Item C pretty much leaves the door open for additional billing for "other projects or additional projects". That's a pretty ambiguous statement.
Item C also contains a really interesting line in that it states that MSF may require third party software, hardware, and services to which the City will be responsible for paying outside of the allotted 1.9 million. Really? So now the requirement of providing the CMS comes full circle....why exactly did we contract a company that couldn't provide the services we needed? On some level it would seem we just hired a company for approx. 1.9 milion to go out and spend more money to get stuff done.
I'm no contract expert but it seems to me this contract doesn't really define much....it seems rather open ended.
I'd love to hear from all you tech guys on your opinion....click on the link to blow the picture up. I'm sorry i can't provide a better image or format but Blogger is pretty limited in that capacity....very aggravating.
34 comments:
Why is the contact so open ended?
When I went to their website, the thing that struck me was how helpful their services might be to people doing mapping for the purposes of fighting an election.
DaddyEarl speculated that Nagin was going to get fancy lawyers funded by the taxpayers to do a lot of work on his behalf while he was still in office, and then supoena that work once he had to hire his own swinging dicks.
Does the open ended nature of the contract leaves room for that kind of piggy backing? Does it make it possible for tax-funded IT work of the mapping variety to be done to help the candidate Nagin's people lay their hands on win the next mayoralty race?
If I were a sneaky politician, I might try to get away with that. My speculation here is entirely about the politicians, not about the integrity of the MSF company. I don't know what to make of them yet.
But I've made my call about the Nagin people; I don't trust them & I think they might try to use city IT funds to conduct political research, or to map properties to donate, or to do some other fool thing.
Is there a way of writing contracts for IT work that allows for flexibility, but closes the loopholes that might allow for the misdirection of resources? Is it too late to write a contract like that?
Hey...i'm calling it like I see it. I just don't understand why we wouldn't have hired a company that had the technology we needed, in house, to fulfill the needs of the department.
But I do question the integrity of the MSF company....hate to say it but I'm not convinced this whole thing was on the up and up.
I'm not taking sides, believe me I am not doing that....but I have some questions as to why an existing contractor (individual) was able to start a company and get this contract.
Dambala,
I am in the IT industry and admit I am not a contract expert. However, according to the State site, MSF was in business since 2003. Their filings show they only changed their name not started another company. If you think the MSF contract is bad why don't you compare it to the others- VisionIT, Ciber, etc. Ciber's deal had a 5OOK poison pill if the City cancelled it, VisionIT deal allowed MAS to have proprietary software and hold the City hostage. VisionIT deal would not allow the City to hire contractor staff or bring the contract in-house. I don't see that in the MSF contract.
The RFP didn't mentioned any dept in specific that work would be carried out for. The Application Development section is generic and could apply to any area in the City.
Allowing for third party software purchases is not a bad thing. In fact, the City could probably safe money by implementing a COTS solution with customizations rather than developing custom applications from scratch. As for the CMS, I still perplex by your assertion that it has come full circle. Based on the current situation the City should definitel implement a new solution they own.The IT community already spoke to this in previous blogs. I am sorry but this doesn't look like a bad deal for the City. They can cancel this contract or hire the people directly without any protest from MSF. This contract seems very favorable to the City.Not sure if I would have signed it though. Could you be bias?
I'm old; I'm going to bed early tonight. But although I'M still (sadly) stone cold sober, I've just had one of those evenings with a (not so sober) friend that reminded me of being a teenage pothead.
"Wouldn't it be wild if they changed the State song of Alabama to "Alabama Song" by Bertholt Brecht and Kurt Weill?" my friend asked.
"They could choose the version by David Bowie that had Space Oddity on the B-side, or the version by The Doors. I think the Bowie version would be a better call." he continued.
I don't know whether to be glad or disappointed that my friend, who used to do a LOT of acid, will never choose to run for office.
Politics could be so very different:)
- As for the CMS, I still perplex by your assertion that it has come full circle.
