Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
As a part of Hope and Change, Obama promised to end all no-bid contracts above $25,000. Obama criticized Bush for no bids and no bids to Halliburton. Obama said no-bid contracts passed out by the government was a sign of corruption - and would be immediately stopped by him. The sheep started mindlessly chanting Yes We Can and a few even fainted.
Now, that Obama is the all time king of no-bid government contracts, replicating no-bid government contracts to Halliburton subsidiaries, refusing to end no-bid contracts above $25K, and giving hundreds of millions of dollars in a no-bid contract to a company with an association with his wife....the mindless sheep say, ignore Obama's words, he is so dreamy. Obama and Bush by correlation were right in giving out no-bid contracts.
The mindless sheep owe Bush an apology for criticizing no-bid contracts under Bush, but excusing more of it under Obama.
Extending existing contracts happens daily in government (at all levels, Federal, State, County, City)
There is a big difference between extending or expanding a existing contract and handing out a no bid.
If you have been involved in government contracting in the past 10 or so years you would appreciate that things have changed. In the old days, specs were drawn and sent out for bid. Many companies would submit proposals and present those to a selection committee. The committee would rank them and make recommendations to management who would make the selection though sometimes the committee choose.
It was a time-consuming process to say the least. There were other problems as well, but the timeliness issue was paramount and lead to the practice of making up lists of approved contractors for specific types of projects from which an agency could choose without a formal bidding process. Think of it as "pre-bidding". Agencies would solicit proposals for a category of services, say IT programming, and contractors would respond with competencies and rates. Several contractors would be selected instead of a single one and no particular job would be assigned to them. Then, when the agency wanted IT services, in this case, they would simply go down the list, pick a contractor they found suitable, and give them a call. There was no specific proposal solicitation anymore - more like going to the phone book except you know the contractors terms up front.
From the press reports, it appears that this is what was done in the case of the ACA website. They just took a contractor who had been pre-approved to provide those kind of services from the list. I won't get into the wisdom of doing things this way versus the traditional particularly in large projects (most govs have rules that require large projects to be put to the traditional bidding process and sole source provisions that get around all of it - not sure on the Feds).
If you have been involved in government contracting in the past 10 or so years you would appreciate that things have changed. In the old days, specs were drawn and sent out for bid. Many companies would submit proposals and present those to a selection committee. The committee would rank them and make recommendations to management who would make the selection though sometimes the committee choose.
It was a time-consuming process to say the least. There were other problems as well, but the timeliness issue was paramount and lead to the practice of making up lists of approved contractors for specific types of projects from which an agency could choose without a formal bidding process. Think of it as "pre-bidding". Agencies would solicit proposals for a category of services, say IT programming, and contractors would respond with competencies and rates. Several contractors would be selected instead of a single one and no particular job would be assigned to them. Then, when the agency wanted IT services, in this case, they would simply go down the list, pick a contractor they found suitable, and give them a call. There was no specific proposal solicitation anymore - more like going to the phone book except you know the contractors terms up front.
From the press reports, it appears that this is what was done in the case of the ACA website. They just took a contractor who had been pre-approved to provide those kind of services from the list. I won't get into the wisdom of doing things this way versus the traditional particularly in large projects (most govs have rules that require large projects to be put to the traditional bidding process and sole source provisions that get around all of it - not sure on the Feds), but arguing that the Obama admin went "no-bid" is deceptive and inaccurate.
Its still no bid!
Who came up with the cost? It theres 7 approved contractors why were the other 6 asked for a bid. Also why was this one picked over the other 6?
Who picked them? And why?
I sure hope the decision wasnt made to just randomly pick one and pay whatever bill they sent in.
As much as I love to bash this administration, I thought this story was weak and too much of a stretch. And I don't like going after Michelle...leave the spouses out of political battles, there will always be a rebound of sympathy.
Who came up with the cost? It theres 7 approved contractors why were the other 6 asked for a bid. Also why was this one picked over the other 6?
Who picked them? And why?
I sure hope the decision wasnt made to just randomly pick one and pay whatever bill they sent in.
It's easy to be critical, but you have to understand what happens in a bid process. It can take forever and they did not have that amount of time. In a lucrative contract like this surely was, there are almost always challenges by the firms that are not selected. These can even end up as lawsuits or administrative judge decisions and can end up in a re-bid. I have been involved in public works projects that were re-bid more than once. It can literally take years to get a contractor on board. Timeliness, not corruption, is the allure of sole source contracting.
