Critic of No-Bid Halliburton Contract Demoted; Democrats Demand Probe

[arsbanned]

Congressional Democrats demanded an investigation today into the demotion of a senior U.S. military contracting official who publicly criticized a controversial no-bid contract awarded to Halliburton Corp. for work in Iraq.

With more than 20 years experience in government procurement, Bunnatine Greenhouse had been the Army Corps of Engineers' top contracting officer until she was demoted to a lower-level staff position Saturday. The military says she was demoted for poor job performance.

Yeah sure, "poor job performance" riiiight. In this case it means "did not toe the line".

Greenhouse had repeatedly challenged the Army Corps' commanding officers on their decision in 2003 to give a contract worth up to $7 billion to repair oil infrastructure to Halliburton, the Houston-based oil services company once run by Vice President Dick Cheney.

Huh. Big surprise there. The people responsible for starting this war connected to the company most in line to make BIG money from it. I'm sure it's just a coincidence though. :disgust:

At that June hearing, Greenhouse called the Halliburton case "the most blatant and improper contract abuse I have witnessed during the course of my professional career."

The Army secretary approved the Army Corps' decision to demote Greenhouse three weeks later.

"Retaliation against employees for providing information to Congress is illegal and entirely unacceptable," said the letter, which was signed by Rep. Henry A. Waxman (D-Los Angeles) and Sens. Byron L. Dorgan (D-N.D.) and Frank Lautenberg (D-N.J.). "Ms. Greenhouse has given Congress important information essential to our oversight of waste, fraud and abuse."

Greenhouse had also angered major insurance companies with a proposal to save hundreds of millions of dollars by offering cheaper workers' compensation-style insurance to federal contractors. Her initiative drew sharp resistance from some of the country's most powerful insurance companies, which could have lost business under the proposal.

I like the way this person operates. I hope the Democrats in Congress can get her reinstated and she can get back to doing her job!

 

[alent1234]

which company is the most qualified to do this work?

 

[Engineer]

Full Story.

Question "no competition" contracts and get demoted. I'm sure there will be certain defenders in here shortly that will say that her performance was poor, blah..blah....

Of course, her performance was "outstanding" until this little mishap....

*bah*

 

[Engineer]

Originally posted by: alent1234
which company is the most qualified to do this work?

Does that matter? This isn't about whether Haliburton is OK or not OK on the job, it's about whether someone was wrongfully demoted because of pointing out possible conflicts or wrongdoing. If someone complains and is demoted simply for complaining, is that right or wrong?

Are "No bid" or "no competition" contracts OK?

 

[3chordcharlie]

Originally posted by: alent1234
which company is the most qualified to do this work?

Who knows? There was no effort expended to find this out.

 

[Moonbeam]

The Post Office could run Halliburton at a tenth the cost.

 

[DaveSimmons]

Originally posted by: alent1234
which company is the most qualified to do this work?

Shouldn't the marketplace decide that? Isn't competition a good thing?

If there are no bids, there is no competition, no marketplace, no pressure to drive down costs.

What kind of fiscal conservative supports no-bid contracts?

 

[alent1234]

Halliburton has a lot of experience in working with the military. They have thousands of former military members working for them and many times soldiers meet their friends on deployments who now work for Halliburton.

Maybe this person just made trouble because she didn't like the company or the president or the VP? where does it say if she offered to give it to another company with as much experience?

 

[DaveSimmons]

Originally posted by: alent1234
Halliburton has a lot of experience in working with the military. ...

Maybe this person just made trouble because she didn't like the company or the president or the VP? where does it say if she offered to give it to another company with as much experience?

Remember the Boeing tanker scandal? Senator McCain was considered a "troublemaker" until the first layer of the corruption was uncovered.

You seem to be saying he should have stayed quiet instead of exposing such corruption.

 

[3chordcharlie]

Originally posted by: alent1234
Halliburton has a lot of experience in working with the military. They have thousands of former military members working for them and many times soldiers meet their friends on deployments who now work for Halliburton.

