Fairly disgusted at a co-worker's question!

[SuperTool]

Originally posted by: etech

Originally posted by: SuperTool

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: konichiwa
Nothing new...

$600m (or $7b?) contract to Halliburton...

ok, Lets say the worst happened and every oil well in iraq was set on fire. Do we spend the normal 90-180days to go throught the normal contracting process, or do we just hire boots and coots(owned by haliburton) which are known worldwide for expertise and proven ability of putting out oil fires?


You decide.

Because we all know how this war was suddenly thrust upon us, and we had no time to plan in ahead and take bids for putting out fires from companies other than the VP's former employer.
It's not like we had a whole year leading up to this war to do it.

Can you name another company besides Kellogg Brown & Root that is as well known or has as much experiance in extinguishing oil well fires? How many companies world-wide are in that business?

I have nothing against this particular company, and maybe it would have won in a bidding process, or maybe even it would be the only company to submit a bid. But we will never know it's important to have a bidding process, and ask companies to submit bids, even if noone else bids for this contract. Contracts should not be automatically awarded to companies, especially ones linked to Dick Cheney, without a bidding process. This is our taxpayer money, and I sure as hell would like to know if anyone else wants to do the job cheaper and better and not just assume that only one company is qualified.

 

[etech]

SuperTool, that's nice and all but how many companies world wide are there in that business?

What company had developed the contingency plan for fighting oil well fires in Iraq?

 

[SuperTool]

Originally posted by: etech
SuperTool, that's nice and all but how many companies world wide are there in that business?

What company had developed the contingency plan for fighting oil well fires in Iraq?

Straight from the horse's mouth
So looks like at least 4 companies in US alone, plus others from "France, Hungary, China, Iran, USSR, and the UK" were involved in putting out fires in Gulf War 1.0 under papa Bush.
What other companies were asked to develope a contingency plan for fighting oil well fires in Iraq?
Did we have a bidding process where companies were asked to prepare and present plans for fighting oil well fires in Iraq? You're saying that for $6BN, these companies would not have prepared their own plans, if offered to bid for this contract?
Noone else developed a contingency plan because the administration didn't ask anyone else to prepare a plan, and just gave the whole thing to Halliburton without bidding.
But hey, if you want to waste your time defending this cronyist administration, be my guest.

/bleh grammar

 

[LunarRay]

Originally posted by: PipBoy
Every quarter the CEO of my Fortune 500 company has a big meeting to tell everyone how the early morning conf. call w/Wall Street went, how the company's doing, plans for the future, etc. At the end you can ask questions if you want. One guy goes "well I know it's kind of early in the post war thing, but what are we doing to take advantage of the situation and get more of our product into Iraq?"

I wanted to hit him in the head with the microphone. I didn't realize that invasion could be seen as a marketing opportunity. May as well have called it "Operation Iraqi Market Share".

Well lets see...
I see no problem with trying to position a company to avail itself of an opportunity to market in Iraq or anywhere as long as it is legal.
It is the reason the company exists... the americans who own it expect it... A fortune 500 company especially is one that has broad ownership and those stockholders pay you and the rest of the employees to do a job. If you sell an inferior product or price gauge that is a bit differn't but none the less the objective is and ought to remain constant.

 

[LunarRay]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Ever heard on an undertaker.

One who acts on behalf of themselves or others UNDERTAKES the responsibility thereof.

 

[etech]

You're willing to waste your time on this, I can spare a few minutes to prove that you are a tool.

The information you provided is from 1991. What companies now are in that business?

You didn't answer what company had developed the contingency plan for fighting the oil well fires.

"In November, under an Army Logistics Civil Augmentation Program contract, the Dept. of Defense asked KBR to put together a contingency plan for Iraq oilfield firefighting and repairing petroleum facilities. The firm now is carrying out the plan through a separate contract from the Corps. KBR says that new contract "will be used for an interim period" until the Corps issues "additional contracts to provide a broad range of services required to support full execution of the contingency plan.""


