I was afraid this was coming. They really want to spend that "One Big Beautiful Bill" money ASAP, although now that it was approved by Congress, I doubt midterms or a change in the Trump Regime (25th amendment, whatever) could stop this from proceeding. No daycare or healthcare for you, Americans! We have a border to "protect", brown people to deport and illegal, unprovoked wars to fight!
A couple of comments:
"Using 236220 is a sign that the agency anticipates using these contracts for large-scale, institutional building work, not small projects or repairs."
This is not necessarily true, and the solicitation/sources sought notice mentions repairs, demolition and upgrades to existing facilities in addition to engineering and environmental compliance (yeah I chuckled at that too). Virtually all that is signaled by the use of NAICS Code 236220 is that these SACCs will be used for 'vertical' construction projects (as opposed to 'horizontal' projects like levee and land-based border fences and floating waterborne barriers) - so, likely repairs and additions to existing buildings and new design-build (DB) construction of smaller stations and checkpoints. Most of the "joint processing centers" (i.e., immigrant prisons built according to "corrections facility" standards) are too high in $ magnitude for me to think they'd be acquired under the resulting SACC contracting vehicles....if they ever end up getting awarded at all. Furthermore, there is currently another $10Bn IDIQ already in final source selection. Anyone can download the documents here, including the scope of work: https://sam.gov/workspace/contract/opp/98cdd5a9942a41a399b0ea7ecff2a529/view Nearly equivalent to what this SACC program seems to be aiming for. More on that toward the end of my comment.
That said, you are correct when pointing out that the bonding capacity limitations might point to screening out smaller firms, however $10M single/ $300M aggregate would allow for mid-size firms to qualify. Most Small Business firms are able to bond $10M single projects and typical Small Business(es according to the NAICS 236220 size standard* can usually bond $50-$80M aggregate). It's the aggregate of $300M that in itself is interesting because most *larger* firms don't want to be performing numerous concurrent $10-20M projects and would rather be awarded one or two $150M+ projects. And to flesh out your explanation of what this means, a construction firm doing business with the government has to provide a bid bond with their proposal (assuming for an actual construction project), and then performance and payment bonds upon award.
Also, being very familiar with the government construction sector, I would point out that a "sources sought" *is* merely market research - the results of which may cause them to open up the eventual acquisition to small businesses including the socioeconomic categories they listed (WOSB, HUBZone, 8(a)**, SDVOSB, etc.). IOW, depending on the industry feedback they get, the ultimate solicitation and resulting contracts could include a SB set-aside pool for smaller projects.
What I would guess here is that they want to award multiple SACCs to individual firms so that they can 'efficiently' assign out projects without further scrutiny to pre-qualified contractors. This is what DHS CBP is currently doing under what I call their shadow border wall program, which was just awarded in 2025 after the previous MATOC program expired. https://factually.co/fact-checks/politics/largest-us-mexico-border-wall-contracts-through-2025-98d86b.
In essence they did a no-bid award to several of the firms (aka short listed) who were already on the previous MATOC and they're farming out "task orders" (basically border wall segments) to contract holders individually. This prevents protests and fast-tracks time to award and completion. Personally I think it's in violation of the FAR, but as we've seen with the Trump Regime, accountability and legality are things of the past. So yeah, this looks like what they're doing is developing a short list and then issuing sole-source solicitations/awards to individual SACC holders so that they can estimate/bid them and be awarded with no further scrutiny.
Additionally, I found it interesting that they didn't even specify a target 'ceiling' value for the overall program (see the SAM link I provided above for the MATOC). Generally that is information firms responding to this type of market research want to know because they are going to evaluate whether it's worth it to spend any time on this kind of 'business development' activity. And to a previous point, most large, established firms don't want, say, 12 concurrent ~$10M rinky dink projects spread out all over the country. Which also makes me wonder if the eventual solicitation ends up breaking the awards out into regions.
This will be an interesting one to follow, because the stated scope is already attainable via existing and upcoming contract awards, so the way I look at this SACC program is a means to funnel taxpayer money to a group of well-connected firms who don't happen to be among the group that the article above alludes to. Probably Trump and associate cronies with direct ties to the regime.
Also, they said they won't be answering any questions, LOL.
