Pentagon Investigation Found Halliburton Overcharging for Fuel and other Services/Items

[SuperTool]

You mean when we have no-bid contracts, taxpayers get hosed? Surely you jest

 

[CADsortaGUY]

In 1997, when LOGCAP was again put up for bid, Halliburton/Brown & Root lost the competition to another contractor, Dyncorp. But the Clinton Defense Department, rather than switch from Halliburton to Dyncorp, elected to award a separate, sole-source contract to Halliburton/Brown & Root to continue its work in the Balkans.

Well .... well... well... and here is the Gore parts:

That work received favorable notices throughout the Clinton administration. For example, Vice President Al Gore's National Performance Review mentioned Halliburton's performance in its Report on Reinventing the Department of Defense, issued in September 1996. In a section titled "Outsourcing of Logistics Allows Combat Troops to Stick to Basics," Gore's reinventing-government team favorably mentioned LOGCAP, the cost-plus-award system, and Brown & Root, which the report said provided "basic life support services ? food, water, sanitation, shelter, and laundry; and the full realm of logistics services ? transportation, electrical, hazardous materials collection and disposal, fuel delivery, airfield and seaport operations, and road maintenance."

Hmmm....

And also this little tidbit of info needs to be shared. Previously stated 1-9% profit numbers aren't correct any more it seems.

Halliburton has said that while the LOGCAP that was in effect from 1992 until 1997 called for a one-to-nine percent profit range, the LOGCAP in effect now calls for significantly less, a one-to-three percent profit margin.

Oh and don't mind Halliburton already has experience rebuilding and revamping oil operations in Iraq - they did it after the first Gulf War.

CkG

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: Strk

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: miguel
From the link:

Congress' General Accounting Office found in 1997 and 2000 that KBR had billed the Army for questionable expenses on its support contracts for operations in the Balkans. Those reviews cited instances such as charging $85.98 per sheet of plywood which cost $14.06 and billing the Army for cleaning some offices up to four times per day.

You mean they won contracts to support the military in the Balkans??!?? Wasn't that under Clinton's watch?!??!? I was under the impression that Halliburton came into the gov't light when Cheney became Vice President! Oh, wait! You mean I was misled by partisans? My goodness...

Yup, they got multi-billion dollar contracts in the balkins. Somehow it was never a problem then.

It was just as much of a problem then as it is now, except now the former CEO is the VP, which makes it newsworthy.(yes, it's lame, but that is how the news works)

I dont think there was a single complaint about their contracts under previous admins.

Fsck me, just because the Previous Administration didn't do their job that excuses Halliburton? What is this deal with "Well Clinton did this and did that" makes the fsck ups of this current Administration accecptable? Didn't Bush get elected becasue he wasn't Clinton or was it because he too could be a tool just like Clinton!

You missed my point. There is nothing different happening with goverment contracting now than there was 10 years ago. This is a purely partisan issue.

Well better late than never. And as far as it being reported now, well seeing that the EX CEO of Halliburton is the VP and that Halliburton has benefited the most from this "Excellent Adventure" I believe that the timings is perfect, especially when our young men are dying over there for what suspiciously looks like an opportunistic Military Adventure for Halliburton. Now if there wasn't any doubt about the Stockpiles of WMD's,etc.. it could be ignored but there is a big doubt and this really should raise a Red Flag to every American Citizen who was conned into supporting the Invasion and Occupation of Iraq by the Cheney/Bush Administration.

Hey I know, being Bush supporters you really don't want to give this any credence but as Americans it really should eat at your craw. Are the wages of War worth the American Lives that have been spent on a fallacious lie? How about if you doubt that it is a lie now but turns out not to be in the future, what do you feel should be done about it? Are you okay with being used as a pawn? Are you even more okay with our youth in the Armed Forces being used as a Pawn? This is not the first time it has happened, the Viet Nam War was all about the Military Industrial Complx and this one seems like it is too!

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: charrison
You missed my point. There is nothing different happening with goverment contracting now than there was 10 years ago. This is a purely partisan issue.

I think the difference is the appearance of a conflict of interests between Cheney and Halliburton. Unfair though it may seem, either Halliburton should have been barred from federal contracts as long as Cheney was in office, or Cheney should have never accepted the VP position. That is one of the sacrifices people of integrity make when they choose to enter public service.

Sadly, integrity has become an old-fashioned concept rarely applied in government these days. (No, I don't mean just Bush, nor do I mean just Republicans.)

So who besides Haliburton can do the job if you exclude them?

