California

I used to approve purchases for medical equipment in the AF and one of the most important things was to have more than one vendor submit bids on what we requested. Often, the hospital section requesting a product from a specific company and unless they were the only company that makes that equipment I'd refuse and put it out for bid.

Non-competitive (no bid) contracts are ripe for fraud and corruption. It wasn't unusual for a vendor's rep sweet talk a section head into requesting only they're company's product either by offering or imply the section head would get something in return. This purchase of ballot sorting equipment raises red flags in my mind. It seems from the article the county knew the equipment they've been using is outdated and needs replacing so why hadn't they requests for information/pricing from various vendors before the election? This would have given them time to evaluate products, make a recommendation, and be able to explain why they chose that particular vendor/equipment.

Now, everything Santa Barbara County is doing could be legal and above board but when you're spending taxpayer's money you have to avoid any appearance of impropriety.