* - The first asterisk is a referral to the NAICS 236220 size standard, which effectively means a business cannot qualify as a "Small Business" if its rolling 5-year annual average revenues exceed $45M (this may have been upped recently). Being a "Prime Contractor" Small Business according to the SBA and NAICS standards carries advantages in terms of set-asides, and being a subcontractor Small Business means that larger firms are required to farm out a certain % of large government contracts to SBA designated Small Businesses.
**- The asterisk by 8(a) was because Pete Kegsbreath's Department of WAR has basically waged war on the SBA's 8(a) program and I was surprised to see it mentioned by DHS.
I'm ignorant regarding gov't contracts, but the trump model does seem to focus on major extraction of taxpayer $$$$ gifted (as contracts or purchases, eg the warehouses being bought WAY over market value)to cronies with a quid pro quo always attached.
Next up from the Nazi playbook: A modern day, stacked People's Court to charge “domestic terrorists” with resulting execution orders. (See 24Apr2026 news on DoJ firing squads, electrocution & gas asphyxiation.)
Way too much capacity being built in a hurry for just short term immigrant detention. It's intended for something else and we're not supposed to know what.
Do you think?? 🤔 These are the TechBro billionaires’ —work camp gulags for ‘undesirables’ which basically means dissenters. Intentional Failure of ‘entitlements’ are meant to eliminate seniors, disabled people, the mentally or physically ill who detract from the elite provide margins. These people are the international Epstein Elite who use people,engage in crime and buy governments with impunity and opacity. They believe in genocide. Look up Curtis Yarvin. Or listen and remember the land grabs in the big Obscene Bill. They are planning a BOB #2 https://youtu.be/5RpPTRcz1no?si=xQrugaOefrt-zniT
Correct, take special note of the phrase "design-build." What this means is that the owner/builder, in this case the Federal government, does not have an architect working on their behalf. That's the classic structure, design-bid-build, where the architect, the design element, works for the owner to help oversee the general contractor to make sure the owner doesn't get ripped off. When you go from design-bid-build to design-build, there's nobody looking out for the owner's interest and instead the architect goes to work directly for the builder (general contractor). This is done in the name of efficiency, but what it actually accomplishes is opening the door to wholesale corruption. Designed-build is an intentional structure to transfer wealth and produce substandard outcomes. Invariably, a high percentage of these projects end up in court as foundations crack because less concrete was poured than called for in the original design. It's just another form of organized stealing.
That's the skeptical take, for sure. But design-build (when performed by qualified, quality focused A/E-GC teams) can also be a means of saving money and eliminating the types of issues you mentioned up front so that they don't become an issue during construction or in the warranty period. For example, in the typical DBB model, there is no constructor input into the design and a stamped100% design gets handed off to prospective bidders on the construction side. Often during this part of the process design flaws are noted - too late in the process to effect adequate design changes, and it results in a protracted series of Q&A, back-end design adjustments, compromises, budget INCREASES, etc. It is also much more susceptible to market conditions such as the price of steel or concrete and lead times on items like electrical transformers and HVAC equipment. During DB construction, these items can be ordered as they are incorporated into the design, which is typically approved at the 35, 65 and 95% stages.
DB construction isn't just a government delivery methodology. Numerous private and commercial projects are delivered as DB or progressive DB. There are advantages and disadvantages to both DB and DBB.
I'm a former California legislative official who's responsible for four laws governing municipal construction, one of them was about design build. What you describe doesn't exist because there is no the group more dishonest than the construction industry. If you are a company/owner with in-house capacity to oversee a design build project, fine. But for most municipal entities, there is no such expertise so that there is nobody looking out for the best interests of the owner. That's why California passed a law saying that if you're a school district and you want to build a school using a design build company, you still have to hire an architect to oversee the general contractor.
Stop with this nonsense about how friction equals inefficiency. Friction is accountability in action.
Also, just for the sake of debate, and because I am not familiar with California construction codes - or the industry in general out there - I did a simple search using the terms "california laws design-build municipal construction" and this was the "AI" output. It seems to contradict what you're saying, but it does look more focused on infrastructure rather than municipal vertical construction projects, FWIW.
"California law significantly expands the use of Progressive Design-Build (PDB) for municipal and local agencies, allowing them to select contractors based on qualifications rather than traditional low-bid methods. This framework is primarily driven by recent legislative reforms, specifically Senate Bill 706 (SB 706) and Assembly Bill 400 (AB 400), which broadened eligibility and extended statutory deadlines.
