Robin wondered if this would be of interest. I said this issue seemed to be a common concern, and that people should at least be given the opportunity to learn about it. As you do, remember that this is just one set of procedures (obstacles?) the U.S. military and CPA has to deal with every day while trying to reconstruct Iraq.
Special Report: Halliburton And Defense Contracting, Part 1/3
by Robin Burk
Many questions have been raised about Halliburton's massive contract for services in Iraq. Is it a prime example of cronyism, or even corruption? How could we tell? The Defense Contract Audit agency recently reported that it has found no errors in bills submitted by Halliburton so far. Does that mean all is well? At a time when US taxpayers have been asked to dedicate $87 billion to efforts in Iraq and Afghanistan, questions like these have a high profile. And yet, for most people the U.S. defense contracting process is a mystery.
The purpose of this special report is to give our readers a brief guided tour of the complex but important world of defense contracting. We'll look at the players and the process, the types of contracts that can be awarded, how the finances work and finally, what this all might mean for companies like Halliburton and Bechtel - and for you and me.
As with everything I post here at Winds of Change, including my comments to the regular team's entries, what follows is my personal opinion only and does not reflect the opinion of the Army, the Defense Department or the U.S. Military Academy.
There is a veritable jungle of regulations, rules and practices in the government contracting world. Acquisition specialists who work for the federal government undergo extensive training and must traverse that jungle on foot each day. Companies wanting to do business with DOD or other federal agencies must also make their way through the undergrowth. Our tour will be easier - we'll be flying over this terrain, sometimes climbing high to see the lay of the land, sometimes coming in close to look at some particularly important details on the ground.
Ready? Okay, let's go. Please ensure your seat belts are buckled and your tray tables are in their upright and locked positions, and give your attention to the flight attendant at the front of the cabin as the pilot prepares the plane for takeoff!
Introduction
Welcome aboard. We will be making this journey in three stages.
In a few minutes we will be climbing up to get a high-altitude look at the people involved in defense contracting, the regulations that govern it and the process that is followed when the federal government buys things or services. Your tour guide will point out the main sights and and the key people involved in defense contracting. Then we'll land, refuel and answer any questions you might have.
During stage 2 of our trip we'll drop down to a lower altitude so that you can have a chance to see the various kinds of contracts that can be awarded to companies. It looks as if we'll be having fine weather with good visibility, so you all will be able to get a good glimpse at how prices and profits are decided in defense contracts - and by whom. After that it will be time for another refueling break.
On the final leg of our tour, we'll be over Halliburton country. If we're lucky, we'll get a glimpse of that fabled Iraq contract you all have heard about. Sometimes we can see Bechtels and even local subcontractors on that part of the trip, so keep your cameras out and your eyes peeled!
Your tour guide has traveled in Defense Contractstan in several roles, mostly as a Bidder / Winner (and occasionally, a non-winner) of contracts but also on several occasions as part of the support team for the Government Side. One caution - the local rules in Contractstan change from time to time. But the main roads and the terrain are pretty well-defined. Relax and enjoy the trip!
FAR Out
It all starts with the Federal Acquisition Regulations and their offspring, the Defense FAR Supplements. The FAR/DFARS are the federal law that governs Department of Defense contracting. They spell out the process which Defense agencies must use to solicit bids, award contracts and manage the execution of those contracts by awardees.
Also crucial to contracting is the defense budget passed by Congress. This starts with creation of the Presidential budget. Each executive branch agency submits detailed requests to the Presidential budget, and these in turn will be modified in dialogue with White House officials until the budget is finalized and sent as a request to the House of Representatives. Congress will then debate the requested budget and pass the spending authorizations which may, or may not, match the President's requests. Once passed, the defense spending authorization bill allows DOD to expend funds for various line items in the authorization. This means, for instance, that DOD cannot move money intended for troop salaries to pay for a weapons program, unless Congress explicitly approves.