I think it's come full circle because as I originally interpreted the RFP...it required the contractor to "provide" the CMS to run the portal. That didn't happen did it? I mean aren't we a week into this thing and we're still scrambling? Why did that happen? The original RFP should have prevented this from happening.
So the "intent" of that statement seems to be an attempt to patch the hole in the ship...but we're still taking on water.
We need a functioning CMS and from what I'm hearing....we don't have it.
This could have been avoided. That's my real point. I have no desire to reinstate Domke/Meffert solution back into a contract...but why are we bent over the barrel now?
My point about it being open ended....is that I've seen this before. I've seen how this works. You leave question marks in the contract and they end up being 10 times the amount of the original contract. This concerns me.
As for bias...sure I could absolutely be biased. Cant' we all? But I can tell you that I really don't give a shit about MSF, MAS, or any acronym getting a contract.....what I care about is doing this right from the beginning. And right now I don't like what I'm seeing.
But thank you for participating....I'm learning as I go.
Ashe'.
And I'm not being snarky with my thank you.
I find myself being misinterpreted a lot lately.
That's a sincere thank you.
Dambala, I appreciate that you are continuing with this blog even though it has been less than fun this week.
IT guys, thank you for coming here and explaining so much to everyone.
If that's all of it that is incredibly open ended. It mentions a State(ment) of Work for additional services, but none for what is to be performed for the 1.9 except the migration from mainframe to the web. I can't imagine the vendors I contract with committing to such an open ended agreement (except that the actual doing of it will require substantial hardware to move everything over to a client-server basis instead of a host (mainframe) basis, and that's obviously outside the contract.
Basically, this is a contract to manage the process but without (on the published piece) any time lines, performance standards, etc. If that's all there is except the usual legal wrappers its a joke, but I have to assume there are pages more of it.
From Anon2,
Dambala,
You said:"We need a functioning CMS and from what I'm hearing....we don't have it."
I understand that point loud and clear but from somebody in the IT community I wouldnt be concerned about the ability or inability of MSF to provide a CMS. Whomever you are "hearing" from doesn't sound very knowledgeable. What I would be more concerned about is why wasn't MSF and MAS allowed proper time for a complete transition to a CMS MSF could provide. It appears from the your blogs that MAS was out and MSF was in. That doesn't sound like a proper transition and it is that decision combined with the lack of transparency regarding the ownership of the CMS and the refusal to provide the source code that has placed the City at risk. There's no way that anyone can implement a CMS without full cooperation from the outgoing vendor in less than a week. The solution MAS implemented was proprietary for a reason and did not develop over-night. I would be scared as shit to touch it with fear of bringing the whole house down. Could you "imagine" this traps that could be laid there? I would recommend MSF not touch it and conduct a full assessment and create a migration strategy that identifies risk and make sure the City signs off to protect themselves. This could take 1-2 weeks. Remember, there are risks associated with this. Implementing a CMS is not plug and play man. Anyone with sense would not take that risk especially in a hostile environment. I feel the need to point this out because I am in IT and I would feel unfairly judged if I would not have had sufficient time to prove and protect myself. Also, my understanding is MAS turned the CMS off while they were still under contract in obvious protest of the award to MSF and before MSF contract started. I would view this as a clear message that MAS does not want to transition to MSF. This is not an MSF issue. It's a City/MAS issue as I see it.
From anon2 continued...
You said: "This could have been avoided. That's my real point. I have no desire to reinstate Domke/Meffert solution back into a contract...but why are we bent over the barrel now?"
- I agree totally. But as I appreciate it you (the Citizen) are "bent over the barrel now" because of (1) a bad contract in which the City did not fully understand what it owned or didn't owned; (2) no over-sight of the MAS contractor to ensure there were periodic updates of a code repository on the City side; (3)little or no transition period; (4) source code and documentation not provided by MAS until they are paid in full. Again, I don't know much about MSF either but if I had this contract I would feel fucked right now. I would probably cancel and cut a contract to MAS but then the City would be back to square one.
