Good News for US Business

[Timber Loftis]

Just found out that my firm has successfully negotiated on behalf of our clients several contracts with governmental agencies for Iraqi post-war reconstruction. [img]graemlins/thumbsup.gif[/img] Apparently, we've got a bit of expertise in the field.

But the real reason I'm posting this is just to let you folks know that the plans are already being made to reconstruct. Make of this info what you will.

[Bardan the Slayer]

Any sign that the coalition really *does* intend to reconstruct for the benefit of the Iraqi people is welcome, as far as I'm concerned [img]smile.gif[/img]

[Davros]

Is the report / discssion I heard yesterday correct that these contracts are only open to US firms to bid upon? If that is so, do you think is a fair and correct position, and why?

[Timber Loftis]

Originally posted by Davros: Is the report / discssion I heard yesterday correct that these contracts are only open to US firms to bid upon? If that is so, do you think is a fair and correct position, and why?

I think a multi-national company with US branch could participate. You must have a corporate entity in the USA to contract with the government, because it won't buy from you unless you are subject to its jurisdiction. Mounds of laws govern governmental bidding contracts. And, it only contracts with on-the-up companies. If you violate just about any law or rule, it will try to "debar" you, i.e. prevent you from getting government contracts in the future (very difficult, I've gone against the Dept. of Army on one of these, and we worked it out). So, in the very least, if your corporation does not form a subsidiary here (i.e. incorporate here as a legal entity of some sort), I doubt you will get the contract.

Now, you may be able to sub-contract for a US general contractor. Dunno about that. Only makes sense.

Fair? When spending its money, the government is not limited very much at all. Just like you when shopping for clothes.

[Davros]

Hmm - must be a different debate from the one I heard of in today's parliament session - that one seemed to be saying that the US shouldn't be having all the say in who gets to reuild Iraq by pre letting all the reconstruction contracts to US only bidders. The contracts you are talking about sound like they are are strictly paid for by the US government and not by the Iraqi funds seizure I take it? Is that your understanding, and thus the difference between what we are talking about?

[wellard]

Would not all the rebuilding bills come from the sale of Iraq oil after the war? And if so do you think it is fair that the UK & Australia would be denied fair recompence? Who gave the U.S. the rights anyway? not the U.N. I suspect [img]graemlins/deal.gif[/img]

[Timber Loftis]

From everything I have read, the US fully intends, as does the UK, to only do reconstruction as sactioned by the UN.

In fact, a French/German company is bidding to be the cell phone provider. So, get a grip guys and check FACTS before you go assuming them.

[edit] Erm... to reconcile with my above post, you would need to be a US company (i.e. citizen) to contract with the US government. I would think other countries will be involved however. If a French Co. got a contract, it would seem it would contract with France or with an EU country. Unless it had a US subsidiary - then the subsidiary could contract with the US.

They will likely put some managing company together to control the project. Who knows where that Co. will incorporate - it may be in many places or just one. I'm sure it will all be approved by the UN if it goes this way.

[ 03-27-2003, 11:25 AM: Message edited by: Timber Loftis ]

[Timber Loftis]

Finally some real news on this issue. Cespenar says "ENJOY!!"

From Today's NY Times:

U.S. Rejects Criticism on Awarding of Iraq Contracts
By BRIAN KNOWLTON
International Herald Tribune

Washington Trying to Curb U.N. Role in a Postwar Iraq (March 27, 2003)

WASHINGTON, March 27 — An American official has strongly rejected European complaints that the United States was unfairly awarding contracts for the reconstruction of Iraq to American companies. The overriding United States objective, he said today, was to provide the quickest possible relief to the Iraqi people.

The official, Alan Larson, an under secretary of state, said he was "surprised" by suggestions from European companies and officials that the United States was unfairly guarding the spoils of a highly controversial war by awarding the first big reconstruction contracts to American companies.

But with estimates that reconstruction costs could eventually total tens of billions of dollars, the debate, featuring angry European suggestions of United States arrogance and cronyism, is hardly academic.

American policy in awarding contracts, Mr. Larson said after a meeting in Brussels with European Union officials, "was about getting aid quickly and not about who will gain in reconstruction," Reuters reported.