When you can prove that a foreign company could have done a better job for a cheaper price than let's talk some more.
Personally I don't mind American tax dollars going preferentially to an American company.

 

[SuperTool]

Originally posted by: etech
You're willing to waste your time on this, I can spare a few minutes to prove that you are a tool.

The information you provided is from 1991. What companies now are in that business?

You didn't answer what company had developed the contingency plan for fighting the oil well fires.

"In November, under an Army Logistics Civil Augmentation Program contract, the Dept. of Defense asked KBR to put together a contingency plan for Iraq oilfield firefighting and repairing petroleum facilities. The firm now is carrying out the plan through a separate contract from the Corps. KBR says that new contract "will be used for an interim period" until the Corps issues "additional contracts to provide a broad range of services required to support full execution of the contingency plan.""


When you can prove that a foreign company could have done a better job for a cheaper price than let's talk some more.
Personally I don't mind American tax dollars going preferentially to an American company.

I am not in the oil business, but if you want to say that the only company in the oil firefighting business now is KBR, please present evidence that the comnpanies (US based) mentioned above have gone bankrupt.
If DOD only asked KBR to develope a contingency plan, why do you expect other companies to have a plan prepared? You expect them to read minds? Why weren't other companies asked to develop contingency plans of their own is the question. This opportunity was only given to KBR, and I want to know why.

And your final question is lame. It's like giving an athlete the gold without any competition and then saying : "When you can prove that another athlete could have done a better job and won the gold than let's talk some more."
If the administration goes out and gives a chunk of TAXPAYER money to a company linked to the VP, without a normal bidding process, the burden of proof is on it to show that noone else would have done the job cheaper and better, and this action was justified.

 

[etech]

When you find out why KBR was given the contingency contract please let us all know. It just isn't that important to me to waste any time on it.

So looks like at least 4 companies in US alone, plus others from "France, Hungary, China, Iran, USSR, and the UK" were involved in putting out fires in Gulf War 1.0 under papa Bush.

Right, are you serious in letting a company from France, China, Iran or the USSR bid on that contract. This contract for obvious reasons required a company with US security clearances. I don't think any of the above really meet that criteria.

The UK companies could and UK companies are being given contracts. So my advice is to get over it and move on. I am.

 

[SuperTool]

Originally posted by: etech
When you find out why KBR was given the contingency contract please let us all know. It just isn't that important to me to waste any time on it.

So looks like at least 4 companies in US alone, plus others from "France, Hungary, China, Iran, USSR, and the UK" were involved in putting out fires in Gulf War 1.0 under papa Bush.

Right, are you serious in letting a company from France, China, Iran or the USSR bid on that contract. This contract for obvious reasons required a company with US security clearances. I don't think any of the above really meet that criteria.

The UK companies could and UK companies are being given contracts. So my advice is to get over it and move on. I am.

We are talking about a specific contract that was given to a well connected company in this administration without bidding.
I don't know why it was given the contingency contract without bidding, and I want to know myself too.
On one hand, we have Halliburton connections to this administration and a contract given without competitive bidding, and on the other hand we have excuses that don't stand up to scrutiny. You make your own conclusions.
Congress, as the body that funds DoD, should have a full blown investigation to get to the bottom of this, but that won't happend with GOP control of the HoR.
Kind of reminds me of another administrations that gave oil contracts without competitive bidding.

 

[etech]

we have excuses that don't stand up to scrutiny. You make your own conclusions.

I already have and most of them are about you and your silly obsessions. But I'll humor you, what excuses don't stand up to scruntiny?

 

[SuperTool]

OK, list your excuses, and I will tell you why they don't stand up.
Just to get some out of the way:
KBR is the only one who submitted a contingency plan - Noone else was asked to submit a contingency plan as there was no bidding.
KBR is the only company fighting oilwell fires in the US - I posted a link to at least 4 companies in the US alone that did it in the Gulf War.
Any others?
Bottom line, there was no bidding, therefore noone else was even allowed to compete for this contract, it was automatically given to a company formerly ran by Dick Cheney.