Maybe this person just made trouble because she didn't like the company or the president or the VP? where does it say if she offered to give it to another company with as much experience?

Do you even know what a no-bid contract is, and why someone might criticize it?

 

[alent1234]

Originally posted by: DaveSimmons

Originally posted by: alent1234
Halliburton has a lot of experience in working with the military. ...

Maybe this person just made trouble because she didn't like the company or the president or the VP? where does it say if she offered to give it to another company with as much experience?

Remember the Boeing tanker scandal? Senator McCain was considered a "troublemaker" until the first layer of the corruption was uncovered.

You seem to be saying he should have stayed quiet instead of exposing such corruption.

in the boeing case the company was trying to push a more expensive solution on the pentagon and there were other options available

no one has said if there is a company better suited than halliburton to perform the job. I haven't even heard any possible candidates in the media. Only accusations.

If this is corruption, then which other company is qualified to do the work that halliburton is now doing?

 

[mzkhadir]

Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie

Originally posted by: alent1234
Halliburton has a lot of experience in working with the military. They have thousands of former military members working for them and many times soldiers meet their friends on deployments who now work for Halliburton.

Maybe this person just made trouble because she didn't like the company or the president or the VP? where does it say if she offered to give it to another company with as much experience?

Do you even know what a no-bid contract is, and why someone might criticize it?

a no-bid contract is a military or government contract that is made directly with a corporation, bypassing the standard process of bidding. These contracts can be made much more quickly than a typical contract, however they are often fraught with suspicion when the company issued the contract has any ties to the administration in power at the time.

 

[Phokus]

I love how republicans defend government waste

 

[1EZduzit]

Originally posted by: alent1234

Originally posted by: DaveSimmons

Originally posted by: alent1234
Halliburton has a lot of experience in working with the military. ...

Maybe this person just made trouble because she didn't like the company or the president or the VP? where does it say if she offered to give it to another company with as much experience?

Remember the Boeing tanker scandal? Senator McCain was considered a "troublemaker" until the first layer of the corruption was uncovered.

You seem to be saying he should have stayed quiet instead of exposing such corruption.

in the boeing case the company was trying to push a more expensive solution on the pentagon and there were other options available

no one has said if there is a company better suited than halliburton to perform the job. I haven't even heard any possible candidates in the media. Only accusations.

If this is corruption, then which other company is qualified to do the work that halliburton is now doing?

Maybe several companies could have joned forces and made a more competitive contract. Competition is just as good for the big corporations as it is for the rest of us.

 

[DaveSimmons]

Originally posted by: alent1234

Originally posted by: DaveSimmons

Originally posted by: alent1234
Halliburton has a lot of experience in working with the military. ...

Maybe this person just made trouble because she didn't like the company or the president or the VP? where does it say if she offered to give it to another company with as much experience?

Remember the Boeing tanker scandal? Senator McCain was considered a "troublemaker" until the first layer of the corruption was uncovered.

You seem to be saying he should have stayed quiet instead of exposing such corruption.

in the boeing case the company was trying to push a more expensive solution on the pentagon and there were other options available

no one has said if there is a company better suited than halliburton to perform the job. I haven't even heard any possible candidates in the media. Only accusations.

If this is corruption, then which other company is qualified to do the work that halliburton is now doing?

There was no search for other companies, there was no bidding process just shovelling the money into Haliburton's trough.

And the person who tried to do her job by suggesting that research and competitive bidding be done, was given a black mark and demoted for as you say "making trouble"

"With more than 20 years experience in government procurement, Bunnatine Greenhouse had been the Army Corps of Engineers' top contracting officer until she was demoted to a lower-level staff position Saturday"

This isn't some random griper, this is an experienced professional. What reason do you have to dismiss her claims besides "you can't prove she was right"?

 

[alent1234]

and your entire opinion is based on a news story where the reporter probably did not know if there are any companies even capable of doing what halliburton does

the reason they were chosen is because they performed a miracle in bosnia and other deployments

 

[umbrella39]

Only thirty-six of Halliburton's 143 subsidiaries are incorporated in the United States. Hopefully someone will bring their scams to light finally. Cayman Islands anyone?

