ImagineANON # 1:
Well, look like you found the speculative article based on opinions from a Times writer. Why don't you use the only real documentation from this project, which is the review, and base your opinions on that instead of using someone else's options and making them your own. Oh wait...you can't, becuase you can't admit that you are wrong?
I told you I"m trying to get the rest of the report....I told you all I got was two pages, maybe you should try reading before you post as well. I'm also trying to get Holcomb's side of the story. Also...if it's vaporware...how is it already being field tested in East Baton Rouge? Did Bearing Point incorrectly assess the solution by suggesting it's vaporware? Maybe the city should hold Bearing Point accountable for their incorrect review, which may have cost us hundreds of lives.
The only response you have is that Russell's report was "speculative" and "opinion"? Ok, people can read and decide that for themselves. You have an open forum right now...there are a lot of people reading this and would like to know exactly what happened. If I'm wrong about anything, I'll eat crow...I'll admit it. But you haven't said anything substantial.....you're just whining.
Tell me why Meffert didn't agree to allow the 3rd phase of the project to be re-bid. Why did he tell Holcomb in a meeting that he was getting "pressured by Microsoft", then deny it when asked by Russell? Did he or didn't he get pressured by Microsoft?
You were so close to the process....tell us what really happened.