Halliburton's ties to the Bush administration

[Pro Trash]

The title was taken directly from a online news report as are some of the following.

" The U.S. Army plans to move within months to break up the multibillion-dollar logistics contract that Halliburton Co. has to feed, house and look after U.S. troops in Iraq, and to put out the work for competitive bid."

This is nice that someone finally decided to get away from the Cheney/Haliburton good ole boy retirement plan.

"U.S. Defense Department officials said the intention to rebid the contract wasn't meant to penalize Halliburton's Kellogg Brown & Root unit that handles the work, so much as to find greater efficiencies by parceling the work out to a wider range of companies."

From what I read the Army is basically unhappy with the current contract and is thinking there might be some overcharging taking place.

"The move, laid out in an internal Army memorandum, comes after more than a year in which Halliburton's work in Iraq under the contract has been plagued by accounting turmoil and accusations of overcharging. The contract, which the memo values at as much as $13 billion, has been used since early last year to provide massive support services for U.S. troops in Iraq and Kuwait, including housing, dining halls, transportation and laundry."

Should we expect anything different based off a company that has long had it's accounts filling the pockets of Mr. Cheney?

[46Tbird]

This has been my biggest gripe with the Bush administration's handling of the war in Iraq. There is no logical reason why at least some of the work wasn't done on a competitive bid basis from the outset.

[Hater]

Money is money why the hell not.

[talisman]

Money is money why the hell not.


Wow Toolman, sure didn't take you long to create a new nickname after you 'left,' did it?

[Hater]

I don't know who you or Toolman is? I am also starting to not like this site one bit.

[Toolman]

hater you better get ready for it.. This forums sucks and its because of 3 retards..

[Denny]

Ummm... I don't know where they're getting this "no-bid" contract stuff. Halliburton had to outbid other companies and was the only one willing to go in without some money up front. That's what got it. LOGCAP I (which was the first of these kinds of contracts) was won by Halliburton for military support in the Balkans during the Bosnia/ Serb conflicts. Halliburton lost the LOGCAP II to Dyncorp in the Balkans in 97. And yet, won LOGCAP III, (my current mission), for support in Iraq. Brown and Root (now KBR) has been doing things like this for the government since Viet Nam. Here, check this out:

No bid, huh? (http://www.logtech.unc.edu/Calendar/2003_Observations_Seminar/Presentations/Herndon_KBR.pdf)

Now look at this (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/3633750.stm)

[AL P]

Ummm... I don't know where they're getting this "no-bid" contract stuff. Halliburton had to outbid other companies and was the only one willing to go in without some money up front. That's what got it. LOGCAP I (which was the first of these kinds of contracts) was won by Halliburton for military support in the Balkans during the Bosnia/ Serb conflicts. Halliburton lost the LOGCAP II to Dyncorp in the Balkans in 97. And yet, won LOGCAP III, (my current mission), for support in Iraq. Brown and Root (now KBR) has been doing things like this for the government since Viet Nam. Here, check this out:

No bid, huh? (http://www.logtech.unc.edu/Calendar/2003_Observations_Seminar/Presentations/Herndon_KBR.pdf)

Now look at this (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/3633750.stm)

Denny, how dare you hijack this thread with facts. Inexcusable.

[46Tbird]

Third sentence in the second link: "Halliburton has been accused of overcharging since it was handed the no-bid contract last year."

I still don't think Halliburton ever bid on anything. I read both and didn't see the bid(s) they put up, or the bids that other contractors submitted.

I knew when Halliburton first got the contract (considering Cheney's ties to the company) that it was a political misstep. It makes sense to have a General Contractor-type big company overseeing the rebuild, but they really should have subcontracted out some of the work before now.

[AL P]

Third sentence in the second link: "Halliburton has been accused of overcharging since it was handed the no-bid contract last year."

I still don't think Halliburton ever bid on anything. I read both and didn't see the bid(s) they put up, or the bids that other contractors submitted.



Isn't it possible that Halliburton put in a bid, no other contractors would bid because they wanted money up front and then the media labeled it as a "no bid" contract? That is how I have understood it happened since day one. Of course, it sounds a lot better and gets better rating when you sensationalize it to sound like the government just handed the whole deal to Halliburton.