 

[DaveSimmons]

Originally posted by: alent1234
and your entire opinion is based on a news story where the reporter probably did not know if there are any companies even capable of doing what halliburton does

The person with the experience to make that determination was demoted for trying.

 

[CQuinn]

Originally posted by: alent1234

no one has said if there is a company better suited than halliburton to perform the job.

Even Halliburton is not qualified to perform the job, they have had to outsource
support jobs to other companies, and have had subsidiaries fined for overcharging
the government for other services.

The whole idea of having a single company provide all the logistical support
needed for an operation of this size was a fallacy in the first place. It wasn't just
Dick Cheney's connection to the company that made it questionable in the first place.

There is significant experience in the military with the type of spending waste that
can happen when you allocate a pile of money for a single purpose, without making
sure you have some way to correct for it when (not if) the company or companies
you contract with cannot meet all the requirements of service that they need to.

 

[3chordcharlie]

Originally posted by: mzkhadir

Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie

Originally posted by: alent1234
Halliburton has a lot of experience in working with the military. They have thousands of former military members working for them and many times soldiers meet their friends on deployments who now work for Halliburton.

Maybe this person just made trouble because she didn't like the company or the president or the VP? where does it say if she offered to give it to another company with as much experience?

Do you even know what a no-bid contract is, and why someone might criticize it?

a no-bid contract is a military or government contract that is made directly with a corporation, bypassing the standard process of bidding. These contracts can be made much more quickly than a typical contract, however they are often fraught with suspicion when the company issued the contract has any ties to the administration in power at the time.

It was a rhetorical question... but there is no way to defend a contract of that size not being sent out for bids.

 

[DealMonkey]

No bid contracts to Halliburton, or anyone else for that matter, totally defeats the point of privatizing certain aspects of the military to begin with. Correct me if I'm wrong, but bringing in private contractors to bid on your project(s) is supposed to lower your costs. If KBR was the only company capable of doing the job, at least ride their asses to ensure they don't overcharge you.

 

[Genx87]

Talk to Clinton, he gave Haliburton the "no-bid" contract.

 

[alent1234]

Originally posted by: CQuinn

Originally posted by: alent1234

no one has said if there is a company better suited than halliburton to perform the job.

Even Halliburton is not qualified to perform the job, they have had to outsource
support jobs to other companies, and have had subsidiaries fined for overcharging
the government for other services.

The whole idea of having a single company provide all the logistical support
needed for an operation of this size was a fallacy in the first place. It wasn't just
Dick Cheney's connection to the company that made it questionable in the first place.

There is significant experience in the military with the type of spending waste that
can happen when you allocate a pile of money for a single purpose, without making
sure you have some way to correct for it when (not if) the company or companies
you contract with cannot meet all the requirements of service that they need to.

have you ever been on a military deployment? when things like iraq happen it's a blank check for the units involved and you audit later. You are always going to get overcharges because the logistics of an operation like this are amazing. You literally have to provide tens of thousands of items to soldiers on a daily basis in a timely manner. The items are needed in such quantities and on short notice so you basically buy it and sort it out later.

in the next few weeks watch the news and look at what it takes to provide life support to the areas affected by the hurricane. Now multiply it by at least 10 to get an idea of how it works in iraq since you have to move the supplies around the world.

Halliburton has done it many times. They have the experience and the whole point of no bid contracts was because when i was in the army the law said you take the lowest cost even if it's bad service and a PITA in the long run. luckily things have changed.

ironically the change to the law was passed during clinton's term. and guess who had the contract then?

 

[arsbanned]

Originally posted by: Genx87
Talk to Clinton, he gave Haliburton the "no-bid" contract.

Clinton gave Haliburton the no-bid contract for Iraq? Really. Yeah. OK.

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: arsbanned

Originally posted by: Genx87
Talk to Clinton, he gave Haliburton the "no-bid" contract.

Clinton gave Haliburton the no-bid contract for Iraq? Really. Yeah. OK.

but they got one bosnia and kosovo.