No bidding on 40% of Pentagon contracts

  • News
  • Thread starter Burnsys
  • Start date
In summary, a report from the Center for Public Integrity revealed that over the last six years, 40 percent of all Pentagon contracts, totaling $362 billion, have been awarded without competition. The largest military contractors, such as Lockheed Martin and Boeing, have won the majority of their contracts through non-competitive bids. The report also showed that due to military industry consolidation, 80 percent of all Pentagon contracting dollars go to the top 1 percent of all contractors. This trend of outsourcing work that was previously done by military personnel has raised concerns about accountability and ethics. President Bush has received the most campaign donations from military contractors, but donations to Sen. John Kerry have increased since he won the Iowa caucuses. The Republican Party has received more donations
  • #1
Burnsys
66
0
By LESLIE WAYNE
THE NEW YORK TIMES

WASHINGTON -- More than 40 percent of all Pentagon contracts, a total of $362 billion, have been awarded on a no-bid basis over the last six years, according to a report issued yesterday. It showed that the biggest companies won the bulk of their contracts without going through a competitive process.
The nation's largest military contractor, Lockheed Martin Corp., received the most Pentagon business on a non-competitive basis. Seventy-four percent of Lockheed's $94 billion in Pentagon contracts since 1998 were awarded without competition, according to a report from the Center for Public Integrity, a Washington non-profit group that studied 2.2 million Pentagon contracts totaling $900 billion.

"Competitive bidding at the Pentagon happens less often than we think, and the no-bid controversy surrounding Halliburton in Iraq actually is, unfortunately, not an aberration," said Charles Lewis, the center's executive director. Lewis' organization was one of the first to study contracts won by Halliburton and other companies in Iraq and Afghanistan. Yesterday's report grew out of that earlier work.

At Boeing, the nation's second-largest contractor, 60 percent of the $81 billion in Pentagon contracts since 1998 were awarded without competition, as were 67 percent at the third-largest contractor, Raytheon Co., which received $39 billion in contracts over the same period.

Of the nation's top 10 military contractors, nine won more than half of their Pentagon contracts through non-competitive awards.

Thomas Greer, a Lockheed spokesman, said that because of "the substantial investment and lengthy development cycles followed by limited annual production quantities," it is often not cost-effective for the Pentagon to have competitive bidding. Greer added that "it is important to note that sole source awards still mandate contractor performance."

In addition, the report said that because of military industry consolidation, 80 percent of all Pentagon contracting dollars were won by the top 1 percent of all contractors. It found that the Pentagon has become increasingly dependent on military contractors for work that had previously been done by soldiers and Pentagon civilian employees.

Currently, for instance, half of the defense budget is outsourced to contractors, while oversight of these contracts has declined, the report said. The Pentagon has reduced the number of government officials who supervise contractors, instead hiring contractors themselves to oversee and manage others, according to the report, which said that the Pentagon hired a contractor to determine how many contractors it had employed.

"There is an even more fundamental problem underscoring our entire investigation: the stunning lack of accountability," said Lewis, who added, "This is a Keystone Kop situation where no one is monitoring the monitors. This is a very serious situation and the Pentagon is treating it like a hair in the soup."

Glenn Flood, a Pentagon spokesman, said that the center's "accusations have been made before." Flood added that much of the Pentagon's business is so specialized, it is impossible to find more than one supplier, and industry consolidation has accelerated the non-competitive trend.

"Where do you go if you want need a sub or a joint strike fighter?" said Flood. "The mergers of the 1980s have taken their toll. You have only five or six major contractors. Where do you go?"

But the center's report said that the great growth in outsourcing is taking place in providing services, not in the making of weapon systems. This includes everything from interrogations at Abu Ghraib prison in Baghdad to helping write the Bush administration's defense budget and devise strategic plans. At the same time, military contractors have become skilled at politics and often provide employment for Pentagon officials after they leave the government.

The leading recipient of campaign donations from military contractors has been President Bush, who has received $5.4 million from the industry since 1998. Military contractors, however, began stepping up contributions to Sen. John Kerry after he won the Iowa caucuses.

Before the caucuses Kerry had received $332,000 from the industry, and he has received just under $2 million since then. The Republican Party has received $62 million from the industry since 1998, compared with $24 million for the Democratic Party, according to the report.
----------------------------------------------------------------

Yes they are in irak to bring them freedom. right..
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #2
Considering the number of contractors cabable of building a B-2 stealth bomber (one), the number of contractors capable of building an Aegis cruiser (one), and the number of contractors capable of building a C-17 cargo plane (one), and the fact that all of these were won in a competitive design process, this is hardly surprising, nor does it raise any ethics questions.
 
