Expedience is the enemy of integrity.

Not in the case of the early no-bid contracts which supported the early operations of the wars.

If I recall, one of the first Halliburton no-bid contracts, to import gas from Kuwait to support the early operation of the war, was found by the Defense Contracting Auditing Agency to have overcharged by $millions.

The contracts didn't support the wars. In fact, they undermined them.

And the means don't justify the ends.

Then there's all that glorious construction done by KB&R, etc...one soldier electrocuted in the shower, feces from bad piping dripping down through light fixtures to lower floors, etc.

KB&R employees leaving sandwiches with mayo on them out overnight, then serving them to soldiers, etc.

Yeah. That really helped the war effort.

But they resulted in the value of Cheney's stock options in Halliburton increasing by more than 3000 percent.

And there you have explained the inexplicable. Why did we have a war in Iraq?

Oh, yeah.

Not in my experience. Haliburton and KBR have positioned themselves to service many aspects of military deployments in peace and war. They were standing at the door when the wars began and they did a damm good job of doing what they do best, supplying the needs and infrastructure for the deploying troops. There were no other companies to compete with them because they did not exist.

Meh. Appeal to ridicule.

You have nothing to say. At least nothing worth listening to.

Sorry, didn't read. I hope you didn't put much thought into it.

TGRR,
Not interested in dealing with your bullshit (see above) at the moment.

From DCAA, GAO and CPA audits....

In December 2003, a DCAA draft audit reported that Halliburton overcharged the Defense Department by $61 million to import gasoline into Iraq from Kuwait through September 30, 2003.

On December 31, 2003, a DCAA “Flash Report” audit found “significant” and “systemic” deficiencies in the way Halliburton estimates and validates costs. According to the DCAA audit, Halliburton repeatedly violated the Federal Acquisition Regulation and and submitted a $2.7 billion proposal that “did not contain current, accurate, and complete data regarding subcontract costs.”

On January 13, 2004, DCAA concluded that Halliburton’s deficiencies “bring into question [Halliburton’s] ability to consistently produce well-supported proposals that are acceptable as a basis for negotiation of fair and reasonable prices”

In a May 13, 2004, audit, DCAA reported “several deficiencies” in Halliburton’s billing system that resulted in billings to the government that “are not prepared in accordance with applicable laws and regulations and contract terms.” DCAA also found “system deficiencies resulting in material invoicing misstatements that are not prevented, detected and/or corrected in a timely manner.”

On June 25, 2004, the CPA IG found that, as a result of poor oversight, Halliburton charged U.S. taxpayers for unauthorized and unnecessary expenses at the Kuwait Hilton Hotel. According to the IG, the overcharges would have amounted to $3.6 million per year.

In July 2004, GAO found ineffective planning, inadequate cost control, and insufficient training of contract management officials under LOGCAP in Iraq. GAO reported that, when Halliburton acted as a middleman for the operation of dining halls, costs were over 40% higher.

In an August 16, 2004, memorandum, DCAA “identified significant unsupported costs” submitted by KBR, a Halliburton subsidiary, and found “numerous, systemic issues . . . with KBR’s estimates.”...When DCAA examined seven LOGCAP task orders with a combined proposed value of $4.33 billion, auditors identified unsupported costs totaling $1.82 billion

Hmmmm....Merc's "experience" or federal audits of Halliburton contracts in the first 18 months of US occupation.

You decide.

I didn't say there weren't problems, I said they did a great job of providing the services they set themselves up to do at the out set of the wars. Abuses occurred as the time ticked away. And the system was set up to allow them to happen.

I dont think overcharging the govt by $tens of millions and not providing documentation for other costs in the range of $hundreds of millions af the outset of the war is doing a "great job."

I hope you would be supportive of Obama's proposal to begin to address the systemic problems...or at least view it with an open mind:

...I further direct the Director of OMB, in collaboration with the aforementioned officials and councils, and with input from the public, to develop and issue by September 30, 2009, Government-wide guidance to:

(1) govern the appropriate use and oversight of sole-source and other types of noncompetitive contracts and to maximize the use of full and open competition and other competitive procurement processes;

(2) govern the appropriate use and oversight of all contract types, in full consideration of the agency's needs, and to minimize risk and maximize the value of Government contracts generally, consistent with the regulations to be promulgated pursuant to section 864 of Public Law 110-417;

(3) assist agencies in assessing the capacity and ability of the Federal acquisition workforce to develop, manage, and oversee acquisitions appropriately; and

(4) clarify when governmental outsourcing for services is and is not appropriate, consistent with section 321 of Public Law 110-417 (31 U.S.C. 501 note).

http://www.whitehouse.gov/the_press_...t-Contracting/

I dont expect it to fix the systemic problems but its a start and I dont recall such proposed contracting reform by the previous administration