no bid gov't contracts

Discussion in 'Politics & Religion' started by fhl, Apr 13, 2007.

  1. fhl

    fhl

    No bid contracts accounted for 33% of federal procurement during the last year of the Clinton administration. (source http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2004-05-27-government-contracts_x.htm) but went to 37% during Bush administration.

    Who receives no bid contracts? Well, during the Clinton administration an LA Times op-ed wrote, "Halliburton Received No-Bid Contracts During Clinton Administration For Work In Bosnia And Kosovo." An October 2003 article in the (Raleigh, NC) News & Observer quoted Bill Clinton's Undersecretary Of Commerce William Reinsch as saying "'Halliburton has a distinguished track record,' he said. 'They do business in some 120 countries. This is a group of people who know what they're doing in a difficult business. It's a particularly difficult business when people are shooting at you.'" (source http://frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=15426)

    So, I ask you, is all the furor over no bid contracts just a little bit overdone? Does the firestorm over no bid contracts by democrats during the Bush adimin seem just a tad disengenuous? If they are so bad now, why weren't they considered bad for Bill and Hillary Clinton?

    There is, of course, opportunity for shenanigans in no bid contracts, but if you were responsible for getting crucial services for our military while they were in harms way, would you give the contract to the lowest bidder?
     
  2. I worked for the department of defense for 21 years and I was also certified as a contracts monitor. I left in 1984.

    At that time, no bid contracts were illegal if they were greater than 2, 000 dollars unless they were sole source, i.e., the contractor had something very unique or proprietary to sell to the government.

    By that definition, contracts to drive trucks loaded with crap for the military could never be considered sole source by any stretch of the imagination and in my opinion, those Haliburton contracts were illegal.
     

  3. Cant disagree with that.

    At issue is the privatisation of military endeavours, a powerfull factor as far back as you can look into history.

    Why? Its cheaper, (on the books at least, not in reality-reality doesnt matter) in much the same manner as slavery would not have been abolished if it wasnt actually cheaper to employ laborers on contract, or with some meaningless political proviso meaing housing, or food, werent to be provided.

    These corporations, however-are making a nice penny, ultimately just another abrogation of responsibility, a sell out, not, in reality, a legitimate cost saving measure.