Posted on 06/07/2004 11:44:30 AM PDT by NormalGuy
could be worth as much as $10 billion.
The Department of Homeland Security said Tuesday it has picked Accenture as the prime contractor for US-Visit, an IT-based system that will control entry of foreigners into the country. The five-year contract, which could be lengthened to 10 years, could be worth up to $10 billion. Some people questioned whether the U.S. government would award Accenture the contract because it's incorporated in Hamilton, Bermuda. But only a handful of employees are situated there; 25,000 of Accenture's 90,000 workers are based in the United States. Accenture, with operations in 48 countries, says it maintains no corporate headquarters.
The government began to solicit bids in November, with contractors submitting them in January. The US-Visit Program Office led the source selection process, supported closely by department's border-management unit, representatives from other Homeland Security offices, as well as the State and Justice departments.
According to Homeland Security, each proposal was evaluated on four key factors: the business and technical solutions suggested to achieve the vision of US-Visit as an end-to-end management system; the management approach and proven capability to deliver a complex set of solutions; and the development and implementation strategy to deploy US-Visit entry and exit capabilities at the 50 busiest land ports of entry. Cost was also a major factor considered in the award decision.
Asa Hutchinson, Homeland Security's undersecretary of border and transportation security, said in a statement announcing Accenture's selection that the award marks an important milestone in the history of homeland security. "By harnessing the power of the best minds in the private sector, we have taken a major step toward accomplishing our goals of enhancing the security of our country while increasing efficiency at our borders," he said.
Accenture will provide a range of professional services, including strategic support, design and integration activities, technical solutions, deployment activities, training, and organizational change management.
The government's vision of US-Visit is to deploy end-to-end management and sharing of data on foreign nationals covering their interactions with federal officials before they enter the United States, when they enter, while they are here, and when they exit. Hutchinson contends that this comprehensive view of border management will lead to the creation of a virtual border and will set a course for improved processes to manage and share data on foreign nationals.
Since deploying US-Visit entry capabilities at 115 airports and 14 seaports on Jan. 5, more than 4.5 million foreign nationals have been processed without adversely impacting wait times, Homeland Security says, adding that since its launch, US-Visit has helped the government intercept more than 500 people with prior or suspected criminal or immigration violations. These include convicted rapists, drug traffickers, individuals convicted of credit-card fraud, a convicted armed robber, and numerous immigration violators and people using falsified documents.
US-Visit requires that most foreigners traveling to the United States on a visa and arriving at an airport or seaport have their two index fingers scanned and digital photographs taken to verify their identities at the port of entry. By Sept. 30, this process will also apply to visitors traveling under the visa waiver program at all airports and seaports of entry.
If you re-read the thread, you'll learn that the real issue is whether Accenture pays more U.S. taxes than it should. On one side of the argument, you have people arguing that we need to increase Accenture's cost of doing business to keep it from moving to Bermuda. On the other side, you have people arguing that Accenture moved to Bermuda because its cost of doing business was too high.
Lost in the fog is a consideration of whether Accenture is the best organziation to do the job.
The issue is not why Accenture's decided to dodge taxes. They are incorporated in Bermuda. They are not an American company.
Lost in the fog is a consideration of whether Accenture is the best organziation to do the job.
I know that Lockheed also bid on this contract. I have seen enough contracts being awarded to know that it's not the one who will do the best job, but who wines and dines the decision makers the most, or whose company the "decision makers" brother-in-law works for.
412 - "How positively bourgeoise!"
Thankyou for the compliment. I know you meant well, in spite of your ignorance. I prefer definitions #1 and 3 of the correct word. Too many awards for excellence to qualify for #2.
Bullets for sale. Get your bullets for free-traitors here. Bullets for sale !!!
And I am definitely not female, the actual usage of the word, you incorrectly used:
Main Entry: bour·geoise
Pronunciation: 'burzh-"wäz also 'buzh- or 'büzh- or burzh-'
Function: noun
Etymology: French, feminine of bourgeois
: a woman of the middle class .
"Main Entry: 1bour·geois
Pronunciation: 'burzh-"wä also 'buzh- or 'büzh- or burzh-'
Function: adjective
Etymology: Middle French, from Old French borjois, from borc
1 : of, relating to, or characteristic of the townsman or of the social middle class
2 : marked by a concern for material interests and respectability and a tendency toward mediocrity
3 : dominated by commercial and industrial interests : CAPITALISTIC
Pay free-traitors in bullets. Give them social justice!!!
414 - Thank you for attempting to correct yourself, and calling Poo what he really is.
However, I didn't 'attempt' to quote Poo, I exactly quoted him.
416 - "If Congress doesn't start listening to the people on this issue, they will be out of jobs, whether they are Republicans or Democrats. "
Bingo - give the man a Cigar. And I will add another cigar, if you add freej-traitors to that list of those who will be out of jobs.
422 - "I know that Lockheed also bid on this contract. I have seen enough contracts being awarded to know that it's not the one who will do the best job, but who wines and dines the decision makers the most, or whose company the "decision makers" brother-in-law works for."
As one of those who was one of the 'decision makers' for many years, on multi-million dollar contracts, I can confirm the correctness of this statement. It is very hard to remain 'honest' (which I obviously did - otherwised I would have a chateau on the French Riviera and be a multi-millionaire (which I was offered)).
I certainly wouldn't be hanging around FReeRepublic fighting for honorableness and my country. I would be long gone, with 'my' bribes.
And, let me make another point, being honest in that job of being a 'decision-maker' can at times be very dangerous. As an honest man, It is like going into a den of thieves with a target on your back. I was lucky and got fired on only 2 jobs for awarding contracts to the best bidder rather than the 'favored' bidder. And I had to hire body guards at other times, after putting some people in jail.
Here's a tip: When writing to people to tell them how stupid they are, don't misspell the word "stupid."
By the way, Steve Forbes had no chance of being elected President. None whatsoever. Click here to learn more.
Given the nature of most of these contracts, it's probably fair to state that Accenture won't F it up any more than Lockheed would have--or Perot's gang, or Ernst/Dasd.
Only question is how much the 'overrun' will be--not whether the system is ever finished and actually working...
,,, elasticity like that can only be thought of on government budgets, only the $10b will be a lot more ten years from now. They're onto a winner.
Good ones!
428 - "Only question is how much the 'overrun' will be--not whether the system is ever finished and actually working..."
Boy, you said a mouthful there. Those are two of the many things a good procurement man analyzes, capability and comparability of bid to actual requirements.
Very often, the apparent low bid, is often actually the highest bid, and sometimes the low bid really is the low bid, except that they don't have the capability to perform. So it get tricky to make valid comparisons and awards.
Personally, being that I have actually worked for Lockheed, and participated in some of their business deals and bids/analyses, I would generally (without knowing anything more than one of the two mentioned companies), I would generally say that neither one will give us a very good system like we want/need, but for very different reasons. And their failure points will also be different, as they each have different forte's.
Interestingly enough though, I just came up with an idea, that a new company, completely located in the US, which is a consortium, combining the strengths of both companies, could perhaps succeed, at only modestly higher cost.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.