Talk:No-bid contract/Archives/2012

What?
This article does not give much information to those who are not already aware of at least the generals of government contracting. For instance it says that the no-bid contracts are often fraught with suspicion, but it doesn't state why this type of deal might seem shady. From the eyes of a casual reader (myself), one could assume that if a government or other body hired an agency for a specific service, that they did so because they believed that the provider was the best in the buisness. And if such is the belief, why would they even bother with other companies? Also the article doesn't give much information on the actual process of the bidding of contracts. Reading this article, I have no clue how the process would work, as it gives no information to explain this. How does the process normally work? It does say that this process is different than a "typical" competitive contract, however there is no article for competitive contract. The link simply directs to the article on "Competitiveness," which is nearly a definition article that gives no information on competitive contracts. Anyone with basic English understanding would realize that a competitive contract must mean that more than one firm can vie for the contract, however there is no inforamtion here as to how such a process would work in a normal scenario and why such a scenario would be considered a "good" standard practice as opposed to a no-bid contract which may be met with suspicion. In normal situations (competitve contracts), does the gov in question simply state a need for a service and whoever can offer the best price gets it or what? Where does the issue of quality of service come into it. Obviously there must be some type of rule that the gov in question must issue a contract to a firm that best fulfills specific requirments, otherwise there would be no point in having a no-bid contract as they could simply place a competitve one and choose whoever it is they wanted in the first place. Thus there must be some restrictions in place that would force them to choose a specific one, and if this is the case the article should explain this.

However, the article does state that no-bid contracts can save time, thus one might assume that there are no restrcitions and it comes down to a game of simply making it look like other firms have a chance, and they are able to choose whom ever they want, but perhaps they are required to open the contract for a set period of time before awarding it to a firm. If this is the case, it should be explained in the article. As is I would have no idea how the process works.

So to sum it up, the article says that no-bid contracts can sometimes be seen as suspicious, but it doesn't state why this is. The article states that it may save time, but it doesn't explain why it saves time. Livingston 04:15, 4 October 2007 (UTC)