Inland
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Feb-22-06 09:45 PM
Original message |
So. Who thinks that the UAE corp had the low bid for port mgment? |
|
The repug dude on hardball was saying that the Bushies would come to a compromise of letting that corp run the ports with more security watching it, which made me wonder if then the costs would make the deal uneconomical, which made me wonder
Is the admin resisting this, avoiding the legal process for awarding the job, because they sent it to a company that was not the lowest bidder? After all, if they really wanted to hand out the goodies as a reward for UAE help with something else, it wouldn't be with a market rate contract.
|
rpannier
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Feb-22-06 09:47 PM
Response to Original message |
1. Probably for the American government they had the low-bid |
|
for scrub's pocketbook, cheney's bank account and the accounts of their friends it was the high bid.
|
Lindsay
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Feb-22-06 09:49 PM
Response to Original message |
2. As I understand it, DP World is buying the company that had |
|
been running the ports. No bidding involved as far as the government is concerned.
|
Roland99
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Feb-22-06 09:59 PM
Response to Reply #2 |
4. I wonder how many WH officials were meeting with P&O recently? |
spindrifter
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Feb-22-06 09:51 PM
Response to Original message |
3. Low bid is not even a consideration |
|
Edited on Wed Feb-22-06 09:52 PM by spindrifter
if all DP World was doing was getting cleared to take over P & O's existing contracts.
Oops-- I see Lindsay already saw this.
|
DU
AdBot (1000+ posts) |
Fri Apr 26th 2024, 08:39 PM
Response to Original message |