QuoteQuoteIt's much better when I understand the rules, and enforce them fairly, rather than deciding what end I want, and enforcing them so that my desired end is achieved.
You just described the liberal judicial system.
Really? Liberals decided to create ridiculous drug sentencing laws in an effort to stamp out drug addiction?
Sorry if you're having problems with the drug laws. I don't see how they pertain to my statement though.
never pull low......unless you are
Kennedy 0
I'm just going to pop in here real quick and see if I can't summarize what everyone's been saying (leaving out the party bashing).
Halliburton charged the US gov an amount they agreed upon when they won the contract.
Halliburton was awarded the contract quickly and without normal process for reasons of security and necessity.
Halliburton won the US contract. Don't take that out on Halliburton. If you have issue, take that up with the bureaucrats awarding the contract.
It has come to light that another business said they could do it for less. They were denied because they couldn't handle the demand.
Halliburton's price was higher than normal because they have duties in Iraq that don't apply elsewhere. (obtaining trucks, providing security, etc)
People are still raising Cheney, even though he doesn't make money based on Halliburton's position in the market anymore (just severance owed him from his time there) and he has no say in the contract awards process.
So am I off in there anywhere?
Halliburton charged the US gov an amount they agreed upon when they won the contract.
Halliburton was awarded the contract quickly and without normal process for reasons of security and necessity.
It has come to light that another business said they could do it for less. They were denied because they couldn't handle the demand.
Halliburton's price was higher than normal because they have duties in Iraq that don't apply elsewhere. (obtaining trucks, providing security, etc)
People are still raising Cheney, even though he doesn't make money based on Halliburton's position in the market anymore (just severance owed him from his time there) and he has no say in the contract awards process.
So am I off in there anywhere?
witty subliminal message
Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards.
1*
Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards.
1*
kiltboy 0
I actually agree with your personal insert.
I disagree to an extent about costs of security etc. and I think the contaract should be up for rebidding in 6 month periods. i.e. the emergency is over so to speak and the place should be getting back to normal as major battle groups are not charging around.
my 2 cents.
David
I disagree to an extent about costs of security etc. and I think the contaract should be up for rebidding in 6 month periods. i.e. the emergency is over so to speak and the place should be getting back to normal as major battle groups are not charging around.
my 2 cents.
David
The sky is falling...........
kiltboy 0
Why would the sky be falling?
billvon 2,395
.thumb.jpg.4bb795e2eaf21b8b300039a5e1ec7f92.jpg)
>Halliburton charged the US gov an amount they agreed upon when
>they won the contract.
No; see below.
>So am I off in there anywhere?
You might want to add that the pentagon (not just some cranky politician) is claiming that Halliburton overcharged them by $61 million for fuel. Halliburton also overcharged the government $67 million for dining halls, but the government is just going to refuse to pay that bill, so that's not much of an issue.
>they won the contract.
No; see below.
>So am I off in there anywhere?
You might want to add that the pentagon (not just some cranky politician) is claiming that Halliburton overcharged them by $61 million for fuel. Halliburton also overcharged the government $67 million for dining halls, but the government is just going to refuse to pay that bill, so that's not much of an issue.
Kennedy 0
Quote>Halliburton charged the US gov an amount they agreed upon when
>they won the contract.
No; see below.
>So am I off in there anywhere?
You might want to add that the pentagon (not just some cranky politician) is claiming that Halliburton overcharged them by $61 million for fuel.
Last time I checked, the pentagon doesn't do anything without a contract. My question here is how did they agree on the price to be paid?
You know, this is just one of those instances when if reporters did their job, I wouldn't have to ask this question, we would have far fewer misunderstandings, and we could get on with it.
If it was as simple as overcharging, the feds just wouldn't pay up. What are the details of the deal?
witty subliminal message
Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards.
1*
Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards.
1*
billvon 2,395
>If it was as simple as overcharging, the feds just wouldn't pay up.
Agreed; they in fact did not pay up when Halliburton billed them for work not done on cafeterias.
>What are the details of the deal?
What's your need to know? Don't forget, there's a war on! This involves Cheney, so please refer to Executive Order 13233. Can't be compromising military secrets just to see if some company made a few extra bucks.
Seriously, we go through this sort of thing on occasion at my company. The issue is that you can never specify every single thing in a contract. Sometimes it's unreasonable to do so; few companies will quote a firm price for parts over the next 10 years unless quantities, deadlines etc are specified (and often paid for up front.) The semiconductor market just changes too quickly. So instead you get a firm quote for 3 years, and they promise not to raise the price more than X percent over the next 3 years.
