Recommended Posts
Michele 1
QuoteHmm. Michele, do you ever see more than one side of an issue? Or is everything black and white?
Often I see many sides to an issue.
Including hypocrasy, which is what I was addressing.
In other words, the poster I was responding to is insisting one thing be applicable to Bush, but gives a free pass to the one he favors/prefers.
That's all I was getting at. But perhaps that's also a dead horse beaten into putrescence, in which case, I shall likely stop.
But yes, I do see many sides to things, often. And make my mind up after considering many different resources and positions. But you knew that.
Ciels-
Michele
~Do Angels keep the dreams we seek
While our hearts lie bleeding?~
billvon 3,118
.thumb.jpg.4bb795e2eaf21b8b300039a5e1ec7f92.jpg)
> As has been explained numerous times previously, the Govt doesn't
> just pay whatever a contractor demands to be paid.
As there have already been two rounds of accusations of overcharging and resulting settlement, that seems not to be true in this case.
> just pay whatever a contractor demands to be paid.
As there have already been two rounds of accusations of overcharging and resulting settlement, that seems not to be true in this case.
Jimbo 0
QuoteIn other words, the poster I was responding to is insisting one thing be applicable to Bush, but gives a free pass to the one he favors/prefers.
I noticed that Mr. Kallend failed to address that in his response to you. Hmm...
-
Jim
"Like" - The modern day comma
Good bye, my friends. You are missed.
Good bye, my friends. You are missed.
Gawain 0
QuoteQuoteAs hard as it is for the conspiracy crowd to believe, Haliburton was in fact the only company who on short notice, could provide all these services. Can you provide the name of another company who could? Please let us know who.
I think in every industry it is prudent to at least give other companies the option of proving they would be capable of handling these items/services. I think good business/governing would call for competitive bids especially when the VP used to be/still is tied to the company.
If Halliburton really was the only company who could provide these services, why not go through a bid process to show that to the American public?
A bid process is not always required as a matter of protocol.
Take 9/11 for example. The telecommunications network that was crushed in the process belonged primarily to one company (the same network that served Wall Street) - Verizon. Verizon was able to rebuild nearly 20 SONET rings in a matter of days, and restore primary services where needed the following business week. You know how many American companies had the same resources to meet the challenge? One. SBC and BellSouth each had similar resources, but neither company had a presence in New York. Assuming any of these companies could have done the rebuilding, I would submit that there are maybe six companies worldwide that could have responded in the same fashion.
So I try and I scream and I beg and I sigh
Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright
'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life
Make light!
Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright
'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life
Make light!
Quote> As has been explained numerous times previously, the Govt doesn't
> just pay whatever a contractor demands to be paid.
As there have already been two rounds of accusations of overcharging and resulting settlement, that seems not to be true in this case.
The settlements back up Gravitymaster's statement.
never pull low......unless you are
slug 1
Hi People
>>I think in every industry it is prudent to at least give other companies the option of proving they would be capable of handling these items/services. I think good business/governing would call for competitive bids especially when the VP used to be/still is tied to the company.>>
The contracting agency has some extra hoops to jump thru due to the FAR's (federal aquistion reg's) this agency has found it expedient to give contractor's a job order contract to avoid have to get competitive bids for every item of wotk as they occur. In this case Halibutons oil well fire contract was someh0ow modified to include other items of work.
When this agency has used this type of contacting in the US during peace time they have awarded the contact to one contract for a year with the option to increase the period of performance for another two years. Due to the workload at the contracting agency the period of performance is alway extended regardless of performance rather than going out for new bids.
From what I saw as a employee of this agency
This is not a good way to do business because if the contractor fails to perform IAW their contract the contacting agency doesn't have a replacement waiting in reserve. To get rid of a contractor for poor performance and procure a new contractor IAW the FAR's is a time consuming process.
To avoid this situation IMO the contracting agency should award these type of contracts to a number of contractor's if one doesn't perform IAW the terms of their contract then they shouldn't be awarded any new work and contractor # 2 can start picking up the slack.
In Iraq Haliburton is the only game in town. For them to lose the fuel supply contract due to "book keeping errors" (price gouging) is very unusual. Prior to their removal the contracting agency at the highest level (3-4 star General) denied any wrong doing by Halibuton. Congression oversight proved him wrong.
>>If Halliburton really was the only company who could provide these services, why not go through a bid process to show that to the American public>> see above
>>A bid process is not always required as a matter of protocol.
Take 9/11 for example. The telecommunications network that was crushed in the process belonged primarily to one company (the same network that served Wall Street) - Verizon. Verizon was able to rebuild nearly 20 SONET rings in a matter of days, and restore primary services where needed the following business week. You know how many American companies had the same resources to meet the challenge? One. SBC and BellSouth each had similar resources, but neither company had a presence in New York. Assuming any of these companies could have done the rebuilding, I would submit that there are maybe six companies worldwide that could have responded in the same fashion>>
The bidding process of the federal Gov't has to comply with the FARs (see above). FEMA and other Federal agencies use the job order contract process to expediate the process. I'm not aware of who the contracting agency was for the 9/11 telephone work.
