Obama's promise of ending no-bid contracts...broken.

[blackangst1]

I have to be honest. On the campaign trail, he really sounded good 3 years ago. Here's yet the latest campaign promise broken.

First, the context.

His promise (From his campaign website)

End Abuse of No-Bid Contracts: Barack Obama and Joe Biden will end abuse of no-bid contracts by requiring that nearly all contract orders over $25,000 be competitively awarded.

OK, fair enough. It does say "nearly"

And now the promise turned into action:

In this memo released on March 4, 2009, Obama says:

When awarding Government contracts, the Federal Government must strive for an open and competitive process.

It is the policy of the Federal Government that executive agencies shall not engage in noncompetitive contracts except in those circumstances where their use can be fully justified and where appropriate safeguards have been put in place...

OK.

So, what about Siga?

• Siga was given the contract for 1.7 million doses of the drug, called ST-246, for about $255 per dose, well above the $170 that government contract specialists had considered fair and reasonable. (By contrast, the vaccine costs about $3 a dose.)
• Siga was offered the contract on a “sole source” procurement basis – meaning that no other company was asked to bid.
• When government contracting specialists balked at both the huge markup permitted to the company and the sole-source arrangement, a political appointee, Assistant Secretary of Health and Human Services Nicole Lurie, replaced the lead negotiator.

But there’s more. The U.S. biodefense stockpile contains 300 million doses of smallpox vaccine, enough for every eligible man, woman and child. An anti-viral drug would be needed only for people who were exposed to the smallpox virus but couldn’t get the vaccine within four days of exposure.

There’s also a problem with testing such a drug: For ethical reasons, it can’t be tested for efficacy — you can’t expose people to a lethal virus purposely in a clinical trial — so there’s no guarantee that the drug will work. And that creates yet another wrinkle: In the absence of a verified imminent threat, the FDA is unlikely to approve such a product without proof of its efficacy. An FDA official admitted there is “no clear regulatory path” to the approval of such drugs. DHHS officials were well aware of this glitch.

What could have spurred the Obama administration not only to make but to insist on this deal with Siga? Well, as Deep Throat said to Bob Woodward in “All The President’s Men,” “Follow the money. Always follow the money.” According to David Willman, writing in the Los Angeles Times, the company’s controlling stockholder David “Perelman and others at Siga’s affiliate, MacAndrews & Forbes, have long been major political donors. They gave a total of $607,550 to federal campaigns for the 2008 and 2010 elections, according to records compiled by the Center for Responsive Politics. About 65% of that money went to Democrats. Perelman donated an additional $50,000 to President Obama’s inauguration.”

Oh well. So much for promises and executive memos.

 

[William Gaatjes]

I can give even worse news... How long before the vaccine or medicine breaks down and is no longer usable ? This is also something that must be taken into account in the purchase.

It is nonsense to buy medicine for every person in the country especially in western industrialized countries because most people are healthy enough to defeat the most common diseases on their own without the need of any medicine. Only groups with high risk such as the elderly, small children and people with chronic diseases need immediate care and thus should be taken into account when keeping a stock of medicines or vaccines. Most healthy people will be able to survive long enough or even survive without any need of medicine. This is just a scam in my opinion.


EDIT:
You can blame your president, but that is nonsense. You better blame lawyers that sue and the committees that advise such purchases. You cannot ask from your president that he knows everything.

 

[PeshakJang]

Most corrupt administration to date. Fact.

 

[blackangst1]

I can give even worse news... How long before the vaccine or medicine breaks down and is no longer usable ? This is also something that must be taken into account in the purchase.

It is nonsense to buy medicine for every person in the country especially in western industrialized countries because most people are healthy enough to defeat the most common diseases on their own without the need of any medicine. Only groups with high risk such as the elderly, small children and people with chronic diseases need immediate care and thus should be taken into account when keeping a stock of medicines or vaccines. Most healthy people will be able to survive long enough or even survive without any need of medicine. This is just a scam in my opinion.


EDIT:
You can blame your president, but that is nonsense. You better blame lawyers that sue and the committees that advise such purchases. You cannot ask from your president that he knows everything.

Although I agree with your edit, youre wrong in this case. He knew.

 

[Dman8777]

Yet another reason among thousands why campaign finance and lobbying needs to be overhauled. Our politicians (or is it really just a general human problem?) just can't keep their hands out of the cookie jar.

 

[HendrixFan]

Most corrupt administration to date. Fact.

I don't know about that, we just had an administration attack a country for the sole purpose of opening up rebuilding efforts to their crony business friends.

But the Obama administration is up there.

 

[feralkid]

I know NOTHING of history. Fact.

Hyperbole much? Always?

 

[woolfe9999]

Old news that this promise hasn't been kept:

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2010/jan/06/promise-broken-vow-end-no-bid-contracts/

 

[Rainsford]

Old news that this promise hasn't been kept:

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2010/jan/06/promise-broken-vow-end-no-bid-contracts/

At least the article says progress has been made. The reason the promise is considered broken is because Obama promised to effective END the practice of no-bid contracts, which was probably over-promising when much of federal contracting is based on the idea of no-bid contracts. In other words, President Obama was kind of dumb to promise that in the first place.

 

[Rainsford]

Most corrupt administration to date. Fact.

Can you support that with some facts or something?