Key provisions governing design-build for local agencies include:
Expanded Eligibility: Local agencies, including cities, counties, special districts, and transit authorities, are authorized to use PDB for up to 10 public works projects exceeding $5 million each.
Broadened Project Scope: Unlike previous iterations limited to water-related projects, the current authority covers various public works initiatives, including transit, wastewater, and solid waste management.
Sunset Dates: The authorization for local agencies to utilize PDB under these expanded provisions is extended until January 1, 2030 (SB 706) and January 1, 2031 (AB 400)."
Transit Specifics: AB 400 explicitly includes joint powers authorities responsible for constructing transit projects within the definition of eligible local agencies, further streamlining procurement for regional transportation projects.
These laws aim to modernize infrastructure development by offering greater flexibility and adaptability in project delivery, moving away from rigid bidding processes toward qualification-based selection."
The construction industry writ large is no more "dishonest" than any other industry under late capitalism. If performed according to appropriate/relevant acquisition, design and construction codes there is nothing that makes design-build any more fundamentally prone to fraud than design-bid-build. I am an engineer currently working for a general contractor that does both design-build and design-bid-build work, in addition to other delivery methods such as CMaR (construction manager at risk) - who absorbs the risk in that scenario?
Precisely what did I describe that doesn't exist?
Speaking to your comment about in-house design capabilities, sure. That's an advantage just like having in-house self-perform capabilities in construction. Lower cost, less risk, etc. But it doesn't speak to any means of inherently reducing the risk of corruption, fraud or whatever.
Regarding DB municipal construction in California, I'd need more specifics about how design-build is less accountable or more expensive than design-bid-build; all you've done is make generalities and present them as data or evidence. I would like to see the data and/or evidence. And what you're describing as far as an A/E to oversee construction sounds like it mirrors Title I and Title II under the federal Brooks Act. Were these municipal projects that you indicate went so badly awarded as firm fixed-cost contracts? If so, I can't see how any "dishonesty" could have occurred unless a corrupt municipal official was involved in some way with the contractor(s).
I never said "friction equals inefficiency" (even though that's a basic - and fundamentally correct - concept in physics); I said that there are situations where DB is a better delivery methodology than DBB, and that multiple considerations must be taken into account by the person or entity acquiring the services. And as noted previously, "constructability" reviews *during* design are a definite advantage that lower lifetime costs of the project. That doesn't normally happen in DBB construction.
To me it sounds like you had some bad experiences with a certain corrupt contractor performing a design-build project and/or some corrupt city/county officials getting kickbacks. I'd be interested in hearing some specifics rather than broad statements based on un-articulated evidence and/or anecdotal experience.
This is a fascinating conversation. What is meant by "original design" in the context of a DB project where the constructor pours less concrete than was intended?
Last thing: Your comments lead me to believe (and maybe with some specifics we can clear it up) that the owner of these design-build projects was completely cut out of the process. I've never once seen that happen in a government DB contract. The owner's representative (a government employee) - if responsible, competent, and non-corrupt - serves as a frequent, constant check on the process, including what some call "over the shoulder reviews", has full transparency to the cost-loaded project schedule, and frequent partnering sessions throughout the life of the project. Could it e perhaps that in the situations you're talking about, the project owner was irresponsible or corrupt?
Correct, take special note of the phrase "design-build." What this means is that the owner/builder, in this case the Federal government, does not have an architect working on their behalf. That's the classic structure, design-bid-build, where the architect, the design element, works for the owner to help oversee the general contractor to make sure the owner doesn't get ripped off. When you go from design-bid-build to design-build, there's nobody looking out for the owner's interest and instead the architect goes to work directly for the builder (general contractor). This is done in the name of efficiency, but what it actually accomplishes is opening the door to wholesale corruption. Designed-build is an intentional structure to transfer wealth and produce substandard outcomes. Invariably, a high percentage of these projects end up in court as foundations crack because less concrete was poured than called for in the original design. It's just another form of organized stealing.
I am very concerned for Eastern Shore of MD, particularly Wicomico County…it would be a wet dream for our local sheriff Mike Lewis…all sleuthing hands needed asap
I wouldn’t be surprised if ICE is laying groundwork to exploit (the increased frequency of) natural disasters by swooping in to build what they want quickly under the guise of “emergency response.” Diabolical.