For further info on the Halibuton contract in Iraq do a Google on Corps of Engineers in IRAQ.
Beware some of the info is published by the Corps Public information Office AKA Propaganda Dept.
BTW I be retired and served with Corps for a short period of time in Dharan Saudi arabia in 1990.
I don't believe there is a conspiracy between Cheny, Halibuton, the contracting agency et al. Stupidity yes conspiracy no.
R.I.P.
Federal Contracting 101
>>I think in every industry it is prudent to at least give other companies the option of proving they would be capable of handling these items/services. I think good business/governing would call for competitive bids especially when the VP used to be/still is tied to the company.>>
The contracting agency has some extra hoops to jump thru due to the FAR's (federal aquistion reg's) this agency has found it expedient to give contractor's a job order contract to avoid have to get competitive bids for every item of wotk as they occur. In this case Halibutons oil well fire contract was someh0ow modified to include other items of work.
When this agency has used this type of contacting in the US during peace time they have awarded the contact to one contract for a year with the option to increase the period of performance for another two years. Due to the workload at the contracting agency the period of performance is alway extended regardless of performance rather than going out for new bids.
From what I saw as a employee of this agency
This is not a good way to do business because if the contractor fails to perform IAW their contract the contacting agency doesn't have a replacement waiting in reserve. To get rid of a contractor for poor performance and procure a new contractor IAW the FAR's is a time consuming process.
To avoid this situation IMO the contracting agency should award these type of contracts to a number of contractor's if one doesn't perform IAW the terms of their contract then they shouldn't be awarded any new work and contractor # 2 can start picking up the slack.
In Iraq Haliburton is the only game in town. For them to lose the fuel supply contract due to "book keeping errors" (price gouging) is very unusual. Prior to their removal the contracting agency at the highest level (3-4 star General) denied any wrong doing by Halibuton. Congression oversight proved him wrong.
>>If Halliburton really was the only company who could provide these services, why not go through a bid process to show that to the American public>> see above
>>A bid process is not always required as a matter of protocol.
Take 9/11 for example. The telecommunications network that was crushed in the process belonged primarily to one company (the same network that served Wall Street) - Verizon. Verizon was able to rebuild nearly 20 SONET rings in a matter of days, and restore primary services where needed the following business week. You know how many American companies had the same resources to meet the challenge? One. SBC and BellSouth each had similar resources, but neither company had a presence in New York. Assuming any of these companies could have done the rebuilding, I would submit that there are maybe six companies worldwide that could have responded in the same fashion>>
The bidding process of the federal Gov't has to comply with the FARs (see above). FEMA and other Federal agencies use the job order contract process to expediate the process. I'm not aware of who the contracting agency was for the 9/11 telephone work.
For further info on the Halibuton contract in Iraq do a Google on Corps of Engineers in IRAQ.
Beware some of the info is published by the Corps Public information Office AKA Propaganda Dept.
BTW I be retired
and served with Corps for a short period of time in Dharan Saudi arabia in 1990.
I don't believe there is a conspiracy between Cheny, Halibuton, the contracting agency et al. Stupidity yes conspiracy no.
R.I.P.
Federal Contracting 101
Michele 1
QuoteI noticed that Mr. Kallend failed to address that in his response to you. Hmm...
LOL, true. But then, that's typical. Never a straight answer from him.
Oh well.
Ciels-
Michele
~Do Angels keep the dreams we seek
While our hearts lie bleeding?~
Gawain 0
QuoteI'm not aware of who the contracting agency was for the 9/11 telephone work.
There was no "bidding" as it was Verizon's to fix. All I was saying was that had the affected franchise area belonged to Citizens Comm, or some other obscure incumbent provider, the systems wouldn't have reached the functionality they had in the same time-frame.
So I try and I scream and I beg and I sigh
Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright
'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life
Make light!
Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright
'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life
Make light!
damion75 0
Ok ok - sorry I jumped down your throat but it looked like I was being called a liar! ![[:/]](/uploads/emoticons/dry.png "[:/]")
Most of the countries on that list have numbers here in the hundreds, although some are a lot smaller. But surely here it is the political message of support for the operation and the US that counts? After all I cant see the US really needing military support from the Dominican Republic!!
As for the websites, honestly no, call me cynical but I dont think that the MOD is a very good source - they only tell you what they want you to know because they are a goverment agency!!
There are others out there though. If you want to get grass roots opinion try
www.arrse.co.uk (sorry - cant do clickys!)
Enjoy...
Most of the countries on that list have numbers here in the hundreds, although some are a lot smaller. But surely here it is the political message of support for the operation and the US that counts? After all I cant see the US really needing military support from the Dominican Republic!!