 

[Dman8777]

Rainsford beat me to it.

 

[NeoV]

what part of "requiring that nearly all contract orders over $25,000 be competitively awarded"

says 100%?

So progress in this area is made, but if a single contract goes outside of this it's a promise broken - even thought they clearly said NEARLY ALL?

It's this kind of all-or-nothing mentality that has me convinced most of this country is plain retarded.

How about if we compare the percentages of these types of contracts awarded under this administration to prior administrations, on both sides of the political fence? Then let's have this discussion.

 

[fskimospy]

Can we get a real news source on this instead of an editorial by a guy who works for two extreme right wing think tanks?

I mean not that I don't trust a news source that repeatedly tries to compare Obama to Nixon using ridiculous hyperbole and all...

 

[woolfe9999]

At least the article says progress has been made. The reason the promise is considered broken is because Obama promised to effective END the practice of no-bid contracts, which was probably over-promising when much of federal contracting is based on the idea of no-bid contracts. In other words, President Obama was kind of dumb to promise that in the first place.

No disagreement really. Was just pointing out that it has been known for some time that the promise as delivered was not kept.

 

[Rainsford]

No disagreement really. Was just pointing out that it has been known for some time that the promise as delivered was not kept.

My comment was more piggy-backing off what you said rather than disagreeing, since you linked to that article

But you're definitely right, this has been a known and ongoing issue with President Obama. Although to be fair, it's only an issue because he promised to do something about it, not because his administration's no-bid contracts are particularly bad.

 

[kage69]

Most corrupt administration to date. Fact.

Fact not found, but your difficulty with it's definition is duly noted.

 

[waggy]

lol i'm not sure witch i find sadder. people thinking he would keep his promise or those complaining.

 

[blackangst1]

Can we get a real news source on this instead of an editorial by a guy who works for two extreme right wing think tanks?

I mean not that I don't trust a news source that repeatedly tries to compare Obama to Nixon using ridiculous hyperbole and all...

How about ABC?

Senate Democrat Seeks Investigation of Obama’s No-Bid Contract for Smallpox Drug


Or the LA Times?
Cost, need questioned in $433-million smallpox drug deal


Or Bussiness Insider?

This Dem Senator Wants An Investigation Into Obama's Sketchy Vaccine Contract​

​

 

[fskimospy]

How about ABC?

Senate Democrat Seeks Investigation of Obama’s No-Bid Contract for Smallpox Drug


Or the LA Times?
Cost, need questioned in $433-million smallpox drug deal


Or Bussiness Insider?

This Dem Senator Wants An Investigation Into Obama's Sketchy Vaccine Contract​

​

Much better sources, but of course those articles say very different things than your original article. I'm glad that Congress is looking into a contract that raises questions, but foaming at the mouth right wing opinion pieces are not a good way to get an idea of what's actually going on.

 

[blackangst1]

Much better sources, but of course those articles say very different things than your original article. I'm glad that Congress is looking into a contract that raises questions, but foaming at the mouth right wing opinion pieces are not a good way to get an idea of what's actually going on.

No, it doesnt. He made promises in his campaign run he would end this behavior. He sent out a memo after elected stating "It is the policy". He awarded a no bid contract, of which is highly questionable. Where's the differences?

 

[fskimospy]

No, it doesnt. He made promises in his campaign run he would end this behavior. He sent out a memo after elected stating "It is the policy". He awarded a no bid contract, of which is highly questionable. Where's the differences?

A few Nixon comparisons, a bunch of unsupportable attacks on motivations, etc, etc. I'm down for investigating it to find out what happened, but lets leave the crazies out of it.

 

[bfdd]

At least the article says progress has been made. The reason the promise is considered broken is because Obama promised to effective END the practice of no-bid contracts, which was probably over-promising when much of federal contracting is based on the idea of no-bid contracts. In other words, President Obama was kind of dumb to promise that in the first place.

uh no i completely disagree. he was smart for promising it because idiots ate it up, politicians and promises lol.... idiots.

 

[EagleKeeper]

At least the article says progress has been made. The reason the promise is considered broken is because Obama promised to effective END the practice of no-bid contracts, which was probably over-promising when much of federal contracting is based on the idea of no-bid contracts. In other words, President Obama was kind of dumb to promise that in the first place.

He has the ability by Federal decree to end No-Bid contracts.
He can also require written and/or public justification of a no-bid.
He can also require 2 weeks advance notice of the awarding of a no-bid for justification review.

Similar to the transparency issue.
Sounds good when promising; but implementing such exposes yourself to political favoritism and not implementing such is what we see happens now.

He was in the Federal government; he knew how things operated and opened his mouth to bedazzle the fools anyhow.

and they still lap it up by trying to defend his actions.
Just as the die-hard Republicans could have Bush do no wrong; you have the die hard Democrats stating the Obama can do not wrong and that no one should be attacking him because of "but Bush"...

 

[airdata]

At least his name isn't Dick Cheney. At least he doesn't have a stake in a company that he gave contracts to to rebuild, and overcharge the government for basic things.

 

[PokerGuy]

Obama was kind of dumb to promise that in the first place.

No, he wasn't dumb to promise that, he was smart to promise it, laughing at all the idiots who actually believed he was going to keep his promises. "Hope & Change" lol