Mr. Larson said that giving American companies first-line responsibilities was simply a matter of efficiency — "the responsible thing to do," he said. Electricity supplies had to be restored, ports opened, and safe water provided as quickly as possible.

But European critics complain that the United States is favoring politically well-connected American companies, and looking to Iraq, in the word of one European government spokesman, as a "protectorate."

The Army Corps of Engineers announced Tuesday that it had granted the primary contract for extinguishing oil-well fires in southern Iraq to a subsidiary of Halliburton, the Houston-based company where Vice President Dick Cheney was once the chief executive. (The value of the contract is tied to how many fires have to be put out.)

Two other contracts, worth a total of nearly $12 million, also went to United States companies. And other contracts, worth several hundred million dollars, are soon to be announced. They cover reconstruction or repairs to five airports, railroads, schools, hospitals, irrigation systems and other facilities.

Some of the companies best-placed to win contracts are, in fact, among the politically best-connected in Washington: the Fluor Corporation, which has ties to former Pentagon procurement officials; the Bechtel Group, whose officials include former Secretary of State George P. Shultz and other former Republican cabinet members; and Halliburton, where Mr. Cheney was chief executive from 1995 to 2000.

Company officials point out, however, that they are among the few with extensive experience in the sort of difficult and specialized work they seek.

Many in Europe found a comment Wednesday by Secretary of State Colin L. Powell particularly rankling. He told Congress, "We didn't take on this huge burden with our coalition partners not to be able to have a significant dominating control over how it unfolds."

Christos Protopapas, a Greek government spokesman, responded tartly: "Iraq is not the protectorate of anyone else. It does not belong to some who think they can manage it as they like."

Britain, the second-largest contributor of forces to the United States-led coalition, also wants better treatment for its companies in the bidding process.

British officials have lobbied the United States Agency for International Development on behalf of the approximately 100 British companies that have registered an interest in working in Iraq with a government trade-promoting agency, Trade Partners U.K., Bloomberg News reported.

The American aid agency has said that "non-American firms are not `excluded' from the U.S. government's procurement process," but that for some early projects "we had a sufficient number of American firms to compete." Bid winners can select subcontractors from any country not on the United States list of countries with terrorist links.

The aid agency has awarded a $7.1 million contract to the Washington-based International Resources Group to provide technical expertise, and a $4.8 million contract to Seattle-based Stevedoring Services of America to manage Umm Qasr, the Iraqi seaport, through which the bulk of humanitarian aid is expected to flow.

Peninsular and Oriental Steam Navigation, the largest British sea-freight company, had vied unsuccessfully for the latter contract.

As part of a nearly $75 billion emergency funding request for the war and its aftermath, President Bush has asked Congress for $8 billion to rebuild Iraq and help neighboring countries.

Mr. Larson, who was in Brussels for regular European Union-United States contacts, emphasized that the sides had agreed on the need to fund humanitarian aid for Iraq.

He said that he hoped the United States and the European Union would come together in rebuilding Iraq, following the "pattern of cooperation" in postwar Afghanistan.

Asked about another hotly debated issue — who will manage the enormous Iraqi oil reserves after the war — Mr. Larson said that "it will be up to the new Iraqi government to decide how to exploit this great resource."

[Davros]

Originally posted by Timber Loftis: In fact, a French/German company is bidding to be the cell phone provider. So, get a grip guys and check FACTS before you go assuming them.

No like you to be that hasty TL. Please check my posts again if you would - this topic is being debated in our press and in our parliament - that is Australia, one of those coalition partners of yourn. I had heard some of that debate on the radio and read some in the paper and I asked for verification, I also asked if the salient points were true then did anyone think it was fair.

Thanks for providing what facts you did though, but next time you may want to be a little slower to make assumptions. You might find that someone is asking for legitamate information and viewpoints.

Thank you.

[Timber Loftis]

Davros, I am sorry you took me the wrong way. When you segregate this sentence out, it sounds accusatory. I apologize. What I meant to do was pre-warn anyone who had posted or would post in the future. I wanted to make sure it was not assumed that it was a US-run or US-only show. I was just trying to stop random assumptions before they began, including my own.

It wasn't aimed at you at all. I meant to address your question directly, but when I found the article, it summed up all I knew and added more, so I just posted it.

[ 03-28-2003, 11:31 AM: Message edited by: Timber Loftis ]