You said: "My point about it being open ended....is that I've seen this before. I've seen how this works. You leave question marks in the contract and they end up being 10 times the amount of the original contract. This concerns me."
- I can understand the concern here from the City/Citizen side. I am not sure why the City did this as well. But as I pointed out. There's 8-9 months until a new administration (let's pray it's somebody good) come in right? Outside of maintaining the ship, what the fuck can MSF seriously accomplish in 8-9 months? This may not be the best contract but it definitely allows the new administration to go another way. That's why I compared it to the Ciber and VisionIT contract. There is some obvious opportunities for growth in this contract but having flexibility for unforeseen activities or purchases is not uncommon. I am in the IT business and I am in the business of making money. I am fair with my customer but it's not my job to watch their back. Surely you can understand since you work in IT too.
from Anon2 continued...
You said: "As for bias...sure I could absolutely be biased. Cant' we all? But I can tell you that I really don't give a shit about MSF, MAS, or any acronym getting a contract..."
- You're right and I don't question your intentions. What I meant was bias toward conviction not against MSF in particular. It was clear that the info that started this was not common knowledge and afterward a fight broke out between MAS and City employees (which I find ironic given the nature of this site). The points you made seem more like points from a sour vendor with inside knowledge of the winning company. If I were one of the losing bidders or the avg citizen, I would not have come to those assumptions. Given VisionIT/MAS seem to have the City by it's balls I am not inclined to believe much that's posted here which is why I as an IT professional decided to accept your challenge to read the contract and blogs and make a determination based on if I was responding to the RFP and if I was the successful bidder. Many of the points laid out in question of MSF doesn't seem to stick but I would allow that the verdict is still out because this is the City of New Orleans. What's clear is that we have a Meffert/Domke team that got the City to agree to a non-favorable contract which ended and now they want the City and/or MSF to keep them in the game.
I just don't feel we are asking the right questions. In the IT game partnership is key. Has anyone disclosed or cared to ask if MSF partnered with any other companies that would augment their talents. This would be the first question although without disclosure from the City or MSF we may not find out. I come from a very reputable IT firm in another state. I can assure you we would not have attempted this project without bringing in specialty and local partners. It doesn't mean we couldn't do the job ourselves but our chances of success are better if we partner with other companies. Given your City requires a local DBE partner we would have been forced to find someone locally anyway.
It's not uncustomary for someone getting this bid to staff it once they get it. As an out-of-state firm, we would have sought to hire locals or worked through our local or specialty partners to staff the project. So the question I have is not whether MSF could do the job but whether they can manage the work as a prime. Can they staff it with quality resources through direct hire or partner subcontracts? If MAS have there way, this is essentially what would occur. There's still more to learn about MSF here.
from anon2 continued...
You said: "what I care about is doing this right from the beginning. And right now I don't like what I'm seeing."
- Agreed. But can we reasonably expect the City to do anything right? Ok. Now it's time to admit my bias. I would love to compete for this type of work in a new administration. I believe this contract gets a company like mine a shot in New Orleans. Not that I want to see the City fail or get screwed. But we in the IT community are betting on the new administration to clean house. This contract allows that to happen or gets us one step closer. If MSF turns out to be legit and do a good job then fine.
Re Contracts:
I think there is a need for some education regarding contracts. I saw the Lee Zurik report on-line and it left a lot of questions but also was misleading on some things particularly on the increase in contract amounts. As I understand it, these are maximum amounts. Let's use VisionIT for example. Vision's contract starts with a maximum amount of 5.9mil. Then the contract was amended and the maximum amount was increased to 11mil. Why? He's what my contract person found out. First and foremost, VisionIT contract is a multi-year deal that is renewable every or at the end of an expiration. Every time the City renews the contract an amendment process occurs that provide a period of renewal and another maximum amount for the renewal period. So if I had a max amt in year 1 of 5.9mil and the City renewed the VisionIT contract again for another year and added another 5.1mil max amount for that year. The contract would have to be amended to show 11mil for the max amt. This is standard for any contract however what makes it difficult for the City is there is not enough detail regarding the amendment or renewal. We should be requesting or demanding more transparency in the way the current contracts are posted so we could be more informed about the amendment rather than assuming that it's not a legitimate amendment.