Tom, go f*** yourself. When you have years of experience as a government official with subpoena power working on the inside looking out, and your work product produces new laws and you've bothered to write a book about it, it's called being an expert. You want to challenge my expertise, read my f****** book.
You have to open up your mind to the possibility that everyone involved is corrupt. The school board member wants to get elected to the county or State legislature so they're happy to facilitate this fraud. The people running the Democratic party in the state of California are the land developers using land holding companies to shield their identites so they can use insider information to profit off of buying worthless land two days before the school district announces its intent to buy it at an inflated value. The general contractor sees all the thieving going on and they cut corners to put money in their pockets, after all, these are just schools for poor people.. And then the lawyers get to desend on the carcass costing the district even more as they try to figure out what happened.
Exactly. Everyone involved WAS corrupt. And I'm not even defending the possible contracts that may result from the "sources sought" notice at the core of this Project Salt Box article. I'm saying that you're way off-base in describing ALL design-build projects as scams at their very core.
🚨🚨So Excited to see Project Salt Box partnering w defiance.org!!! & the Get The Facilities Out initiative- gtfoice.org Your Brilliance & Amazing abilities to search out all the information you gather will formally PowerUp a Rapid Response Network to stop ICE Detention Centers before the can open. So exciting-Hope EVERYONE will join. Get Alerts to let you know where to initiate Civic Action, & suggestions for action
Just by happenstance read this line in a news article today: "A week after Cyprus assumed the EU’s rotating presidency in January, a video appeared on social media – from a relatively obscure account named 'Emily Thompson – showing President Nikos Christodoulides’s brother-in-law, a former energy minister, and a major construction magnate discussing influence-peddling arrangements between Christodoulides and foreign investors."
OK, but then why not just provide the link to the last one? All of those requirements listed on the first two pages are entirely reasonable and have been adopted across the entirety of the DB construction industry in the 30+ years since the (should have been major) scandal you documented happened - with obvious differences in dollar amounts and other parameters. Check out the Title I and Title II laws I referenced in another comment. You still won't come off your perch to understand that DB construction is not inherently corrupt and solely on the side of the contractor TEAM (it takes an A/E *AND* a general contractor - two separate firms) deliver a DB project!
All of the "dishonesty" you're talking about is 100% attributable to lack of guardrails and municipal government corruption!!! Someone just happened to exploit DB construction at the time and lack of understanding of the methodology to pull off a QUICKER scam.
The Environmental Quality Act and the Belmont Learning Complex: A Breakdown in Process. A Special Report of the Joint Legislative Audit Committee. 1999, California State Legislature, Sacramento.
Design-Build in Public School Construction: A Post Hearing Briefing. A Report of the Joint Legislative Audit Committee. 1998, California State Legislature, Sacramento.
Toxic School Sites in Los Angeles: Weaknesses in the Site Acquisition Process. Special Report of the Joint Legislative Audit Committee. 1998, California State Legislature, Sacramento
I was afraid this was coming. They really want to spend that "One Big Beautiful Bill" money ASAP, although now that it was approved by Congress, I doubt midterms or a change in the Trump Regime (25th amendment, whatever) could stop this from proceeding. No daycare or healthcare for you, Americans! We have a border to "protect", brown people to deport and illegal, unprovoked wars to fight!
A couple of comments:
"Using 236220 is a sign that the agency anticipates using these contracts for large-scale, institutional building work, not small projects or repairs."
This is not necessarily true, and the solicitation/sources sought notice mentions repairs, demolition and upgrades to existing facilities in addition to engineering and environmental compliance (yeah I chuckled at that too). Virtually all that is signaled by the use of NAICS Code 236220 is that these SACCs will be used for 'vertical' construction projects (as opposed to 'horizontal' projects like levee and land-based border fences and floating waterborne barriers) - so, likely repairs and additions to existing buildings and new design-build (DB) construction of smaller stations and checkpoints. Most of the "joint processing centers" (i.e., immigrant prisons built according to "corrections facility" standards) are too high in $ magnitude for me to think they'd be acquired under the resulting SACC contracting vehicles....if they ever end up getting awarded at all. Furthermore, there is currently another $10Bn IDIQ already in final source selection. Anyone can download the documents here, including the scope of work: https://sam.gov/workspace/contract/opp/98cdd5a9942a41a399b0ea7ecff2a529/view Nearly equivalent to what this SACC program seems to be aiming for. More on that toward the end of my comment.
