Support NeoGAF

[Tovarisc]

Edit: Read this for some insight, Politico may have jumped the gun on this reporting: http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showpost.php?p=250835795&postcount=19

The no-bid contract was issued last week, as the company continued facing fallout from its massive security breach.

The IRS will pay Equifax $7.25 million to verify taxpayer identities and help prevent fraud under a no-bid contract issued last week, even as lawmakers lash the embattled company about a massive security breach that exposed personal information of as many as 145.5 million Americans.

A contract award for Equifax's data services was posted to the Federal Business Opportunities database Sept. 30 — the final day of the fiscal year. The credit agency will "verify taxpayer identity" and "assist in ongoing identity verification and validations" at the IRS, according to the award.

The notice describes the contract as a "sole source order," meaning Equifax is the only company deemed capable of providing the service. It says the order was issued to prevent a lapse in identity checks while officials resolve a dispute over a separate contract.

Equifax disclosed a cybersecurity breach in September that potentially compromised the personal information, including Social Security numbers, of more than 145 million Americans — data that security experts have described as the crown jewels for identity thieves. The company is one of three major credit reporting bureaus whose data determine whether consumers qualify for mortgages, auto loans, credit cards and other financial commitments.

http://www.politico.com/story/2017/10/03/equifax-irs-fraud-protection-contract-243419

Added bonus:

Lawmakers: Equifax should be 'shamed'

Lawmakers from across the ideological spectrum blasted credit reporting giant Equifax Tuesday over the security breakdown that allowed hackers to steal the personal data of more than 145 million Americans.

The anger came during a House Energy and Commerce Committee hearing, the first in a series of four grueling Capitol Hill appearances this week for ousted Equifax CEO Richard Smith, who recently resigned amid the public furor over the digital intrusion.

"Equifax deserves to be shamed in this hearing," said Illinois' Jan Schakowsky, the top Democrat on the Energy and Commerce consumer protection subpanel.

Energy and Commerce Chairman Greg Walden said Equifax's "ham-handed" response to the breach "makes me wonder" whether the company had a plan in place to deal with such an incident.

"It's like the guards at Fort Knox forgot to lock the doors," said the Oregon Republican.

http://www.politico.com/story/2017/10/03/equifax-congress-lawmakers-react-243409

 

[Geist-]

What the fucking fuck.

 

[Khalifa Jayy]

America, everyone.

 

[Fenderputty]

Why was there no bid process?

EDIT:

The notice describes the contract as a "sole source order," meaning Equifax is the only company deemed capable of providing the service. It says the order was issued to prevent a lapse in identity checks while officials resolve a dispute over a separate contract.

Need details ... this is just ... wat?

 

[old manatee]

How about sending that money to Puerto Rico instead of bailing out incompetent fuckheads.

 

[MIMIC]

BWHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

 

[GoldenEye 007]

Haha we are on borrowed time at this point. What a shitshow.

 

[Fenderputty]

How about sending that money to Puerto Rico instead of bailing out incompetent fuckheads.

7.25 million is drops in the bucket, honestly. It's the principle of the matter.

 

[Skellig Gra]

Lmao

 

[Regulus Tera]

Hahahahahhahaahahahhahahaha

 

[Zach]

Jesus Christ.

 

[Bit-Bit]

Pissing all over us without the courtesy of calling it rain.

 

[Linkark07]

Oh, you guys are such a Banana Republic.

 

[Doomsayer]

What in the actual fuck?

 

[Saucycarpdog]

I have to believe that it was planned that they would be receiving the contract before the data breach happened, right? Right?

 

[Zackat]

what?








what?!

 

[shadowsdarknes]

This should be part of a fine, not an award.

 

[Vincent Alexander]

This seems legit and not at all shadey.

 

[Advocatus Diaboli]

Why was there no bid process?

EDIT:



Need details ... this is just ... wat?

It means, at that dollar amount, someone above the contracting officer approved it. They cited an exception to the full and open competition required by the Competition in Contracting Act (CICA), likely relying upon the provision at Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) 6.302-1.

There are many good reasons to do this.

Like in this case:

A sole source order is required to cover the timeframe needed to resolve the protest on contract TIRNO-17-Z-00024. This is considered a critical service that cannot lapse

This means that they did try to award a contract competitively, but an unsuccessful offeror (it could've been Equifax, even) filed a bid protest -- basically, a complaint before the Government Accountability Office. Per CICA, the statute I cited above, if a bid protest is filed, the agency cannot award (or allow performance) of the disputed contract.

In other words, things ground to a halt.

What almost certainly happened is that Equifax was the incumbent and, to keep this need going, the Agency awarded a limited-duration sole source "bridge" contract. Once the bid protest is decided (which can take approximately 90 days), the Agency will be able to award its "real" contract. If that award goes to Equifax, there could be a story here.

But no, this is not a story. The Politico article is just shit reporting.

 

[Garjon]

Holy fucking shit, this makes the UK government's dealings with ATOS look above board

 

[Malvolio]

Free market will sort it out...

 

[AstroNut325]

No seriously... Wtf...

 

[Syf]

lmfao

Just can't anymore. Done. Fuck everything

 

[majik13]

of fucking course

 

[wisdom0wl]

Lol. Real news running the Onion out of business.

 

[Rentahamster]

...lol

 

[eosos]

It means, at that dollar amount, someone above the contracting officer approved it. They cited an exception to the full and open competition required by the Competition in Contracting Act (CICA), likely relying upon the provision at Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) 6.302-1.

There are many good reasons to do this.

Like in this case:



This means that they did try to award a contract competitively, but an unsuccessful offeror (it could've been Equifax, even) filed a bid protest -- basically, a complaint before the Government Accountability Office. Per CICA, the statute I cited above, if a bid protest is filed, the agency cannot award (or allow performance) of the disputed contract.

In other words, things ground to a halt.

What almost certainly happened is that Equifax was the incumbent and, to keep this need going, the Agency awarded a limited-duration sole source "bridge" contract. Once the bid protest is decided (which can take approximately 90 days), the Agency will be able to award its "real" contract. If that award goes to Equifax, there could be a story here.

But no, this is not a story. The Politico article is just shit reporting.

Should be added to the OP

 

[Complistic]

edit: nvm this is clickbait.

 

[radios shipping overview]

?????????????????????
?????????????????????
?????????????????????
?????????????????????
?????????????????????

 

[Vulcano's assistant]

#NotTheOnion