Another issue with the Lee Zurik report is while his report focused on VisionIT's max amount increases no one bother to disclose that there's no way to verify whether VisionIT billed the max. In other words, back to your point about the open-ended nature of the MSF contract, but it goes both ways. What if my firm doesn't bill the entire 5.9mil? What if I billed 2.9mil in year 1 and 1.5 mil in year 2 for a total of 4.4mil? That would mean my total 2 year billing is less than my original 1 year max amt. I say all this to say this. It took me one and half days to raise these questions but in 4 days of reading AZ no one asked these types of questions. We need to know what these guys actually billed. Perhaps they billed over the max. I don't know but we need to have a more informed discussion so we can give the new administration some guidance regarding transparency. So the successful bidder may be crooked, but I don't see us carrying a discussion that leads us to any results.
Lastly:
I know your "thank you" is sincere. You are a tireless and fearless warrior and I do apologize for any offense taken. I appreciate your work but I only want to offer balance to this discussion from an IT professional perspective. There are many things I could have become very technical on but decided not to confuse the readers. With that said, I invite critique and constructive debate.
The item on third-party software may pertain to things like Adobe Creative Suite, dev tools, app components licenses, stuff like that. Cuz if a vendor's only a warm-body provider billing by the hour they will likely not want to pay for tools.
Anon,
Great response, thank you. I appreciate that I"m not asking the right questions. And don't worry about offending me...that's impossible. You may kill me but you will never offend me.
- Could you "imagine" this traps that could be laid there? I would recommend MSF not touch it and conduct a full assessment and create a migration strategy that identifies risk and make sure the City signs off to protect themselves. This could take 1-2 weeks.
That paints a rather hostile picture with MAS. Is the city in a position to file suit against them or would that be cutting our nose off in spite of our face?
- Surely you can understand since you work in IT too.
Just for the record....I don't actually work in IT, I work in with IP media distribution solutions, i.e., media widgets, distance learning mulitmedia presentations, live webcasting,.....anything with high quality video and the need for lots of bandwidth. I actually come from a Video Production background. I point this out because I am struggling to understand a lot of this myself, but I feel the need to dissect this situation while it is happening because I want to understand why we keep getting ourselves in impossible situations. Thanks for providing a scalpel.
- Given VisionIT/MAS seem to have the City by it's balls I am not inclined to believe much that's posted here
That, I think, is not fair. I've been highly critical of everyone in my posts....I think if you read the posts I've made, I'm pointing fingers at everyone. My concern is how they got us by the balls in the first place and making sure we don't allow that to happen with MSF, then we're doing this all over again next year.
Along that line....is there an enterprise level CMS we can purchase/license off the shelf that would be easily transitioned for future contracts? That seems like the wise move...As I am picturing it, the CMS is really a glorified Dreamweaver/Excel/Contribute package for SQL servers. Isn't there an off the shelf solution to do this or does it have to be proprietary? That would seem like the logical move on Boyd's part.
I get the strategy of the contractor to make everything proprietary....but that apparently isn't in the best interest of the city as we are witnessing now. St. Pierre did the same thing with the Antenna array when he moved it to One Shell Square roof....as long they hold the lease, we are pretty much stuck paying him and at the mercy of his invoices. Moving the array would probably bring down vital city services in the same way the portal is down now due to the MAS ploy.
So I'm seeing the wisdom in going with a Microsoft, Sun, whatever....for a CMS in this scenario. Is that possible?