 

[etech]

Originally posted by: SuperTool
OK, list your excuses, and I will tell you why they don't stand up.
Just to get some out of the way:
KBR is the only one who submitted a contingency plan - Noone else was asked to submit a contingency plan as there was no bidding.
KBR is the only company fighting oilwell fires in the US - I posted a link to at least 4 companies in the US alone that did it in the Gulf War.
Any others?
Bottom line, there was no bidding, therefore noone else was even allowed to compete for this contract, it was automatically given to a company formerly ran by Dick Cheney.

Ever heard of having a company on retainer?

I didn't think so.

 

[SuperTool]

Originally posted by: etech

Originally posted by: SuperTool
OK, list your excuses, and I will tell you why they don't stand up.
Just to get some out of the way:
KBR is the only one who submitted a contingency plan - Noone else was asked to submit a contingency plan as there was no bidding.
KBR is the only company fighting oilwell fires in the US - I posted a link to at least 4 companies in the US alone that did it in the Gulf War.
Any others?
Bottom line, there was no bidding, therefore noone else was even allowed to compete for this contract, it was automatically given to a company formerly ran by Dick Cheney.

Ever heard of having a company on retainer?

I didn't think so.

Yes, so why should Halliburton be the one on retainer? Where was the bidding process for that?

 

[etech]

Nice try at changing companies.

But anyway.

Halliburton May Face Challenge on Oil-Field Pact
"
...
Halliburton, Houston, won the first contract without competitive bidding because of urgent time constraints, the corps said.
...
The new, permanent contract will be open for competitive bidding among the U.S. and foreign companies. The Defense Department is reviewing the work involved, said corps spokesman Scott Saunders.
...
"

I'm going to repeat that, The new, permanent contract will be open for competitive bidding among the U.S. and foreign companies.

Are you happy now?

I'm sure you won't be but I had to ask.

 

[SuperTool]

Originally posted by: etech
Nice try at changing companies.

But anyway.

Halliburton May Face Challenge on Oil-Field Pact
"
...
Halliburton, Houston, won the first contract without competitive bidding because of urgent time constraints, the corps said.
...
The new, permanent contract will be open for competitive bidding among the U.S. and foreign companies. The Defense Department is reviewing the work involved, said corps spokesman Scott Saunders.
...
"

I'm going to repeat that, The new, permanent contract will be open for competitive bidding among the U.S. and foreign companies.

Are you happy now?

I'm sure you won't be but I had to ask.

Change companies?
KBR is a business unit of Halliburton.

And what urgent time constraints are we talking about here? It was almost certain we would be at war with Iraq for at least a year. Certainly if they asked Halliburton to prepare contingency plans, they could have had asked others to prepare their own, and bid on the contract.
The fact that subsequent contracts will be opened to bidding doesn't change the fact that the first one wasn't. So stop trying to change the subject.

 

[etech]

How long is a normal bidding process? Most that I have seen require at least 120 days.

The contract was given to Haliburton right before the war started. That seems to constitute a serious time constraint unless you wanted oil wells to be burning for months if Saddam had manged to get them all lit off.

Can you say ecological diasaster? I knew you could.

 

[SuperTool]

Originally posted by: etech
How long is a normal bidding process? Most that I have seen require at least 120 days.

The contract was given to Haliburton right before the war started. That seems to constitute a serious time constraint unless you wanted oil wells to be burning for months if Saddam had manged to get them all lit off.

Can you say ecological diasaster? I knew you could.

They could have started the process 120 day before the war.
What stopped the bidding process from starting 1 year before the war? Nothing.

 

[etech]

Originally posted by: SuperTool

Originally posted by: etech
How long is a normal bidding process? Most that I have seen require at least 120 days.

The contract was given to Haliburton right before the war started. That seems to constitute a serious time constraint unless you wanted oil wells to be burning for months if Saddam had manged to get them all lit off.

Can you say ecological diasaster? I knew you could.

