Article

2006-07-12 Iraq

Army to end sole-sourse LOGGAP contract.

Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.

Posted by Besoeker 2006-07-12 02:01|| || Front Page|| [1 views since 2007-05-07] Top

#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|| 2006-07-12 08:49|| Front Page Top

#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|| 2006-07-12 08:58|| Front Page Top

#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">49 Pan 2006-07-12 10:19|| 2006-07-12 10:19|| Front Page Top

#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|| 2006-07-12 10:45|| Front Page Top

#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">49 Pan 2006-07-12 11:23|| 2006-07-12 11:23|| Front Page Top

#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|| 2006-07-12 12:47|| Front Page Top

#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">49 Pan 2006-07-12 12:52|| 2006-07-12 12:52|| Front Page Top

#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|| 2006-07-12 13:11|| Front Page Top

#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|| 2006-07-12 16:02|| Front Page Top

#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|| 2006-07-12 20:39|| Front Page Top

#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|| 2006-07-12 20:54|| Front Page Top

#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|| 2006-07-12 21:03|| Front Page Top

23:52 DMFD
23:27 Seafarious
23:18 twobyfour
22:53 Clinemble Cresing5775
22:52 Frank G
22:51 Frank G
22:49 Frank G
22:48 Frank G
22:47 Frank G
22:45 Chulet Thruling5126
22:41 Frank G
22:40 Frank G
22:39 Skidmark
22:36 DanNY
22:34 tu3031
22:33 Anonymoose
22:32 anonymous2u
22:31 Anonymoose
22:29 anonymous2u
22:29 Alaska Paul
22:26 Alaska Paul
22:18 Frank G
22:12 Manolo
22:11 Manolo