[Hater]

Who cares let them have it, this is why we are all Republicans. Don't let anyone else bid they do not need it.

[46Tbird]

Isn't it possible that Halliburton put in a bid, no other contractors would bid because they wanted money up front and then the media labeled it as a "no bid" contract? That is how I have understood it happened since day one. Of course, it sounds a lot better and gets better rating when you sensationalize it to sound like the government just handed the whole deal to Halliburton.I could definitely see that happening. I just never heard about the part about Halliburton submitting a bid. Maybe a stipulation was that there would be no fronting of money, so only a company of Halliburton's scope could do the job. Maybe that's why the media has labelled it "no bid" - maybe HB agreed to do the job by fronting money and expecting payment after services had been rendered. I'm sure Dennis could elaborate.

I'm not saying the company did anything wrong; I'm just saying that Bush and Co. could have done a better job of making the whole process look fair to other contractors.

[AL P]

I could definitely see that happening. I just never heard about the part about Halliburton submitting a bid. Maybe a stipulation was that there would be no fronting of money, so only a company of Halliburton's scope could do the job. Maybe that's why the media has labelled it "no bid" - maybe HB agreed to do the job by fronting money and expecting payment after services had been rendered. I'm sure Dennis could elaborate.

I'm not saying the company did anything wrong; I'm just saying that Bush and Co. could have done a better job of making the whole process look fair to other contractors.

Not only that, but who is to say that Cheney didn't know that Halliburton wouldn't want money up front and then had the requirements of the situation tailored to suit them?

In the end, I say who gives a shit? Mainly because if Halliburton hadn't done the work some other company would have and secondly because even IF they are overpriced, big fuckin deal, every government contract is overpriced. All of these people who act shocked about the second fact just aren't living in reality.

[mikeb]

I've read some about this and the jist of most of it is that halliburton was in the best position and had the best resources & experience to immediately jump into the job. Apparently halliburton constructed a lot of the infrastructure in iraq in the past (?) and thus would have the plans & experience to fix it. Logistically what they are doing is a nightmare and it takes a big organization to pull it off. Another factor might be the amount of time it would have taken to prepare an RPF and evaluate bids - hard to do when the scope of the job is ill-defined and the remaining time before the contract would start is extremely short. The government bid process for something of this size would move glacially slow and there just wasn't time for it.

Also, there seems to be quite a bit of good "fallout" from the contract in the form of jobs for US citizens and sales of US goods to satisfy the contract.

I believe that there is also a government audit process in place that is supposed to help catch overcharges.

[Denny]

Let me be the first to say that Halliburton bit off more than it could chew, but I think we (KBR) might be OK if we break ties with the Halliburton Corp.

The govt. wants to oust Halliburton, not KBR, which is just a sub. Talks are already in the making. KBR had bankruptcy trouble for a while and a company cannot have a Federal contract while holding a bankruptcy status. With us out here now, we won't have that problem. KBR will just merge later after LOCAP III is over.

[Pro Trash]

I've read some about this and the jist of most of it is that halliburton was in the best position and had the best resources & experience to immediately jump into the job. Apparently halliburton constructed a lot of the infrastructure in iraq in the past (?) and thus would have the plans & experience to fix it. Logistically what they are doing is a nightmare and it takes a big organization to pull it off. Another factor might be the amount of time it would have taken to prepare an RPF and evaluate bids - hard to do when the scope of the job is ill-defined and the remaining time before the contract would start is extremely short. The government bid process for something of this size would move glacially slow and there just wasn't time for it.

Also, there seems to be quite a bit of good "fallout" from the contract in the form of jobs for US citizens and sales of US goods to satisfy the contract.

I believe that there is also a government audit process in place that is supposed to help catch overcharges.

Your above statement brings up another interesting point. I believe had this administration not rushed blindly into this war it would not have been such a time restrained effort to begin with. The reason there was no time for bidding of that magnitude was due in part to the poor planning on the part of the Bush administration and their out right neglect of their Generals advice on what was to come. Several Generals are now looking at Rumsfeld saying, I told you so. All the while we're not really getting anywhere in Iraq, we are still having our young troops killed and this is only going to get worse.

