PDA

View Full Version : Pentagon's no-bid contracts triple in 10 years of war


ZONA
03-03-2013, 01:30 AM
http://www.publicintegrity.org/2011/08/29/5989/windfalls-war-pentagons-no-bid-contracts-triple-10-years-war


Taxpayer is the loser when Pentagon doesn't require competition among contractors. "The lack of competition is a scandal," says one expert.


It's a good read. So many people think that by spending more on our military budget surely must mean that it's all good spending. It must make us safer. Read the article and you will see that these no-bid contracts are wasteful spending and fraud in military is alive and well. You want to start taking a whack out of the deficit, you can start right here. Some reports say that as much as 60 Billion was wasted in Iraq. I think budget cuts to the military is one way we can get back to getting companies to bid on contracts. Not just having them handed out to them for the asking price.

Rohirrim
03-03-2013, 06:54 AM
The entire military/industrial/congressional complex is a massive ripoff. Good luck trying to figure out a way to untangle us from it. Ike warned us in the 50s. Too late now. We are the tail and the complex is the dog. We must learn to enjoy perpetual war.

Dukes
03-03-2013, 07:01 AM
And people wonder why Ron Paul couldn't get the Republican nomination.

Rohirrim
03-03-2013, 08:01 AM
And people wonder why Ron Paul couldn't get the Republican nomination.

If he was willing to relax the ideological purity of some of his whacky monetary ideas, maybe he would have had better luck?

Dukes
03-03-2013, 08:30 AM
If he was willing to relax the ideological purity of some of his whacky monetary ideas, maybe he would have had better luck?

No.

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/D_uvhsvPdEo" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

Dukes
03-03-2013, 08:34 AM
There's two explainations to this video.

1. Obama is a liar

2. Obama is a liar

<iframe width="420" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/aB0g6cwDo5s" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

DenverBrit
03-03-2013, 08:57 AM
It's a disgrace kick started by Bush and shows a complete lack of oversight by Obama's administration by allowing it to continue.

Before revenues raised and cuts made, waste and corruption should have been spotlighted and dealt with by now.

The system has become so corrupt, that both parties equally have their hands dirty, so little or nothing gets corrected.

Dukes
03-03-2013, 09:00 AM
It's a disgrace kick started by Bush and shows a complete lack of oversight by Obama's administration by allowing it to continue.

Before revenues raised and cuts made, waste and corruption should have been spotlighted and dealt with by now.

The system has become so corrupt, that both parties equally have their hands dirty, so little or nothing gets corrected.

Yup, it's discusting.

Play2win
03-03-2013, 09:10 AM
No-bid contracts = no competition = MONOPOLY, correct?

Play2win
03-03-2013, 09:17 AM
It's a disgrace kick started by Bush and shows a complete lack of oversight by Obama's administration by allowing it to continue.

Before revenues raised and cuts made, waste and corruption should have been spotlighted and dealt with by now.

The system has become so corrupt, that both parties equally have their hands dirty, so little or nothing gets corrected.

I wonder if the Sequester has some silver lining, that, in a way we are knocking the building down to the foundation and letting the dust settle.

Maybe, just maybe, everyone can take a clear, more un-biased look at the state of things– at everything, and make nothing off the table.

There might just be a way of deconstructing/reconstructing some of these ill-fated institutions, like the MIC.

elsid13
03-03-2013, 09:25 AM
It's a disgrace kick started by Bush and shows a complete lack of oversight by Obama's administration by allowing it to continue.

Before revenues raised and cuts made, waste and corruption should have been spotlighted and dealt with by now.

The system has become so corrupt, that both parties equally have their hands dirty, so little or nothing gets corrected.

First of all this article is not exactly true. Over the last 6 year there has been serious oversight put for on this problem. Ashton Carter has personally overseen the rewrite of the DFAR and contract regulations to prevent no competition or limited competition awards on service contracts.

On production contracts you are more likely to see a single sole source contract being award because there is only one or two US companies that produces an end item. Prime example all CVN (aircraft carriers) are sole sourced to Newport News Shipbuilding because they are only builders in the US capable of building nuclear aircraft carrier. And in ordnance there only two prime domestic companies that produce rocket motors. So as military expends missiles and rocket in Iraq and Afghanistan it make no sense to run full and open competitions when there is immediate need and no domestic market. This problem is the result of the 1990 peace dividend and consolidation that occurred then.

So not about corruption but the market.

DenverBrit
03-03-2013, 09:33 AM
I wonder if the Sequester has some silver lining, that, in a way we are knocking the building down to the foundation and letting the dust settle.

Maybe, just maybe, everyone can take a clear, more un-biased look at the state of things– at everything, and make nothing off the table.

There might just be a way of deconstructing/reconstructing some of these ill-fated institutions, like the MIC.

The political influence that the Pentagon and it's suppliers wield is exactly what Eisenhower warned about as he left office. It will take bi partisan action, a lot of balls and genuine desire to fix a corrupt and wasteful system.

And it's not only the MIC corruption and waste that needs to be exposed and cleaned up.

Leadership is needed and I don't see it right now.

Pony Boy
03-03-2013, 09:34 AM
http://www.publicintegrity.org/2011/08/29/5989/windfalls-war-pentagons-no-bid-contracts-triple-10-years-war


Taxpayer is the loser when Pentagon doesn't require competition among contractors. "The lack of competition is a scandal," says one expert.

