GoFuckYourself.com - Adult Webmaster Forum - View Single Post - U.S Company awarded lucrative Iraq Contract

hyper · 03-26-2003, 08:33 PM

Oil fire contract uproar
From correspondents in Washington
March 27, 2003

THE United States army came under fire today for granting an Iraqi oilwell firefighting contract to a subsidiary of Halliburton Co, once run by Vice President Dick Cheney, without a bidding process.

Henry Waxman, the senior Democrat in the House of Representatives' government reform committee, demanded an explanation in a letter to Army Corps of Engineers Lieutenant General Robert Flowers.

"I am writing to inquire why the administration entered into a contract potentially worth tens of millions of dollars to a subsidiary of Halliburton without any competition or even notice to Congress," he said.

"The contract ? to extinguish oil well fires in Iraq ? has no set time limit and no dollar limit and is apparently structured in such a way as to encourage the contractor to increase its costs and, consequently, the costs to the taxpayer."

The Army Corps of Engineers said Tuesday the contract had been given to Halliburton subsidiary Kellogg, Brown and Root (KBR) without being put out to tender.

KBR had already been asked by the Pentagon to draw up plans for extinguishing oil well fires in Iraq, Corps spokesman Lieutenant Colonel Gene Pawlik said.

"It made the most sense to engage them in the near term as the company to get the mission done because they were familiar with the details of the fires themselves and what would be needed," he said.

The value of the contract would depend on the scale of the work.

KBR would claim the cost of its services plus two to five percent depending on how it executed the job, Pawlik said.

"This type of contract is generally discouraged in the executive branch because it provides the contractor with an incentive to increase its profits by increasing the costs to the taxpayer," Waxman said.

The contract was particularly troubling because the government oversight office, the General Accounting Office, had previously raised concerns about the army's ability to monitor costs at KBR, he said.

The only rationale for delivering the contract to KBR appeared to be that KBR had drawn up a plan for fighting the fires, Waxman added.

"Why did the administration fail to provide an opportunity for other companies to bid on this contract?" he asked

"When Kellogg, Brown and Root was asked by the army to develop a contingency plan for extinguishing oil well fires in Iraq in November 2002, were any other companies asked to develop similar plans? If not, why not?"

Waxman asked why the contract was not announced until two weeks after it had been awarded on March 8.

He requested an answer by April 4.

03-26-2003, 08:33 PM
hyper Confirmed User Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: Mass Ass Posts: 5,294	Oil fire contract uproar From correspondents in Washington March 27, 2003 THE United States army came under fire today for granting an Iraqi oilwell firefighting contract to a subsidiary of Halliburton Co, once run by Vice President Dick Cheney, without a bidding process. Henry Waxman, the senior Democrat in the House of Representatives' government reform committee, demanded an explanation in a letter to Army Corps of Engineers Lieutenant General Robert Flowers. "I am writing to inquire why the administration entered into a contract potentially worth tens of millions of dollars to a subsidiary of Halliburton without any competition or even notice to Congress," he said. "The contract ? to extinguish oil well fires in Iraq ? has no set time limit and no dollar limit and is apparently structured in such a way as to encourage the contractor to increase its costs and, consequently, the costs to the taxpayer." The Army Corps of Engineers said Tuesday the contract had been given to Halliburton subsidiary Kellogg, Brown and Root (KBR) without being put out to tender. KBR had already been asked by the Pentagon to draw up plans for extinguishing oil well fires in Iraq, Corps spokesman Lieutenant Colonel Gene Pawlik said. "It made the most sense to engage them in the near term as the company to get the mission done because they were familiar with the details of the fires themselves and what would be needed," he said. The value of the contract would depend on the scale of the work. KBR would claim the cost of its services plus two to five percent depending on how it executed the job, Pawlik said. "This type of contract is generally discouraged in the executive branch because it provides the contractor with an incentive to increase its profits by increasing the costs to the taxpayer," Waxman said. The contract was particularly troubling because the government oversight office, the General Accounting Office, had previously raised concerns about the army's ability to monitor costs at KBR, he said. The only rationale for delivering the contract to KBR appeared to be that KBR had drawn up a plan for fighting the fires, Waxman added. "Why did the administration fail to provide an opportunity for other companies to bid on this contract?" he asked "When Kellogg, Brown and Root was asked by the army to develop a contingency plan for extinguishing oil well fires in Iraq in November 2002, were any other companies asked to develop similar plans? If not, why not?" Waxman asked why the contract was not announced until two weeks after it had been awarded on March 8. He requested an answer by April 4. __________________