  • #3
In addition, the report said that because of military industry consolidation, 80 percent of all Pentagon contracting dollars were won by the top 1 percent of all contractors. It found that the Pentagon has become increasingly dependent on military contractors for work that had previously been done by soldiers and Pentagon civilian employees.

This statement doesn't really give enough information to draw a conclusion. Is 80 percent of all contracting dollars won by the top 1 percent or does 80 percent of all contracting dollars go to the top 1 percent? Most big contracts have a prime contractor, who then subcontracts pieces to other companies. Your big contracts can have 10 to 20 companies working on it. (Considering how many employees move from the old contract to the new contract, remaining in the same job when an incumbent gets unseated, it almost seems like it's all just one big company, anyway, regardless of the name).

If you're going to cut military personnel without cutting the work, someone has to do it. The budget guys somehow came to the conclusion that it's easier to add/cut contractor services as necessary rather than carrying pay/health benefits for entire families/retirement benefits, etc for the minimum amount of personnel needed to ensure the maximum surge load could be met. It also overlooks the overall picture - higher paying officer jobs being converted to lower paying enlisted jobs, more reliance on Reserves and Guard personnel, and many support services being contracted out, period.

Also overlooked are training costs. Military jobs include rotations into areas where it would be hard to keep someone for 20 years. That means frequent moves and training for each new military job an individual takes. Contractors normally stay in the same job much longer than their military counterpart, reducing the training costs.

Looking at the current manning problems where Reserves and Guards are being called up for extended periods of time, you could have second thoughts about how smart it was to cut the military so deep, but this article doesn't really add much to the discussion.
 
  • #4
russ_watters said:
Considering the number of contractors cabable of building a B-2 stealth bomber (one), the number of contractors capable of building an Aegis cruiser (one), and the number of contractors capable of building a C-17 cargo plane (one), and the fact that all of these were won in a competitive design process, this is hardly surprising, nor does it raise any ethics questions.

No. the ethics questions raise when this contractors gave millons dolars to bush and kerry campaing.. and when many of the directors of this corporations was working for the pentagon and vice versa,,, and when this contractors make millons in profit from a controversial war. and more yet when bin ladens family has shares in one of the bigest holding of defence contractors. the carlyle group
--------------------------------------------
The carlyle group:

BUSH
Former
US President and
Vice President
Former Director
of the CIA
Carlyle Senior Advisor

Carlucci
Former Secretary of Defense
and
Deputy Director
of the CIA
Carlyle Chairman Emeritus

BakerFormer
Secretary of State
and
Sec. of Treasury
Carlyle Senior Counselor

Darman
White House
Budget Advisor
Bush / Clinton
Administrations
Carlyle
Managing Director

Ramos
Former President of the Philippines
Carlyle Asia
Advisory Board

Major
Former Prime Minister of England
Carlyle Europe Chairman

--------------------------------------------
The NYT ran a front-page photo of former President Bush with Saudi King Fahd on a trip to Saudi Arabia as part of his work for the Carlyle Group. The ice-breaking story by Leslie Wayne quoted Charles Lewis: "In a really peculiar way, George W. Bush could, some day, benefit financially from his own administration's decisions, through his father's investments. The average American doesn't know that and, to me, that's a jaw-dropper."
http://www.nytimes.com/2001/03/05/politics/05CARL.html

Judicial Watch commented that the senior Bush's association with the Carlyle Group was a "conflict of interest (which) could cause problems for America's foreign policy in Middle East and Asia". Judicial Watch called on the President's father to resign.

Without saying 'revolving door, it was noted that the former FCC chair was joining the telecom and media section at Carlyle:
http://www.nytimes.com/2001/05/02/business/02KENN.html
------------------------------------------------------------
As the Carlyle investors watched the World Trade towers go down, the group's prospects went up. In running what its own marketing literature spookily calls "a vast, interlocking, global network of businesses and investment professionals" that operates within the so-called iron triangle of industry, government, and the military, the Carlyle Group leaves itself open to any number of conflicts of interest and stunning ironies. For example, it is hard to ignore the fact that Osama bin Laden's family members, who renounced their son ten years ago, stood to gain financially from the war being waged against him until late October, when public criticism of the relationship forced them to liquidate their holdings in the firm. Or consider that U.S. president George W. Bush is in a position to make budgetary decisions that could pad his father's bank account. But for the Carlyle Group, walking that narrow line is the art of doing business at the murky intersection of Washington politics, national security, and private capital; mastering it has enabled the group to amass $12 billion in funds under management.
------------------------------------------------------------
Now i gues you can't denied the existence of the carlyle group..
but i guess you will say: "It's all a crazy conspiracy theory" and erase all this from your mind, just like in 1984 CrimeStop


