Originally Posted by
Laughing_Jakal
I wasn't talking about why it failed....I was simply pointing out that what was said was factually untrue....the penalties weren't eliminated...then the focus whas changed to whether blk vs ch was a concession, and I tried to show it was certainly more nuanced than the "sound bite" that is oft repeated without critical analysis.
Originally Posted by
Laughing_Jakal
I've seen JG's work product before.....though hopeful this time, his last product was not spectacular....I hope he is at least as successful as Pat.
Most didn't work out the math. I'm sure what you posted was not your work, as that is what the Vice Chair of Scope put out "off the record" if I remember right...unless you are him... I'm quite sure that most of that 57% didn't "do the math" but listened to what someone said.
Originally Posted by
Rum Runner
My numbers came in more or less in line with the poster I quoted above, but they presented it better than I could. The problem was it was a concession in the section of the contract that was of meteoric rising importance, which has proven to be true, but was never recognized.
The issue is this: Jackal's analysis, Rum Runner's analysis, PM's opinion, etc don't matter one iota. Only ironclad, lawyer-vetted, scenario-based, pressure-tested language matters. The company has proven time and again that even that might be "misinterpreted" in a nefarious manner.
To opine on APC about what any contract section means in a theoretical scenario is a waste. You'd better be looking only for worst case at-or-outside the margins of all reasonable interpretation at all times - FDX is.