Talk:Government contractor

	Business portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Business, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of business articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.BusinessWikipedia:WikiProject BusinessTemplate:WikiProject BusinessWikiProject Business articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Law Low‑importance

	Law portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.LawWikipedia:WikiProject LawTemplate:WikiProject Lawlaw articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Politics

	Politics portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Objection to CSD[edit]

While the article is presently a stub, it clearly has a lot of expansion potential beyond a dicdef. Captain Zyrain 18:15, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You can say that again! No mention of the Shipley process, business development, capture management, gate reviews, "full and open", set-asides. This is practically shameful that this is the best Wikipedi could do after decades. - I am dis big (talk) 01:51, 16 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Cost-plus contracts and requirements for low bids[edit]

I took out the sentences on "cost-plus" contracts and legal requirements for governments to choose lowest bidders. Before I get into my technical reasoning, I think that both sentences would work better as sections under the "government acquisitions" article than in the "government contractor" article, but that's not why I edited. The original sentence regarding "cost-plus" contracts simply stated, without any context, "Often the terms of the contract specify cost plus – i.e., the contractor gets paid for its costs, plus a specified profit margin." While this does happen and would be appropriate to leave in with expanded context, by itself it does not accurately describe anything. "Cost-plus" is just one contracting structure used by the government, and it's not really a common one or one that a majority of dollars are spent in. For the majority of contracting firms out there, especially those working in non-construction industries or non-warzone areas, "cost-plus" is a unicorn that will never be witnessed.

Secondly, the bit about low bids ("Laws often require governments to award contracts to the low bidder.") without context is more harmful than it is helpful. You're not going to win any bids just for coming in with the lowest price. Inability to demonstrate understanding of a solicitation and capability to meet the requirements of the solicitation,(along with a number of other factors,) will get your bid disqualified regardless of how low the price is. The ideal scenario is that with all else equal and adequate given a set of requirements, the lowest bidder will (reasonably) be charged. There's some exceptions and nuances there, but that's really about it.

Now, both of these sentences would be helpful if they were expanded, but they are arguably harmful to understanding of the topic if they are left in their context-free states. I would suggest leaving these out until they can be expanded to include context and supporting information.Cmactaggart (talk) 17:17, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]