Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by obeygiant, May 11, 2010.
I guess they just didn't want to change companies as we're trying to exit Iraq.
And that would be the LAST thing the Army needs...... Congress running the day to day logistics from Washington. They can't even do a good job of running the day to day operations in the continental U.S.
And Iraq has gone well?
And another arm chair Commander......
Why the **** do we have no bid contracts??
Why isn't there more of a fuss about this kind of practice when everyone wants the government to spend less?
I think in general no-bid contracts are bad, and certainly in Europe you always have to get bids but in this case maybe its justified.
That said if they had got other bids they could still go with KBR if it was a bit more expensive on the grounds that they didn't want to change supplier.
The underlined is fine, but it seems as if most contracts handed out are no bid, at least when it comes to the war.
By that standard you are forbidden from criticising Congress unless you've been elected to either the House or Senate.
Well that is certainly unacceptable.
You left out the rest of that sentence....
By that standard you are forbidden from criticizing Congress unless you've been elected to either the House or Senate, or have been on the receiving end or directly affected by their actions. (spelling corrected). And in that case, I agree.
American taxpayers fund the US military. There wallets are directly affected by the actions of that military. Therefore American taxpayers should have a say, no?
So in that case, any and all American citizens are not armchair generals.....
I did not say they couldn't run the war from their chair. I'm saying that it's very easy to run the war from thousands of miles away, when you really have very little direct knowledge of what they're dealing with. Just because I've fought in one war, doesn't mean that I have any concept of what they are dealing with in another war.
In the government, there are circumstances that dictate dealing with a particular vendor because of a LOT of different variables. The people may be already trained, perform very effectively, have security clearances, etc. Things that could take time to prepare another vendor to do. And by the time that's up and running efficiently, we may be long out of Iraq. But I DON'T KNOW. I would trust the Army to be more knowledgeable than me on this. It doesn't mean that Congress shouldn't audit..... Just with me sitting here, I'm ignorant on the details.......
You can take all that into account when you have a bidded contract, but if someone offered to do it for $300 million it might well be worth switching supplier.
When I was in the military, we always negotiated no-bid contracts and often ended up getting a better deal than when we sent them out to bid.
I do not know if the Army does this or not, but I assume they do. The idea that no-bid contracts are always bad is not true in my opinion. No-bid contract options are just another tool in the tool box of the contracting officers. Is there the opportunity for corruption? Of course, but corruption can occur just as easily in a contract sent out for bid.
But thats shutting out the competition aspect of the free market!!
Oh I get it! You think he's a "conservative" therefore always in favor of the free market and this doesn't jibe with that outlook. You're so funny!
No I'm just wondering why conservatives don't speak out against this kind of stuff (as in our actual politicians).
Excuse me for using a post as a springboard. Apparently I need more emoticons to keep people from being offended for no reason.
I am not not always in favor of a free market, but I do not see no-bid contracts as being seperate from the free market. The government is purchasing a service. If they are going to use a no-bid contract to get those services you can bet they are familiar with the services a certain company provides and confident that the company can deliver. That confidence was most likely developed through past experience and references.
Yet companies like Halliburton continue to get contracts when their misdeeds are well known to all and extremely costly. Why is that?
That's not actually how publicly bid stuff works here. If the work is publicly bid, the owner is bound to take the lowest responsible bid. There are provisions for throwing out a bid that is clearly irresponsible, but you always have to work your way up the bid amounts from there. You can't opt for a more expensive contractor just because you like them. That's called making a gift of public funds.
Of course, there are ways around the public bid process, but once you enter it, those rules apply.
I don't know about 'just as easily'. I think there is a lot more potential for fraud and abuse when the contractor knows they don't have any competition.
That said, I'm definitely not a big fan of the public bid process. Plenty of low-bid guys will screw you with changes after the fact. We were passing around a picture in my office at one point with a picture of a dingy named "Original Contract" sitting next to a yacht named "Change Order", to illustrate that point.