Last edited by Ponderosa; 10-26-2013 at 08:41 AM..
It's easy to be critical, but you have to understand what happens in a bid process. It can take forever and they did not have that amount of time. In a lucrative contract like this surely was, there are almost always challenges by the firms that are not selected. These can even end up as lawsuits or administrative judge decisions and can end up in a re-bid. have been involved in public works projects that were re-bid more than once. It can literally take years to get a contractor on board. Timeliness, not corruption, is the allure of sole source contracting.
I agree, Obama didn't have a lot of time to make a website when AHA passed in 2009. Just over 4 years is not enough time. He is excused for his hypocrisies for saying that no-bid contracts were a sign of corruption and waste and then having more no-bid contracts than Bush. Hail Obama!
So does Michelle Obama have a continuing relationship with this woman? Inquirining minds want to know? Did she EVER have a friendship with this woman? The Princeton Class of 1985 isn't *quite* like the Apple Orchard Elementary School 6th grade class of 1985. Do the two women even know each other? I think it's interesting that this website puts out a headline that heavily insinuates a relationship but then, in the text, never, ever touches on if the women if know each other.
Certainly if there's a significant relationship there, I'd want it looked into; otherwise, I don't think it's a big deal. Government contracting has changed radically over the years and most IT contractors are on a "pre-approved" schedule and an agency can just go pick them to do something. CGI was approved as one of those contractors under the Bush Administration. I'm personally outraged that Michelle would personally pick CGI for this job since that have the STANK of GWB on them.
If you have been involved in government contracting in the past 10 or so years you would appreciate that things have changed. In the old days, specs were drawn and sent out for bid. Many companies would submit proposals and present those to a selection committee. The committee would rank them and make recommendations to management who would make the selection though sometimes the committee choose.
It was a time-consuming process to say the least. There were other problems as well, but the timeliness issue was paramount and lead to the practice of making up lists of approved contractors for specific types of projects from which an agency could choose without a formal bidding process. Think of it as "pre-bidding". Agencies would solicit proposals for a category of services, say IT programming, and contractors would respond with competencies and rates. Several contractors would be selected instead of a single one and no particular job would be assigned to them. Then, when the agency wanted IT services, in this case, they would simply go down the list, pick a contractor they found suitable, and give them a call. There was no specific proposal solicitation anymore - more like going to the phone book except you know the contractors terms up front.
From the press reports, it appears that this is what was done in the case of the ACA website. They just took a contractor who had been pre-approved to provide those kind of services from the list. I won't get into the wisdom of doing things this way versus the traditional particularly in large projects (most govs have rules that require large projects to be put to the traditional bidding process and sole source provisions that get around all of it - not sure on the Feds).
Interesting how you never fail to defend Obama and his administration with your spin based on you experience, "wisdom" and "knowledge".
How about posting the "press reports" that you refer to?
Just in case people missed these links from the Obamabot defense of Obama, even if that means poor policies that hurt America.
Obama campaigned against no-bid contracts, criticized Bush for no-bid contracts, and pledged to end no-bid contracts above $25,000.
If it was a good idea when he was running for president, why is it not a good idea once he is president? He is giving out no-bid contracts at a rate higher than Bush.
This summarizes how government contracting is often done these days. I know that our agency does it all the time. Not saying it's good, bad, or neutral--just that it's a common practice and nothing weird went on in this instance.
Quote:
The work on Healthcare.gov grew out of a contract for open-ended technology services first issued in 2007 with a place-holder value of $1,000. There were 31 bidders. An extension, awarded in September 2011 specifically to build Healthcare.gov, drew four bidders, the documents show, including CGI Federal.
That 2011 extension is called a "delivery order" rather than a contract because it fell under the original 2007 agreement for CGI Federal to provide IT services to the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, the lead Obamacare agency. CGI Federal reported at the time of the extension that it had received $55.7 million for the first year's work to build Healthcare.gov.
A "LAUNDRY LIST" CONTRACT
CGI's original 2007 contract was of a type called Indefinite Delivery/Indefinite Quantity, federal records show.
ID/IQ contracts allow the government "to write a laundry list of things they can order from the contractor," said Sarah Gleich, an attorney and government procurement expert at Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher. "They'll write incredibly broad descriptions of the work, like 'telecom services,' so you can't tell what they're ordering."
[MOD CUT/copyright]
No other IT contractors have come forward to say they, too, bid on the contract to build Healthcare.gov.
Last edited by Ibginnie; 10-26-2013 at 09:33 AM..
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
