You have commented 339 times on Rantburg.

Your Name
Your e-mail (optional)
Website (optional)
My Original Nic        Pic-a-Nic        Sorry. Comments have been closed on this article.
Bold Italic Underline Strike Bullet Blockquote Small Big Link Squish Foto Photo
Submit your comments on this article
Iraq
Army to end sole-sourse LOGGAP contract.
2006-07-12
The Army is discontinuing a controversial but highly successful multibillion-dollar deal with oil services giant Halliburton Co. to provide logistical support to U.S. troops worldwide, a decision that could cut deeply into the firm's dominance of government contracting in Iraq. The choice comes after several years of attacks from critics who saw the contract as a symbol of politically connected corporations profiteering on the war.

Under the deal, Halliburton had exclusive rights to provide the military with a wide range of work that included keeping soldiers around the world fed, sheltered and in communication with friends and family back home. Government audits turned up more than $1 billion in questionable costs. Whistle-blowers told how the company charged $45 per case of soda, double-billed on meals and allowed troops to bathe in contaminated water. I think it's called non-potable water. Not a lot of prestine water in Iraq. Non-potable is a third the cost, and better than NO water. Ever try a waterless shower? Or waterless toilet flush?>

The Army official, agreed yesterday. "Halliburton has done an outstanding job, and reimbursed contested charges, under the circumstances," he said. But what do they know, they're just doing the bleeding and dying.

Rep. Henry A. Waxman (D-Calif.), an avowed communist and frequent Halliburton critic, said he would like to see even more companies included as winners in order to increase competition as work arises. But he welcomed the move away from the exclusive contract with Halliburton as a good first step. "When you have a single contractor, that company has the government over a barrel," Waxman said. "One needs multiple contractors in order to have real price competition. Real competition saves the taxpayer money.".... and that's what warfare is all about eh Henry, saving the taxpayer dough?

Balance at the link.
Posted by:Besoeker

#12  Right but the contract was sole source awarded. Meaning no other company got to compete for it. I probably should have added that in my comment lotp. Thanks.
Posted by: 49 Pan   2006-07-12 21:03  

#11  I would say the USG should compete this as an IDIQ type contract with a dollar cap and/or a five year term.

that's what the current contract is. ;-)
Posted by: lotp   2006-07-12 20:54  

#10  AS, who would that be? The only ones I know of is Boeing and MD helicopters and both are now US owned.
Posted by: 49 Pan   2006-07-12 20:39  

#9  Government audits turned up more than $1 billion in questionable costs.

So, does this mean that New Orleans residents will be required to return their big screens & reimburse Uncle Sam for their vacations? Ooops, wrong MSM article.
Posted by: BA   2006-07-12 16:02  

#8  It just seems a bit of a coincidence that EADS won three of them in a row... there seems to be no concern whatsoever to even keeping the locals in business.

(And then there's the matter... if you're dead set on buying European, there's a European-owned company in Arizona that arguably has superior technology).
Posted by: Abdominal Snowman   2006-07-12 13:11  

#7  It sniff of that to me also. As far as I'm concerned I will never fly a French helicopter with US Army on the side of it. This is just wrong.
Posted by: 49 Pan   2006-07-12 12:52  

#6   Dyncorp is another. But I bet they give it to some French or Dutch company. Tha Army just awarded a 300+ helicopter contract, LUH, to a French company! Worse yet there were American companies with lower bids and better performing aircraft.

I'm beginning to think that contract and the other two helicopter contracts they got are meant to be bribes re: bringing Iran to the security council.
Posted by: Abdominal Snowman   2006-07-12 12:47  

#5  Trying to get contractors to work together is a costly event in time, dollars, and frustration. I would say the USG should compete this as an IDIQ type contract with a dollar cap and/or a five year term.
Posted by: 49 Pan   2006-07-12 11:23  

#4  The Army is discontinuing a controversial but highly successful multibillion-dollar deal with oil services giant Halliburton Co. to provide logistical support to U.S. troops worldwide, a decision that could cut deeply into the firm's dominance of government contracting in Iraq.

You mean the one first set up by VP Al Gore to support operations in the Balkans. [Where's the Dem's pull out plan for the one year er two year deployment initiated by Clinton?]

Other companies with both the manpower and experience to effectively support the troops without any irregularities? I smell pork, big pork.

Anyone run Army contracts before? It's not going to be pretty, efficient, or on time. But hey, that's not the objective is it?
Posted by: Chereper Whush1804   2006-07-12 10:45  

#3  Dyncorp is another. But I bet they give it to some French or Dutch company. Tha Army just awarded a 300+ helicopter contract, LUH, to a French company! Worse yet there were American companies with lower bids and better performing aircraft.
Posted by: 49 Pan   2006-07-12 10:19  

#2  Bechtel? Fluor? Morrison Knudsen? These seem like the kind of folks big enough to play in this area and with plenty of government expertise. Why don't they bid? Or give them a capped cost plus to enter the business so it isn't all sole source.
Posted by: Nimble Spemble   2006-07-12 08:58  

#1  I think the light dawned that while Halliburton is good, what is not good is that there are only two companies in the world that do what Halliburton does, and the other is French.

In other words, we have what amounts to a monopoly in a business that is far too simple to support a monopoly. We need other corporations getting into the act, and yesterday.

Using civilian contractors is obviously the wave of the future.
Posted by: Anonymoose   2006-07-12 08:49  

00:00