Crimestop: Orwell's definition: "The faculty of stopping short, as though by instinct, at the threshold of any dangerous thought. It includes the power of not grasping analogies, of failing to perceive logical errors, of misunderstanding the simplest arguments if they are inimical to the party, and of being bored or repelled by any train of thought which is capable of leading in a heretical direction. In short...protective stupidity."
 
Last edited:
  • #5
BobG said:
This statement doesn't really give enough information to draw a conclusion. Is 80 percent of all contracting dollars won by the top 1 percent or does 80 percent of all contracting dollars go to the top 1 percent? Most big contracts have a prime contractor, who then subcontracts pieces to other companies.
I don't know that that matters either way because of what I said above: the big-ticket items can only be built by a handful of companies. That said, even a B-2 has an enormous amount of subs making small pieces of it.

I'm not interested in conspiracy theory, Burnsys, so I have only one thing to respond to in your last post: Defense contractors have not profited directly from a war since Vietnam. Acquisitions and overall defense strategy take decades to formulate. Indeed, the most direct result of the end of the Cold War and the shifting of the threats has been a reduction in defense spending and cancelling or reducing the scope of decades-old projects. The basic goal in defense since the Cold War is this: to be capable of fighting two large regional wars simultaneously.
 
Last edited:
  • #6
But Russ, the original contract for the B-2 was not given to Northrop, was it ?. They had to compete with Rockwell, and the prototype that won the contract was Northrop's. Of course, Northop will receive all subsequent re-orders (but there haven't been any for the B-2, have there ?), but the original contract is fought over.
 
  • #7
Aren't we supposed to be a CAPITALIST country? Why is it the lefties who are seemingly the most outraged about this violation of the tennents of Capitalism? I can understand only giving contracts to one company if they're the only company that has the capacity to build a specific thing, but it's not like all the no bid contracts are going to companies that do one job that no one else does.
 
Last edited:
  • #8
russ_watters said:
I'm not interested in conspiracy theory, Burnsys, so I have only one thing to respond to in your last post: Defense contractors have not profited directly from a war since Vietnam. Acquisitions and overall defense strategy take decades to formulate. Indeed, the most direct result of the end of the Cold War and the shifting of the threats has been a reduction in defense spending and cancelling or reducing the scope of decades-old projects. The basic goal in defense since the Cold War is this: to be capable of fighting two large regional wars simultaneously.

Boeing's Profits Skyrocket, Outlook Raised
Wednesday, October 27, 2004
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,136770,00.html
"Our Integrated Defense Systems business again delivered strong revenue growth and outstanding profitability, and made significant progress on key programs," said CEO Harry Stonecipher

Lockheed profits take off
Friday, 25 October, 2002, 14:20 GMT 15:20 UK
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/2361539.stm
"US defence giant Lockheed Martin has turned in sharply higher profits, crediting strong sales of fighter jet equipment. "

Profits up at Northrop Grumman
January 28, 2003
http://www.bizjournals.com/baltimore/stories/2003/01/27/daily10.html
"Together with the former TRW defense businesses, which completed one of their most impressive years ever, we are well positioned to benefit from increasing defense budgets and homeland security initiatives," Kresa said


------------------------------------------------------
About your use of the words: "conspiracy theory":

Crimestop: Orwell's definition: "The faculty of stopping short, as though by instinct, at the threshold of any dangerous thought. It includes the power of not grasping analogies, of failing to perceive logical errors, of misunderstanding the simplest arguments if they are inimical to the party, and of being bored or repelled by any train of thought which is capable of leading in a heretical direction. In short...protective stupidity."
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #9
Gokul43201 said:
But Russ, the original contract for the B-2 was not given to Northrop, was it ?. They had to compete with Rockwell, and the prototype that won the contract was Northrop's. Of course, Northop will receive all subsequent re-orders (but there haven't been any for the B-2, have there ?), but the original contract is fought over.
The primary competitor was Lockheed (I think Rockwell partnered with one team and Boeing partnered with the other). According to the director of Skunk Works, Lockheed had a better plane and could have built it for cheaper, but the performance (at least on paper) of Northrup's was better.