Then the 3 years goes by, and you order even more parts than you planned for - and their price goes up X+2 percent. "But we built parts for the number of parts you _said_ you would order, and now you're ordering more!" "Shouldn't price-per go _down_ if we order more?" "That wasn't in the agreement . . ." etc etc. Sometimes we just refuse to pay the additional amount; we have enough clout so that sometimes that works. Often it doesn't. On rare occasions the lawyers get involved.
It's no suprise that Halliburton tried to cheat the government out of some money. Most government contractors have tried that on occasion. Solution should be to fine them, and if it continues, bar them from further military contracts. With the purchasing power of the US government, that would result in a very rapid rise of a competitor - and the new competitor would have a very strong incentive _not_ to cheat the government. At least until the new CEO forgets the examples of the past, and the cycle repeats.
Agreed; they in fact did not pay up when Halliburton billed them for work not done on cafeterias.
>What are the details of the deal?
What's your need to know? Don't forget, there's a war on! This involves Cheney, so please refer to Executive Order 13233. Can't be compromising military secrets just to see if some company made a few extra bucks.
Seriously, we go through this sort of thing on occasion at my company. The issue is that you can never specify every single thing in a contract. Sometimes it's unreasonable to do so; few companies will quote a firm price for parts over the next 10 years unless quantities, deadlines etc are specified (and often paid for up front.) The semiconductor market just changes too quickly. So instead you get a firm quote for 3 years, and they promise not to raise the price more than X percent over the next 3 years.
Then the 3 years goes by, and you order even more parts than you planned for - and their price goes up X+2 percent. "But we built parts for the number of parts you _said_ you would order, and now you're ordering more!" "Shouldn't price-per go _down_ if we order more?" "That wasn't in the agreement . . ." etc etc. Sometimes we just refuse to pay the additional amount; we have enough clout so that sometimes that works. Often it doesn't. On rare occasions the lawyers get involved.
It's no suprise that Halliburton tried to cheat the government out of some money. Most government contractors have tried that on occasion. Solution should be to fine them, and if it continues, bar them from further military contracts. With the purchasing power of the US government, that would result in a very rapid rise of a competitor - and the new competitor would have a very strong incentive _not_ to cheat the government. At least until the new CEO forgets the examples of the past, and the cycle repeats.
Kennedy 0
This doesn't involve Cheney, and I don't know what EO 13233 is.
That's why I'm asking about pricing/charging. I imagine they gave them a formula or something. We'll get everything cheap as possible as long as it doesn't affect you negatively [reliability and such], and you pay it off plus 2%.
QuoteThen the 3 years goes by, and you order even more parts than you planned for - and their price goes up X+2 percent. "But we built parts for the number of parts you _said_ you would order, and now you're ordering more!" "Shouldn't price-per go _down_ if we order more?" "That wasn't in the agreement . . ." etc etc. Sometimes we just refuse to pay the additional amount; we have enough clout so that sometimes that works. Often it doesn't. On rare occasions the lawyers get involved.
That's why I'm asking about pricing/charging. I imagine they gave them a formula or something. We'll get everything cheap as possible as long as it doesn't affect you negatively [reliability and such], and you pay it off plus 2%.
witty subliminal message
Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards.
1*
Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards.
1*
billvon 2,395
>This doesn't involve Cheney . . .
You have suggested that in the past, but an independent congressional report disagrees.
WASHINGTON (CNN) - A congressional report concludes that, under federal ethics standards, Vice President Dick Cheney still has a financial interest in Halliburton, the energy services company he used to run.
. . . .
The report says that the deferred compensation that Cheney receives from Halliburton as well as the more than 433,000 stock options he possesses "is considered among the 'ties' retained in or 'linkages to former employers' that may 'represent a continuing financial interest' in those employers which makes them potential conflicts of interest.
> and I don't know what EO 13233 is.
Google, man, google!
You have suggested that in the past, but an independent congressional report disagrees.
WASHINGTON (CNN) - A congressional report concludes that, under federal ethics standards, Vice President Dick Cheney still has a financial interest in Halliburton, the energy services company he used to run.
. . . .
The report says that the deferred compensation that Cheney receives from Halliburton as well as the more than 433,000 stock options he possesses "is considered among the 'ties' retained in or 'linkages to former employers' that may 'represent a continuing financial interest' in those employers which makes them potential conflicts of interest.
> and I don't know what EO 13233 is.
Google, man, google!
Kennedy 0
If I ever said Cheney doesn't have ties, I don't remember it, and in that case I was wrong.
