Can someone please explain to me

[Confusious]

Why the Government would POSSIBLY have "no bid contracts"

Besides enriching republican cronies, that is?

[shraby]

1. That definitely needs investigation, government work is

supposed to be put out for bids. They're breaking rules if there are no bids.

[Dappleganger]

2. Well see...

it starts at the city level, those summabitches get into the state legislature and then it's all downhill to DC from there. They're so used to getting by with it that it's second nature.

[gratuitous]

3. For certain small projects, it makes sense

But I strongly suspect that we're not talking about small potatoes projects awarded to competent firms with a proven track record.

[Tansy_Gold]

4. We're talkin' about power plants that would fit right nicely

into the Koch Brothers vertical monopoly.

It's not public assets like office buildings or toll roads. It's not natural resources like timber or mineral rights. No sirree bob, we're talkin' "heating and cooling and power plants."

Leave it to Gov. Scott Wanker and the Kock Brothers to screw over all of us.


TG, TT

[Confusious]

6. It's not just that, it's everything

That and all the no bid contracts during the bush years. I would think, but maybe i think too much, that that would be illegal, at least on a state and national level.

Cities or counties I can see. "We need more paper, go get some" Otherwise, I just don't see it.

[Tansy_Gold]

10. The bill is written to override existing laws that require silicitation of bids

and legislative oversight.

[shraby]

5. Even those are supposed to be bid out. I believe that rule

was originally made to keep from relatives being given contracts and to give all a fair shake at getting the job.

[CommonSensePLZ]

7. "No bid contract," the technical-sounding way of saying "we picked the guy we like" nt

[LooseWilly]

8. Evaluating bids is harder than just giving the job to your uncle...

Many elected officials prefer not to have to deal with things that are hard (maybe I should say "things that are difficult").

Hence, no bid contracts... when a campaign contributer absolutely, positively is the best contractor for the job. :patriot:

[Confusious]

9. Mmm great. Politicians are lazier then me

Didn't think that possible.

[unblock]

11. the only conceivable legitimate need would be national security/emergency

but even that is a dubious rationale because virtually any national security/emergency situation should have a planned for in advance with plenty of time for bidding during the planning stage. so really, only national security/emergency SURPRISES should qualify for no-bidding, at best.

no-bid contracting and privatization in general is a clear-cut return to the days of patronage, when winning a political election enabled payback to supporters through jobs and other government giveaways. the civil service laws put a stop to explicitly doing that, and privatization is an end-run around it. no-bid contracts make it even easier.

the corruption is simply becoming more and more obvious and brazen as the power of the people to do anything about it diminishes.

[PBS Poll-435]

12. There is this strange belief that only certain "providers" are capable of doing the job right

A lot like the Health Insurance cabal.