In the 90’s I worked with the largest mobile 2-way communication company in the U.S and we were often invited to attend the federal and municipal bid scrubs before the total package was released for public bid. Of course by the time the bid was released we were the only company that had equipment that would meet all the requirements required in the bid, so guess who always received the bid and it was all done within the legal guidelines.

DenverBrit
03-03-2013, 09:56 AM
First of all this article is not exactly true. Over the last 6 year there has been serious oversight put for on this problem. Ashton Carter has personally overseen the rewrite of the DFAR and contract regulations to prevent no competition or limited competition awards on service contracts.

On production contracts you are more likely to see a single sole source contract being award because there is only one or two US companies that produces an end item. Prime example all CVN (aircraft carriers) are sole sourced to Newport News Shipbuilding because they are only builders in the US capable of building nuclear aircraft carrier. And in ordnance there only two prime domestic companies that produce rocket motors. So as military expends missiles and rocket in Iraq and Afghanistan it make no sense to run full and open competitions when there is immediate need and no domestic market. This problem is the result of the 1990 peace dividend and consolidation that occurred then.

So not about corruption but the market.

I understand that sole sources for certain technology exists and there's nothing to be done there without going overseas. But there does appear to be a problem. For years, the waste and corrupt practices have continued and there is apparently a significant increase in single bid contracts and a continuation of that practice.

Oct, 2012.

The Project on Government Oversight (POGO), an independent watchdog organization, has repeatedly called for the Defense Department to use more competitive bidding.

“Full and open competition in government contracting allows for innovation, aggressive negotiations, and better deals for the taxpayer. Despite those known benefits, competition in federal contracting is often the exception to the rule,” wrote Scott Amey at POGO.

Amey also noted that over the past 12 years, nearly 40% of Pentagon contracts “were awarded without full and open competition….The agency has a genuine problem getting the best deals that protect taxpayers.” http://www.allgov.com/news/where-is-the-money-going/pentagon-resists-competitive-bidding-for-contracts-121017?news=845970

Even with competitive bidding, I recall the Pentagon practice of awarding contracts to seemingly competitive suppliers, who then used a series of 'change orders' to inflate the actual costs many fold. Both parties in collusion; the Pentagon, to make the costs look reasonable and to get budgetary approval and the contractors underbid knowing that the change orders would increase the final value of the contract.

The 'change order' scam is widespread in local, state and federal bids. Something that private companies wouldn't tolerate. But we're just taxpayers, wtf do we know? ;D

Play2win
03-03-2013, 10:22 AM
The political influence that the Pentagon and it's suppliers wield is exactly what Eisenhower warned about as he left office. It will take bi partisan action, a lot of balls and genuine desire to fix a corrupt and wasteful system.

And it's not only the MIC corruption and waste that needs to be exposed and cleaned up.

Leadership is needed and I don't see it right now.

Yes, agree/understand. I'm just trying to be the hopeful optimist.

orinjkrush
03-03-2013, 10:26 AM
competition has its advantages and disadvantages. competition implies cheapest bidder not the best (most competent) bidder for one (its called low balling to get the contract, and then raise the price once the purchaser is too committed to back out). two, competition delays the purchase by months and sometimes years once all the losing bidders file their protests. sometimes you do want to go sole source. but it's the Cheneys and Robert Rubins of the world who take advantage of the "system" for their cronies that are the real problem.

finally, the term should be re-ordered: its now the INDUSTRIAL-POLITICAL-MILITARY COMPLEX. Industry owns politicians who direct the military.

DenverBrit
03-03-2013, 12:25 PM
Yes, agree/understand. I'm just trying to be the hopeful optimist.

I hope we all are too, I'm just being pessimistic for now. ;D

But I do believe changes will be made, I just don't see them happening in this political climate.

DenverBrit
03-03-2013, 12:27 PM
competition has its advantages and disadvantages. competition implies cheapest bidder not the best (most competent) bidder for one (its called low balling to get the contract, and then raise the price once the purchaser is too committed to back out). two, competition delays the purchase by months and sometimes years once all the losing bidders file their protests. sometimes you do want to go sole source. but it's the Cheneys and Robert Rubins of the world who take advantage of the "system" for their cronies that are the real problem.

finally, the term should be re-ordered: its now the INDUSTRIAL-POLITICAL-MILITARY COMPLEX. Industry owns politicians who direct the military.

If only it stopped there.

mhgaffney
03-03-2013, 01:34 PM
competition has its advantages and disadvantages. competition implies cheapest bidder not the best (most competent) bidder for one (its called low balling to get the contract, and then raise the price once the purchaser is too committed to back out). two, competition delays the purchase by months and sometimes years once all the losing bidders file their protests. sometimes you do want to go sole source. but it's the Cheneys and Robert Rubins of the world who take advantage of the "system" for their cronies that are the real problem.

finally, the term should be re-ordered: its now the INDUSTRIAL-POLITICAL-MILITARY COMPLEX. Industry owns politicians who direct the military.

Yes. Good point. INDUSTRIAL-POLITICAL-MILITARY COMPLEX was the term Ike originally wanted to use -- but it was scaled back to military industrial complex.