View Full Version : Obama Administration Steers Lucrative No-Bid Contract for Afghan Work to Dem Donor
Obama Administration Steers Lucrative No-Bid Contract for Afghan Work to Dem Donor
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/01/25/obama-administration-steers-lucrative-bid-contract-afghan-work-dem-donor/
"Despite President Obama's long history of criticizing the Bush administration for "sweetheart deals" with favored contractors, the Obama administration this month awarded a $25 million federal contract for work in Afghanistan to a company owned by a Democratic campaign contributor without entertaining competitive bids, Fox News has learned..............."
As reported on Fox - don't look for it to be reported anywhere else in the large MSM news outlets.
Now we could look at it either way - 1. No time for bidding and it needed/needs to be done now or 2. A little payback for a political friend.
But Libs - excuse me Richard - Progressives ranted and raved about Halliburton. Lets see if this gets them as excited.
During fiscal years 2000 and 2001, for example, when Bill Clinton was president, as much as $139.2 billion in federal contracts was awarded without competitive bidding. The OMB Watch figures show that the practice appears to have accelerated sharply during the Bush administration, but the figures are not adjusted for inflation.
Polecatus Washingtonium - doesn't matter which side of the political fence they claim to walk - and the 'spoils' just keep on being slopped around to whomever bellies on up to the ol' DC trough. :mad:
Richard's jaded $.02 :munchin
I love this response. I'm sure the contract being let in this fashion had a lot to do with Haiti. :rolleyes:
Asked about the contract, USAID Acting Press Director Harry Edwards at first suggested his office would be too "busy" to comment on it. "I'll tell it to the people in Haiti," Edwards snapped when a Fox News reporter indicated the story would soon be made public. The USAID press office did not respond further.
Also, this following quote reeks of Chicago politics or other organizations that made Chicago famous:
Corporate rivals of Checchi were reluctant to speak on the record about the no-bid contract awarded to his firm because they feared possible retribution by the Obama administration in the awarding of future contracts.
"We don't want to be blackballed," said the managing partner of a consulting firm that has won similar contracts. "You've got to be careful. We're dealing here with people and offices that we depend on for our business."
I'm with Richard -- this stuff is just business as usual in DC no matter which side of the aisle is in the White House. Same crap. :rolleyes:
greenberetTFS
01-25-2010, 12:08
I'm with Richard -- this stuff is just business as usual in DC no matter which side of the aisle is in the White House. Same crap. :rolleyes:
I agree,makes no difference what side your on...............:eek:
Big Teddy :munchin
When it was KBR and the Republicans it was war-profiteering.
Our nations leaders simply practicing politics as usual.
If one party supported funding for medical research to find a cure, the other side would swear they are only doing it because they are in bed with the pharmaceutical companies.
"nothing up my sleeve..."
presto
I got no heartburn with no bid contracts. As with Halliburton and Clinton - work needed to be done and they didn't have time to run it through the bidding process.
I do have a problem with the people who had no problems with Clinton doing it, but lots of problems with Bush doing it but once again are willing to turn a blind eye because now it's a D doing it.
Where have all the "Blood for Oil" folks run off to? About the only one still at it is Cindy S.
longrange1947
01-25-2010, 17:34
I could care figging less about the contracts and who does what. What pisses me off, and no one seems to give a shit, is that the media refuses to slam Dems, only the Republicans. The answer is, well everyone does that, unless a Republican does it then it is a disgrace. Screw them!
Source is here (http://www.whitehouse.gov/the_press_office/Remarks-by-the-President-on-Procurement-3/4/09/).March 4, 2009
Remarks by the President on Procurement
Room 350
Dwight D. Eisenhower Executive Office Building
10:20 A.M. EST
THE PRESIDENT: Good morning. Even if these were the best of times, budget reform would be long overdue in Washington. And we have here some folks who have been working on these issues for a long time.
But these are far from the best of times. By any measure, my administration inherited a fiscal disaster. When we walked in the door we found a budget deficit of $1.3 trillion, the largest in American history. And this fiscal burden has been compounded by the most severe economic crisis since the Great Depression. It's a crisis that requires us to take swift and aggressive action to put Americans back to work, and to make the long-delayed investments in energy, health care and education, that can build a new foundation for growth.
As we get our economy moving we must also turn the tide on an era of fiscal irresponsibility so that we can sustain our recovery, enhance accountability and avoid leaving our children a mountain of debt. And that's why even as we make the necessary investments to put our economy back on track, we're proposing significant changes that will help bring the yawning deficits we inherited under control. We are cutting what we don't need to make room for what we do.
The budget plan I outlined next week includes $2 trillion in deficit reduction. It reduces discretionary spending for non-defense programs as a share of the economy that -- by more than 10 percent over the next decade, to the lowest level in nearly half a century. I want to repeat that. I want to make sure everybody catches this, because I think sometimes the chatter on the cable stations hasn't been clear about this. My budget reduces discretionary spending for non-defense programs as a share of the economy by more than 10 percent over the next decade, and it will take it to the lowest level in nearly half a century.
In addition, today I'm announcing that part of this deficit reduction will include reforms in how government does business, which will save the American people up to $40 billion each year. It starts with reforming our broken system of government contracting. There is a fundamental public trust that we must uphold. The American people's money must be spent to advance their priorities -- not to line the pockets of contractors or to maintain projects that don't work.
Recently that public trust has not always been kept. Over the last eight years, government spending on contracts has doubled to over half a trillion dollars. Far too often, the spending is plagued by massive cost overruns, outright fraud, and the absence of oversight and accountability. In some cases, contracts are awarded without competition. In others, contractors actually oversee other contractors. We are spending money on things that we don't need, and we're paying more than we need to pay. And that's completely unacceptable.