My point was that once the initial design contest is won, there is one plane and only one company can build it. Yeah, the B-2 was a short production run, but a lot of other platforms (Aegis) are built for decades. The DOD did consider having the winning company pass around their design for other companies to bid on and build, but that would have been enormously unfair due to the cost of developing the platform.

wasteofo2, the 21 B-2 bombers we built cost a total of about $35 billion. A handful of such projects can account for the vast majority of that $362 billion.
 
  • #10
russ_watters said:
wasteofo2, the 21 B-2 bombers we built cost a total of about $35 billion. A handful of such projects can account for the vast majority of that $362 billion.
Who'da guessed stealth bombers were so expensive... :tongue2: Got any figures on other things like tanks and helicopters that we comissioned?
 
  • #11
wasteofo2 said:
Who'da guessed stealth bombers were so expensive... :tongue2: Got any figures on other things like tanks and helicopters that we comissioned?
I'm an airplane buff, so we'll do another airplane first:

-The F-22 is going to cost a total of about $43 billion for about 300 planes.
-The Navy is building about 20 Aegis destoyers over the next decade at a cost of about $1 billion apiece (these are built by two companies).
-Over 8 years('85-'93), 8,800 M1A1 tanks were built at a cost of $4.3 million apiece: total of $38 billion.

Its also important to remember that servicing and spare parts for these systems is often only done by the company that built them.
 
  • #12
wasteofo2 said:
Aren't we supposed to be a CAPITALIST country? Why is it the lefties who are seemingly the most outraged about this violation of the tennents of Capitalism? I can understand only giving contracts to one company if they're the only company that has the capacity to build a specific thing, but it's not like all the no bid contracts are going to companies that do one job that no one else does.
The Cato institue is highly critical of the way US defence spending is organized:
http://www.cato.org/defense-studies/def-spending.html

For example:
http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa-421es.html
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #13
This is what i call ethics...
Things like this happens all the time, between government oficials and defence corporations, The famous revolving door. but of course... we don't have to look at this, even if they make billons of dolars every time a new war is declared, becouse they are all crazy Conspiracy theorys

Air Force’s Boeing deal flies into new troubles
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5838914/

WASHINGTON - Air Force Secretary James Roche contacted his old company last year to help a brother of a top White House aide try to land a job, Northrop Grumman Corp. said on Friday.


Roche’s intervention on behalf of the brother, even as he sought the aide’s backing for a multibillion-dollar lease of Boeing Co. refueling aircraft, has sparked new questions about Air Force plans to acquire 100 modified 767 aircraft.

The action of Roche, a former vice president at Northrop, is among matters referred by the White House to the Justice Department last week regarding the $23.5 billion deal, officials said.
 

What does it mean to not bid on 40% of Pentagon contracts?

Not bidding on 40% of Pentagon contracts means that these contracts will not be open for competitive bidding among different companies. Instead, they will be awarded directly to specific companies without considering other potential bidders.

Why would the government choose to not bid on these contracts?

The government may choose not to bid on these contracts for a variety of reasons, such as national security concerns, urgency of the project, or a need for a specific company's expertise or technology.

How will this decision affect the allocation of government contracts?

This decision may affect the allocation of government contracts by limiting the number of companies that can bid on these contracts, potentially reducing competition and potentially leading to higher prices for the government.

Will this decision impact small businesses or only large corporations?

This decision may impact both small businesses and large corporations. Small businesses may have fewer opportunities to bid on government contracts, while large corporations may have less competition and potentially be awarded more contracts without having to bid.

Is this a permanent change or a temporary measure?

This decision to not bid on 40% of Pentagon contracts may be a temporary measure or a permanent change, depending on the specific reasons and circumstances behind the decision. It is important to consider the potential impact and reassess the decision periodically to ensure fairness and effectiveness in government contracting.

Similar threads

  • General Discussion
Replies
29
Views
4K
Replies
2
Views
2K
Replies
8
Views
3K
Replies
10
Views
2K
  • General Discussion
Replies
26
Views
3K
  • General Discussion
Replies
8
Views
3K
  • General Discussion
Replies
29
Views
4K
Replies
2
Views
5K
Replies
2
Views
18K
  • General Discussion
Replies
5
Views
2K
Back
Top