Why does the U.S. government allow no-bid contracts and should we continue them.?

Question

I'm sorry that I don't have the source for this, but I believe that Halliburton was awarded a no-bid contract for their services in Iraq.

Why does the federal government allow no-bid contracts and should they be continued?

Is there any advantage to allowing a no-bid contract? If so, how does it help the American people by allowing a no-bid contract?

I'll give the ten points to the best answer which gives a valid reason why we should continue allowing no-bid contracts.

(For those who don't know what a no-bid contract is, I believe it is when the government a contract to an individual or group/company without considering competitive bids).

Thank you, Jose R for supplying the citation on Halliburton's no bid contract!

There are about 4 excellent answers below. I can't decide which answer is the best, so I'm going to send this to the voters to make the decision.

Excellent answers follow.

NOTE TO VOTERS: please pick the answer that best explains why we use no-bid contracts rather than the one that best describes your thoughts on this issue, please!

Answer 1

The competitive bidding process is sometimes too time consuming and, on small jobs, may even cost more than the contract itself.

The problem occurs because there is a conflict between the government, who, as a rule, is trying to get the most competent contractor at a reasonable price, and the contractor, who wants to provide an excellent product or service at a price that barely underbids his competitors.

In addition, fairness is a major issue in contract bidding. The government must, and should be, fair and impartial to all bidders, no matter their qualifications and/or past record.

Even if companies have done poor work in the past, the government can't automatically disqualify a reasonable bid based only on past performance.

In an emergency situation where the government decides that it is a matter of national security to no bid a contract because of time restraints, it still must justify its decision in a public forum.

Answer 2

You can not complain about Halliburton being awarded a 'no bid' contract until you realize they are only one of two companies in the world that even do the work that they do. The other is a French company. Would it make a difference to know the Clinton administration was doing the same thing with regard to Halliburton? Awarding no bid contracts. Does that make it any different?

The issue only comes up now because it is one the Bush Bashing talking points and Dick Cheney has ties to Halliburton.

No bid contracts should be allowed when it makes sense to do so.

Answer 3

No, I'm not wild about it. But public bid contracts don't really guarantee fairness, and they certainly don't ensure quality. The result of many public bids is the cheapest contractor who can get a bid bond gets the job. Experience, references, etc. are rarely considered. This why we have so many disasters with government building jobs, etc.

What we need is a concept where after the job goes out to bid, the three lowest bidders are put through a rigorous check of their background, ability to complete the job in a timely fashion, etc. The bidder with the best results gets the job, not necessarily the lowest bidder of the three. This would keep the prices low (because contractors will still strive to get in the bottom three) but will also keep an emphasis on performance.

Answer 4

No Bid contracts are for Classified and Specialized services .
Halliburton was awarded several no bid contracts starting with Yugoslavia under a subsidiary know as KBR Kellogg Brown & Root

As far as continuation No-bid contract should only be used in cases of National Security and should only be used as a interim step, and should not exceed 2 years .

Example :
KBR has provided logistics such as set up tear down of bases, communications , Feeding of troops .
In a combat or hostile type enviroment it is not desireable to have local compaines provide these service as this might lead to a security breech

Answer 5

No- no-bid contracts should be illegal because contracts are only being awarded to buddies of the Bush Administration in order to make them rich. Look at how much Cheney and others have profited off the war already. And continue to do so.

Answer 6

I have no idea why the governement allows them. (Maybe the govvernment likes getting screwed?!) Its pretty ridiculous in my opinion. Look at what FEMA recently did. After FEMA said it would reopen all of its nobid contracts and make contractors bid, FEMA changed its mind and decided not to reopen the contracts. There is something seriously wrong with all of this nobid nonsense. It needs to end as soon as possible because all it seems to end up in is the American people getting screwed.

Answer 7

Cry me a river. Nike, that's glaring you're new on the following. This concern has been performed such an excellent number of circumstances now, we do not care, that's performed and over with and in case you imagine that Cheney and the Bush bunch are the in worry-free words ones who made or are creating wealth off of those human beings even now at present you quite do have your head interior the sand. Please move into the hot.

Answer 8

It's corruption, plain and simple. Look at Cheney. Does anyone believe that in addition to the hundreds of millions he's had already, he's not going to get a billion dollar payoff when he's out of office?

What's good for Halliburton is good for America?

Answer 9

It's called payback for support, you don't think these company's donate big bucks to campaigns because they care who gets elected!
No-bid contracts should NEVER happen, so contact your Representative!

Answer 10

because they are connected. It's the good old boy syndrome.
it's who you know.
they may award no bid contracts under the guise of security issues but that doesn't hold much water.
lobbyists are doing their job I suppose.