USA Army may replace Halliburton contract

[Cowperson]

A $13 billion contract awarded to a Halliburton subsidiary for supplying USA Army forces in Iraq may be re-opened for bidding amid allegations of corrupt conduct.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/08/11/...ain635356.shtml

Cowperson

[Lanny_MacDonald]

No! Halliburton? The US government? Corruption? Say it isn't so!!!

[Fuzzy McGillicuddy]

Originally posted by fotze@Sep 8 2004, 07:55 AM
There are plenty of companies that could competently do what Halliburton does, I don't understand why they didn't do this in the first place. Probably a little easier to pay one company than 100's, but it sure encourages higher prices and reckless spending when there is no competition.

Two words: Dick Cheney

Jeezuz. Cheney's fingerprints were all over this one.

If you need background:

See Dick Cross The Line

Halliburton, Dick Cheney and Wartime Spoils

[Lanny_MacDonald]

Originally posted by Fuzzy McGillicuddy@Sep 8 2004, 03:29 PM
Two words: Dick Cheney

Two words: Conspiracy Theorist!!!

:P

[Cowperson]

Halliburton reacts, saying it may not be part of the re-bidding process.

Essentially the $13 billiion would be divided into six smaller contracts and Halliburton's opinion is that margins would have to be jacked higher - a larger cost to the government - to do the same work.

"At this point in time I don't see that we could lose, whatever the outcome, because if we keep some of it, it would be higher margins. If we're out, we'll get our liquidity and we'll move on with our business," Lesar said.

Yeah, you always win when your capital is unemployed.

Halliburton's response is interesting given it pre-supposes they would get the work in spite of the problems coming from their subisdiary, a fairly arrogant reaction.

Another reaction:

Dave Nadler, a former Pentagon lawyer and expert on government procurement, said the Army's reported move was long overdue.

"It makes sense from a procurement standpoint and also from a political standpoint," said Nadler, a partner in the law firm Dickstein Shapiro Morin and Oshinsky. "The administration has been taking a lot of heat about the Halliburton deal."

Exactly.

A good summary of both sides:

http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?t...storyID=6173093

Cowperson

[Displaced Flames fan]

Originally posted by fotze@Sep 8 2004, 01:55 PM
There are plenty of companies that could competently do what Halliburton does, I don't understand why they didn't do this in the first place. Probably a little easier to pay one company than 100's, but it sure encourages higher prices and reckless spending when there is no competition.

Yeah, for that contract anyone could.

For the big oil industry infrastructure contracts? Nope.

[RougeUnderoos]

I'm not an expert (wouldn't even qualify as a rank amateur) but is it true that there is only one company (Halliburton) in the entire world that could do the big oil industry infrastructure job?

[Cowperson]

Originally posted by RougeUnderoos@Sep 9 2004, 02:19 AM
I'm not an expert (wouldn't even qualify as a rank amateur) but is it true that there is only one company (Halliburton) in the entire world that could do the big oil industry infrastructure job?

I believe Bechtel and one other might have qualified as overseer.

Cowperson

[Displaced Flames fan]

Originally posted by fotze@Sep 9 2004, 02:27 AM

It's like saying Nike is the only shoe supplier available.# Mayby they are the most widely known but anyone in the know would say that 'the best' is a ridiculous notion.

Competitors off the top# of my head in halliburtons league:

Schlumberger
BJ services
Baker hughes

They are definately not the only option and not even the only American option.

Of all the different aspects of upstream and downstream oil, there are tonnes of great companies in america and around the world.# Maybe it was just easier to hire one shop to do it all and that I would understand, but the 'they're the best' is weak.# I could see something like aircraft building where maybe Boeing is a world leader but in the petroleum world halliburton doesn't have that kind of rep (no one does in that ompetitive a market).

I'm aware of Bechtel's place in the industry.

Honest question.
Nevermind...answered my own question.

[Cowperson]

Originally posted by fotze+Sep 9 2004, 02:27 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (fotze @ Sep 9 2004, 02:27 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>

Yeah, for that tiny contract anyone could.

For the big oil industry infrastructure contracts? Nope.

It's like saying Nike is the only shoe supplier available. Mayby they are the most widely known but anyone in the know would say that 'the best' is a ridiculous notion.

Competitors off the top of my head in halliburtons league:

Schlumberger
BJ services
Baker hughes

They are definately not the only option and not even the only American option.

Of all the different aspects of upstream and downstream oil, there are tonnes of great companies in america and around the world. Maybe it was just easier to hire one shop to do it all and that I would understand, but the 'they're the best' is weak. I could see something like aircraft building where maybe Boeing is a world leader but in the petroleum world halliburton doesn't have that kind of rep (no one does in that ompetitive a market). [/b][/quote]
There is zero chance anything other than an American company is going to get the big job of overseeing Iraqi reconstruction.

Sorry, I misread Rougeunderoos question. There are other American companies that could look after oilfield reconstruction as Fotze points out. To oversee the total job in Iraq, the field is much more limited, as I indicated.

Cowperson

[RougeUnderoos]

I don't know how clever it is to trust corporate websites, but Bechtel takes credit for "rebuilding Kuwait's oilfields" following the first Gulf War. Incidentally, Schlumberger claims to be a much bigger entity (more employees, active in more countries) than Bechtel.


Frankly, I don't care who soaks up all those American tax dollars, so I don't know why I bother looking it up. But I do think Cheney is a crook so I might as well poke my nose in.

[Cowperson]

Originally posted by RougeUnderoos@Sep 9 2004, 02:52 AM
I don't know how clever it is to trust corporate websites, but Bechtel takes credit for "rebuilding Kuwait's oilfields" following the first Gulf War. Incidentally, Schlumberger claims to be a much bigger entity (more employees, active in more countries) than Bechtel.


Frankly, I don't care who soaks up all those American tax dollars, so I don't know why I bother looking it up. But I do think Cheney is a crook so I might as well poke my nose in.

A good overview in the New York Times from Aug 8, 2003 on Halliburton and the names of its competition in bidding for Iraqi oilfield reconstruction.

http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/issue...0808bechtel.htm

I don't think this refers to the job of project managing the entire Iraqi reconstruction effort.

Cowperson