However, please refer me to a report, congressional or otherwise, that state how Cheney affects the contract awards process.
How does the quick choice of Halliburton reflect a military secret now? To me it seems it was only a secret until we were in Iraq and Halliburton was doing its thing.
However, please refer me to a report, congressional or otherwise, that state how Cheney affects the contract awards process.
Quote> and I don't know what EO 13233 is.
Google, man, google!
How does the quick choice of Halliburton reflect a military secret now? To me it seems it was only a secret until we were in Iraq and Halliburton was doing its thing.
witty subliminal message
Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards.
1*
Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards.
1*
Kennedy 0
"It's no suprise that Halliburton tried to cheat the government out of some money. "
Apparently not, well, not over the fuel thing anyways.
I am working for KBR/Halliburton just now, this in this morning.
"FROM: Dave Lesar, chairman, president and CEO
SUBJECT: Army Corps of Engineers grants Halliburton fuel waiver
There is news in today’s Wall Street Journal that the head of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers has “exonerated Halliburton Co. of any wrongdoing in a Kuwait fuel-delivery contract.”
The Corps granted KBR a waiver of the requirement to obtain certified cost or pricing data from its subcontractor for importing fuel from Kuwait to Iraq.
The story reinforces everything we have said about this situation. As the article summarizes, KBR’s actions in buying fuel from the sole Kuwaiti-approved supplier were proper, “since KBR could use no other gasoline provider, and couldn’t extract any financial information from Altanmia.” And the newspaper goes on to quote the Corps memo, saying Halliburton “is left with no option for providing these services from Kuwait other than to continue obtaining them from Altanmia.”
You can read the whole story at: http://webreprints.djreprints.com/27187.html
This is good news, and I wanted to bring it to your attention because we are not likely to get the same headlines as the original accusations.
We should not expect the accusations to end, even though they have been refuted by the facts. Those who seek to advance their political agenda by attacking Halliburton will continue to do so.
But I assure you, KBR will continue its work in support of the military and the Iraqi people, and we will continue to make the facts available to Halliburton employees and the public."
So much cynicism in the world.......
Apparently not, well, not over the fuel thing anyways.
I am working for KBR/Halliburton just now, this in this morning.
"FROM: Dave Lesar, chairman, president and CEO
SUBJECT: Army Corps of Engineers grants Halliburton fuel waiver
There is news in today’s Wall Street Journal that the head of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers has “exonerated Halliburton Co. of any wrongdoing in a Kuwait fuel-delivery contract.”
The Corps granted KBR a waiver of the requirement to obtain certified cost or pricing data from its subcontractor for importing fuel from Kuwait to Iraq.
The story reinforces everything we have said about this situation. As the article summarizes, KBR’s actions in buying fuel from the sole Kuwaiti-approved supplier were proper, “since KBR could use no other gasoline provider, and couldn’t extract any financial information from Altanmia.” And the newspaper goes on to quote the Corps memo, saying Halliburton “is left with no option for providing these services from Kuwait other than to continue obtaining them from Altanmia.”
You can read the whole story at: http://webreprints.djreprints.com/27187.html
This is good news, and I wanted to bring it to your attention because we are not likely to get the same headlines as the original accusations.
We should not expect the accusations to end, even though they have been refuted by the facts. Those who seek to advance their political agenda by attacking Halliburton will continue to do so.
But I assure you, KBR will continue its work in support of the military and the Iraqi people, and we will continue to make the facts available to Halliburton employees and the public."
So much cynicism in the world.......
--------------------
He who receives an idea from me, receives instruction himself without lessening mine; as he who lights his taper at mine, receives light without darkening me. Thomas Jefferson
He who receives an idea from me, receives instruction himself without lessening mine; as he who lights his taper at mine, receives light without darkening me. Thomas Jefferson
slug 1
>>There is news in today’s Wall Street Journal that the head of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers has “exonerated Halliburton Co. of any wrongdoing in a Kuwait fuel-delivery contract.”
The Corps granted KBR a waiver of the requirement to obtain certified cost or pricing data from its subcontractor for importing fuel from Kuwait to Iraq.>>
I worked for the Corps of engineers for 21 years I don't know the specific's of this case however.
I have attended meeting's where our chief executive a Bird Col. told us "we need "100% execution and zero negative indicator's"
Guess what that means?
Another meeting the big cheese says "lets not confuse the issue with the facts we're here to make a decision".
I was there both times and I personally heard it.
Anyone know if KBR has any retired west pointers on their staff or their practice of wearing their west point class ring on their wedding finger.
