Of course, any connection between the company winning a $500 million bid on Obama's signature legislation and Michelle's former sorority sister/fellow member of the Black something or other.......is pure coincidence.
On the other hand, any contract awarded to Halliburton during **** Cheney's term.....
Liberals are such hypocrites, lol
And people like you continue to sniff under every rock looking for a cover-up or conspiracy.
Do you have any proof that undo influence was instrumental in the decision? Anything besides your paranoid suspicions? Show us your proof.
Fundamentally, those on the Government selection committees, have great - legal - immunity from any biases/influences from higher ups. On the other hand, if someone on the selection committee "threw their vote" , in favor a less qualified company, because of some pressure to do so....they would open themselves up to not only firing, but criminal prosecution. I don't know of any Gov employee who would expose themselves to such retribution, just because their boss suggested they look the other way.
Finally, as is the right of every company that is not selected, they can demand (legally) a debriefing on how their proposal was scored, etc. When the stakes are high enough, it's pretty common that a losing company will challenge the decision. At that point, everything that the selection committee did, all the paper work, meeting notes, etc will need to presented and examined.
If there is anything that smacks of political favoritism, it's the selection of this Agency, in the first place, to run and administer the work/web site. They clearly did not have the in house expertise to carry out that mission. In that regard, there is NO Gov selection committee that evaluates agencies to determine who should administer. That's handed down by political cronyism.
Edited by slapshot, 26 October 2013 - 01:14 PM.
You miss 100% of the shots you never take.
I skate to where the puck is going to be, not to where it has been.
- Wayne Gretzky