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.
One important FACT here is that Meffert is a liar. What is the deal with his yacht again? is it in fact his? was it ever his? did he just tell everyone it was? did he ever clarify that? I still don't know. Maybe ImagineANON #1 can enlighten us there.
So it's easy to believe Meffert told Holcomb whatever he needed to in order to kill the deal no matter how ludicrous ("Microsoft is pressuring me on this").
The crazier Meffert's story to Holcomb, the easier it is for him to just deny it later, and laugh it off as preposterous.
I cringed when I read Holcomb's comments about Microsoft and some other big companies-- they might sound plausible to people in the field but paranoid to laymen. But Oludmare's right on that score.
I don't know what happened with the field testing in B.R. or if it's still being conducted. I just thought it was interesting that B.R. jumped at the grant that N.O. gave back.
My point was that it was the city that killed the deal, not DOJ--the city had the grant and decided it didn't want it, why? Untested? That's laughable, not even the federal government gives money to test already tested equipment and software. Conflict of interest? I don't see how the city could be blamed for a fully disclosed possible conflict of interest on the part of a third party. Neither of the stated reasons for turning down (almost giving back) the federal money that other cities wanted seems entirely plausible.
link link Those are the two-2004 articles that I found on the subject. I looked but couldn't find what became of this:
"The state Senate's Homeland Security Committee has launched an inquiry into whether some companies doing business with the City of New Orleans helped scuttle a $7 million grant."
My guess would be that inquiry never went anywhere. If they focused on the city's dealing with Microsoft they were probably fooled by a smokescreen. If the committee found solid evidence of wrongdoing, I'd like to think that we'd have heard. If it issued a favorable report for Meffert, you now that we'd have heard.
When you boil it all down, you can only speculate what Meffert's motivations were. This guy is suggesting that he had ethical concerns about the bid. I can't swallow that....plus I've been told by other sources that he was trying to get his chosen contractors in who would then subcontract Imagine for the job...which was typical procedure for Meffert.
Holcomb doesn't strike me as paranoid or vindictive from what I've read, and I can certianly believe Meffert would make claims like such as the Microsoft one.
I find it odd that a government agency could be "pressured" by a vendor. It usually works the other way.
If Micorsoft was indeed making anything like threats, that would be illegal, wouldn't it?
Not necessarily illegal. But I don't think Microsoft did any of that shit...I think that was Meffert's bullshit. I think Meffert made those claims, but I don't think they were true.
As Oludamare noted...one imporant fact is that Meffert is a liar.
Just for the record, I don't think Holcomb's paranoid, but I suspect that they'll try to portray him that way. The comments about Microsoft sound like an excuse that Meffert would give, but they wouldn't be evidence of paranoia anyway. I was under the impression that small companies in the high tech field often talk about predatory and quasi-legal business practices on the part of Microsoft and other big players in the field. That kind of talk about Microsoft is too common to be crazy. Not saying it's correct, just saying it's not crazy. Meffert wouldn't have told Holcomb that if Microsoft had a boy scout rep.
If Nagin cronies try to imply paranoia, I'd ask how Microsoft trying to squeeze out a local vendor for a small contract any crazier than one of the nation's biggest publishing house's trying to influence the New Orleans mayoral election.
Post a Comment