CkG

 

[konichiwa]

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: Strk

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: miguel
From the link:

Congress' General Accounting Office found in 1997 and 2000 that KBR had billed the Army for questionable expenses on its support contracts for operations in the Balkans. Those reviews cited instances such as charging $85.98 per sheet of plywood which cost $14.06 and billing the Army for cleaning some offices up to four times per day.

You mean they won contracts to support the military in the Balkans??!?? Wasn't that under Clinton's watch?!??!? I was under the impression that Halliburton came into the gov't light when Cheney became Vice President! Oh, wait! You mean I was misled by partisans? My goodness...

Yup, they got multi-billion dollar contracts in the balkins. Somehow it was never a problem then.

It was just as much of a problem then as it is now, except now the former CEO is the VP, which makes it newsworthy.(yes, it's lame, but that is how the news works)

I dont think there was a single complaint about their contracts under previous admins.

Fsck me, just because the Previous Administration didn't do their job that excuses Halliburton? What is this deal with "Well Clinton did this and did that" makes the fsck ups of this current Administration accecptable? Didn't Bush get elected becasue he wasn't Clinton or was it because he too could be a tool just like Clinton!

You missed my point. There is nothing different happening with goverment contracting now than there was 10 years ago. This is a purely partisan issue.

So you're content to let it slide because it's been going on for ten years and it's a "purely partisan issue?"

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: charrison
You missed my point. There is nothing different happening with goverment contracting now than there was 10 years ago. This is a purely partisan issue.

I think the difference is the appearance of a conflict of interests between Cheney and Halliburton. Unfair though it may seem, either Halliburton should have been barred from federal contracts as long as Cheney was in office, or Cheney should have never accepted the VP position. That is one of the sacrifices people of integrity make when they choose to enter public service.

Sadly, integrity has become an old-fashioned concept rarely applied in government these days. (No, I don't mean just Bush, nor do I mean just Republicans.)

So who besides Haliburton can do the job if you exclude them?

CkG

So we should just let them shake us down?

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: charrison
You missed my point. There is nothing different happening with goverment contracting now than there was 10 years ago. This is a purely partisan issue.

I think the difference is the appearance of a conflict of interests between Cheney and Halliburton. Unfair though it may seem, either Halliburton should have been barred from federal contracts as long as Cheney was in office, or Cheney should have never accepted the VP position. That is one of the sacrifices people of integrity make when they choose to enter public service.

Sadly, integrity has become an old-fashioned concept rarely applied in government these days. (No, I don't mean just Bush, nor do I mean just Republicans.)

So who besides Haliburton can do the job if you exclude them?

CkG

So we should just let them shake us down?

Huh? Hell no - if they are gouging they are gouging - but that isn't what I was talking about - nor was Bowfinger in the part I quoted.

So my question still stands - If Haliburton was such a conflict of interest and were somehow barred from bidding - then who should have replaced them?

CkG

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: charrison
You missed my point. There is nothing different happening with goverment contracting now than there was 10 years ago. This is a purely partisan issue.

I think the difference is the appearance of a conflict of interests between Cheney and Halliburton. Unfair though it may seem, either Halliburton should have been barred from federal contracts as long as Cheney was in office, or Cheney should have never accepted the VP position. That is one of the sacrifices people of integrity make when they choose to enter public service.

Sadly, integrity has become an old-fashioned concept rarely applied in government these days. (No, I don't mean just Bush, nor do I mean just Republicans.)

So who besides Haliburton can do the job if you exclude them?

CkG

So we should just let them shake us down?

Huh? Hell no - if they are gouging they are gouging - but that isn't what I was talking about - nor was Bowfinger in the part I quoted.

So my question still stands - If Haliburton was such a conflict of interest and were somehow barred from bidding - then who should have replaced them?

CkG

Beats me, I'm not familiar with who else does what they do!

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: konichiwa

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: Strk

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: miguel
From the link:

Congress' General Accounting Office found in 1997 and 2000 that KBR had billed the Army for questionable expenses on its support contracts for operations in the Balkans. Those reviews cited instances such as charging $85.98 per sheet of plywood which cost $14.06 and billing the Army for cleaning some offices up to four times per day.

You mean they won contracts to support the military in the Balkans??!?? Wasn't that under Clinton's watch?!??!? I was under the impression that Halliburton came into the gov't light when Cheney became Vice President! Oh, wait! You mean I was misled by partisans? My goodness...

Yup, they got multi-billion dollar contracts in the balkins. Somehow it was never a problem then.

It was just as much of a problem then as it is now, except now the former CEO is the VP, which makes it newsworthy.(yes, it's lame, but that is how the news works)

I dont think there was a single complaint about their contracts under previous admins.

