None of the normal bid process that I personally have been a part of have been sealed in that manner. Often people are eliminated and the front runners submit additional information to allow the committees to make the best judgement.
But I also don't know how the feds work. locally the initial RFPs are usually incomplete, only the best RFPs are brought in once the true scope of the project is realized so that a final bid can be delivered. At 09:22 PM 3/29/2003 +0000, you wrote: >the thing that occurs to me is, that in a normal bid process there are >sealed bids, the winner is announced, period. None of this, we have >eliminated one of the bids. If it had been eliminated for competitive >reasons they would be announcing that the contract was awarded to someone >else doncha think? Not that I am an expert on federal procurement, so yeah, >I could be wrong, and just have a suspicious mind. > >I also don't know Halibuton's standing in the field; possibly not accepting >a bid from them would be like, oh, an rfp for a large-scale WAN that says >neither Novell or Cisco products can be used. I cheerfully admit my >ignorance. > >I just think their participation in the process, coupled with payments of >an unknown structure to the vice-president of the United States, who has >been known to urge the declaration of war, very much smells of at least >apparent misconduct, and I hope the matter is thoroughly aired. FWIW, if an >independent investigation finds no impropriety, then I will be the first to >say I was wrong -- not that Dick Cheney gives a hoot either way what my >opinion is... > >Nick McClure writes: > > > Well, if Halliburton's bid was rejected and there are two other bids that > > are still in the running, then it does prove there was a bid process. > > > > What is suspicious, a company that can do the types of things that need to > > be done in Iraq, submits a bid to do them. I bet the would have > submitted a > > bid if Cheney hadn't been VP and were still in the same situation. > > > > At 04:45 PM 3/29/2003 +0000, you wrote: > > >no, it doesn't prove it though it would fit the facts. As would someone > > >saying well we better watch what we try to get away with. I haven't > lept to > > >any conclusions, personally, just think it's suspicious as hell... > > > > > >Dana > > > > > >Nick McClure writes: > > > > > > > But it proves that there was a bid process, which some on this list > > > > disputed. And any sub-contracts would be awarded by the contract > winner, > > > > not the government. > > > > > > > > My point here is that many people jump to conclusions without > getting all > > > > the facts first. > > > > > > > > At 03:55 PM 3/29/2003 +0000, you wrote: > > > > >"Halliburton, which declined to comment, could still be awarded a > > > > >sub-contractor role.....Halliburton has won one Iraq-related job. The > > > > >company's Kellogg Brown & Root unit this week was awarded a contract > > > by the > > > > >U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to put out oil fires and make emergency > > > > >repairs to Iraq's oil infrastructure. Halliburton wouldn't > speculate about > > > > >the deal's monetary value. " > > > > > > > > > >Still I suppose it's good they are nto going to get the whole > enchilada... > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >Nick McClure writes: > > > > > > > > > > > > http://money.cnn.com/2003/03/28/news/companies/Halliburton/index.htm > > > > > > > > > > > > Halliburton is out of the running for the main contract to rebuild > > > Iraq. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Archives: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/index.cfm?forumid=5 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/index.cfm?method=subscribe&forumid=5 Signup for the Fusion Authority news alert and keep up with the latest news in ColdFusion and related topics. http://www.fusionauthority.com/signup.cfm Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=89.70.5
