<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Recovery Update &#8211; Unbelievable</title>
	<atom:link href="http://lidarnews.com/recovery-update-unbelievable/feed" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://lidarnews.com/recovery-update-unbelievable</link>
	<description>Laser Scanning Industry News</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Fri, 30 Jul 2010 13:46:54 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.0</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: Gene V. Roe</title>
		<link>http://lidarnews.com/recovery-update-unbelievable#comment-345</link>
		<dc:creator>Gene V. Roe</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 26 Jun 2009 13:15:49 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://lidarnews.com/?p=1056#comment-345</guid>
		<description>Thanks Bill - it all &#039;sounds&quot; good.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Thanks Bill &#8211; it all &#8216;sounds&#8221; good.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Bill</title>
		<link>http://lidarnews.com/recovery-update-unbelievable#comment-344</link>
		<dc:creator>Bill</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 26 Jun 2009 13:13:05 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://lidarnews.com/?p=1056#comment-344</guid>
		<description>According to the New York Times this morning, all states receiving aid have managed to meet the deadline on spending.  See: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/26/us/26states.html?ref=us

This means that there is a &quot;commitment&quot; to spend the money ($15.8billion) on some 4700 projects.

How this impacts our industry remains to be seen.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>According to the New York Times this morning, all states receiving aid have managed to meet the deadline on spending.  See: <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/26/us/26states.html?ref=us" rel="nofollow">http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/26/us/26states.html?ref=us</a></p>
<p>This means that there is a &#8220;commitment&#8221; to spend the money ($15.8billion) on some 4700 projects.</p>
<p>How this impacts our industry remains to be seen.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Gene V. Roe</title>
		<link>http://lidarnews.com/recovery-update-unbelievable#comment-343</link>
		<dc:creator>Gene V. Roe</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 26 Jun 2009 11:46:32 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://lidarnews.com/?p=1056#comment-343</guid>
		<description>Thanks for the insight. I feel better</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Thanks for the insight. I feel better</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: bob</title>
		<link>http://lidarnews.com/recovery-update-unbelievable#comment-341</link>
		<dc:creator>bob</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 26 Jun 2009 11:06:45 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://lidarnews.com/?p=1056#comment-341</guid>
		<description>Um. Assume a &quot;shovel-ready&quot; project - all approvals in place, but no funding. No contracts in place, because no prudent organization contracts without an identified funding stream. (Congress/President don&#039;t contract directly, so are not subject to this definition of prudent.) HR 1 passes 2/17/09. Final Agency plans submitted (meaning the Feds have decided how they want to spend the money) 5/15/09. Painful, yes, but lightspeed for the government. 

At that point, they can either send out the money to states/other intermediaries, or can start a direct contracting process. Assume for a moment (probably not a valid assumption) that RFP - request for proposal - development has been proceeding in parallel so the RFPs can hit the street 5/15/09. Typically, there&#039;s a 30 day response time. (Shorter periods are possible, but too much corner-cutting risks being tied up in legal and adminstrative challenges.) So, roughly 6/15/09, the procuring organizations are just getting the bids back. It&#039;ll take at least 30 days to evaluate - more typically 90, I&#039;d guess. That would suggest that contracts would be let 9/15/09 or so - and then the contractors have to roll trucks, shift/hire people, etc. I&#039;d say that having 10% under contract in 120 days is amazingly good, no matter how frustrating it seems. I&#039;d think that August/September is a better time to check - especially with the government fiscal year ending 9/30/09.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Um. Assume a &#8220;shovel-ready&#8221; project &#8211; all approvals in place, but no funding. No contracts in place, because no prudent organization contracts without an identified funding stream. (Congress/President don&#8217;t contract directly, so are not subject to this definition of prudent.) HR 1 passes 2/17/09. Final Agency plans submitted (meaning the Feds have decided how they want to spend the money) 5/15/09. Painful, yes, but lightspeed for the government. </p>
<p>At that point, they can either send out the money to states/other intermediaries, or can start a direct contracting process. Assume for a moment (probably not a valid assumption) that RFP &#8211; request for proposal &#8211; development has been proceeding in parallel so the RFPs can hit the street 5/15/09. Typically, there&#8217;s a 30 day response time. (Shorter periods are possible, but too much corner-cutting risks being tied up in legal and adminstrative challenges.) So, roughly 6/15/09, the procuring organizations are just getting the bids back. It&#8217;ll take at least 30 days to evaluate &#8211; more typically 90, I&#8217;d guess. That would suggest that contracts would be let 9/15/09 or so &#8211; and then the contractors have to roll trucks, shift/hire people, etc. I&#8217;d say that having 10% under contract in 120 days is amazingly good, no matter how frustrating it seems. I&#8217;d think that August/September is a better time to check &#8211; especially with the government fiscal year ending 9/30/09.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