Fsck me, just because the Previous Administration didn't do their job that excuses Halliburton? What is this deal with "Well Clinton did this and did that" makes the fsck ups of this current Administration accecptable? Didn't Bush get elected becasue he wasn't Clinton or was it because he too could be a tool just like Clinton!

You missed my point. There is nothing different happening with goverment contracting now than there was 10 years ago. This is a purely partisan issue.

So you're content to let it slide because it's been going on for ten years and it's a "purely partisan issue?"

Did you miss my first post?

If they overcharging, lets get a rebate and fine them.

 

[alchemize]

I said I'd withhold judgement when this came up a couple of months ago. Sounds like they were overcharging.

The company should be pursued for whatever legal remedies and fines are appropriate.

/me waits for some conclusion that I'm a YABA out of this post

 

[chess9]

You know, that guy Rodriquez the sex offender? They should have shot his sorry butt, but they certainly shouldn't have let a three time offender out of the hoosegow.

Now, I mention this because I think if you've demonstrated a tendency for anti-social conduct that you should suffer some serious consequences. I actually thought this was a conservative ideal, but I must be wrong. Companies like Boeing and Haliburton keep screwing the American taxpayer but the Pentagon keeps coming back for more. Have they simply given up? Sort of like the average traffic cop who sits idly by while 99% of the drivers go by him 20 mph over the speed limit? I'm afraid so.

Anyway, when I hear the right wing wackos complain about the costs of Head Start or some other social program I simply chuckle. What arrogant hypocrits.
-Robert

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: charrison
Did you miss my first post?

If they overcharging, lets get a rebate and fine them.

Did you miss mine? That hardly seems harsh enough for hurting this country through war profiteering.

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: charrison
Did you miss my first post?

If they overcharging, lets get a rebate and fine them.

Did you miss mine? That hardly seems harsh enough for hurting this country through war profiteering.

Do you want to go beyond a fine execute the executives?

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: charrison
Did you miss my first post?

If they overcharging, lets get a rebate and fine them.

Did you miss mine? That hardly seems harsh enough for hurting this country through war profiteering.

Do you want to go beyond a fine execute the executives?

Hey if it were possible I would be totly behind making Clinton liable for those overcharges. Since Cheney was CEO of Halliburton at the time I think he should resign from his position of VP! We have ourselves another Spiro Agnew!

 

[miguel]

My God. This thread is filled with so much partisanship, I can't believe it. No wonder it's so hard to get to the bottom of things. Can we agree on a couple of basic things here?

* Halliburton has been doing business with the Gov't for many years, even before Bush.
* Halliburton had problems with overcharging in the past, as well as now.
* Halliburton has won no-bid contracts in the past, even before Bush.
* Halliburton won contracts in Iraq because they were the only ones who could do certain jobs.
* Cheney was VP of Halliburton before he became VP of US.
* Cheney quit Halliburton when he became VP.

Personally, and believe me I'm not a Bushie, what's the problem? He resigned already. What more can we ask of them to do? Exclude Halliburton from bidding on contracts?

 

[chess9]

Miguel:

I'm glad he resigned from Halliburton, but why did he have to mess with our government by becoming the Supreme Court's nominee for V.P.?

-Robert

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: miguel
My God. This thread is filled with so much partisanship, I can't believe it. No wonder it's so hard to get to the bottom of things. Can we agree on a couple of basic things here?

* Halliburton has been doing business with the Gov't for many years, even before Bush.
* Halliburton had problems with overcharging in the past, as well as now.
* Halliburton has won no-bid contracts in the past, even before Bush.
* Halliburton won contracts in Iraq because they were the only ones who could do certain jobs.
* Cheney was VP of Halliburton before he became VP of US.
* Cheney quit Halliburton when he became VP.

Personally, and believe me I'm not a Bushie, what's the problem? He resigned already. What more can we ask of them to do? Exclude Halliburton from bidding on contracts?

Well if it was found that other Companies had cheated the Governement wouldn't excluding them from bidding on jobs seem prudent?

 

[miguel]

Originally posted by: chess9
Miguel:

I'm glad he resigned from Halliburton, but why did he have to mess with our government by becoming the Supreme Court's nominee for V.P.?

-Robert

That is such a weak argument, you ought to be embarrased.

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: miguel

Originally posted by: chess9
Miguel:

I'm glad he resigned from Halliburton, but why did he have to mess with our government by becoming the Supreme Court's nominee for V.P.?

-Robert

That is such a weak argument, you ought to be embarrased.

Almost as embarrassed as supporting him now?

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: miguel
My God. This thread is filled with so much partisanship, I can't believe it. No wonder it's so hard to get to the bottom of things. Can we agree on a couple of basic things here?

