|
|
|
Subject:
Some background on the Haliburton Contract - for those who arent aware of how it was awarded
swhitebull
2/20/2004 8:24:48 PM
|
| Wrote this a bit ago, based on a National Public Radio interview - hardly a supporter of the current administration. The interview goes into detail just how and why the Halliburton contract was awarded, not least of which is that HAVE the experience of working in a live-fire area. Please study carefully - there will a test afterwards:
So in the spirit of presenting the truth about the Halliburton contract - AGAIN - since the facts dont seem to sink in too deeply, I present my original post again, from National Public Radio, hardly a Bush nor Cheney nor Halliburton fan. This interview with a contract specialist, of which YOU have clearly shown you are not, carries a lot more weight and gains a lot more respect from ME than anything YOu have ever posted again. And again, i am just interested in getting the facts correct, and NOT distorted by someone with your looney left political agendas and prejudices.
"Just thought I'd pipe in on the ongoing argument over Halliburton. I was listening to National Public Radio (NPR) yesterday, their "All THings Considered" program, neither of which the program nor this national radio network are HARDLY known for being pro-adminstration by the farthest stretch of the imagination, in fact, they can almost be considered in general to be hostile to the Bush administration.
They were interviewing a business and military contract analyst, and the topic was the actual nature of the Halliburton contract, which I havent seen anyone discuss, just bandy about their personal take on how Halliburton is "profiteering" from the war. A summary of what was said by this contract expert follows:
Paraphrasing the interview: "The Halliburton Supra-Contract was awarded by competitive bid SEVERAL YEARS PRIOR to 9/11, by the US Army, to provide general support services to American troops (building living facilities, POW camps [bosnia], and other support infrastructure) thru its Brown and Root engineering subsidiary. Concurrently, it was acknowledged that Halliburton was the PREMIER contractor to providing oil field support services throughout the world for the US Army wherever and whenever needed, to include but not limited to layingpipelines, restoring oil fields, pumping stations, etc, and that any need arising for such services would, because of the contract ALREADY awarded to Halliburton, would be part of the terms of the ongoing contract. In the States, this is known as a Retainer. You get paid up front and ongoing, whether the services are required or not, but it is part of yor ongoing contract. When the Iraqi war came up, Halliburton was thus in a position to exercise its ALREADY AWARDED contract, to provide competitively-bid pre-arranged contract services to the US Army in Iraq, a service which it had already been providing to the US Army in other areas of the world, INCLUDING BOSNIA, which, IIRC, was a CLINTON operation.
The interview went on to discuss specific services, and the analyst concluded that it was immaterial whether Halliburton was the LOWEST bidder on the contract - what was important was the Halliburton provided the BEST services of all the companies bidding in line with what the army required. Halliburton does it all- very few, if any, of the competing bidders could make that claiim. So Halliburton was awarded the Supra-Contract, and is now only fulfulling the terms of that agreement. "
swhitebull - I should think that Dick Cheney should be awarded a medal for his foresight as CEO of Halliburton to build and put his company in a position to be the PREMIERE company to provide infrastructure and oil-sector support services of this magnitude - AT CONSIDERABLE risk to its employees in war zones. Halliburton is entitled to make a profit for providing those services - as are ANY company, or why be in business? DUH!!!! Since the initial SupraContract was awarded to Halliburton well BEFORE Bush was elected President, well BEFORE Cheney was chosen to be VP, and while he was STILL CEO of Halliburton, UNDER the Clinton administration, I suggest those that have a problem with the contract award process, feel that Cheney used his connections with Bush, and that the contract was unfairly awarded, take it up with Mr. Bill, not Mr. George. It seems that there a lot of people out there without the basic understanding of contract law, or business backgrounds, and are just making uninformed accusations. Read up a little bit on the Uniform Commercial Code, it might help, and the Army Procurement Manuals- if you can lift them up!
Or tune into NPR!!!
|
| |
|
|
|