This problem cuts across the government, but I want to focus on one particular example, and that is the situation in defense contracting. Now, I want to be clear, as Commander-in-Chief, I will do whatever it takes to defend the American people, which is why we've increased funding for the best military in the history of the world. We'll make new investments in 21st century capabilities to meet new strategic challenges. And we will always give our men and women the -- in uniform, the equipment and the support that they need to get the job done.
But I reject the false choice between securing this nation and wasting billions of taxpayer dollars. And in this time of great challenges, I recognize the real choice between investments that are designed to keep the American people safe and those that are designed to make a defense contractor rich.
Last year, the Government Accountability Office, GAO, looked into 95 major defense projects and found cost overruns that totaled $295 billion. Let me repeat: That's $295 billion in wasteful spending. And this wasteful spending has many sources. It comes from investments and unproven technologies. It comes from a lack of oversight. It comes from influence peddling and indefensible no-bid contracts that have cost American taxpayers billions of dollars.
In Iraq, too much money has been paid out for services that were never performed, buildings that were never completed, companies that skimmed off the top. At home, too many contractors have been allowed to get away with delay after delay after delay in developing unproven weapon systems.
It's time for this waste and inefficiency to end. It's time for a government that only invests in what works. And what's encouraging is, is that there is broad bipartisan consensus on behalf of reform, and we are committed to taking swift action that changes our system of contracting to save taxpayers' money.
So here are a couple of immediate steps we're going to take. First, with the presidential memorandum that I'm signing, I am instructing my administration to dramatically reform the way we do business on contracts across the entire government. So starting today, Peter Orszag, my budget director, will work with Cabinet officials and agency heads to develop tough new guidelines on contracting by the end of September. We will stop outsourcing services that should be performed by the government, and open up the contracting process to small businesses. We will end unnecessary no-bid and cost-plus contracts that run up a bill that is paid by the American people. And we will strengthen oversight to maximize transparency and accountability. Altogether, these reforms can save the American people up to $40 billion each year.
Second, we must make investments to keep our country safe while cutting back on the waste and inefficiency that isn't. And that's why I'm so pleased to support the goals of the bipartisan effort on procurement reform that has been led by our own Carl Levin and John McCain in the Senate. They have done extraordinary work trying to push this issue to the forefront. We want to see if we can partner with Senator McCain and Senator Levin to get this done as soon as possible. And thanks to Secretary Gates, some of the reforms that they've talked about are already beginning to take shape. And I've asked him to work with Senators Levin and McCain on developing this legislation as it moves forward, and Bill Lynn, who is heading up procurement issues at our White House as Deputy Secretary of Defense is going to be leading the charge on this, as well.
I can assure you that this will be a priority for my administration. It's time to end the extra costs and long delays that are all too common in our defense contracting. We need to invest in technologies that are proven and cost-effective. We need more competition for contracts and more oversight as they're carried out. If a system isn't ready to be developed, we shouldn't pour resources into it. And if a system is plagued by cost overruns, it should be reformed. No more excuses, no more delays. The days of giving defense contractors a blank check are over.
Now, none of this will be easy. We'll have to end old ways of doing business. We'll have to take on entrenched special interests. We'll have to break bad habits that have built up over many years. But we can't keep spending good money after bad. All across America, families are making hard choices, and now we're going to have to do the same. I can promise you that this is just the beginning of a new way of doing business here in Washington because the American people have every right to expect and to demand a government that is more efficient, more accountable, and more responsible in keeping the public's trust.
And I also want to acknowledge a couple of congressmen -- Congressman Towns and Congressman Welch, who have been working diligently on this issue, and Claire McCaskill in the Senate, who has been sharpening her pencils and working with IGs across departments to see if we can make some significant reforms and improvements, as well.
And again, thank you to Senators McCain and Senators Levin for their outstanding leadership on this issue. We look forward to getting it done. This is going to be just one more aspect of the kind of reform that's going to be critical in the months and years to come.
Thank you, everybody.
END 10:29 A.M. ESTFrom the article referenced in the OP.The contract, awarded on Jan. 4 to Checchi & Company Consulting, Inc., a Washington-based firm owned by economist and Democratic donor Vincent V. Checchi, will pay the firm $24,673,427 to provide "rule of law stabilization services" in war-torn Afghanistan.So it is clear that everyone who objects to this no-bid contract on grounds that the president is contradicting himself is in error. Clearly, this no bid contract is not at all related to the nation's defense.:rolleyes:
MOO, a significant theme in the histories of this president's administration will be how much political credibility he lost from making bold statements during his campaign and initial months of his presidency only to be confronted by the immensely difficult choices all presidents face in the day-to-day execution of their duties.
...related to the nation's defense...
"NATIONAL DEFENSE, n. In U.S. political discourse: 1) The pauperization of the nation through expenditures for deadly weapons systems; 2) The bombardment and invasion of small countries. The United States is, of course, the only nation entitled to such 'defense.' If the inhabitants of other countries resist the U.S. government's 'defensive' measures, they become guilty of 'internal aggression'; and if governments of other countries practice U.S.-style national defense, they become guilty of 'naked aggression.'"
—Chaz Bufe, American Heretic's Dictionary
And so it goes...:rolleyes:
Richard's jaded $.02 :munchin
alright4u
01-25-2010, 21:21
I got no heartburn with no bid contracts. As with Halliburton and Clinton - work needed to be done and they didn't have time to run it through the bidding process.
I do have a problem with the people who had no problems with Clinton doing it, but lots of problems with Bush doing it but once again are willing to turn a blind eye because now it's a D doing it.
Where have all the "Blood for Oil" folks run off to? About the only one still at it is Cindy S.
I wonder if a disabled Vet owned business qualified?