* Halliburton has been doing business with the Gov't for many years, even before Bush.
* Halliburton had problems with overcharging in the past, as well as now.
* Halliburton has won no-bid contracts in the past, even before Bush.
* Halliburton won contracts in Iraq because they were the only ones who could do certain jobs.
* Cheney was VP of Halliburton before he became VP of US.
* Cheney quit Halliburton when he became VP.

Personally, and believe me I'm not a Bushie, what's the problem? He resigned already. What more can we ask of them to do? Exclude Halliburton from bidding on contracts?

Well if it was found that other Companies had cheated the Governement wouldn't excluding them from bidding on jobs seem prudent?

Ofcourse there is still that little question about who.

Just a hint. There are about 3 IIRC. One is French...so they are out(plus they are supposedly somehow owned by Halliburtion. The other is a US firm who lost the bid contract - ie wanted too much money.
Just because Cheney was part of Halliburton doesn't exclude them from being a gov't contractor especially since they already were.

CkG

 

[miguel]

Originally posted by: Red Dawn
[Well if it was found that other Companies had cheated the Governement wouldn't excluding them from bidding on jobs seem prudent?

Sure, if that were part of the rules. If they were indeed excluded and then Bush/Cheney brought them back (pardoned them, maybe?), then it'd be an issue.

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY
And also this little tidbit of info needs to be shared. Previously stated 1-9% profit numbers aren't correct any more it seems.

Halliburton has said that while the LOGCAP that was in effect from 1992 until 1997 called for a one-to-nine percent profit range, the LOGCAP in effect now calls for significantly less, a one-to-three percent profit margin.

Oh and don't mind Halliburton already has experience rebuilding and revamping oil operations in Iraq - they did it after the first Gulf War.

CkG

We went over this before, and I predicted exactly what has happened. The seemingly low margin on a cost-plus contract is often an illusion, especially when a company can resell goods and services offered by other subsidiaries. True, when the KBR subsidiary of Halliburton charges the government for LOGCAP expenses, it only tacks on a couple of percent profit. However, when another Halliburton subsidiary sells goods and services to KBR, the other subsidiary can add huge mark-ups. They make their real profit on the internal "sales".

The other hole in a cost-plus contract is shared expenses, i.e., the overhead and services that are split between the government and other customers. It is easy in a cost-plus contract to bill something as 100% government when it may really be split 50/50, or even not truly used for the government contract at all. If you need to add ten people in Accounting, bill them all to Uncle Sam and call them LOGCAP resources even though they may spend much of their time on other customers.

This might be discovered if the government ever gets around to an in-depth audit, but the odds are in your favor. Even if you are caught, the worst thing that is likely to happen is you will negotiate a partial refund on the exposed overcharge. You will still get away with the rest, however, and as we have seen here, it is highly unlikey the government will take its business elsewhere.

For the record, I am not asserting Halliburton is doing this, only that it is a potential loophole in a cost-plus contract.

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: miguel
My God. This thread is filled with so much partisanship, I can't believe it. No wonder it's so hard to get to the bottom of things. Can we agree on a couple of basic things here?

* Halliburton has been doing business with the Gov't for many years, even before Bush.
* Halliburton had problems with overcharging in the past, as well as now.
* Halliburton has won no-bid contracts in the past, even before Bush.
* Halliburton won contracts in Iraq because they were the only ones who could do certain jobs.
* Cheney was VP of Halliburton before he became VP of US.
* Cheney quit Halliburton when he became VP.

Personally, and believe me I'm not a Bushie, what's the problem? He resigned already. What more can we ask of them to do? Exclude Halliburton from bidding on contracts?

Well if it was found that other Companies had cheated the Governement wouldn't excluding them from bidding on jobs seem prudent?

Ofcourse there is still that little question about who.

Just a hint. There are about 3 IIRC. One is French...so they are out(plus they are supposedly somehow owned by Halliburtion. The other is a US firm who lost the bid contract - ie wanted too much money.
Just because Cheney was part of Halliburton doesn't exclude them from being a gov't contractor especially since they already were.

CkG

So you don't believe in Conflict of Interest or are you just too partisan to give a damn.

Cad, I give you the benefit of the doubt but you are undoubtedly partisan so I have to ask!

 

[miguel]

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: miguel

Originally posted by: chess9
Miguel:

I'm glad he resigned from Halliburton, but why did he have to mess with our government by becoming the Supreme Court's nominee for V.P.?

-Robert

That is such a weak argument, you ought to be embarrased.

Almost as embarrassed as supporting him now?

Red, what are you talking about? Me supporting Cheney? Give me a break. I'm just trying to get a straight story.

 

[Gravity]

Gee, another corporate greed story? How very odd.