- As I understand it, these are maximum amounts. Let's use VisionIT for example. Vision's contract starts with a maximum amount of 5.9mil. Then the contract was amended and the maximum amount was increased to 11mil. Why? He's what my contract person found out. First and foremost, VisionIT contract is a multi-year deal that is renewable every or at the end of an expiration. Every time the City renews the contract an amendment process occurs that provide a period of renewal and another maximum amount for the renewal period. So if I had a max amt in year 1 of 5.9mil and the City renewed the VisionIT contract again for another year and added another 5.1mil max amount for that year. The contract would have to be amended to show 11mil for the max amt. This is standard for any contract however what makes it difficult for the City is there is not enough detail regarding the amendment or renewal.
I didn't see that clause in this contract with MSF....I didn't see a maximum amount but maybe I missed it....I'm going back into it to see if it's there.
Below is a copy of the MSF Corporate file on the state site. It shows MSF Global was incorporated in 2003 as Imagine GIS, LLC. It then shows the amendments that MSF filed for the name change and change of domicile in 2008. In addition, a CH anon confirmed MSF had as many as 8 employees working in City Hall since 2006. He/she could not confirm how many are working now. I hate to say it but it hardly seems like a company was created overnight for this contract. However, we still don't know if they can do the work. Keep diggin!
Charter/Organization ID: 35568267K
Name: MSF GLOBAL SOLUTIONS LLC
Prior Name: IMAGINE GIS, LLC ( 2/01/2008)
Type Entity: Limited Liability Company
Status: Active
Annual Report Status: In Good Standing Add Certificate of Good Standing to Shopping Cart
Last Report Filed on 07/21/2009
Mailing Address: C/O MARSEYAS S. FERNANDEZ, SR., 818 HOWARD AVENUE, STE. 310, NEW ORLEANS, LA 70113
Domicile Address: 818 HOWARD AVENUE, STE. 310, NEW ORLEANS, LA 70113
File Date: 10/06/2003
Registered Agent (Appointed 10/06/2003): MARSEYAS S. FERNANDEZ, SR., 818 HOWARD AVENUE, STE. 310, NEW ORLEANS, LA 70113
Member: MARSEYAS S. FERNANDEZ, SR., 818 HOWARD AVENUE, STE. 310, NEW ORLEANS, LA 70113
Amendments on File
DOMESTIC LLC AGENT/DOMICILE CHANGE (02/19/2008)
NAME CHANGE (02/01/2008)
Dambala,
There are thousands of CMS that can be acquired from the internet. Some are open source and available for free download. DotNetNuke (www.dotnetnuke.com) is one of the most common and could be purchase for about $2,000. Another one is Site Finity (www.sitefinity.com) which is as low as $899. Each one would have to be further customized to support the City's website but it's not impossible. So there you have it...make a $2,000 grand investment and get a 1.9mil contract. Not bad. (Just couldn't help but throw that in there).
Something like this would be the best thing for the City given that Meffert and team were further developing a product on the City's dime. Every time you add services to the City Website that means new capabilities for the MAS CMS. Capabilities that could be marketed to other cities. Not a bad gig if you can get it.
Now that's out the way...we have made such a fuss over the website, which by the way is only one component of the contract. Does any body know what the fuck a geospatial SOA is and how this is helpful to the City?
If the problem is with the contracts the City has entered into, isn't that once again a problem about City Attorneys of dubious efficacy?
...and now I'm confused again. MSF used to be Imagine GIS?
Is MSF a Meffert company, or are they fighting a Meffert company?
What's the skinny on the dummy company that might be Dell?
I have a headache from all of this. No wonder you can't tell us about HSOA and the schools, or follow up on the Airport contracts, the Katrina cars, the "land grab" or the rest of the cr@p going on, Zombie.
It is like some space toilet exploded and there are Saturn's rings of cr@p orbiting the Nagin Administration.
Muchas Gracias to IT anon for posting such long explanatory posts.
IT anon, could you please explain what you meant when you said that there could be traps or problems built into the system MAS has set up? Why would someone booby trap a system? If word got around that they did that sort of thing, why would anyone hire them?
