Results 1 to 10 of 10

Thread: Gov't corruption and no-bid contracts

  1. #1

    Gov't corruption and no-bid contracts

    Serious question:

    Why is it that the federal government, (who's spending accounts for a huge proportion of GDP, I have heard up to a fifth) leaves it's enormous negotiating clout in the closet when dealing with corporations such as Halliburton, Shaw group etc. giving them no-bid contracts?

    I won't deny that maybe these companies are best suited for the job - but isn't it the job of the gov't to get as good a price for their contracts as possible? How does a no-bid open-ended contract accomplish that?

    and then adding insult to injury the gov't suspends the Davis-Bacon act in Louisiana so it can get the lowest price (i.e. illegal) workers to rebuild -

    in that case when they have no problems turning the screws on individuals, but when it comes to big corporations that contributed campaign funds -

    why, sure you guys get the contract without bid or restrictions! enjoy!

    what of course ends up happening is shoddy results and a bad deal for the American taxpayer.

    This type of corruption cannot be defended - it is flat out wrong.
    Last edited by bitonti; 09-23-2005 at 04:49 PM.

  2. #2
    All League
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Washington, D.C.
    Posts
    3,408
    [QUOTE=bitonti]Serious question:

    Why is it that the federal government, (who's spending accounts for a huge proportion of GDP, I have heard up to a fifth) leaves it's enormous negotiating clout in the closet when dealing with corporations such as Halliburton, Shaw group etc. giving them no-bid contracts?

    I won't deny that maybe these companies are best suited for the job - but isn't it the job of the gov't to get as good a price for their contracts as possible? How does a no-bid open-ended contract accomplish that?

    and then adding insult to injury the gov't suspends the Davis-Bacon act in Louisiana so it can get the lowest price (i.e. illegal) workers to rebuild -

    in that case when they have no problems turning the screws on individuals, but when it comes to big corporations that contributed campaign funds -

    why, sure you guys get the contract without bid or restrictions! enjoy!

    what of course ends up happening is shoddy results and a bad deal for the American taxpayer.

    This type of corruption cannot be defended - it is flat out wrong.[/QUOTE]

    I just lost my contract with a federal agency. Look at their website, they are a joke [url="http://www.twminc.com"]http://www.twminc.com[/url] Any company that has the American flag as their background and hasn't updated it since 2003 is pretty unprofessional. They won the contract solely based on cost, so it works both ways I guess.

  3. #3
    [QUOTE=Section109Row15]I just lost my contract with a federal agency. Look at their website, they are a joke [url="http://www.twminc.com"]http://www.twminc.com[/url] Any company that has the American flag as their background and hasn't updated it since 2003 is pretty unprofessional. They won the contract solely based on cost, so it works both ways I guess.[/QUOTE]

    Did you neg. the contract?

  4. #4
    [SIZE=4]If you are a CEO you are loving the Bush Aministration more and more[/SIZE]


    [QUOTE=bitonti]Serious question:

    Why is it that the federal government, (who's spending accounts for a huge proportion of GDP, I have heard up to a fifth) leaves it's enormous negotiating clout in the closet when dealing with corporations such as Halliburton, Shaw group etc. giving them no-bid contracts?

    I won't deny that maybe these companies are best suited for the job - but isn't it the job of the gov't to get as good a price for their contracts as possible? How does a no-bid open-ended contract accomplish that?

    and then adding insult to injury the gov't suspends the Davis-Bacon act in Louisiana so it can get the lowest price (i.e. illegal) workers to rebuild -

    in that case when they have no problems turning the screws on individuals, but when it comes to big corporations that contributed campaign funds -

    why, sure you guys get the contract without bid or restrictions! enjoy!

    what of course ends up happening is shoddy results and a bad deal for the American taxpayer.

    This type of corruption cannot be defended - it is flat out wrong.[/QUOTE]

  5. #5
    All League
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Washington, D.C.
    Posts
    3,408
    [QUOTE=cr726]Did you neg. the contract?[/QUOTE]

    It wasn't "my" contract. I'm not an independent contractor. My company lost the contract. When I say my company I mean the company I work for.

  6. #6
    [QUOTE=bitonti]Serious question:

    Why is it that the federal government, (who's spending accounts for a huge proportion of GDP, I have heard up to a fifth) leaves it's enormous negotiating clout in the closet when dealing with corporations such as Halliburton, Shaw group etc. giving them no-bid contracts?

    I won't deny that maybe these companies are best suited for the job - but isn't it the job of the gov't to get as good a price for their contracts as possible? How does a no-bid open-ended contract accomplish that?

    and then adding insult to injury the gov't suspends the Davis-Bacon act in Louisiana so it can get the lowest price (i.e. illegal) workers to rebuild -

    in that case when they have no problems turning the screws on individuals, but when it comes to big corporations that contributed campaign funds -

    why, sure you guys get the contract without bid or restrictions! enjoy!

    what of course ends up happening is shoddy results and a bad deal for the American taxpayer.

    This type of corruption cannot be defended - it is flat out wrong.[/QUOTE]

    I agree 100%.

  7. #7
    Jets Insider VIP
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    LI
    Posts
    20,531
    I won't (and can't) go into how I know this, but:

    No-bids almost always end up being cheaper, and bidding contracts take months or even years to complete. There's also no guarantee a bidding won't end up as favoritism/nepotism anyway. It allows an entity to cut through the muck to get something done quick and most probably just as cheap.

    It sucks for new players, and I'm in no way saying this is best, but it is understandable. Your average US taxpayer would be outraged how long it takes things to happen in government.

  8. #8
    [QUOTE=bitonti]Serious question:

    I won't deny that maybe these companies are best suited for the job - but isn't it the job of the gov't to get as good a price for their contracts as possible? How does a no-bid open-ended contract accomplish that?

    what of course ends up happening is shoddy results and a bad deal for the American taxpayer.

    This type of corruption cannot be defended - it is flat out wrong.[/QUOTE]

    I feel your pain, bit, but, in the case of a disaster like Katrina, how would you have done it? How soon could you implement the bidding process and what are the folks in need going to do while you're doing this? In my town the lowest bidder didn't always do the best job. Go figure.

  9. #9
    Jets Insider VIP
    JetsInsider.com Legend
    Charter JI Member

    Join Date
    May 1999
    Posts
    31,408
    [QUOTE=asuusa]I feel your pain, bit, but, in the case of a disaster like Katrina, how would you have done it? How soon could you implement the bidding process and what are the folks in need going to do while you're doing this? In my town the lowest bidder didn't always do the best job. Go figure.[/QUOTE]

    that doesn't matter to libs- it's too logical....

    nevermind the fact the libs would be b!tchin nothing was getting done while the bidding process was underway as you ellude too....

  10. #10
    time constraints does not justify cronyism.

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Follow Us