As for the websites, honestly no, call me cynical but I dont think that the MOD is a very good source - they only tell you what they want you to know because they are a goverment agency!!
There are others out there though. If you want to get grass roots opinion try
www.arrse.co.uk (sorry - cant do clickys!)
Enjoy...
***************
Not one shred of evidence supports the theory that life is serious - look at the platypus.
Not one shred of evidence supports the theory that life is serious - look at the platypus.
kiltboy 0
Fair enough, no apology needed as no offense was taken but thank you for the reply
I do apologise if my original remarks came across as being more of an accusation than I had intended.
Iceland just struck me as strange as the population is 107,000 or so, stuck in the middle of the Atlantic. I think their biggest threat is Greenpeace invading to protect the puffin population.I have been on arrse for a long time lurking more than posting but I use the MoD to find what units are where kind of thing rather than fishing on arrse.
Take it easy.
David
I do apologise if my original remarks came across as being more of an accusation than I had intended.
Iceland just struck me as strange as the population is 107,000 or so, stuck in the middle of the Atlantic. I think their biggest threat is Greenpeace invading to protect the puffin population.
I have been on arrse for a long time lurking more than posting but I use the MoD to find what units are where kind of thing rather than fishing on arrse.
Take it easy.
David
benny 0
QuoteYup, got myself 6 jumps on Sunday, most I've ever done in a day.
Time to downsize again.
Shh, don't tell anyone... Nah, I'm stickin to my 170s for a little bit longer, I may end up buying a 150 eventually, but it'll be down the road.
Thanks for you concern though Rick, I appreciate itNever go to a DZ strip show.
kallend 2,148
QuoteQuoteI noticed that Mr. Kallend failed to address that in his response to you. Hmm...
LOL, true. But then, that's typical. Never a straight answer from him.
Oh well.
Ciels-
Michele
I'm still awaiting your response to my question of a month ago, yet you want me to answer yours on the same day?
...
The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.
The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.
kallend 2,148
Quote
QuoteIn other words, the poster I was responding to is insisting one thing be applicable to Bush, but gives a free pass to the one he favors/prefers.
I noticed that Mr. Kallend failed to address that in his response to you. Hmm...
-
Jim
I haven't defended Kerry from anything except attacks on the legitimacy of his Silver Star and Bronze Star. Michele's question was based on false premises (rather like Bush's war in Iraq).
When did you stop beating your wife and kids?
...
The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.
The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.
billvon 3,118
>The settlements back up Gravitymaster's statement.
No, they don't. In both cases Halliburton is going to pay back the money it overcharged the government.
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Halliburton Co., under close scrutiny for its work in Iraq, has promised to pay $27.4 million to the U.S. military to cover potential overbilling for meals served to troops, the Pentagon said on Tuesday
WASHINGTON (AP) - President Bush said Friday the United States will expect Vice President Dick Cheney's former company to pay back money that it is suspected of overcharging the government on contract work in Iraq . . . A Pentagon audit found Cheney's former company may have overcharged the Army by $1.09 per gallon for nearly 57 million gallons of gasoline delivered to citizens in Iraq, senior defense officials say.
No, they don't. In both cases Halliburton is going to pay back the money it overcharged the government.
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Halliburton Co., under close scrutiny for its work in Iraq, has promised to pay $27.4 million to the U.S. military to cover potential overbilling for meals served to troops, the Pentagon said on Tuesday
WASHINGTON (AP) - President Bush said Friday the United States will expect Vice President Dick Cheney's former company to pay back money that it is suspected of overcharging the government on contract work in Iraq . . . A Pentagon audit found Cheney's former company may have overcharged the Army by $1.09 per gallon for nearly 57 million gallons of gasoline delivered to citizens in Iraq, senior defense officials say.
Quote>The settlements back up Gravitymaster's statement.
No, they don't. In both cases Halliburton is going to pay back the money it overcharged the government.
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Halliburton Co., under close scrutiny for its work in Iraq, has promised to pay $27.4 million to the U.S. military to cover potential overbilling for meals served to troops, the Pentagon said on Tuesday
WASHINGTON (AP) - President Bush said Friday the United States will expect Vice President Dick Cheney's former company to pay back money that it is suspected of overcharging the government on contract work in Iraq . . . A Pentagon audit found Cheney's former company may have overcharged the Army by $1.09 per gallon for nearly 57 million gallons of gasoline delivered to citizens in Iraq, senior defense officials say.
Since Haliburton is paying the money back, I think that the statement (below) is true. I think it's funny that Haliburton is refered to as "Cheney's former company". The libs never miss a beat.
> As has been explained numerous times previously, the Govt doesn't
> just pay whatever a contractor demands to be paid.
never pull low......unless you are
Amazon 7
Is it done yet?
Because time was of the essence and they needed a company who could move immediately. As has been explained numerous times previously, the Govt doesn't just pay whatever a contractor demands to be paid.
Share this post
Link to post
Share on other sites