The Acquisition Process
DOD and other federal agencies buy many things and hire companies to perform many services. Some of these, such as toilet paper, pens, and janitorial service, are purchased using a straightforward process. Office space might be rented and items such as toilet paper are purchased through the General Services Administration through a bidding process. The specifications of the required items are stated and generally the contract is awarded on the basis of price, although other considerations such as a willingness to warehouse the items might be important as well.
A much more complicated process is necessary for professional services, the development of technologies and weapons systems and similar high-end efforts. These are items and services for which there is no "off the shelf" product or solution to hand. In these cases, the agency begins by developing an acquisition package. The acquisition package, which may grow to be hundreds or even thousands of pages long, documents the government's requirements for a new product or service. An analysis will usually be made of existing solutions and why they do not meet the current need. Detailed specifications will be drawn up, especially for technology solutions such as software programs, new weapons systems, etc. Cost analysts will attempt to estimate the price which the government will probably need to pay to acquire this system or service.
One important part of the acquisition package is a list of the criteria (and their relative importance) which will be used to evaluate proposals and select the company who will win the contract to do this work. For instance, in the early stages of a new technology, technical creativity may be a top priority. In the development of a fighter aircraft that is to go into production for active deployment, other factors such as cost, ease of manufacturing and ease of maintenance and the management team's experience in building similar aircraft will be weighted more highly.
Once the acquisition package has been completed, and assuming that the agency's line item budget appears to be adequate for the estimated cost, a Request for Proposals will be drawn up and advertised in the Commerce Business Daily. In addition, a Source Selection Authority and a Contracting Officer are named. (More on these below)
The RFP states the detailed specifications for the product or service required, along with the information that bidders must provide in order to be considered for a potential contract. Generally, proposals have three main sections: the technical proposal (what the bidder proposes to do), the management proposal (how the bidder will organize and staff the management team that will run the contract if they win it, and why their previous experience makes it credible to think they can do this work successfully) and the cost proposal. We'll look at cost issues in Part 2 of this series.
For now, we only need to note that companies or teams of companies spend a great deal of time and money responding to major RFPs, so most will only submit proposals when they think they are competitive. And, of course, the government agency has also spent a good deal of time and energy developing the acquisition package and drafting the RFP. Prior to the release of the RFP, and at every stage thereafter, government lawyers review the process to ensure that the RFP and the agency's actions conform to the DFARS and are being fairly executed. These lawyers report through a different chain of command than the program office that issues the RFP - both in theory and in practice they are independent of the Source Selection Authority and the Contracting Officer involved in this procurement.
The Key Players on the Government Side
The Source Selection Authority is a senior government executive or military officer who will make the final selection of the winner from among those who submitted proposals. The Contracting Officer is a career civilian who will actually execute the contract between the government and the winning company and will administer the contract while it is in effect.
Each of these people are supported by a team of other government officials and often by a Systems Engineering and Technical Assistance contractor as well. For medium and large contracts, the SSA must convene an advisory Source Selection Board whose recommendation the SSA nearly always takes. This board may call on a SETA contractor to provide specialized technical or cost analysis during their deliberations, but the SETA has no decision role and also may not bid on this or similar contracts themselves. High profile companies that play a SETA role include the Federally Funded Research and Development Centers (FFRDCs) such as MITRE, Rand and Aerospace Corp. Written records are kept of the SSB's meetings and a written justification is filed by the SSA to support the choice of the company to receive the contract award.
The Contracting Officer usually does not have direct technical expertise needed to evaluate the technical performance of a contractor him or herself. A Contracting Officer's Technical Representative (usually a military officer) is named to provide this expertise and to advise the CO as to the adequacy of the contractor's efforts once the contract has been awarded. The COTR is one member of the government's Program Office, the team that drew up the acquisition package and which will oversee the contract's execution.
The Key Players on the Contractor Side
The winning bidder will designate a senior executive as the Program Manager for the contract. The PM has both budget and technical authority over the activities that the company undertakes in performing on the contract. A program management office will be formed to track costs and schedules and submit required reports and invoices to the government. The FAR/DFARS are very detailed and specific regarding how this information must be determined and reported, so great care must be given to this activity.