That said, you are correct when pointing out that the bonding capacity limitations might point to screening out smaller firms, however $10M single/ $300M aggregate would allow for mid-size firms to qualify. Most Small Business firms are able to bond $10M single projects and typical Small Business(es according to the NAICS 236220 size standard* can usually bond $50-$80M aggregate). It's the aggregate of $300M that in itself is interesting because most *larger* firms don't want to be performing numerous concurrent $10-20M projects and would rather be awarded one or two $150M+ projects. And to flesh out your explanation of what this means, a construction firm doing business with the government has to provide a bid bond with their proposal (assuming for an actual construction project), and then performance and payment bonds upon award.
Also, being very familiar with the government construction sector, I would point out that a "sources sought" *is* merely market research - the results of which may cause them to open up the eventual acquisition to small businesses including the socioeconomic categories they listed (WOSB, HUBZone, 8(a)**, SDVOSB, etc.). IOW, depending on the industry feedback they get, the ultimate solicitation and resulting contracts could include a SB set-aside pool for smaller projects.
What I would guess here is that they want to award multiple SACCs to individual firms so that they can 'efficiently' assign out projects without further scrutiny to pre-qualified contractors. This is what DHS CBP is currently doing under what I call their shadow border wall program, which was just awarded in 2025 after the previous MATOC program expired. https://factually.co/fact-checks/politics/largest-us-mexico-border-wall-contracts-through-2025-98d86b.
In essence they did a no-bid award to several of the firms (aka short listed) who were already on the previous MATOC and they're farming out "task orders" (basically border wall segments) to contract holders individually. This prevents protests and fast-tracks time to award and completion. Personally I think it's in violation of the FAR, but as we've seen with the Trump Regime, accountability and legality are things of the past. So yeah, this looks like what they're doing is developing a short list and then issuing sole-source solicitations/awards to individual SACC holders so that they can estimate/bid them and be awarded with no further scrutiny.
Additionally, I found it interesting that they didn't even specify a target 'ceiling' value for the overall program (see the SAM link I provided above for the MATOC). Generally that is information firms responding to this type of market research want to know because they are going to evaluate whether it's worth it to spend any time on this kind of 'business development' activity. And to a previous point, most large, established firms don't want, say, 12 concurrent ~$10M rinky dink projects spread out all over the country. Which also makes me wonder if the eventual solicitation ends up breaking the awards out into regions.
This will be an interesting one to follow, because the stated scope is already attainable via existing and upcoming contract awards, so the way I look at this SACC program is a means to funnel taxpayer money to a group of well-connected firms who don't happen to be among the group that the article above alludes to. Probably Trump and associate cronies with direct ties to the regime.
Also, they said they won't be answering any questions, LOL.
* - The first asterisk is a referral to the NAICS 236220 size standard, which effectively means a business cannot qualify as a "Small Business" if its rolling 5-year annual average revenues exceed $45M (this may have been upped recently). Being a "Prime Contractor" Small Business according to the SBA and NAICS standards carries advantages in terms of set-asides, and being a subcontractor Small Business means that larger firms are required to farm out a certain % of large government contracts to SBA designated Small Businesses.
**- The asterisk by 8(a) was because Pete Kegsbreath's Department of WAR has basically waged war on the SBA's 8(a) program and I was surprised to see it mentioned by DHS.
I'm ignorant regarding gov't contracts, but the trump model does seem to focus on major extraction of taxpayer $$$$ gifted (as contracts or purchases, eg the warehouses being bought WAY over market value)to cronies with a quid pro quo always attached.
Makes me wonder if these are going to be camps for dissidents/political prisoners.
Nazi Germany redux,
Next up from the Nazi playbook: A modern day, stacked People's Court to charge “domestic terrorists” with resulting execution orders. (See 24Apr2026 news on DoJ firing squads, electrocution & gas asphyxiation.)
Way too much capacity being built in a hurry for just short term immigrant detention. It's intended for something else and we're not supposed to know what.