- ...and now I'm confused again. MSF used to be Imagine GIS?
Is MSF a Meffert company, or are they fighting a Meffert company?
What I've been told, is that Marseyas was initially allied with Meffert. He named his company Imagine, GIS because he was going to launch a consulting arm off of Meffert's Imagine....they had big dreams back then. Now after the fall....Marseyas is not allied with Meffert/Domke and is in fact opposing him in this contract dispute.
As for the Dell dummy company, I'm trying to get there but there's only one of me....I have also have a shitload of questions about Intelliport's kiosks, the Winn Dixie deal....and a third party company which we haven't even broached yet.
But for now, it's my daughter's 5th bday this weekend and all this morass is gonna have to wait.
from anon #2:
Dambala,
Section 2 of the contract states:
"The City will pay the Contractor to perform the contracted services according to the following fee schedule made a part hereof as Attachment A.
The maximum sum payable under this Agreement is $1,886,382.32"
Therefore the max amount is 1.886mil.
If MSF is renewed for 5 years for the same amount the max amount will grow by 1.886mil every year. It is possible that it could grow with purchases or new work within the same year. But that should not be a significant change. However, I think we should be concerned if this max amount grows by more than 40% within the same year.
What the City needs is a Project Management Office. If the PMO was there public records request could be made for Statements of Work or Task Orders so we can have the supporting documentation for the amendments. However, it the City had a PMO it would probably just hide things or be just as unwilling to release information. Just a thought.
I pretty sure the "soa" part refers to Service Oriented Architecture. If this is what's being proposed or contracted than this is a good step for the City. If this is done correctly the City could actually have an open source backbone for information sharing. I am a little fuzzy on how the geospatial part fits in but I suspect it has to do with the mapping stuff that MSF does. Nevertheless, if SOA is the direction then it will be interesting to see what results come out of it.
"...Meffert and team were further developing a product on the City's dime..."
That is like a red flag in front of a bull to me right now.
Where the Hell were the City's lawyers?
Why are they helping Nagin slither out of trouble about those Meffert, Kurt, St. Pierre, Benetech, Fradella, and Ciber trips, arguing that he had some form of "Sovreign Immunity" and should not be questioned?
Every time I read Penya Moses-Field's explanations of the Nagin Administration or of the Law Deapartment in the paper, I wonder if she even hears herself.
It is like a madhouse over there!
Take it from someone who used to be affiliated with meffert and crew. They hated Marseyas with a passion. The split was long before the fall of meffert. I have no idea if he's crooked though.
Anon said: "IT anon, could you please explain what you meant when you said that there could be traps or problems built into the system MAS has set up? Why would someone booby trap a system? If word got around that they did that sort of thing, why would anyone hire them?"
You know...those are good questions. There are always risks involved in poking around anybodies compiled code. I don't want to suggest a technical way of booby trappin' but it's something I would be concerned with. Also, word has gotten out that they held the City hostage and turned the editor off. However, that didn't seem to stop them from doing it. If you have a 2mil plus operation then what do they care about other clients. Also, wouldn't it be just as easy for MAS to congratulate MSF and offer to license their solution for a period of time. This issue is about more than the CMS. The CMS is just being used as a leveraging chip. Eitherway, I wouldn't touch the damn thing unless I have to proper protection in place.
Happy Birthday, Baby Zombie!
I'm sure I'm speaking for others when I apologize for being part of the demanding community that has kept your Daddy from you so much this past couple of weeks.
Many happy returns of the day.
Another Happy Birthday to the little one, and this quote from one of the anons is classic:
"It is like some space toilet exploded and there are Saturn's rings of cr@p orbiting the Nagin Administration."
the city DOES have a Project Management Office (PMO). google it, should come up.
Oh, shit...
Russell A. Aredeneaux,
EM-BEE-EH!
