Nelson testifies cost-plus contracts have been a “plague” on NASA

Re:Nelson testifies cost-plus contracts have been a “plague”... by krapht on Wednesday May 04, 2022 @06:32PM (#31266727)

For what it's worth, while on any single contract you might get bad behavior from a contractor, their reputation will matter when they go for a recompete or bid on a new contract vehicle.

Not all contracts are automatically won by the lowest-cost bidder. Yes, it allows corruption on the part of the person doing the hiring, but it's better than the alternative.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Nelson testifies cost-plus contracts have been a “plague”... by astrange on Wednesday May 04, 2022 @06:57PM (#31266948)

In California, Tutor Perini seems to be famous for winning government construction contracts despite constant failures and unexpected price increases, because the law does require lowest bidder and doesn't allow ignoring low bids from known liars.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Nelson testifies cost-plus contracts have been a “plague”... by lupire on Wednesday May 04, 2022 @09:58PM (#31268472)

Why hasn't the law changed to make bids binding?

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Nelson testifies cost-plus contracts have been a “plague”... by ClumsyPilot on Wednesday May 04, 2022 @08:26PM (#31267771)

> but it's better than the alternative

Which of many possible alternatives and how do you demonstrate that it's better on any of the areas where tradeoffs are made?

Having a government managed but privately delivered program, having a totally privatised program, having a completely government run program?

Having the private firm take on the risk instead of the taxpayer? having the risk split 50/50?

[ Parent | on HN ]