February 27, 2006
More Mission Accomplishment: Halliburton Audit Quashed

The payouts to Bush cronies continue, shamelessly, relentlessly, forever:

The Army has decided to reimburse a Halliburton subsidiary for nearly all of its disputed costs on a $2.41 billion no-bid contract to deliver fuel and repair oil equipment in Iraq, even though the Pentagon’s own auditors had identified more than $250 million in charges as potentially excessive or unjustified. …

“All fees were awarded in accordance with the award fee plan set out in the contract, which placed more emphasis on timely mission accomplishment than on cost control and paperwork,” [Corps of Engineers spokeswoman] Ms. James said. …

a spokesman for the Defense Contract Audit Agency, Lt. Col. Brian Maka, said the settlement of the disputed charges was based on “broader business case considerations” beyond just Pentagon audits.…

But when asked whether the Army’s decision reflected on the quality of the audits, Colonel Maka said only that the agency “has no indication of problems with the audit process,” and he referred questions on the settlement itself to the Army.

A former senior Defense Department manager knowledgeable about the audits and the related contracting issues said, “That’s as close as D.C.A.A. can get to saying, ‘We’re not happy with it either.’ ”

Love the language: “broader business case considerations,” and “more emphasis on timely mission accomplishment than on cost control and paperwork.”

Webding3.jpg

Posted by Wayne Uff at February 27, 2006 06:05 AM
Email this entry to:


Your email address:


Message (optional):


Comments

No matter how many incidences are uncovered concerning Halliburton and KBR specifically, I always have this nagging feeling we are in an introductory class on corruption and insider influence. We'll probably not stay on this long enough to uncover all the truth.

Why does it seem Cheney is never around? Is he somewhere twisting arms to provide more and more booty (no not that kind) for KBR? You don't need a tinfoil hat to think this.

Posted by: spiiderweb on February 27, 2006 11:09 AM

What also struck me was this little tidbit from the NYT article:

"Under the type of contract awarded to the company, 'the contractor is not required to perform perfectly to be entitled to reimbursement.'"

Wow. KBR could do the shittiest job, and still get paid. Amazing.

Must be nice to have friends in high places.

Posted by: Mags on February 28, 2006 3:45 AM
Post a comment
Name:


Email Address:


URL:


Comments:


Remember info?