• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

KBR to Get No-Bid Army Work as U.S. Alleges Kickbacks

texmaster

Hippie Hater
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 24, 2009
Messages
3,969
Reaction score
1,209
Location
Dallas TEXAS
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
KBR Inc. was selected for a no-bid contract worth as much as $568 million through 2011 for military support services in Iraq, the Army said.

The Army announced its decision yesterday only hours after the Justice Department said it will pursue a lawsuit accusing the Houston-based company of taking kickbacks from two subcontractors on Iraq-related work. The Army also awarded the work to KBR over objections from members of Congress, who have pushed the Pentagon to seek bids for further logistics contracts.


KBR to Get No-Bid Army Work as U.S. Alleges Kickbacks (Update1) - BusinessWeek

Whats this? Evil Haliburton getting a NO BID contract under the Obama Administration for over half a BILLION dollars?


mmmmmm You can almost taste the rank hypocrisy of the far left.
 
I have never understood the reasoning behind no-bid contracting. Can some one explain why the system is used? Unless there is something I don't understand that makes no-bid contracts a good idea, I oppose them no matter who is running things. I think this is a mistake.

Damn liberal hypocrisy...err, wait....
 
I have never understood the reasoning behind no-bid contracting. Can some one explain why the system is used? Unless there is something I don't understand that makes no-bid contracts a good idea, I oppose them no matter who is running things. I think this is a mistake.

Damn liberal hypocrisy...err, wait....


IMO, it's either 1) They need a contactor now and the government is notoriously slow, or 2) The company given the no-bid contract is the only company that actually qualified to bid on the contract. Part of the bidding process is where a contractor has to prove they can actually complete the terms of the contract; obviously Joe-Blow Enterprises, with a couple of trucks and a backhoe, can't complete the terms of this contract, or 3) Literally nobody else wants the contract.
 
IMO, it's either 1) They need a contactor now and the government is notoriously slow, or 2) The company given the no-bid contract is the only company that actually qualified to bid on the contract. Part of the bidding process is where a contractor has to prove they can actually complete the terms of the contract; obviously Joe-Blow Enterprises, with a couple of trucks and a backhoe, can't complete the terms of this contract, or 3) Literally nobody else wants the contract.

If that is accurate, I withdraw my objection to nobid contracts.
 
If that is accurate, I withdraw my objection to nobid contracts.

It's just my opinion, but those certainly possible circumstances.

I recall all the nashing of the teeth over Halliburton getting the Iraq job. My argument always was: What other oilfield service company in the world had the resources to handle the job? I never got an answer, needless to say, because there isn't one.

Just like when Shaw Global got the contract for the Katrina recovery. It could be said that Shaw got the job, because Jim Bernhard (CEO of Shaw Global) was a Democrat big-dick in Louisiana and butt-hole buddies with Kathy Blanco, or Shaw was the only company that could make a realistic response in a realistic amount of time.
 
It's just my opinion, but those certainly possible circumstances.

I recall all the nashing of the teeth over Halliburton getting the Iraq job. My argument always was: What other oilfield service company in the world had the resources to handle the job? I never got an answer, needless to say, because there isn't one.

Just like when Shaw Global got the contract for the Katrina recovery. It could be said that Shaw got the job, because Jim Bernhard (CEO of Shaw Global) was a Democrat big-dick in Louisiana and butt-hole buddies with Kathy Blanco, or Shaw was the only company that could make a realistic response in a realistic amount of time.

I will have to do some reading to learn more. You make some good points.
 
No-bid contract - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Legal reasons for sole source contracts include:

1. only one firm has a product that will meet the projects needs or only one firm can do the work;
2. the existence of an unusual and compelling urgency;
3. for purposes of industrial mobilization or expert services;
4. an international agreement;
5. sole source is authorized or required by law, e.g., socio-economic programs;
6. national security[2]; and
7. the public interest.
 
I recall all the nashing of the teeth over Halliburton getting the Iraq job. My argument always was: What other oilfield service company in the world had the resources to handle the job?

