DoD, NASA, and the Coast Guard, over $78.5 million, by the senior procurement executive of the agency designated pursuant to the OFPP Act (41 U.S.C. 414(3)) in accordance with agency procedures.This authority is not delegable except in the case of the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics, acting as the senior procurement executive for the Department of Defense.

(b) Any justification for a contract awarded under the authority of 6.302-7, regardless of dollar amount, shall be considered approved when the determination required by 6.302-7(c)(1) is made.

(c) A class justification for other than full and open competition shall be approved in writing in accordance with agency procedures. The approval level shall be determined by the estimated total value of the class.

(d) The estimated dollar value of all options shall be included in determining the approval level of a justification.
6.305 Availability of the justification.

(a) Except for paragraph (b) of this section, the agency shall make publicly available within 14 days after contract award the justification required by 6.303-1 as required by 10 U.S.C. 2304(f)(4) and 41 U.S.C. 253(f)(4)�

(1) At the GPE www.fedbizopps.gov; and

(2) On the website of the agency, which may provide access to the justifications by linking to the GPE.

(b) In the case of a contract award permitted under 6.302-2, the justification shall be posted within 30 days after contract award.

(c) Contracting officers shall carefully screen all justifications for contractor proprietary data and remove all such data, and such references and citations as are necessary to protect the proprietary data, before making the justifications available for public inspection. Contracting officers shall also be guided by the exemptions to disclosure of information contained in the Freedom of Information Act (5 U.S.C. 552) and the prohibitions against disclosure in 24.202 in determining whether other data should be removed.

goreality

Joined: 09 Jul 2009

Posted: Mon Feb 06, 2012 4:45 pm Post subject:

According to the corruption perception index America is 24th (7.1/10) and Korea is 43rd (5.4/10). That's a significant difference. I know the list is highly criticized but it's better than citing specific cases (from different eras) and making generalizations. Bringing up cases like Nixon are interesting and all. His Korean contemporary was a dictator who made Nixon look quite nice in comparison. Currently Obama had some controversy over winning a Nobel prize, being a Muslim and a Democrat and having an questionable birth certificate. LMB Korea's top man has absolutely no scandals behind his name right?

TheUrbanMyth

Joined: 28 Jan 2003
Location: Retired

Posted: Tue Feb 07, 2012 1:30 pm Post subject:

atwood wrote:

[There's no we here. I stated consequences. You've shifted the argument to the 1% blah, blah, blah.

]

Actually you were the one that shifted the argument to corporations. I was responding to the poster who started out by talking about Kim Seung-youn, Jeong-Mong Koo and Lee Gun Hee.

People not corporations. And people who are in the top 1% in Korea.

When I pointed out that their counterparts in America seem to be getting off scot-free...that is when you suddenly shifted the argument to corporations.

Display posts from previous:

	Korean Job Discussion Forums Forum Index -> General Discussion Forum	All times are GMT - 8 Hours Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 Next
Page 7 of 8

You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum

TEFL International Supports Dave's ESL Cafe