• 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!

Hill's $nub of U.S. companies in purchase of crystal stemware is clear

ReverendHellh0und

I don't respect you.
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 13, 2007
Messages
79,903
Reaction score
20,981
Location
I love your hate.
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
Hill's $nub of U.S. companies in purchase of crystal stemware is clear

Read more: Hill's $nub of U.S. companies in purchase of crystal stemware is clear - NYPOST.com


The contract was given to a tiny Washington, DC, interior designer, which in turn subcontracted the crystal work to a Swedish firm -- snubbing such US companies as the famous manufacturer in Clinton's own back yard, Steuben Crystal of upstate Corning.

The firm didn't even get a chance to bid on the contract, which will outfit embassies and ambassadors' residences with fancy crystal for ritzy functions.



I'd like to see those who complained about no-bid contracts, discuss how this contract should have been handled.
 
I'd like to see those who complained about no-bid contracts, discuss how this contract should have been handled.

it appears this sole source 8(a) award to a minority contractor deserves to be further examined to determine whether the contract conformed with the federal acquisition regulations as well as 13 CFR part 124

unless the 8(a) contractor is an Alaskan Native Corporation, Native American Corporation or Hawaiian Native Corporation the sole source award cannot exceed $5 million (for a manufacturing award - $3 million for all others). however, up to 10% over that threashold can be awarded if the government's estimate did not exceed $5 million. so, conceivably, the government estimate could have been $4.99 million allowing the contract room to rise to $5.4 million. but that is a very strong indicator someone may have toyed with the procurement to facilitate its being offered under the 8(a) program

there is another concern. the nonmanufacturer rule. a small business must provide not less than 50% of the labor for a manufacturer award with its own employees unless it has received a waiver. the waiver would be automatic if there are found to be no small business manufacturers of glass. that waiver allows the contractor to provide the goods of ANY manufacturer, including those which are not from the USA

being the skeptic that i am, i would not be surprised if this particular stemware was that which was desired by the state department and the 8(a) contract was awarded so that it could be obtained under the liberal provisions offered to 8(a) contractors

if there is a small business manufacturer of glass products under NAICS 327211 (Glass Manufacturers), then the waiver should not have been granted, and award under NAICS 423220 (Home Furnishing Merchant Wholesalers) should not have been issued

if there are no small business manufacturers under that NAICS code, then the waiver would be routine but the $5.4 million award size still bears looking into, to see if the procurement was manipulated to allow its award under the 8(a) tent
 
I'd like to see those who complained about no-bid contracts, discuss how this contract should have been handled.

The story is not clear, was the original contract a nobid contract? As best I read it, it does not ever actually claim this, only that it was then subcontracted, which is a different situation.
 
You understand that it's hardly likely that Hillary negotiated and signed that contract, right? Some underling grants manager did this.
 
Back
Top Bottom