Boeing recently fired some of their top exec's, a VP and the CFO the CEO resigned the VP had retired from the pentagon and had negotiated with Boeing prior to retireing for the procurement of 100 aerial refuelers by the air force.
The funny part was while working at the pentagon and negotiating a sweet heart deal the VP's daughter and son in law were employed by boeing.
Trust me I'm from the goverment and I'm here to help you. Don't expect any changes there are no checks and balances.
Essayons
R.I.P.
The Corps granted KBR a waiver of the requirement to obtain certified cost or pricing data from its subcontractor for importing fuel from Kuwait to Iraq.>>
I worked for the Corps of engineers for 21 years I don't know the specific's of this case however.
I have attended meeting's where our chief executive a Bird Col. told us "we need "100% execution and zero negative indicator's"
Guess what that means?
Another meeting the big cheese says "lets not confuse the issue with the facts we're here to make a decision".
I was there both times and I personally heard it.
Anyone know if KBR has any retired west pointers on their staff or their practice of wearing their west point class ring on their wedding finger.
Boeing recently fired some of their top exec's, a VP and the CFO the CEO resigned the VP had retired from the pentagon and had negotiated with Boeing prior to retireing for the procurement of 100 aerial refuelers by the air force.
The funny part was while working at the pentagon and negotiating a sweet heart deal the VP's daughter and son in law were employed by boeing.
Trust me I'm from the goverment and I'm here to help you. Don't expect any changes there are no checks and balances.
Essayons
R.I.P.
billvon 2,395
Saw an interesting thing today. It was a news report that described how a young senator from Illinois was attacking the administration for obvious cronyism in allowing Brown and Root competition-free contracts in the war. A direct quote - "Why this huge contract has not been and is not now being adequately audited is beyond me. The potential for waste and profiteering under such a contract is substantial."
Who was this young senator? Donald Rumsfeld. He was attacking Johnson's awarding of no-bid contracts to Brown and Root, the predecessor of Kellogg, Brown and Root, during the Vietnam War in 1966.
Funny how the players change, but the issues never do. Sometimes the players even change sides when you aren't looking.
Who was this young senator? Donald Rumsfeld. He was attacking Johnson's awarding of no-bid contracts to Brown and Root, the predecessor of Kellogg, Brown and Root, during the Vietnam War in 1966.
Funny how the players change, but the issues never do. Sometimes the players even change sides when you aren't looking.
DTOXX 0
LOL I just leave KBR (Kellogg Brown and Root) Too funny.
-------
D.T. Holder
SIMstudy
-------
D.T. Holder
SIMstudy
slug 1
http://www.hq.usace.army.mil/cepa/iraq/contracts.htm
Did a google on Corps of engineers iraq and got the aove websigt even the Corps has their offical Iraq stuff on the web. Since this "information" is put out by the PAO/PIO at a high level of the Corps take it with a grain of salt but it may have a different spin than the press and it does include some dates.
I haven't read the complete thread on dropzone .com or the corps complete websight of their success stories in Iraq. But I'm seeing a lot of PR stuff from Corps employee's in Iraq that are assigned to the PAO/PIO aka propaganda office. This could be where some of the press is getting their info.
Essayons
R.I.P.
Did a google on Corps of engineers iraq and got the aove websigt even the Corps has their offical Iraq stuff on the web. Since this "information" is put out by the PAO/PIO at a high level of the Corps take it with a grain of salt but it may have a different spin than the press and it does include some dates.
I haven't read the complete thread on dropzone .com or the corps complete websight of their success stories in Iraq. But I'm seeing a lot of PR stuff from Corps employee's in Iraq that are assigned to the PAO/PIO aka propaganda office. This could be where some of the press is getting their info.
Essayons
R.I.P.
Och, the part of KBR I am currently with is full of cronyism, even down at my low level. But its not just KBR its the entire oil industry. If I were still with, say Mustang over in Houston, or Aker in Verdaal, I'd be laughing my ass off at all this.
But I'm taking it all seriously as I am a man of negotiable loyalty when it comes to employment.
But I'm taking it all seriously as I am a man of negotiable loyalty when it comes to employment.
--------------------
He who receives an idea from me, receives instruction himself without lessening mine; as he who lights his taper at mine, receives light without darkening me. Thomas Jefferson
He who receives an idea from me, receives instruction himself without lessening mine; as he who lights his taper at mine, receives light without darkening me. Thomas Jefferson
You just described the liberal judicial system.
Really? Liberals decided to create ridiculous drug sentencing laws in an effort to stamp out drug addiction?