If a team of companies submitted the proposal jointly, one of them will be the prime contractor and will receive the contract from the government. The others will be subcontractors and contract with the prime to do specified portions of the work. The prime's Program Manager is then responsible for the performance of the entire team. For many defense contracts, prime contractors are required to subcontract a given percentage of the work to minority- or woman-owned small businesses.
Pit Stop
As this brief overview suggests, defense contracting is a complex process. Over the last 10-15 years, DOD has proposed and Congress has approved several mechanisms which allow the government to reduce the overhead of procuring high-end products and services while still ensuring that contracts are awarded fairly and executed properly.
We'll take a look at some of these in the second part of this 3 part series. After we refuel and stretch our legs, we'll resume our tour with a more detailed look at the types of contracts that can be awarded. We'll also see just how - and by whom - pricing and profits are established in Defense Contractstan.
Holy crap that made my eyes bleed! Even though my wife & I were talking about this very subject on the way home from Granny's house this weekend, and even though I want to know more about it, I just can't make it through the whole article. It is som monumentally fundamentally boring that they could hide anything in those regulations/specifications and who would know?
I'll check back for your summary later.
Pedro - Those are just the players in the game. He didn't even get to the rules of the game yet!
When you compare the assertion (sans anything resembling evidence) that Halliburton has robbed us blind with the goings-on at Boeing over the last couple of weeks, you begin to see the difference between apparent rule-breaking and the real thing.
For those who weren't paying attention, Darleen Druyun and Michael Sears (CFO) were both shitcanned last week. Druyun is currently being investigated for improper disclosure of data belonging to Lockheed Martin to Boeing while she was still working at the Pentagon. And...doesn't it seem odd that she can retire from a Pentagon defense acquisition position and walk directly into a position at Boeing dealing with the exact same business?
Recall, too, that Druyun penned some extremely caustic critiques of Lockheed Martin just a few years ago. If it turns out she was doing favors for Boeing at the time, things will look very bad indeed for Boeing. And Druyun.
Anyway, not steering things too far off topic: that's what appearance of wrongdoing actually looks like. Some evidence, and an investigation. Not some hysterical assertions that Cheney is making himself rich by tossing juicy bones to his company.
Thanks for this.
I look forward to future posts discussing the role of path-dependence in government contracting.
Great topic, guys. I think this will be of interest to some entrepreneurs as well. (Well, maybe not the Halliburton part.) Linked.
Darleen Druyun's daughter worked for Boeing while she was still a senior procurement officer. That in itself should have made her recuse herself from overseeing the contract. She also sold her house to a Boeing lawyer. The amazing thing is that Ms Druyun's "revolving-door" move from the Pentagon to Boeing is apparently legal. In most other countries, there would be at least 1 or 2 years' interval before a former civil servant could work for a company he/she oversaw public contracts with, and an ethics board vetting all such potential conflicts.
There is a great Washington Post article describing some of the many irregularities in awarding the contract. The new tankers, for instance, are less capable than the old ones, but the Pentagon basically let Boeing reduce the requirements to match what they have to offer.
I believe the GATT treaties require all participants (including the US) to give fair consideration to bids from other member countries, e.g. Airbus. Airbus is widely believed to have underbid Boeing in an effort to enter the US Defense market. There are valid reasons to prefer domestic projects rather than foreign ones, as money injected in your own economy circulates and creates economic activity, and thus tax revenue offsetting potentially higher costs, but this should be done in a fair way above the table.
The sad part is that Boeing's increased reliance on defense contracting, with its arcane procedures and often questionable practices, is eroding its ability to compete effectively in truly open markets, i.e. civil airliners, thus leading to a vicious circle. The same thing caused McDonnell-Douglas' airliner business to dwindle. Many defense contractors set up "chinese walls" between their military and civilian divisions, to prevent the bad habits of the military side from contaminating the civilian side.
I'm a HUD contractor at an 8(a), and I'm looking forward to making the mental comparisons to the Defense contracting industry. So far, with the exception of the involvement of SETA/FFRDCs, looks pretty similar.
Keep 'em coming! I'll be back for more.
Fazal, would you mind posting a link to that article? I hadn't seen it. I suppose it might show up on Google, but I'm lazy and busy at the same time.
As far as Airbus is concerned, I think there have been some interesting points made to the effect that Airbus' prices are effectively subsidized by the government. So the relevant question would be, what's the real prices for comparable aircraft from Boeing and Airbus, minus the subsidies (on both sides, of course).
Pedro, you’re a hoot. Now we know where the term ‘slog’ comes from. But, seriously folks, take my contract - she’s yours - if you can read it. No, all kidding aside, how many Program Managers does it take to screw in a light bulb? Three - one to fill out a requisition for a replacement bulb, one to authorize the expenditure, and one to revive the colonel after he sees the cost invoice for $300. But in all honesty, government procurement is a very serious business - imagine where we would be without protocol and bureaucratic gray tape. Not in Washington anymore, Toto. We’re in … the private sector! Oh no Mr. Bill, what does it all mean? It means we’re back to production! What’s that? It’s what business used to do to earn a profit. Are profits a good thing? Yes Virginia, there is a Santa Claus and he brings profits to every good little capitalist who pays his dues.
It is a good subject but Robin you need to learn how to write in a style that doesn’t evoke senior year term paper. There is detail and there is implication and it is the author’s responsibility to integrate and balance the two so that busy readers can maximize their learning experience and not have to do the digging that should be done at the repertorial level?
I hear you, Pedro & Rodney. War is Hell and defense contracting is Purgatory and READING about defense contracting is .... well ....
Hard work! A long dry slog. (Can slogs be dry?) Even worse when the writer is in the middle of term end projects and presentations with college seniors. Who aren't literature majors. I think I'll tell them they're a bad influence on me.
Anyway, I could give the bottom line up front, about IDIQ and task order contracts and labor categories and how it all maybe means that the Kellogg, Brown, Root award for Iraq is legal and kosher and above board, and even maybe if we're lucky a reasonable value for the US taxpayer. But those who know about all federal contracting know that already.
And those who don't, need some background before they can decide whether or not that last paragraph makes any sense at all!
Sorry for the dry expository style. Rodney, your comment dances all around the allusive (illusory?) topic - maybe you could slip in a few prayers for rain over my way. ;-)
And oh yeah - re: the actual profit-based commercial marketplace? Been there, done that successfully in entrepreneurial companies. Turns out the MBA didn't get in the way too badly ....
Of course, it ought to go without saying that all the "beaurocratic gray tape", as Rodney puts it, is completely and totally at the behest of the government. Oughtn't it?
It'd be an interesting comparison (if it were possible) to side-by-side the cost of cheat-the-government defense contracting with toe-the-government-line defense contracting. I'm thinking it's somewhere between a dead heat, and cheaper when industry was reaming the government a new one on every contract. If they ever were, that is.
Oh, in case I failed to mention it, I work in defense. Fortunately I don't have to deal too much with contracts issues, though.
The Army Corps of Engineers FAQ is a pretty concise explanation....
Hey, I'm a SETA contractor. This and the following parts to come are merely scratching the surface. And as someone mentioned, these are just the rules. We haven't even started to apply them to a bid yet with respect to our corporate policies, capture strategies, competitive analysis, past performance, cost strategies, teaming agreements, security, compliance, etc...
Next time someone wants to bitch about a $400 hammer, take it up with Congress, not me. We are just following the rules, and that's what it costs to follow them. We take this stuff very seriously because the ante to this game is extremely high and no one enters unless they plan to win.
I made it through the whole thing! Fantastic work.
It's a lot easier to read when you do this thing every day and are familiar with the process. It's not that complicated when you are doing it, there's a lot of people helping you and each other out. But I will say that I am glad someone is writing this.
Don't listed to them about your writing style. This is the only way to convey your point without leaving holes for people to pick apart.
I've been a SETA contractor, Charles. Working for a prime is worse, I think. Because now you've got to pretend to embrace CTE/TQM/Six Sigma or whatever the hot quality-ensuring, cost-saving trend of the week is. Also you've got to train your entire personnel base in ethics, diversity, nonviolence, time-charging, etc.
These are all reasons why I stick to engineering. My wife's a bean-counter, and getting to understand what she does has at least gotten me to the point that I'm grateful that someone else is counting the beans.
And speaking of $400 hammers, I once worked for a company that was getting investigated for $2000 bolts, IIRC. It turns out they really did cost that much. They were spares for {some ugly aircraft no longer in production}, and they were not an OTS diameter, thread, or material. They had to make them from scratch, and the DoD decided they only needed (I'm pulling this number out of my ass) 20 of them. Most of the per-item cost went into retooling to make them; if they'd made thousands of them they'd have been less than a couple of dollars each. After this whole story came out, the investigation was dropped.
My, my. How interesting. But why do we need a three part series? Clearly, Robin will explain the process and then tell us how Halliburton has followed all the rules and all's well. An indication of this outcome is the almost meaningless reporting that Halliburton billings have been error-free. Billing, accurate or otherwise, isn't an issue.
What Robin won't explain, however, is how these contracts are often "wired."
"Wired" is a term which means a contract's eventual winner has been pre-determined.
Can be and did are two completely different things. You can't say "this has happened before, therefore it also happened in this case". Well, not and expect it to be get anything more than derisive laughter in return.
The awarding of Federal contracts to predetermined bidders does happen, I think, but it never, ever happens in such a way that there's a paper trail left. Why, I remember once upon a time when a Democratic congressman who was particularly influential made it possible for a defense contractor in his state to win a bid based on a competitor's design. It cuts both ways, you see. See how I did that? No evidence required.
Either cough up some actual evidence, or admit that your argument is circular:
"They had to have cheated. This is Cheney's company, after all. He's a crook. Can you say Halliburton?"
Won't wash, Jade. Maybe the easily gulled hordes over at DU will buy it, but you need a little higher quality ammo over here.
Wired??
Wait until Part 3 and then y'all can draw your own conclusions .....
I don't really care if Cheney makes a bit of money off of Halliburton. I don't like that we are efficiently subcontracting what we used to require drafted or volunteer soldiers to do. Halliburton may be able to peel potatoes more efficiently than a soldier on KP, but having the soldiers on KP gives a lot more responsibility, flexibility and oversight. The KP soldier is wearing a uniform in the service of his country, the halliburton employee is doing it for wages and cost-plus. The halliburton employee might be a much better potato peeler than the soldier on KP, but the soldier is far better at soldiering and acting in the interests of his country. Taken to the extreme, we'd draft a bunch of guards to protect a huge corporation's interests and charge the citizens to pay for it all. It is in the best interest of the soulless corporation to place decision makers in government that support its business model. Whether the politicians or administrators so placed are honest or not is probably about the same as in the general public.
The defense contracting process is so arcane and filled with bureaucratic safeguards because of the real fear of abuse. Soldiers or dollar-a-year workers do it for duty. Halliburton is in it for taxpayer money. "Wired" or not, some company is going to get the contract, and the taxpayers are going to pay. The corruption isn't one of crooks, but a perfectly legal invisible hand working it's way into taxpayer pockets.
The politicians aren't the important ones.
Judging by your comments, Slart, I wouldn't say the quality's too hot here.
The awarding of Federal contracts to predetermined bidders does happen, I think, but it never, ever happens in such a way that there's a paper trail left.
Talk about circular arguments.
The fact is there are numerous instances where 'paper trails' as well as other evidence is left behind. Operation Ill-Wind, anyone? But it depends on political will as well as public visibility/outrage to enforce the rules and laws.
I'll guarantee you I could read most any RFP and tell you if it's an open competition or if a winner has already been determined.
Slart's a Beltway Bandit; for him to suggest Government procurement is some kind of model of virtuous behavior is truly laughable. Especially with Richrad Perle operating his own Beltway Bandit firm from the "E" Ring of the Pentagon.
Talk about circular arguments.
By golly, I believe Jade's getting the point. Finally.
Slart's a Beltway Bandit
Wrong; just about as far away from right as you can get. But that's just what we've come to expect from you.
for him to suggest Government procurement is some kind of model of virtuous behavior is truly laughable
That would have been pretty funny, had I said anything of the sort.
Working for a small (tiny) business in the Defense area, I have some familiarity with the process. Two comments about the complexity and convolution of the FAR/DFAR and explanation of the process:
1) If you had to make as completely explicit as possible every aspect of how your (non-federal) business is to be conducted while answering to as many interest groups as the U.S. Government, I'd hazard a guess that your equivalent of the FAR would be nearly as long and impenetrable.
2) My informal assessment is that beyond a 10 page baseline, every regulation in the FAR/DFAR is there to plug a loophole that someone has taken advantage of in the past. Like software, however, every bug fix has a non-zero probability of introducing new bugs...
You can deny being a beltway bandit, Slart, but you'd be lying. I'm unsure as to what you hope to gain by lying in this instance or any other.
Back OT; addressing FAR/DFAR is nearly meaningless in this discussion. Doing so creates the false premise the rules and regulations will prevent any kind of contracting chicanery.
It won't.
The problem is more pervasive; it's a question of political access and money. Frankly, the majority of those services provided in Iraq by Halliburton and its various subs are not services that couldn't be provided just as effectively (if not better) for a lower cost by other contractors.
You can deny being a beltway bandit, Slart, but you'd be lying. I'm unsure as to what you hope to gain by lying in this instance or any other.
You're affording me endless amusement, Jade. I disagree with you, and am in a position to know: thus, I'm lying.
Perhaps you're pathological, Slart. It beats me as to why you'd lie. Maybe you mistakenly believe the term only refers to those who work near the beltway.
Back on topic; The Halliburton/KBR contract was awarded under the Army's LOGCAP ID/IQ. Any guess as to who wrote the Army's plan as for use of contractors in contingencies such as Iraq? Bonus points if you can name the official who created the LOGCAP contract vehicle.
I'll have to assume you're speaking from ignorance. Beltway bandits are, broadly speaking, R&D houses. SAIC, SY and CAS are beltway bandits. Boeing, Lockheed Martin and Raytheon are prime contractors; actual producers of goods, and so are not. I could see you making that mistake if you were a reporter or otherwise ignorant. Best be sure you know what you're talking about before calling me a liar.
I'm guessing Cheney wrote it, although I'm not sure that it's relevant. I can't find any evidence he did anything other than ok the deal, though.
Walking out of a Pentagon office into a position with a company you were doing business with the day you retired is just improper and constitutes a clear conflict of interest. If there aren't laws restricting this, there ought to be. Why, just the other day, Darleen Druyun was shitcanned by Boeing after they discovered that she'd been improperly recruited. Apparently she was being courted by all the major defense contractors. Maybe this is all coming to a head; I don't know. Maybe Boeing's hoping that enough scapegoats will appease the Pentagon gods.
But back to Halliburton: I'm thinking that you don't have anything resembling the goods on them, because if you did it'd be in all the papers. And nothing in the papers up until now has been anything other than highly circumstantial at best, and logically flawed otherwise.
Of course, you're wrong, Slart. So you do remain a liar. LM, Raytheon, BAE, etc. are beltway bandits. The term is generic to all defense contractors regardless if their products are studies and CONOPS and Tech Manuals or electronic racks and ordnance.
I'm guessing Cheney wrote it, although I'm not sure that it's relevant. I can't find any evidence he did anything other than ok the deal, though.
Actually, Cheney created the LOGCAP vehicle as SECDEF then he joined Halliburton. That Halliburton--a company whose expertise lie in oil drilling/exploration and Cheney's expertise had nothing to do with the oil bidness---it was surely a natural fit. KBR wrote the Army contingency plan. See the dots? Or do you require a map?
Walking out of a Pentagon office into a position with a company you were doing business with the day you retired is just improper and constitutes a clear conflict of interest. If there aren't laws restricting this, there ought to be.
There are and there aren't. It's illegal (for a period of 5 years) if you walk out that Pentagon office where you had financial oversight of a program to joining that very same program as a beltway bandit. Of course, it's all how you define financial oversight; there appears to be plenty of wiggle room with that word.