That would be the only reason for more detention centers
Do you think?? 🤔 These are the TechBro billionaires’ —work camp gulags for ‘undesirables’ which basically means dissenters. Intentional Failure of ‘entitlements’ are meant to eliminate seniors, disabled people, the mentally or physically ill who detract from the elite provide margins. These people are the international Epstein Elite who use people,engage in crime and buy governments with impunity and opacity. They believe in genocide. Look up Curtis Yarvin. Or listen and remember the land grabs in the big Obscene Bill. They are planning a BOB #2 https://youtu.be/5RpPTRcz1no?si=xQrugaOefrt-zniT
So: less scrutiny, more waste of tax dollars.
Correct, take special note of the phrase "design-build." What this means is that the owner/builder, in this case the Federal government, does not have an architect working on their behalf. That's the classic structure, design-bid-build, where the architect, the design element, works for the owner to help oversee the general contractor to make sure the owner doesn't get ripped off. When you go from design-bid-build to design-build, there's nobody looking out for the owner's interest and instead the architect goes to work directly for the builder (general contractor). This is done in the name of efficiency, but what it actually accomplishes is opening the door to wholesale corruption. Designed-build is an intentional structure to transfer wealth and produce substandard outcomes. Invariably, a high percentage of these projects end up in court as foundations crack because less concrete was poured than called for in the original design. It's just another form of organized stealing.
That's the skeptical take, for sure. But design-build (when performed by qualified, quality focused A/E-GC teams) can also be a means of saving money and eliminating the types of issues you mentioned up front so that they don't become an issue during construction or in the warranty period. For example, in the typical DBB model, there is no constructor input into the design and a stamped100% design gets handed off to prospective bidders on the construction side. Often during this part of the process design flaws are noted - too late in the process to effect adequate design changes, and it results in a protracted series of Q&A, back-end design adjustments, compromises, budget INCREASES, etc. It is also much more susceptible to market conditions such as the price of steel or concrete and lead times on items like electrical transformers and HVAC equipment. During DB construction, these items can be ordered as they are incorporated into the design, which is typically approved at the 35, 65 and 95% stages.
DB construction isn't just a government delivery methodology. Numerous private and commercial projects are delivered as DB or progressive DB. There are advantages and disadvantages to both DB and DBB.
I'm a former California legislative official who's responsible for four laws governing municipal construction, one of them was about design build. What you describe doesn't exist because there is no the group more dishonest than the construction industry. If you are a company/owner with in-house capacity to oversee a design build project, fine. But for most municipal entities, there is no such expertise so that there is nobody looking out for the best interests of the owner. That's why California passed a law saying that if you're a school district and you want to build a school using a design build company, you still have to hire an architect to oversee the general contractor.
Stop with this nonsense about how friction equals inefficiency. Friction is accountability in action.
Also, just for the sake of debate, and because I am not familiar with California construction codes - or the industry in general out there - I did a simple search using the terms "california laws design-build municipal construction" and this was the "AI" output. It seems to contradict what you're saying, but it does look more focused on infrastructure rather than municipal vertical construction projects, FWIW.
"California law significantly expands the use of Progressive Design-Build (PDB) for municipal and local agencies, allowing them to select contractors based on qualifications rather than traditional low-bid methods. This framework is primarily driven by recent legislative reforms, specifically Senate Bill 706 (SB 706) and Assembly Bill 400 (AB 400), which broadened eligibility and extended statutory deadlines.
Key provisions governing design-build for local agencies include:
Expanded Eligibility: Local agencies, including cities, counties, special districts, and transit authorities, are authorized to use PDB for up to 10 public works projects exceeding $5 million each.
Broadened Project Scope: Unlike previous iterations limited to water-related projects, the current authority covers various public works initiatives, including transit, wastewater, and solid waste management.
Sunset Dates: The authorization for local agencies to utilize PDB under these expanded provisions is extended until January 1, 2030 (SB 706) and January 1, 2031 (AB 400)."
Transit Specifics: AB 400 explicitly includes joint powers authorities responsible for constructing transit projects within the definition of eligible local agencies, further streamlining procurement for regional transportation projects.
These laws aim to modernize infrastructure development by offering greater flexibility and adaptability in project delivery, moving away from rigid bidding processes toward qualification-based selection."
The construction industry writ large is no more "dishonest" than any other industry under late capitalism. If performed according to appropriate/relevant acquisition, design and construction codes there is nothing that makes design-build any more fundamentally prone to fraud than design-bid-build. I am an engineer currently working for a general contractor that does both design-build and design-bid-build work, in addition to other delivery methods such as CMaR (construction manager at risk) - who absorbs the risk in that scenario?
