Talk:No-bid contract
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is within the scope of the Business and Economics WikiProject. | |
| ??? | This article has not yet received a rating on the assessment scale. | |
| ??? | This article has not yet received an importance rating on the assessment scale. | |
This article about Halliburton no-bid looks biased.
I have repeatedly read that Halliburton was given the temporary no-bid because they had a previous competitive bid in place from 2001 under LOGCAP. Here is another perspective:
http://www.townhall.com/columnists/RichLowry/2003/09/18/the_halliburton_smear
Also note that Clinton's administration gave Halliburton a no-bid contract for the Balkans, but for some reason that fact was left out of this article on wikipedia...
Also, most if not all of the Hurrican Katrina contracts were not No-bid Contracts. They were Federally Pre-qualified contracts. FEMA holds pre arranged contracts with large contractors for Disaster relief everywhere in the United States.
Shaw pumped the water out of New Orleans in 17 days. Estimates were 80 Days. You don't do a fast 3 week bid cycle starting the day the hurricane hits.
The LOGCAP III contract was not "no-bid". It was competitively bid by Fluor and Parsons, as well as KBR. It doesn't take a lot of research to find it, either. Articles claiming (or implying) that Halliburton got a two-billion-dollar no-bid contract in Iraq simply handed to them because of cronyism within the Republican Party are based on baised fabrications and assumptions.
In fact, LOGCAP III, as the name implies, is the third contract of its kind in recent decades. The first LOGCAP (Logistics and Civil Augmentation Program) contract was awarded to Brown & Root Services, which later became part of KBR, for support of US troops during the Balkans operations in the 1990's, and was awarded by the Clinton administration. LOGCAP II was awarded elsewhere, I believe to Parsons.
It's the individual task orders that are not bid out, not the contract itself. People who don't know the difference often confise them - This is how you can always tell the difference between someone who knows what he or she is talking about, and someone who just saw a story on CNN and has an axe to grind with Halliburton or Dick Cheney.
In have searched for a link between the Clinton administration and no bid contracting, and no, I have found none. So I have decided to remove the Kosovo and Bosnian war (see also)removed. When a person that makes assumptions without proof, like the ass that wrote the past few paragraphs, they do not do justice to public forum. This person is a liar or a prick, who knows. If someone would like to find a link and add it, so be it. This is coming from someone who reads literature and doesn't watch Fox News. Who are trying to get footage of terrorists or any brown people happy that the democrats won the midterm elections.
What does '48 CFR Ch. 1, Part 6.' mean? I assume it refers to a set of laws ( probably U.S. ) but it's not obvious to a non expert in this field. 217.7.209.108 09:01, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
Wow..talk about a partisan hack! Halliburton or the KBR subsidiary was the beneficiary of the defense contracts in the Balkans and worldwide. This was done under Clinton as well, so perhaps it is YOU that is lying or you just prefer not to know the truth? No-bid contracts are a common occurence amongst government contracts. Welcome to the real world. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.161.187.214 (talk) 07:23, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
Trying to paint a connection between the Clinton Administration and Halliburton's contract for the Balkans, and comparing it to the Bush Administration's contracts given to them for Iraq and Katrina, is totally absurd. Dick Cheney was CEO of the company during this time, and as former Secretary of State, he had a ton of political influence at the State Department - regardless of the fact that Warren Christopher was secretary during the time the contracts were awarded. Cheney had already established a strong relationship between KBR and the SD, and at the time Halliburton was not suspect of any kind of wrongdoing. It should also be noted that I cannot find ANYTHING suggesting that the awarded contract Halliburton received for the Balkans was a no-bid contract. And in fact, when the contract was up for renewal in 1999, there was bidding between them and Dyncorp. Lifterus 21:05, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
[edit] What?
This article does not give much information to those who are not already aware of at least the generals of government contracting. For instance it says that the no-bid contracts are often fraught with suspicion, but it doesn't state why this type of deal might seem shady. From the eyes of a casual reader (myself), one could assume that if a government or other body hired an agency for a specific service, that they did so because they believed that the provider was the best in the buisness. And if such is the belief, why would they even bother with other companies? Also the article doesn't give much information on the actual process of the bidding of contracts. Reading this article, I have no clue how the process would work, as it gives no information to explain this. How does the process normally work? It does say that this process is different than a "typical" competitive contract, however there is no article for competitive contract. The link simply directs to the article on "Competitiveness," which is nearly a definition article that gives no information on competitive contracts. Anyone with basic English understanding would realize that a competitive contract must mean that more than one firm can vie for the contract, however there is no inforamtion here as to how such a process would work in a normal scenario and why such a scenario would be considered a "good" standard practice as opposed to a no-bid contract which may be met with suspicion. In normal situations (competitve contracts), does the gov in question simply state a need for a service and whoever can offer the best price gets it or what? Where does the issue of quality of service come into it. Obviously there must be some type of rule that the gov in question must issue a contract to a firm that best fulfills specific requirments, otherwise there would be no point in having a no-bid contract as they could simply place a competitve one and choose whoever it is they wanted in the first place. Thus there must be some restrictions in place that would force them to choose a specific one, and if this is the case the article should explain this.
However, the article does state that no-bid contracts can save time, thus one might assume that there are no restrcitions and it comes down to a game of simply making it look like other firms have a chance, and they are able to choose whom ever they want, but perhaps they are required to open the contract for a set period of time before awarding it to a firm. If this is the case, it should be explained in the article. As is I would have no idea how the process works.
So to sum it up, the article says that no-bid contracts can sometimes be seen as suspicious, but it doesn't state why this is. The article states that it may save time, but it doesn't explain why it saves time. Livingston 04:15, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