Then why not have a bid anyways since Halliburton would be the only one to qualify?
 
Then why not have a bid anyways since Halliburton would be the only one to qualify?

What a diabolical waste of time that would be. Dontcha think?
 
What a diabolical waste of time that would be. Dontcha think?

If it will help end corruption and corporatism in our country, no, I don't.
 
If it will help end corruption and corporatism in our country, no, I don't.

You Lefties are really incredible. I'm serious. You wanna go through the bidding process, knowing before-hand that only one company can qualify to bid on the contract and that you will end up awarding the contract to that company, anyway, thinking that somehow that's going to end corruption and corporatism?

In a case like that, the real corruption would be the government waste that comes out of it.
 
I have never understood the reasoning behind no-bid contracting. Can some one explain why the system is used?

Speed.
...
..
.
 
You Lefties are really incredible. I'm serious. You wanna go through the bidding process, knowing before-hand that only one company can qualify to bid on the contract and that you will end up awarding the contract to that company, anyway, thinking that somehow that's going to end corruption and corporatism?

Unlike you Righties, who are outright in favor of corruption and corporatism?
 
Unlike you Righties, who are outright in favor of corruption and corporatism?

Your boy hired a tax evader for treasury secretary. Alot of the tax and spend crwod couldn't be appointed to posts within the PBOA, because of criminal activity and you say that we're outright in favor of corruption and coporatism?

You don't even know what corporatism is, do you? Your boy is the biggest corporatist that's ever sat in the Oval Office.
 
Your boy hired a tax evader for treasury secretary. Alot of the tax and spend crwod couldn't be appointed to posts within the PBOA, because of criminal activity and you say that we're outright in favor of corruption and coporatism?

You don't even know what corporatism is, do you? Your boy is the biggest corporatist that's ever sat in the Oval Office.

And your boys aren't any different.
 
And your boys aren't any different.

Never said they were--except that they're not facists--but you seem to think your side is spotless and they're far from it. Did you google corporatism to find out who the real corporatists are?
 
Never said they were--except that they're not facists--but you seem to think your side is spotless and they're far from it. Did you google corporatism to find out who the real corporatists are?

Government support of business interests through tax revenue without competitive bids isn't an aspect of fascism?
 
I have never understood the reasoning behind no-bid contracting. Can some one explain why the system is used? Unless there is something I don't understand that makes no-bid contracts a good idea, I oppose them no matter who is running things. I think this is a mistake.

Damn liberal hypocrisy...err, wait....

So you never ripped Bush or his administration over Haliburton?

Are you sure about that?
 
Then why not have a bid anyways since Halliburton would be the only one to qualify?

Just because there is only one person in running for the contract does not mean that there are not negotiations between the government and the said company about the cost.

Don't you think it would be better for the government to have some say in the price since there will be no competition in bids? Otherwise, the company might decide to bid double what it would actually cost, and since there are no other companies, it could result in drastic overpayment.
 
Nope. You guys are the ones supporting fannie and freddie

It was G.W. Bush and his Cabinet who started the federal takeover of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.
 
It was G.W. Bush and his Cabinet who started the federal takeover of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.

Outright federal takeover, you have a point, but they by no means started the outright federal backing of the two companies. (which arguably brought about the need for an outright take over.)
 
Just because there is only one person in running for the contract does not mean that there are not negotiations between the government and the said company about the cost.

Don't you think it would be better for the government to have some say in the price since there will be no competition in bids? Otherwise, the company might decide to bid double what it would actually cost, and since there are no other companies, it could result in drastic overpayment.

Actually, I'd prefer it if all bids were competitive. Aren't conservatives the ones who say that it's competition between companies that keep prices for consumers down?
 
Actually, I'd prefer it if all bids were competitive. Aren't conservatives the ones who say that it's competition between companies that keep prices for consumers down?

Competition is good, but one company bidding against no one is not competition.

If there is another company that can do the job, you have a point, otherwise, there is no point to making them bid.
 
Back
Top Bottom