« Morning Smoke: Offshore Rig Inspectors Outgunned by Industry, Outmatched by Job | Main | Whistleblowers and Taxpayers Held Hostage by Tax Cuts »

Dec 03, 2010



Wow, this is a real news flash! You couldn't just read any government contract and find this out. Oh, wait, yes, you could.

Is this a nation of morons? What do you want these defense contractors to provide, weapons that provide the contractors with the least amount of exposure to lawsuits, or weapons that work effectively? If you want the former, then kiss innovation goodbye. Not that there's much innovation left after you dimwits decided it was a good idea to pay for development anyway, but, rest assured, whatever was left will be killed off if you eliminate the indemification clauses from weapons contracts.

Funny, isn't it, that you never hear anyone "leak to the press" any information about the effect paying profit on development has had on government contracting, but when it comes to yet crap like this that will make our armed forces less capable is "leaked" and shows up all over the news. Wow, it's almost like someone doesn't like us.

Observer V

There are various bins of "standard" indemnity clauses. The government tries to avoid using them, believe it or not, but in war zones it believes it needs to as an incentive to get contractors to go there in the first place. That may be true for some services in some situations, especially when the firms are doing what uniformed service members used to do. For example, in Vietnam, Army Supply Corps troops drove fuel-truck convoys--and took a lot of casualties. In Iraq and Afgh, KBR and local contractors do this, at high risk, but at high reward. Indemnity comes in, for example, if, say, a fuel tanker veers out of control after its contractor driver is shot or hits an IED and the truck goes into a school. Indemnification of the company by the govt, arguably, makes sense and is fair in this case. In others, it would be nuts, e.g., indemnifying a firm for electrical work that turns out to be faulty/lethal. So, the govt should have a bias not to indemnify except in specific contractor roles, or perhaps a combo of role plus geo location. This subject is not worth airing without such specifics.

The comments to this entry are closed.