Precisely what did I describe that doesn't exist?
Speaking to your comment about in-house design capabilities, sure. That's an advantage just like having in-house self-perform capabilities in construction. Lower cost, less risk, etc. But it doesn't speak to any means of inherently reducing the risk of corruption, fraud or whatever.
Regarding DB municipal construction in California, I'd need more specifics about how design-build is less accountable or more expensive than design-bid-build; all you've done is make generalities and present them as data or evidence. I would like to see the data and/or evidence. And what you're describing as far as an A/E to oversee construction sounds like it mirrors Title I and Title II under the federal Brooks Act. Were these municipal projects that you indicate went so badly awarded as firm fixed-cost contracts? If so, I can't see how any "dishonesty" could have occurred unless a corrupt municipal official was involved in some way with the contractor(s).
I never said "friction equals inefficiency" (even though that's a basic - and fundamentally correct - concept in physics); I said that there are situations where DB is a better delivery methodology than DBB, and that multiple considerations must be taken into account by the person or entity acquiring the services. And as noted previously, "constructability" reviews *during* design are a definite advantage that lower lifetime costs of the project. That doesn't normally happen in DBB construction.
To me it sounds like you had some bad experiences with a certain corrupt contractor performing a design-build project and/or some corrupt city/county officials getting kickbacks. I'd be interested in hearing some specifics rather than broad statements based on un-articulated evidence and/or anecdotal experience.
This is a fascinating conversation. What is meant by "original design" in the context of a DB project where the constructor pours less concrete than was intended?
Last thing: Your comments lead me to believe (and maybe with some specifics we can clear it up) that the owner of these design-build projects was completely cut out of the process. I've never once seen that happen in a government DB contract. The owner's representative (a government employee) - if responsible, competent, and non-corrupt - serves as a frequent, constant check on the process, including what some call "over the shoulder reviews", has full transparency to the cost-loaded project schedule, and frequent partnering sessions throughout the life of the project. Could it e perhaps that in the situations you're talking about, the project owner was irresponsible or corrupt?
Correct, take special note of the phrase "design-build." What this means is that the owner/builder, in this case the Federal government, does not have an architect working on their behalf. That's the classic structure, design-bid-build, where the architect, the design element, works for the owner to help oversee the general contractor to make sure the owner doesn't get ripped off. When you go from design-bid-build to design-build, there's nobody looking out for the owner's interest and instead the architect goes to work directly for the builder (general contractor). This is done in the name of efficiency, but what it actually accomplishes is opening the door to wholesale corruption. Designed-build is an intentional structure to transfer wealth and produce substandard outcomes. Invariably, a high percentage of these projects end up in court as foundations crack because less concrete was poured than called for in the original design. It's just another form of organized stealing.
WTF!!!
I am very concerned for Eastern Shore of MD, particularly Wicomico County…it would be a wet dream for our local sheriff Mike Lewis…all sleuthing hands needed asap
Time for sheriff Mike Lewis to be voted out. Elections any time soon?
November
I wouldn’t be surprised if ICE is laying groundwork to exploit (the increased frequency of) natural disasters by swooping in to build what they want quickly under the guise of “emergency response.” Diabolical.
Most of these “initiatives” are falsely painted as a national emergency- That is BS!
Keep up the pushback! No concentration camps in the USA💪🏼
That money ain't gonna launder itself! Bet they found a loophole around local control for "temporary" structures.
Tom, go f*** yourself. When you have years of experience as a government official with subpoena power working on the inside looking out, and your work product produces new laws and you've bothered to write a book about it, it's called being an expert. You want to challenge my expertise, read my f****** book.
You have to open up your mind to the possibility that everyone involved is corrupt. The school board member wants to get elected to the county or State legislature so they're happy to facilitate this fraud. The people running the Democratic party in the state of California are the land developers using land holding companies to shield their identites so they can use insider information to profit off of buying worthless land two days before the school district announces its intent to buy it at an inflated value. The general contractor sees all the thieving going on and they cut corners to put money in their pockets, after all, these are just schools for poor people.. And then the lawyers get to desend on the carcass costing the district even more as they try to figure out what happened.
