Halliburton Has More Time to Verify Costs
By JENNIFER BAYOT
"Government contractors normally cannot be paid more than 85 percent of their invoices until they fully account for their costs. Twice this year the Army set this rule aside for Halliburton as the company cataloged its costs and explained how it was billing the government. The most recent reprieve expired on Sunday"
- basically we're still paying them the $8 billion they've been promised even though they've already bilked us for approximately $4.2 (if not more) on a no-bid contract.
seesh....if this were any other small business in America, every one of the executive officers would be in orange get-ups.
2 comments:
I realize that the bidding system for government contracts always allow for an elastic clause, however my "beef" (so to say) is that 1. this was a no-bid contract, and 2. Halliburton's effecitvely non-performance on their current contract agreements.
- really what I'm miffed with is the fact that we've already paid out to them about 1/4 of the contract price agreed upon and they HAVEN'T given us 1/4 of the services promised. Compare that to any small business in america, and most likely that business would be out of business if they treated their contracts as such.
I think that we are agreeing on the same point. Effectively: We both agree that we shouldn't allow a company free reign to simply do whatever they desire with government money without some sort of responsibility in place?
And in regards to the ONLY US company? Not so. Bechtel Group Inc. and Fluor Corporation are comapnies who should have been considered for the contract. And incidentally have more money, more experience and were in a better position to offer a greater deal to the Army Corps of Engineers. (considering that Bechtel has several projects already established in the Middle East, several of which are currently finishing ahead of schedule and under budget.)go to hoovers.com and check the research.
I am in no way stating that Halliburton employees should be put at risk. Infact many of them are treated better, paid more and are better protected than the soliders that we've sent to Iraq. What I am having a problem with is the lax administration of and by Halliburton and it mis-handling of government funds. 70% of which is syphoned off for simple administrative functions (for KBR [which is a subsidary of Halliburon ]employees - many of whom are in Huston TX, NOT Najef Iraq)
Lastly, I'm not denying that lobbying interests have a great influence on what happens with granting government contracts to companies. However in a situation such as this, where there are three companies who are all relatively equally matched, there should have been a bidding process put in place versus an actual handing over of the entire bid to only one company.
Post a Comment