Looking for the Halliburton contract

Written by Timothy Jarrett
Published March 28, 2003
page 1 | 2

Unfortunately, searching on these numbers (and variants without dashes) in Google yields nothing. So I tried a different path, with more success.

Going in through the front door

The DOD News Office releases information about any contract awarded by the DOD that is valued at more than $5 million (there’s a whole science to determining contract value for some of the more complicated contract structures, but that’s a different story). Looking at the current month’s reports, I saw no mention of contracts awarded to Kellogg Brown and Root, meaning that either reporting has been delayed or the value of the order is less than $5 million. But looking at the archive for December 2001, when the FAQ says the LOGCAPIII contract was awarded, we find details in the December 14, 2001 contract newsletter:


Brown and Root Services, a Division of Kellogg Brown and Root, Inc. of Arlington, Va., is being awarded an unlimited firm-fixed-price/cost-plus-award-fee/cost-plus-fixed-fee delivery order for Logistics Civil Augmentation Program (LOGCAP) to use civilian contractors to provide the Army with an additional means to adequately support the force by performing selected services in wartime and other operations. Work will be performed in Houston, Texas and is expected to be completed by Jan. 31, 2012 with nine, one-year options. Bids were electronically posted and three bids received. The contracting activity is the Operations Support Command, Rock Island, Ill., (DAAA09-02-D-0007).

(Note: This isn’t either a DACA or DACW number. The contract was actually issued by another part of the Army. So much for proceeding from first principles!)

So slugging this contract number into Google, we find a bunch of records related to orders against this base contract living on a server in Ogden. But we still don’t have a record of the actual order that was cut. The FAQ on Halliburton’s site says that it’s an order for a contingency plan to extinguish the oil well fires in Iraq. So how much is it worth? It has to be less than $5 million, unless the DOD is changing its communications policy about how it reports contracts over that threshold, or it would have been in the contracts newsletter. For a contingency plan, it’s probably under $100,000 (based on nothing but gut instinct).

But this delivery order isn’t the one to watch; this one just gets them in the game. Unless Kellogg Brown and Root really screw it up, they’ll get the follow-on award to execute on putting out the oil fires. And someone has to rebuild the Iraqi oil business. And them’s real bux.

Note to the hardcore: You can sign up to get email notification of large DOD contracts here. No RSS yet...

page 1 | 2
Keep reading for information and comments on this article, and add some feedback of your own!
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
Submit to del.icio.us Save to del.icio.us
RSS Feeds
All RSS Feeds (240+)
Comments on this article
BC articles by Timothy Jarrett
All Politics Articles
Timothy Jarrett's personal weblog
All BC articles
All BC Comments

Comments

#1 — March 29, 2003 @ 11:37AM — san [URL]

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".

#2 — March 31, 2003 @ 11:24AM — Phillip Winn [URL]

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...)

#3 — March 31, 2003 @ 11:29AM — Eric Olsen

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.

#4 — April 1, 2003 @ 09:44AM — san [URL]

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.

Want comments emailed to you? No spam, promise! Address:

Add your comment, speak your mind

(Or ping: http://blogcritics.org/mt/tb/4191)

Personal attacks are not allowed. Please read our comment policy.





Remember Name/URL?

Please preview your comment!

Fresh
Articles
Fresh
Comments