Exactly. Everyone involved WAS corrupt. And I'm not even defending the possible contracts that may result from the "sources sought" notice at the core of this Project Salt Box article. I'm saying that you're way off-base in describing ALL design-build projects as scams at their very core.
🚨🚨So Excited to see Project Salt Box partnering w defiance.org!!! & the Get The Facilities Out initiative- gtfoice.org Your Brilliance & Amazing abilities to search out all the information you gather will formally PowerUp a Rapid Response Network to stop ICE Detention Centers before the can open. So exciting-Hope EVERYONE will join. Get Alerts to let you know where to initiate Civic Action, & suggestions for action
Such clever little weasels. Thanks for the eagle eyes. I appreciate all you are doing to help us understand what's really happening here.
This “fast track” of illegal contracts goes against the Federal Acquisition Regulations (FAR).
Just by happenstance read this line in a news article today: "A week after Cyprus assumed the EU’s rotating presidency in January, a video appeared on social media – from a relatively obscure account named 'Emily Thompson – showing President Nikos Christodoulides’s brother-in-law, a former energy minister, and a major construction magnate discussing influence-peddling arrangements between Christodoulides and foreign investors."
These are the four laws, the last one deals with design build.
AB 387, 1999, Wildman. School facilities: site contamination
https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=199920000AB387
SB 162, 1999, Escutia. School facilities: contamination
https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=199920000SB162
AB-2644, 2000, Calderon. School facilities: contamination
https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=199920000AB2644
AB 1402, 2001, Simitian. Public works: design-build contracts
https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=200120020AB1402
OK, but then why not just provide the link to the last one? All of those requirements listed on the first two pages are entirely reasonable and have been adopted across the entirety of the DB construction industry in the 30+ years since the (should have been major) scandal you documented happened - with obvious differences in dollar amounts and other parameters. Check out the Title I and Title II laws I referenced in another comment. You still won't come off your perch to understand that DB construction is not inherently corrupt and solely on the side of the contractor TEAM (it takes an A/E *AND* a general contractor - two separate firms) deliver a DB project!
All of the "dishonesty" you're talking about is 100% attributable to lack of guardrails and municipal government corruption!!! Someone just happened to exploit DB construction at the time and lack of understanding of the methodology to pull off a QUICKER scam.
The laws:
AB 387, 1999, Wildman. School facilities: site contamination
https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=199920000AB387
SB 162, 1999, Escutia. School facilities: contamination
https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=199920000SB162
AB-2644, 2000, Calderon. School facilities: contamination
https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=199920000AB2644
AB 1402, 2001, Simitian. Public works: design-build contracts
https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=200120020AB1402
The Environmental Quality Act and the Belmont Learning Complex: A Breakdown in Process. A Special Report of the Joint Legislative Audit Committee. 1999, California State Legislature, Sacramento.
Worldcat listing:
https://www.worldcat.org/title/environmental-quality-act-and-the-belmont-learning-complex-a-breakdown-in-process-a-special-report-of-the-joint-legislative-audit-committee/oclc/54686019
Report PDF:
https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED433683.pdf
Design-Build in Public School Construction: A Post Hearing Briefing. A Report of the Joint Legislative Audit Committee. 1998, California State Legislature, Sacramento.
Worldcat listing:
https://www.worldcat.org/title/design-build-in-public-school-construction-a-post-hearing-briefing-a-report-of-the-joint-legislative-audit-committee/oclc/1065061369&referer=brief_results
Report PDF:
https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED433681.pdf
Site Acquisition and Related Environmental Concerns. Report of the Joint Legislative Audit Committee. 1998, California State Legislature, Sacramento
Worldcat listing:
https://www.worldcat.org/title/site-acquisition-and-related-environmental-concerns-report-of-the-joint-legislative-audit-committee-chairman-scott-wildman/oclc/44846287&referer=brief_results
Report PDF:
https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED433679.pdf
California Legislature, Reports (cont.):
Toxic School Sites in Los Angeles: Weaknesses in the Site Acquisition Process. Special Report of the Joint Legislative Audit Committee. 1998, California State Legislature, Sacramento
Worldcat listing:
https://www.worldcat.org/title/toxic-school-sites-in-los-angeles-weaknesses-in-the-site-acquisition-process-special-report/oclc/964400214&referer=brief_results
Report PDF:
https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED433680.pdf