Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: EarthResearcher333

Curiously, if reimbursement money was not made available, would Kiewit’s pay be in jeopardy?


4,022 posted on 07/15/2017 6:31:19 PM PDT by meyer (The Constitution says what it says, and it doesn't say what it doesn't say.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4020 | View Replies ]


To: meyer
DWR already has a $500 million line of credit. It's from Wells Fargo Bank. Wells Fargo is just coming out of the fake accounts scandal. In the fall of 2016, CA State Treasurer John Chiang suspended Wells Fargo bank from most forms of state business as punishment over this scandal (unauthorized customer accounts), yet CA chose Wells Fargo for this line of credit in the Spring in 2017. - - - An interesting sequence....punish, then when in need, work a biz deal.. (SacBee asked about this, but was told that this didn't violate any rules (treasurer's)) - see below.

Kiewit is being paid via this line of credit. It is the State of California that is liable for the line of credit. Can you imagine if CA decided not to pay Kiewit, and then Kiewit publicly announces that construction will stop? (I can't imagine this scenario, but it would be the worst PR move -ever... besides the obvious of risking lives by not fixing the spillway).

= = SacBee Article clip:

The $500 million line of credit was arranged through Wells Fargo, despite State Treasurer John Chiang’s decision last fall to suspend the big bank from most forms of state business as punishment for a scandal over unauthorized customer accounts. Chiang spokesman Marc Lifsher said the DWR credit deal doesn’t violate the treasurer’s rules.

= = End clip

Oroville Dam: With bills rolling in, state borrows heavily

4,023 posted on 07/15/2017 8:00:44 PM PDT by EarthResearcher333
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4022 | View Replies ]

To: meyer
Curiously, if reimbursement money was not made available, would Kiewit’s pay be in jeopardy?

I can answer that one authoritatively. Yes, it is - always - until the check clears. First there's the 'slow pay.' The contractor has to meet payroll right now, fuel bills, etc. But the customer drags you for 90 days. Especially so with 'government work.'

Then, the customer decides you've not performed up to spec and decides to keep the 10 or 15 percent final payment.

So one of you or the other goes to court, and what does that do to the prospect of timely payment? And, as a contractor, what does it to to your reputation if it gets around that you sue your customers?

With DWR, we've already established they lie and try to hide what's going on. In other words, they ain't honest people. Do you think they would hesitate to stiff the contractor?

4,024 posted on 07/16/2017 3:34:46 AM PDT by abb ("News reporting is too important to be left to the journalists." Walter Abbott (1950 -))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4022 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson