Manufacturing giant that struck Trump jobs deal receives $2.5 billion DoD contract: report

[DonViejo]

Source: The Hill




BY BRANDON CARTER - 02/23/18 12:21 PM EST

A manufacturing giant that struck a deal with President Trump to keep hundreds of jobs in the United States was recently awarded a $2.5 billion Department of Defense contract with no competition, according to a new report.

The Washington Post reports an aeronautics subsidiary of United Technologies recently received the contract to provide the Defense Department with various equipment, including propeller systems, flight sensors and landing gear. The contract was reportedly awarded without competition.

The Defense Department considers United Technologies the only qualified supplier for the parts, according to the Post, and the new contract essentially renews a previous contract that was to expire in April.

In December 2016, United Technologies announced it had reached a deal with then-President-elect Trump to keep about 1,000 jobs at a Carrier manufacturing plant in Indiana that were slated to move to Mexico. The company also pledged to invest $16 million in the plant. The company received millions of dollars in tax breaks over 10 years to keep the jobs in the US.



Read more: http://thehill.com/policy/defense/375285-manufacturing-giant-that-struck-trump-jobs-deal-receives-25-billion-dod

[Eliot Rosewater]

1. The kickback under the table to trump or chief traitor is huge on this one.

[atreides1]

3. Let's not forget

That Mattis as SecDef had some say in this...and the silence from that "Marine" seems to have been deafening!!!

[politicaljunkie41910]

12. The SecDef should have played no role in this solicitation. There are procurement professionals

who do this type of stuff everyday and there are procurement rules that they must follow or they can go to jail for violations. Also there are more than one person involved in the procurement process during every step of the way, so other people will know, if someone is not following the rules.

See my other comments to other posts below.

[politicaljunkie41910]

10. The people who award contracts are permanent federal employees, not political appointees.

The Procurement Contracting Officer (CO) knows that all competitively bid contracts are the rule, not the exception. The CO knows the extent of competition available before they even go out to solicit bids. This is done through a process called "market research". If the CO does their 'market research' and find that there are likely to be no bidders or only one bidder, than they need to take another look at their solicitation request to see why there might be a problem obtaining bidders. I assure you there is no short supply of aerospace industry bidders for the types of products mentioned in the OP.

[pnwmom]

2. The only qualified contractor for the job? Yeah, right. n/t

[hack89]

13. If they in fact do hold numerous patents for the parts in question

then yes. You can't force a company to give away patents.

[pnwmom]

16. Then prove those are the only feasible parts by having a competition. n/t

[hack89]

17. It doesn't work that way

planes are designed to use specific parts. If there are patents in place there can be no generic replacements. To use different parts requires rengineering and re-certification of the aircraft. If the aircraft is already in service then the new spare parts have to be identical to the original parts.

[JDC]

4. Crony Capitalism at it's finest.

[AtheistCrusader]

5. The pay for play kickback shit has been slow to start.

I see they are finally ramping up.

[politicaljunkie41910]

6. Contracts awarded without competition are rare these days, because competition is the norm.

As a former contract administrator for DoD, I assure you that if there were other competitors out there, the government will definitely hear from them. Procurement rules require solicitation from multiple qualified contractors. In the aerospace industry, it is rare that you wouldn't have other qualified bidders for the type of items mentioned. The Prime Contractor rarely provides everything on a contract and contractors often subcontract out parts of their prime contracts for things that they don't have the expertise for, or could subcontract out more profitably usually to their competitors. So if any rules were broken, we will hear about it and people will be fired. It can also result in the contract being cancelled if any shenanigans went down. So stay tuned.

[bluestarone]

7. GOOD DEAL

I truly hope there are others out there!!!

[politicaljunkie41910]

8. If there are qualified contractors out there,they will file what we call a "protest". This will stop

the awarding of the contract in its tracks until the protest has been ruled on. The people who award the contracts are professionals and not political appointees. They know the rules and they know that they can lose their jobs if they 'f' up. They also can go to jail if they do anything illegal. No one responsible for issuing a $2.5B contract is a rookie. They wouldn't allow one of Trump's hand picked political appointees to talk them into breaking the law. Stay tuned.

[Bengus81]

9. To make some Props and Landing gear?? I'll bet there are 10-20 who could have bid....

[politicaljunkie41910]

11. If the Prime doesn't have the experise for 100% of the contracted items, he can contract out the

remaining items. It happens every day. Rarely does a Prime Contractor make 100% of an entire contract he bids on. He makes what he can can profitably and efficiently with the resources he has (resources being personnel, expertise, work space, time, etc). That which he can subcontract out more profitably than he can do himself, he subcontracts.

[hack89]

15. If they use patented technology then no.

that is what the article says.

[hack89]

14. The claim is that they hold patents on many of the parts

and therefore no one else can make them. Which makes sense to me.

[politicaljunkie41910]

18. That would not be a valid reason for not soliciting competitive bids on a contract. Patents are an

issue that come up a lot in contracts and it should not be a factor for not soliciting competitive bids. Usually the government, under the terms of the contract, owns the rights to any patent developed under a previous government contract which allows them to compete for bids from other contractor's on follow on contracts. I don't know what the particular issues are with this contract based on what little I read, but it doesn't seem like it should be an issue. Again, the best disenfectant is sunlight which is why government solicitations are almost always public, and the results are public as well. If the other competitors think that something isn't kosher, they can file a protest. Protests cost the government time, money, and delays in receiving materials, equipment, and services that they need. The government, as the benefactor of taxpayer dollars has a fiduciary duty to use those dollars efficiently which is why solicitation of competitive bids is the preferred method of contracting. Having worked my entire contracting career with government contractor's who work on the most highly classified projects, I assure you that the issue of patents were rarely a problem, even with foreign companies. Again, I don't know all the particulars to this case, but i'm sure the public will know soon enough.