And companies can often bill you to other projects/programs; after all, in most cases, your value to that firm isn't your particular expertise but the access you can generate.
LM, Raytheon, BAE, etc. are beltway bandits. The term is generic to all defense contractors regardless if their products are studies and CONOPS and Tech Manuals or electronic racks and ordnance.
Inaccurate. My experience says differently.
Liar.
Inaccurate. My experience says differently.
Your experience is worthless. As is most everything you say, Slart.
http://books.nap.edu/books/0309044316/html/60.html#pagetop
See para beneath "Role of Government As Regulator and Major Procurement Agency."
OK, we;ve established Slart's a liar or a clueless dolt; let's allow him to take his pick.
There's nothing in there that refutes what I said, Jade. Or even addresses it.
I'm not sure why you think I'd try to lie about something like this. After all, I stated that I worked in defense in the second post on my blog. It should be obvious what I'm talking about, here, and that I'm not covering up anything at all. Unless you're pathetically intellectually underendowed, which is becoming more of a strong possibility every time you revisit this.
Maybe it's that projection thing.
Slart, as I mentioned previously I have no idea why you'd lie; I suggested it might be pathological. Perhaps you can't help it or you derive some pleasure from lying--I don't know.
But the fact remains you are lying. That's been established. Don't ask me to explain your motivation for doing so, I can't shed any light on that.
Wow. Projection and delusion. Better make a point to pick up your meds refill at Walgreens.
You've established nothing, outside of your elaborately constructed fantasy.
Whither dialogue?
Whither indeed.
JadeGold, you have no firm basis for saying that others could provide these services for less than Haliburton, given the same regulatory requirements and paperwork. Or if you have it, you haven't shown us.
And your animus against "Beltway Bandits," even if justified as a class, does not necessarily apply to your debating opponent.
You've chosen to look foolish by adopting this approach. All you had to do to look sharp was cut the bombast, and let your evidence etc. speak for you. You might even find that you and Slarti have real areas of agreement.
Bottom line: Guys, kindly knock it off. Part 2 in this aeries is about to run, so there will be lots more to talk about. I'd like to see that done civilly.
Understood, and will comply.
Joe:
First, I bear no animus toward 'beltway bandits' nor can you find anything in my posts suggesting same. In fact, I'd wholeheartedly endorse the notion there exist certain goods and services which the private sector (aka 'beltway bandits') can and do provide more efficiently and effectively than DoD.
That said, the political nature of the beast is such that defense contractors (aka 'beltway bandits') understand competition is not always 'full and open.' In some cases, it is based solely on political quid pro quos.
IOW, political 'contributions.'
Second, WRT Halliburton/KBR, the facts are pretty plain. One need only look no further than Halliburton's gasoline/POL importation contract with the Army to see the abuse.
Frankly, Joe, you look foolish when you attempt to fob off such blatant abuses on 'regulations and paperwork.' It's a smokescreen; the 'regulations and paperwork' are meaningless if there's no competition. Ultimately, this is the point you miss: the Govt. could have the most draconian 'paperwork and regulations' imaginable--but it matters not one whit if there's no competition.
JadeGold, the very use of the term "beltway bandits" implies animus. Your apology showed a remarkable lack of contrition.
The inherent problem with defense contracting is monopsony--there's essentially only one buyer, the US Goverment. But there are also monopoly problems as well. So oftentimes you have a totally f*d up situation, and you get Halliburton, Boeing, etc. Efficiency disasters--not to mention how easy it is to hide all sorts of weirdness in giant general contracting budgets. PA highway engineering firms are great at this.
Success in the business depends upon producing quality work, but it also depends upon relationships with powerful Congressmen and executive branch officials.
My sense is that Halliburton and Bechtel truly are probably two of a very small group of firms capable of doing what they've been asked to do. How we got to that has much more to do with Sam Rayburn and Lyndon Johnson than it does with Dick Cheney.
My main beef with the command-economy-style, big general contractor approach to nation-building, though, is that I believe it doesn't produce the positive benefits for democracy demonstrated by bottoms-up initiatives like the CERP program.
