Looking for the Halliburton contract
Published March 28, 2003
(Why are we interested in Halliburton? Remember, it’s all about the Harken-Halliburton Presidency.)
In summary:
- The “contract” that was let this week is a task order under Halliburton’s existing indefinite delivery contract vehicle, contract DAAA09-02-D-0007.
- The scope of this task order is the development of a contingency plan to extinguish the oil well fires in Iraq; execution of that plan will be under another contract.
- The value of the contingency plan task order is almost certainly less than $5 million, probably less than $100,000.
- The real value will be in the follow-on work to this award.
How did I come to these conclusions? Well...
One thing that reporters have not mentioned when discussing the disputed contract to Halliburton subsidiary Kellogg Brown and Root is the official contract number. This might facilitate finding
whatever information has been made public about the contract (which should be in the public record). I’ve tried to find it two ways: one, by proceeding from what I know about DOD contracting, and two, by just hitting the usual suspects with some help from Google.
The DFARS specifies the format that should be used to number DOD contracts in its Defense Federal Acquisition Regulations Supplement (DFARS), section 204.70. The general form of the contract number should look like DAxxxx-03-x-xxxx, where the DAxxxx is the six-digit unit identification code (UIC) of the procurement office that issued the contract; 03 is the fiscal year; -x- represents the contract type (this letter is called the Procurement Instrument Code or PIC, and is specified in section 204.7003(a)(3)); and the final four digits are a sequential serial number. Getting more specific than that is tricky, though, because we don’t know from which office the contract was issued (other than that it came from the Army Corps of Engineers), and we don’t know whether the contract was a regular contract or an indefinite delivery contract (meaning the scope and specific expenditures are specified in separate orders).
On the second part, the FAQ page for this work on Halliburton’s web site mentions an IDIQ (indefinite delivery, indefinite quantity) contract, under which the Corps of Engineers can issue specific task orders. This doesn’t answer whether the contract that was announced this week is the same as that IDIQ contract or whether this was a task order issued against the 2001 contract discussed in the FAQ. However, it confirms that the PIC code should be “D” rather than “C.” It does complicate matters, though, because it means the actual contract number might either show fiscal year 01, 02 (if issued after September 30, 2001), or 03, and if it is a task order it will have an additional four position alphanumeric serial code appended to the basic contract number.
For the UIC, we don’t know which Corps of Engineers office issued the contract, but based on the data in Appendix G of the DFARS the UIC should look like DACAxx or DACWxx. There are therefore several candidates for the contract number:
- DACAxx-01-D-xxxx-xxxx
- DACWxx-01-D-xxxx-xxxx
- DACAxx-02-D-xxxx-xxxx
- DACWxx-02-D-xxxx-xxxx
- DACAxx-03-D-xxxx
- DACWxx-03-D-xxxx
- Looking for the Halliburton contract
- Published: March 28, 2003
- Type:
- Section: Politics
- Writer: Timothy Jarrett
- Timothy Jarrett's BC Writer page
- Timothy Jarrett's personal site
- Spread the Word
- Like this article?
- Email this
Save to del.icio.us
Comments on this articleComments
Here's a comment: I'm not sure why this even matters?
I mean, Cheney hasn't been with Halliburton in a while now. I drive past the Halliburton office on Belt Line Road in Addison/N Dallas every now and then, and I don't see waves of pure evil flowing off of the place, but perhaps I'm simply not attenuated enough to it. I guess I just don't see why people (not you, Timothy Jarrett, the people you are preemptively refuting) care about Halliburton any more.
I'm trying to think of analogues from the Clinton years, as that seems to be a favorite pasttime of late. As I remember it, the "whitewater" stuff was of interest only in the sense that Mrs. Clinton might have acted improperly at the time, and certain did by destroying and obscuring evidence. I don't recall any ongoing discussion of the firm in question (whose name I cannot recall right now, maybe "Rose" something?) after she no longer worked there.
Guilt by association is tenuous enough. Guilt by former association is mind-boggling.
What am I missing?
(There, that ought to stir up some discussion...)
Yes, excellent job. The biggest problem with Halliburton is how it looks, an issue for which the administration seems to have a real tin ear.
There is an issue if Cheney is still acting with favoritism toward his corporate alma mater. He was the big wig, you know, not some file clerk. He had and likely still retains strong ties to that organization.
I don't know that the Halliburton contract was awarded in an illegitimate fashion or not, but I do think if Cheney, et al, had any sense at all, they would not award anything to Halliburton to avoid the appearance of indiscretion.
Is that particularly fair to Halliburton? Perhaps not, but you'd think that Halliburton wouldn't want to be associated with anything that might be perceived as under the table, either.
Add your comment, speak your mind
(Or ping: http://blogcritics.org/mt/tb/4191)
What's the deal here? This guy seems to know what he's talking about, has taken the time do some real research and he gets NO comments.
A little feedback, please, even on posts that you can't refute with the single term "anti-American".