What is the official rationale behind "no bid contracts" for military contractors?

Question

No conspiracy theories, please.

Not complaining, just asking.

Answer 1

Simply because - like with the relief effort for Hurricane Katrina - you cannot afford to take the time to go through the bidding process. Instead you find a company with a proven track record and determine what you think is a fir profit and make them an offer.

Remember the old saying:

You can have it done fast.
You can have it done right.
You can have it done cheap.
Pick any two out of the three.

Answer 2

what a load of crap the previous answers have been.

if the job of the govt is NOT to secure the best bids for the highest quality products in ANY situation, then what in the world do we bother with a govt at all for - really!

the fact that haliburton's business has gone up just under 100% since bush and cheney took office, simply can't be ignored and is certainly NOT a conspiracy theory.

if hiring private contractors is not better and more efficient than having the govt contract directly for these services (like we did very successfully in WWII) then i see very little point in having private contractors do this.

if having private companies do this means cutting huge corners and sending troops into the field with the 'army we have as opposed to the one we want' (donald rumsfeld famously said this) then i don't see what the benefit of having private companies do this is - other than private profit.

the fact that war is big business is a huge problem and one that can't be ignored.

we waste billions and billions on iraq but spend almost nothing on the securing of the weapons grade nuclear material from the old soviet union - this is the top threat to american security.

the reason why this is the case is a sad statement about the state of affairs in our govt - but it is because there are no no-bid contracts or big corporate contracts of any sort to be had in this critical mission.

if we don't fix things and soon, we are on a devastating collision course - and all the pols in washington really care about is who will be to blame when the crap really hits the fan...

Answer 3

It takes weeks and months to evaluate a bid proposal. The situation in Iraq does not allow that kind of time. For example the Haliburton contract to rebuild the infrastructure in Iraq. How are you going to put out for bid the electrical power, gas , and water system when:
1) You don't know the extent of the damage.
2) You cannot expect the Iraqis to sit in the dark without water or gas while the US goes through the bid process.
3) There are only a few companies in the world capable of repairing this damage, overseas and risk their employees in anything like a short time: One is Haliburton the other is Bechtel.

So the "no bid" contracts is a political red herring.

Answer 4

During a time of war expediency is key. You can't have contractors putting in bids, demonstrating products,etc etc. This takes forever while the guys on the ground doing the fighting are suffering. Complain all you want about no-bid contracts. But they are important and if it means that troops get what they need then I am all for it.

Answer 5

Two reasons.

1. Speed. Anyone who knows anything about government contracting understands that even routine contracts can take six months to a year to be awarded, then, the losers can always drag it out with their appeals.

2. Obvious Winners. Some projects are so large, so technical or so risky that there is really only one company that can fulfill the contract. We don't have five years for a new company to get up to speed.

Answer 6

Ask a Senator from Calif. http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2003/04/22/MN310531.DTL