Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Orcastraiter who wrote (467921)	9/30/2003 6:25:00 PM
From: Wayners	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 769670

I can only speculate on the cost thing since I have some background in Government contracts. State and Federal laws have requirements about issuing contracts (not delivery orders under a contract) without full and open competition. You have to provide a justification and approval to do so and the decision to do has to be made very high up and have a compelling reason such as only a single company has the technical capability, or there is a rush emergency need. I would find it hard to believe that this contract or delivery order, whichever it was, was done without full and open competition and that the statement of work didn't somehow increase the scope of work or something. I hate to speculate, but it seems the article writers are spculating also making it sound like inpropriety to get people to jump to conclusions when in fact there may be a legitimate reason for the jump. Its possible the old contract for $5700 was for a single deliverable and this new contract for $2.3M was for the old deliverable and they added pension and employee benefits database work under 15 othter deliverable items...who knows if the two contracts are truely comparable or not.