[Denny]

I believe that if this wasn't an election year, these accusations would have never been brought up. It was actually a contract flaw by the DOD if I remember correctly. I'll try to find that article again...

[Paladin]

I am still waiting for the name of the other companies that could provide the same services in one company that Halliburton can. Iraq is producing oil again, there is electricity to most of the country, sewer systems, and infrastructure that was never there, even under Saddam.

I am not saying there isn't another company, I just haven't seen all these people who see Halliburton as the devil coming up with other companies who could have done all they did.

[TRAXX]

<----works for Halliburton

I could write pages on this, but most of what I would say has already been written above.

Would this be ALL OVER the news if it wasn’t an election year and our former CEO happens to now be the Vise Pres? NOPE

Has Halliburton had their hands in all this business BEFORE George W (and Cheney as VP) were in the office? YEP, even when (gasp) a Democrat was in the office, AMAZING!

Will Halliburton go to shit if Kerry wins? NOPE, because no one else has the resources to do the job. On top of that, what we are doing over there is just a small piece of Halliburton's entire business, so losing it(which we wont) wouldn’t tank Halliburton.

Has Halliburton made mistakes in this effort? YEP! If any large contract in any industry is put under a microscope like Halliburton's rebuilding effort in Iraq has, you’re gonna find dirt.

[TRAXX]

and to add, I find it funny how when accusations are made against Halliburton they are in large print on the front page, but when they are found to be false days or weeks later, it's in small print buried down in the middle of the paper next to the Dillards Bra ad.

[46Tbird]

You're not implying that there is such a thing as media bias? AGAINST the Republicans? In the fair and balanced American media?

Blasphemy!

[shrp88lx's]

I believe had this administration not rushed blindly into this war it would not have been such a time restrained effort to begin with. The reason there was no time for bidding of that magnitude was due in part to the poor planning on the part of the Bush administration and their out right neglect of their Generals advice on what was to come. Several Generals are now looking at Rumsfeld saying, I told you so. All the while we're not really getting anywhere in Iraq, we are still having our young troops killed and this is only going to get worse.Travis everytime you speak this BS you become less intelligent to me. please pull your head out of your ass long enough to look at the facts of what has been accomplished over there.

[Pro Trash]

Travis everytime you speak this BS you become less intelligent to me. please pull your head out of your ass long enough to look at the facts of what has been accomplished over there.

My head is not up my ass but thanks for the concern. I trudged around that desert in 1990 and 1991 and we are still there. The only problem is everything you quoted from me was factual so who exactly is driving through the poop whole, that would be you. Fact Gen. Shinsheki and Gen Swhartzcoft both testified in front of a panel prior to the invasion on troop strength. Fact they booth stated we did not have the personell to support a long term operation of this magnitude. Fact the US Army is rotating personell from Korea into the Gulf for man power reasons. Fact our Reserves are strectched to their maximum as well as our National Guard units. Fact we are under strength in Afghanistan where we still have an active fight against terrorism happening. So what other facts do you need there high speed.

[shrp88lx's]

My head is not up my ass but thanks for the concern. I trudged around that desert in 1990 and 1991 and we are still there. The only problem is everything you quoted from me was factual so who exactly is driving through the poop whole, that would be you. Fact Gen. Shinsheki and Gen Swhartzcoft both testified in front of a panel prior to the invasion on troop strength. Fact they booth stated we did not have the personell to support a long term operation of this magnitude. Fact the US Army is rotating personell from Korea into the Gulf for man power reasons. Fact our Reserves are strectched to their maximum as well as our National Guard units. Fact we are under strength in Afghanistan where we still have an active fight against terrorism happening. So what other facts do you need there high speed.
So we have accomplished NOTHING, is that what you are saying?? ALSO do you think there are ONLY 2 generals giving advice??? I suppose they are the only ones that matter right???NO ONE wants our troops dying over there, but THE GREATER GOOD has to be accomplished. FREEDOM ISNT FREE!!!!