Quote:
Originally Posted by dude1394
Well you can keep repeating it and it still doesn't make much sense imo. If you are saying that the guvment does a crappy job of spending our money I agree with you. I'd like to see them take a lot less of it and guit spending so much of it.
|
well, it does "make sense" in the concept that no-bid contract awards have no assurance that the cost of that contract is fair, or assurance that a no-bid contract is awarded with no extraordinary monies going to friends of the people awarding the contract.
there should not be any no-bid government contracts, there is really no valid reason to do so. there are always at least two service providors who should be competing for the contract to make certain that the cost of the service is as low as possible and no element of above reasonable payments are made.
Quote:
I would expect that the no-bid was because there aren't that many halliburtons out there willing to have their employees shot and possibly beheaded. You pissed about Iraq..that's a different debate.
Again..they were offered a contract and provided a service.. the essence of capitalism. Nothing socialist about it.
|
there are other service providors who cn do just what hallibuton does and there is no valid reason to award any firm a no-bid contract.
this is not "the essence of capitalism", as capitalism involves competition. no-bid contracts are void of any competition, and they are opposite of what capitaism involves.