Re: Recovery.Gov Project Tracker
Posted: Sat Feb 22, 2014 5:30 am
Not like I believe it myself, but wouldn't this be a good choice of cover for successful WB8 and the Navy trying to eek out that head start on the rest of the world?
a discussion forum for Polywell fusion
https://talk-polywell.org/bb/
mvanwink5 wrote:FPDF.gov
last modified date: 01/14/2014 18:58:27, and now the completion date 4-30-14
so an update after all, but no extra money unless the option is exercised. Maybe their final report is yet to have been delivered to the Navy? Chuckie II?
The problem with this "hand to mouth" funding is people can't live that way, and neither can projects. This is bureaucratic crap.
As closely as I parse these reports, I don't know how I missed these words, "SUPPLEMENTAL AGREEMENT FOR WORK WITHIN SCOPE," which would imply additional work was to be done after the amended 9/30/13 completion date. Of course, that would justify pushing the completion date out 7 months, but without extra money for extra work (but within scope), I am not sure why an agreement would be worthwhile... There must be some budget addendum somewhere to shoehorn some extra cash for this extra (in scope) work? But where is the cash reported? Why the late, 1-14-14 amendment? That is odd, it seems. Something going on here, more than these microscopic post FPDS report changes...ladajo wrote:Curious, but in line with my logic still.
So now we have no news or annoucement, but a revamped completion date (again) to near future.
Is this teeing up a follow-on contract? Or is it a contract closeout adjustment?
We will need to see money allocations to have any real sense of what is going on.
But no status report is telling. It would seem to indicate someone still has 'something to hide'. It would make no sense to hide 'nothing'.
Meh.
Actually it looks like they have extended the time from the original project. I think what we are seeing with the updated completion date is a "no cost extension". As someone who applies for and receives federal grant funding, this is a pretty common scenario. You submit your proposal, budget and timeline, and if/when approved, it (almost) always takes longer to get started (hiring, materials, etc.) than you forecast. You end up having unspent money at the end date because of the delays in ramping up the project. Getting a no cost extension of up to a year is usually not very difficult for research projects. (Getting an extension with additional cost is virtually impossible in the field I work - rather than try this, we have to submit a new proposal for funding).happyjack27 wrote:Hold on a second.. Am I to understand they recently _shortened_ the contract completion time, _while keeping the funding the same_? If you keep the funding the same for something, it by definition means that it does not cost you anything, regardless of whether you made it shorter or longer. Making it shorter does not give it more opportunity for success. And not making it shorter is free. So the only rational reason you have for shortening the deadline, and keeping funding the same, is if it was already a success; is to avoid the opportunity lost by needlessly delaying contract renewal.
well i see that as just plain neutral. the next phase is a huge increase in cost ( > 20x ), so it would be irresponsible of them to not milk this phase for all its worth. it's a no-brainer - if you haven't used up all your funds yet, you ask for an extension, period. even if its wildly successful. you still test on the phase 2 device as much as you can, because testing on the phase 3 device is going to be wildly more expensive.sdg wrote:Actually it looks like they have extended the time from the original project. I think what we are seeing with the updated completion date is a "no cost extension". As someone who applies for and receives federal grant funding, this is a pretty common scenario. You submit your proposal, budget and timeline, and if/when approved, it (almost) always takes longer to get started (hiring, materials, etc.) than you forecast. You end up having unspent money at the end date because of the delays in ramping up the project. Getting a no cost extension of up to a year is usually not very difficult for research projects. (Getting an extension with additional cost is virtually impossible in the field I work - rather than try this, we have to submit a new proposal for funding).happyjack27 wrote:Hold on a second.. Am I to understand they recently _shortened_ the contract completion time, _while keeping the funding the same_? If you keep the funding the same for something, it by definition means that it does not cost you anything, regardless of whether you made it shorter or longer. Making it shorter does not give it more opportunity for success. And not making it shorter is free. So the only rational reason you have for shortening the deadline, and keeping funding the same, is if it was already a success; is to avoid the opportunity lost by needlessly delaying contract renewal.
If that is what is going on with EMC2, I read it as a neutral-to-negative sign. Neutral because no cost extensions are commonly received and it doesn't necessarily imply either success or failure. Perhaps negative because it indicates that they have not demonstrated enough success that they are receiving additional funding at this late date (at least, that we know of).
Seems we have been down this road 5 months at a time before...It would seem that under any interpretation that the next movement on FPDS is going to be very telling.
Too late. Those photos were modified 5 minutes after you posted. I say we do a trash analysis of EMC2. Somebody tweet a local before They lock-up the bin.choff wrote:Compare any researcher photos from recent conferences with those from say Solve for X photo releases. If the people appear to have appreciable age differences in between that could be a giveaway of significant time delays to information release compared to actual progress.
IMHO, it sound like the project was successful, and everything is winding down. The next project would be a program continuation leading to a more costly phase, and would require a lot more money. So it may take time to get it funded. For the size of funding required, there will be some issues to resolve, political and other. So, they are storing the thing away.happyjack27 wrote:well i see that as just plain neutral. the next phase is a huge increase in cost ( > 20x ), so it would be irresponsible of them to not milk this phase for all its worth. it's a no-brainer - if you haven't used up all your funds yet, you ask for an extension, period. even if its wildly successful. you still test on the phase 2 device as much as you can, because testing on the phase 3 device is going to be wildly more expensive.