"Russell serves as MIS enterprise director for the Office of Information Technology. In his role, he is responsible for CONTRACTOR RELATIONS and the Project Management Office, managing
projects for NOPD, GIS,EOC, and telecommunications.
Prior to his current role, he served as data analytics manager for the State of Louisiana Road Home program, where his team was responsible for data analytics, reporting and data base management.
Previously, he worked for MidSouth Utilities, NOW ENTERGY for 30 years.
Russell, Russell, Russell...
Man Oh Man.
For those working the Michigan conspiracy theory angle, he went to school in Michigan, so maybe the little green men who talk to you are onto something after all.
For those still trying to piece together the land deals and the rest of that mess (close your eyes and plug your ears, dearest Zombie-- we know that isn't you, but we still don't have anywhere to go), here are some useful resources:
www.civilsherriff.com gets you to the Civil Sheriff, and you can look up property that is being or has been seized. Check out "case inquiry" and "real estate sales lists" depending on what info you are starting with.
You can go back several years. Cross referencing things with the mapping apps or with the lists other posters have provided would be slow and painstaking, but perhaps fruitful, work.
The links page of the Sherriff's site also directs you to the website for the Orleans Parish Assessor's Office, which is a gold mine of information for anyone who has enough knowledge to recognize what they are seeing when they are seeing it.
Another useful thing to know about is the Louisiana Office of Financial Institutions-- I hope I got that right-- the place where you can look up the names of all the banks in the state and the info about them.
That will be part of the "follow the money" digging.
I feel like I'm in a deep hole armed with a tea spoon. I hope those of you who know more and who have better skills will keep at it, too.
Baby Zombie, Mazel Tov.
My understanding is that Kim (Jennings) Fury aka Miss Dell (CBD Technology) ran the Technology PMO under the contract with VisionIT until the Dell/Crime Camera lawsuit hit the fan. If that is true, then the article in the TP this morning that points out how a HANO contractor was basically monitoring his own contract and stole $900K from HANO brings up some grave concerns.
This was done under Anthony "bowling pin" Jones' watch and everyone knows he was an operative for Meffert. Maybe now that he's named in the criminal probe we can get some answers.
Could Kim Jennings involvement in the MIS-PMO been a way to ensure a cover up?
Was the check that went to Dell done while Kim Jennings was at the helm of the PMO?
If Kim Jennings is still in contact with MIS leadership could that 1. be interferring with a Civil Suit or 2. be considered obstruction of justice for the criminal probe?
Was Kim Jennings retained as a sub-contractor before or after the Camera civil suit? If after, did Kim fail to disclose she had been named in a lawsuit? Was she asked?
I just got word that Russell Ardeneaux used to work for MAS. Are you fuckin' kidding me? MAS is every fuckin' where?
I am sorry it's way past time for the FEDs to step in and lock MIS down. This is getting ridiculous. As if we weren't embarassed enough.
But until then I reiterate an earlier Zombie plea with a slim shady twist...
Mr. Marc Kahn and VisionIT,
Please stand up! Please stand up!
Look on the bright side:
So far, no politically connected NOLA Rabbis have been caught buying kidneys for $10 000 and selling them for $160 000.
Jersey still has the title.
Does the city employee who recently acquired a property in the French Quarter, which he maintains in addition to his primary residence, have inherited family money that makes such a purchase no big deal?
If not, that's a hell of a side business he's running.
Zombie, did Russell A. work for MAS back in the day?
That would be incestuous.
Geospatial SOA means a geospatial service oriented architecture.
It's a concise and fancy way of saying they abstracted the geographic data system to it's own thing, and anything that needs geodata can make a call to their protocal and get it, instead of lengthy database queries.
However, ESRI is pretty much the definitive vendor for this type of tool, I hope MSF is simply managing data for a third party tool, as trying to recreate a comparable GIS tool would take a 50 man team at least a decade.
Tech God anon, thank you.
I just got word from a reliable source that ESRI is a partner with MSF on this contract.
Post a Comment