Thursday, August 20, 2015

You're Lying!

Here’s a Navy item I never dreamed I’d cover. 

Where are our taxpayer dollars going?  Apparently, to polygraph (lie detector) exams in support of Naval Criminal Investigative Service (NCIS) counter-intelligence efforts. 

Potomac River Group LLC, Ashburn, Virginia, is being awarded a $35,300,000 fixed-price, indefinite-delivery/indefinite-quantity contract to obtain certified contractor support to administer polygraph examinations for Naval Criminal Investigative Service counterintelligence in support of the Navy Insider Threat program.  The contract is good for 5 years.

Let’s do the math on this one.  That $35M contract is for 5 years so that’s $7.06M per year or $19,342 per day!!! 


That’s $19,342 per day of polygraph exams, every day of the year.  Do we really have that many polygraph exams to administer or does that cost seem just a tad excessive?

4 comments:

  1. Its more based on the numbers working in naval shore installations. There may be 30 or more locations. It could be $500-$1000 per test, based on the hire of multiple skilled testers. As they found with the private clowns were administering security checks, to make their numbers they just' flushed' applicants through.
    So with any government contract there is a lot of overhead and review that bumps up the numbers.

    ReplyDelete
  2. It makes you wonder what else is happening?

    I would like to know how good a value the US is getting for these contracts?


    Off topic, but I would like to link this:
    http://www.macleans.ca/news/canada/the-sinking-of-the-canadian-navy/

    Canada's navy is in pretty bad shape as well.

    ReplyDelete
  3. "Jean Chrétien’s Liberal government took office, Canada had 21,400 sailors (including reservists). When the Liberals departed 13 years later, there were only 16,000 left."
    SO from 1993 just after cold war ended the numbers decreased ? Have you checked how much smaller other navys have become after 1990s

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Why do you cherry-pick that one data point from the article? Why not discuss the fact that the "flagship destroyer" that Canada planned to send to a NATO exercise is 43 years old and not seaworthy, needs engine overhauls, has a cracked hull, needs its decks replaced, and has questionable weapons systems? How about the fact that Canada now has ZERO seaworthy destroyers?

      If the Canadian situation is typical of post-Cold War naval declines, why does the article say that, proportional to GDP, Canada has one third the naval assets as its allies? Why is Canada's navy said to be comparable to the navy of Bangladesh?

      Delete