Halliburton in dock again

Controversial US oil giant Halliburton is facing new accusations with two ex-employees alleging the firm "routinely overcharged" for work it did for the US military.


Examples of wasteful spending given by the former employees ranged from leasing ordinary vehicles for $7000 a month to seeking embroidered towels at a cost of $7.50 each when ordinary ones would have cost about a third of the price.

The Texas company, which is already being examined by the military for possible overcharging for services, has consistently denied allegations of overbilling.

The two ex-employees, who contacted US Representative Henry Waxman, a Californian Democrat who has been critical of Halliburton, worked for the firm's procurement office in Kuwait.

Fuel and meals

Waxman and another Democrat Representative John Dingell of Michigan, wrote about the "whistle-blowers" in a letter to the Defense Contract Audit Agency (DCAA), which is already looking into whether one of Halliburton subsidiaries overcharged for fuel it took into Iraq and for meals served to US troops in the region.

"What is most disturbing about these allegations from the whistle-blowers is the regular and routine nature of the overcharging," the lawmakers wrote in the letter to the DCAA Director William Reed.

The DCAA confirmed receiving the letter and said it was under review.

Contracts

Halliburton subsidiary Kellogg Brown and Root has a logistics contract with the US military that has so far received more than $3.7 billion in business, mostly in Iraq.

It also has contracts worth nearly $4 billion to rebuild Iraq's oil industry.

The massive contracts fuelled allegations that the White House was favouring Halliburton, once headed by Vice-President Dick Cheney.

[Source: http://english.aljazeera.net]

[ 02-13-2004, 05:49 AM: Message edited by: Dreamer128 ]

<font color="#C4C1CA">
Since contractors are always expected to eat any cost over-runs unless specifically provided for in the contract (rare, and usually only as a result of changes made by the purchaser), I see nothing immoral or wrong with these figures.

If I contract someone to supply me with pencils at $2000 dollars each, it's not the fault of the supplier that the prices are so high - he would be doing nothing wrong in supplying them at that cost if I had agreed to it. I would be the one guilty of incompetence and mismanagement - not him.

And therein lies the problem. It is the incompetent government that agreed to such a foolish contract that needs to be targeted for criticism, not the company that is simply fulfilling the agreed contract.
</font> </font>[/QUOTE]Ummm...Skunk, in missing the point your actually making the point.

The government is not a private company/individual spending/wasting THEIR money. The government is wasting OUR money...more to the point, the argument here is that the waste is INTENTIONAL because it is making the "Bush friends netword' a LOT of money at OUR expense.

The real problem Skunk, is that separating the government's decisions and interests from those of the company in this case is very difficult given the incestuous relationship between the two.

And mandatory bidding was circumvented. The government hired Halliburton "temporarily" while it could get fair bidding done. They've now extended this decision twice without doing what's required by law. You point your finger at the government. I'm simply pointing it at both -- the one doing the scamming and the one letting it be done. Simply following the rules as required would avoid this -- which is exactly why the governmental procurement rules are in place.

<font color="#C4C1CA">
I hadn't missed the point - I was merely erring on the side of caution in pointing to governmental 'incomepetance' rather outright dishonesty (I have NO documentary evidence to prove the latter - only a well-founded suspicion). But whether you choose to call it dishonesty or incompetance, neither says very much for the current administration...

As for the contractors involved, I don't blame them for refusing to ignore a gift-horse in the mouth: what company wouldn't? Unless there is something illegal in their actions - and I'm not sure that it would be easy to prove any wrongdoing on their part.
</font>