Could the U.S. significantly cut Government spending by using competitive bidding for contracts?

Answer 1

Without a doubt. But sadly, the bidding process is corrupt and has been for decades. Fixed bidding is the norm, rather than the exception. All administrations have been cursed with this.

Answer 2

Yes, but the bids can be rigged, and often are, by specifying a certain, size, color, or type, that the person writing the bid knows only a certain provider can supply, a friend or relative perhaps. Thus insuring that only the intended winner meets the specification leaving the other bidders out in the cold when they can't deliver the 16.5 oz. hammer the winner specializes in instead of the standard 16 oz. hammer available to all. Ten companies can sell me, the government, a 16 oz hammer for $5.00 or less, BUT we need a 16.5 oz hammer and the only company that can provide that special 16.5 oz hammer can only do it at a cost of $99.99 per unit. We need at least a thousand, and thanks uncle.
We are mandated to go with the company that meets our specs regardless of the cost.
Tax payers, bend over and spread um. That is how they do it.

Answer 3

Most contracts are competitive but you have to be careful, forcing the least expensive contract to be awarded can be a huge mistake. It's a pretty decent process in place that tends to work out for the best for the taxpayer.

You want to save money? I wish I could tell Congress to end all government TDY, that's federal employees and military taking trips for conferences and BS like that. Complete waste of money and expensive.

Answer 4

The perform competitive bids all the time, and it is regularly done in the government. We have not been given any details as to why they weren't done, and I suspect the least reason of all is the buddy system.