3 ms·

You have some good points there, but I don't see why those issues wouldn't be possible to address with some well written legal clauses and perhaps a 3rd party i

• throw0101a 7y ago
  Except that R&D and experimentation has no guarantee of success, so how who would want to underwrite a policy to protect something that is inherently risky?
  • falcor84 7y ago
    Well, it's not intended to be basic research, right? From what I understand, a company shouldn't be applying for the contract if it has serious doubts about the feasibility of the project. Otherwise, what's stopping a schmuck like me from creating a shell company and promise the navy state of the art ships? Shouldn't there be accountability here? Btw, the pdf mentions that the military signed off on the purchase after the inspection, so my assumption was that they still could avoid paying.
    • throw0101a 7y ago
      There may be serious doubts about the feasibility, but the customer (e.g., USN) may want to go ahead anyway. It's only money, and what's that compared to a potential strategic/tactical edge? Nothing is stopping you. But there will (hopefully) be a due diligence phase in which the bidders are evaluated beforehand. It's why there are such a thing as a approved / qualified bidder list: * https://www.findrfp.com/Government-Contracting/Government-Bidder-List.aspx https://www.findrfp.com/Government-Contracting/Government-Bi...