You get situations like subcontractors skimping out on paint jobs in schools, because the subcontractors aren't accountable to the local community. Remember the stories about US-funded concrete buildings washing away in the rain during Vietnam? Unaccountable subcontractors.
The ideal situation would be to put funds directly in the hand of local councils to distribute to qualifying community organizations, but given the likelihood of extensive corruption and graft, I'll stick with CERP.
Praktike:
There was good reason my apology contained a lack of contrition--it wasn't an apology.
The term 'beltway bandit' doesn't imply animus; in fact many people who work for same quite openly and proudly refer to themselves as 'beltway bandits.' Do a Google search using the search term 'worked as beltway bandit' for evidence of this fact.
Success in the business depends upon producing quality work, but it also depends upon relationships with powerful Congressmen and executive branch officials.
The latter half of this statement is true; the first part should be true--but isn't. Case in point--the A-12 Program with McDonnell Douglas and General Dynamics. For approximately $5B, we taxpayers bought part of a wing and a small section of airframe. There are numerous such horror stories with beltway bandits whose names are well known.
My sense is that Halliburton and Bechtel truly are probably two of a very small group of firms capable of doing what they've been asked to do.
Your sense is wrong. Certainly, Halliburton would be among a relatively small group capable of performing some of the oil production tasks; not the only one but one of a few. That's their industry. But oil production work is a relatively small part of the taskings being let; therefore, you have what is an oil production/equipment company performing tasks like rebuilding/reforming Iraqi schools, hospitals, civic administration offices, roadbuilding, etc.
The ideal situation would be to put funds directly in the hand of local councils to distribute to qualifying community organizations
Agreed. It's just another example of this administration's mismanagement. On another level, it probably doesn't do much to 'win the hearts and minds' of Iraqis who will have to be at the forefront of a free Iraq.
In several posts, JadeGold repeatedly describes Halliburton as strictly an oilfield services company. The obvious implication is that Halliburton's alleged expertise in doing the sort of work that is mostly called for in Iraq is, per se, suspect; thus the award of the Iraq contract MUST be corrupt. At the risk of belaboring the obvious, Halliburton is NOT just an oilfield services company. Its Iraq contract is mainly being worked by Halliburton's subsidiary firm Kellog, Brown & Root. KBR is decades old and its expertise is in civil engineering, factory engineering, building design and construction and operation of all such. Halliburton bought KBR in a deliberate move to acquire the expertise in such areas it needed to pursue its notion of a strategic diversification. The oil business is notoriously boom and bust. Halliburton wanted to get into a broader spectrum of large engineering project work to smooth out its revenue stream. As was pointed out elsewhere, the oilfield services part of Halliburton hasn't had much to do in Iraq, but it was never Halliburton's expectation that oilfield services would lead this particular parade. I'm afraid assuming incompetence as an indicator of a suspicious contract award doesn't wash.
In several posts, JadeGold repeatedly describes Halliburton as strictly an oilfield services company.
Untrue, Dick. Halliburton is primarily an energy services firm. Like many large companies, they certainly have branches and subsidiaries that do many other things. For example, Boeing has a pretty large IT business base, though it is primarily an aircraft manufacturer.
And KBR is primarily a civil engineering firm but also has other areas of expertise.
I'd ask that your reread my posts on this rather than attempt to construct a strawman.
I'm afraid assuming incompetence as an indicator of a suspicious contract award doesn't wash.
Another strawman. As I've noted all along, Halliburton's problems WRT POL importation are a immaterial, or a side issue, to this scandal. The scandal is how LOGCAP came about and how it wound up awarded to Halliburton. Your task, Dick is to answer these questions: 1)who created the LOGCAP vehicle? 2)How did LOGCAP come to be used as the primary vehicle for contractor support in Iraq? And by whose recommendation?
When you've investigated these questions, I'm confident you'll see why a firm--primarily, but not exclusively, in the energy services industry-- hired Dick Cheney as CEO.
Looking at your comment WRT Halliburton's desire for diversification indicates you should be able to connect the dots.