They could have started the process 120 day before the war.
What stopped the bidding process from starting 1 year before the war? Nothing.

They could have but diplomatic measures were still being taken at that time. We wouldn't want the US to waste money on a contract for no reason.

 

[SuperTool]

Originally posted by: etech

Originally posted by: SuperTool

Originally posted by: etech
How long is a normal bidding process? Most that I have seen require at least 120 days.

The contract was given to Haliburton right before the war started. That seems to constitute a serious time constraint unless you wanted oil wells to be burning for months if Saddam had manged to get them all lit off.

Can you say ecological diasaster? I knew you could.

They could have started the process 120 day before the war.
What stopped the bidding process from starting 1 year before the war? Nothing.

They could have but diplomatic measures were still being taken at that time. We wouldn't want the US to waste money on a contract for no reason.

The US government not wanting to waste money for no reason? Yeah, sure. That makes no sense at all. A contract was signed with Halliburton, so clearly they had no problem "wasting money on a contract." Had they taken competing bids, the contract could have been lower priced. These are contingency contracts that pay per well extinguished, so they would not have wasted any money. Again, why was Halliburton chosen with no bidding?

 

[Yossarian]

Because it was Cheney's company, end of story. Government does not exist without the "old boys network".

 

[ReiAyanami]

because they are the best fit for the job. just like when USPS chose FedEx to do some of its logistics, UPS sued because their was no competitive bidding.

Halliburton is a large worldwide company that has the security clearance and they've been doing the military's logistics for years in that region operating under an existing multi-billion dollar contract won many years ago.

 

[cpumaster]

yeah, the admin should have been prepared for everything including handling the contract to extinguish fire properly, it's not like this war was something thrust upon us, ie imminent attack by Saddam on US soil...
Bush even had time to send out ultimatum, can't the admin go through the bidding process then? at least maintain some fair play appearance....
but then again, maybe it's true,
Bush admin = friend of Big corporations
Iraq = present for big corporations support during the election and coming elections

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: PipBoy
Because it was Cheney's company, end of story. Government does not exist without the "old boys network".

Yup - skill and job performance has nothing to do with obtaining contracts

 

[LunarRay]

Just wondering why the stockholders should be made to suffer regarding a person who WAS affiliated with their company and now is in government service.
The charge made by viable competition to Haliburton or any other should be raised by the competition. There is a process for this. There also is such a thing as sole source awards for varying time lengths. In exigency situations the government has wide discretion to select vendors from the pre vetted and approved list of contractors.
There is no smoking gun nor the hint of smoke in this.
The argument could be that poor planning may have obviated the bidding process.

 

[SuperTool]

Originally posted by: HJD1
Just wondering why the stockholders should be made to suffer regarding a person who WAS affiliated with their company and now is in government service.
The charge made by viable competition to Haliburton or any other should be raised by the competition. There is a process for this. There also is such a thing as sole source awards for varying time lengths. In exigency situations the government has wide discretion to select vendors from the pre vetted and approved list of contractors.
There is no smoking gun nor the hint of smoke in this.
The argument could be that poor planning may have obviated the bidding process.

Just wondering why the stockholders of Halliburton competitors should be made to suffer regarding a person who WAS affiliated with Halliburton and now is in government service.
Just wondering why the US taxpayers should be made to suffer uncompetitive service pricing regarding a person who WAS affiliated with Halliburton and now is in government service.
Just wondering.
Noone is saying to exclude Halliburton from bidding because Dick Cheney worked there. All I am saying is don't exclude everyone aside from Halliburton because Dick Cheney worked there.
Yes, and out of all sole sources and pre-vetted companies the government just happened to select Dick Cheneys former company. Just like FERC just happened to look the other way as Bush's big campaign contributors were robbing CA of billions through their market manipulation.
There is plenty of smoke here, whether there is a smoking gun remains to be seen, but certainly should be investigated.
The argument that poor planning is responsible for just landing the contract in Halliburton's lap is absurd, but if it was true, what heads have rolled for that poor planning?